Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61255 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Have you taken a look at the old photos? I mean REALLY old, from when photography was first developed. The skull structures at that time were ... odd, compared to today. We appear almost completely different. The point is, you don't know, and since it's so gradual, you wouldn't notice if you observed it in real time. It would be like watching red fade to green over two miles and having to pin point the exact point it stops being red.
Ok so Adam and Eve may have been smurfs. Just kidding. I have never seen that as evolution but as adaptation does the DNA change. Also if man comes from ape than would our natural instinct to live in groups have been the same than as it is today? Please phrase your answers for novice level.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61256 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You just provided solid evidence that you are completely ignorant about genetics. Do you even know what a mutation is? Go ahead, list the ones you know, all of them.
So you want to demonstrate your ignorance by asking me a ridiculously simple question instead of addressing the substance of my post.

A mutation is a change in sequence.

What do you think they are?

How about you stop wasting thread space with you vague woffle and evasion just to justify your existence here and actually demonstrate you're not empty by responding with substance. Now there's a novel idea!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61257 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If by they, you mean creos, adaptation is not of any concern. The point is that adaptation is limited and not limitless as I have been arguing all day, just in case you have picked that obvious fact up yet.
You also have a fossil record of species that were unable to adapt, not to speak of the data on climate change.
Immunity and an ability to adapt to a changing environment is adaptation that evolutionists call evolution because they need it to be and they need it to be limitless.
However, during ones lifetime one accumulates mutations, immunity, epigentic somatic changes that are inheritable, can acclimatize relatively easily to different climates an diets, and yet evolutionists do not suggest those changes refers to an individual adapting or evolving.
Demonstrate the limit, scientifically, using evidence and not assertions. So far no one has done that, let's see if you can.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61258 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to demonstrate your ignorance by asking me a ridiculously simple question instead of addressing the substance of my post.
A mutation is a change in sequence.
What do you think they are?
How about you stop wasting thread space with you vague woffle and evasion just to justify your existence here and actually demonstrate you're not empty by responding with substance. Now there's a novel idea!
You just provided more solid evidence that you are completely ignorant about genetics. Do you even know what a mutation is? Go ahead, list the ones you know, all of them.

Go on, meet one challenge, demonstrate that you actually know something. List all the mutations you know. It's not vague, you claimed that 70% of all mutations are bad, list the ones you know, I highly doubt you even know many, probably less than 0.0001% of all mutations in the human population we know of.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61259 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so Adam and Eve may have been smurfs. Just kidding. I have never seen that as evolution but as adaptation does the DNA change. Also if man comes from ape than would our natural instinct to live in groups have been the same than as it is today? Please phrase your answers for novice level.
Actually, yes. Different species don't have to be aliens to each other, some can even interbreed, but that's a different and pretty dull topic. Social traits are favored in nature, in all cases social traits such as cooperation will be beneficial to everything. That does not mean it can happen to everything. The genome has several bits that are dependent on other bits, meaning some traits cannot exist with other traits, or the existence of one trait negates the other. The concept of tribe, or pack, or pride, or murder are all cooperation traits combined into social units, we call ours society now, to include everyone.

It would probably surprise you, but apes demonstrate almost all our mental capabilities, even more than we had original thought. It's becoming more and more challenging to find the divide the more we learn about their DNA, and our DNA, the more we study their behavior, the more we study them the more alike we seem. Like the killer whale, we were so wrong when we first encountered them, we made too many assumptions, we made too many mistakes, because our science at the time was non-existent we had no way to understand our closest relatives.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61260 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, yes. Different species don't have to be aliens to each other, some can even interbreed, but that's a different and pretty dull topic. Social traits are favored in nature, in all cases social traits such as cooperation will be beneficial to everything. That does not mean it can happen to everything. The genome has several bits that are dependent on other bits, meaning some traits cannot exist with other traits, or the existence of one trait negates the other. The concept of tribe, or pack, or pride, or murder are all cooperation traits combined into social units, we call ours society now, to include everyone.

It would probably surprise you, but apes demonstrate almost all our mental capabilities, even more than we had original thought. It's becoming more and more challenging to find the divide the more we learn about their DNA, and our DNA, the more we study their behavior, the more we study them the more alike we seem. Like the killer whale, we were so wrong when we first encountered them, we made too many assumptions, we made too many mistakes, because our science at the time was non-existent we had no way to understand our closest relatives.
Alright I see what you're saying now follow me here this might sound dumb but I'm trying to be real here. If man is 200 million years old give or take some than why aren't we digging up groups of missing link fossils all over the earth wouldn't those remains turn to fossil just as dinosaur bones did? Also would it not stand to reason their would be millions of them?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61262 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright I see what you're saying now follow me here this might sound dumb but I'm trying to be real here. If man is 200 million years old give or take some than why aren't we digging up groups of missing link fossils all over the earth wouldn't those remains turn to fossil just as dinosaur bones did? Also would it not stand to reason their would be millions of them?
We are finding tons of human fossils, various human species actually. So many that they are still working to categorize half of them. But humanity is 200 million years old, I forget the exact time for homosapien sapien to appear, but it's in the hundreds of thousands. So it depends on what human species you are talking about.

The thing is, fossilization is very rare, and many human species, and humans, lived in areas that did not fossilize bone well, but the real gaps are actually for homo sapien sapien, our human species, it's why there is still some debate over the actual migration route taken by us from Africa.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#61264 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We are finding tons of human fossils, various human species actually. So many that they are still working to categorize half of them. But humanity is 200 million years old, I forget the exact time for homosapien sapien to appear, but it's in the hundreds of thousands. So it depends on what human species you are talking about.
The thing is, fossilization is very rare, and many human species, and humans, lived in areas that did not fossilize bone well, but the real gaps are actually for homo sapien sapien, our human species, it's why there is still some debate over the actual migration route taken by us from Africa.
There's talk that humans and Neanderthal had a common ancestor...Homo-heidelbergensi s. This goes back Maaaaany years, but I don't think 200 million years....but I've been wrong before:-) I think the currant thought is about <10 million years

Modern humans (Homo-sapiens) go back to around 200,000 years

Also you might want to see the latest edition New Scientists. There's some new data coming out that pushes back some of our ancestors...way back.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#61266 Nov 26, 2012
Jim wrote:
The next great flood will probably happen within the next 500 years unless some religious psycho lit it up and put a rush on it. Ever so many years there are great floods there has been 6 so for since the earth begin.
But, of course none of them were world-wide.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#61267 Nov 26, 2012
This website is not accepting posts...11:40 Arizona time.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#61268 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Than how do you explain Isaiah talking about events like the Jews return to Israel post ww2. Or the fall of Babylon. Or they sudden rise of Christianity in Rome. Or how the gospel writers we hundreds of miles apart writing the same things about one man. 66 books in one written by so many different people over so many hundreds of years all talking about the same God. Name another religious book written in that fashion.
You must take into consideration that the Jews had their Bible all to themselves for over 500 years and the New Testament books were totally controlled by the Catholic (Universal) Church for about 1200 years. They were pure evil back then and thought nothing of killing anybody who didn't believe.

The sudden take off of Christianity was caused by Constantine making the Christian religion the religion of Rome in the early 300's AD...and you would be killed if you didn't convert. Look it up, it's well known history

Well, I can speak to one of these myths. It is well known that Mark copied much stuff from Matthew...Luke did too I am told.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61269 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Demonstrate the limit, scientifically, using evidence and not assertions. So far no one has done that, let's see if you can.
I can demonstrate an evolutionist that requires more substantiation from a creationist than they have ever been able to supply themselves and possible a hypocrite. Let's see!.

Evolutionists have no idea what the term demonstrate 'scientifically' means.

Evos demonstrated this with all their woffle around junk dna and non coding dna and the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions that have been falsified.

Then they cop out by saying creos hit on their process of scientific progress all the while meaning evos presentd hog wash as evidence in the first place.

In case you have not picked it up yet limits are found in Sanfords work on genetic entropy that you have evaded, results from research into epitasis and a fossil record of species that indeed did not adapt. There's a boot load of research into some species ability to somatically adjust to climate change and a truck load that suggests they migrate to their limit and then go extinct. That is what some of the fuss is about.

There appears to be more data that supports an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt than supports an unlimited ability to adapt.

Now you can show everyone how clever you are by speaking to all that mythical and misrepresented evidence you can offer for an organisms ability to adapt limitlessly.

Hence evos are often hypocrites in demanding a higher level of substantiation from creos than they ever can supply.

My bet is you'll side wind, evade, ignore, go quack at what I have presented and basically do anything except provide any support at all for an organisms limitless adaptability.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61270 Nov 27, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
There's talk that humans and Neanderthal had a common ancestor...Homo-heidelbergensi s. This goes back Maaaaany years, but I don't think 200 million years....but I've been wrong before:-) I think the currant thought is about <10 million years
Modern humans (Homo-sapiens) go back to around 200,000 years
Also you might want to see the latest edition New Scientists. There's some new data coming out that pushes back some of our ancestors...way back.
Yeah, I sort of missed a "not" in there on the million one. lol

200,000 sounds closer to what I recall from the latest. I just hope we don't run out of things to find before I die, it's all moving so fast now.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61271 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can demonstrate an evolutionist that requires more substantiation from a creationist than they have ever been able to supply themselves and possible a hypocrite. Let's see!.
Evolutionists have no idea what the term demonstrate 'scientifically' means.
No, I said you demonstrate the limits, don't quote something that is unsubstantiated or unverified. If you cannot come up with something that has passed peer review and been tested and verified by multiple, independent, sources then give your answer. Without a limit then there is no "macro" or "micro" divide, there is no end to the possible changes of a population, there is no need to invoke magic at all. Without the limits no god is required to produce the amount of diversity we see today, only time, and we know there was plenty of time.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#61273 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can demonstrate an evolutionist that requires more substantiation from a creationist than they have ever been able to supply themselves and possible a hypocrite. Let's see!.
Evolutionists have no idea what the term demonstrate 'scientifically' means.
Evos demonstrated this with all their woffle around junk dna and non coding dna and the huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions that have been falsified.
Then they cop out by saying creos hit on their process of scientific progress all the while meaning evos presentd hog wash as evidence in the first place.
In case you have not picked it up yet limits are found in Sanfords work on genetic entropy that you have evaded, results from research into epitasis and a fossil record of species that indeed did not adapt. There's a boot load of research into some species ability to somatically adjust to climate change and a truck load that suggests they migrate to their limit and then go extinct. That is what some of the fuss is about.
There appears to be more data that supports an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt than supports an unlimited ability to adapt.
Now you can show everyone how clever you are by speaking to all that mythical and misrepresented evidence you can offer for an organisms ability to adapt limitlessly.
Hence evos are often hypocrites in demanding a higher level of substantiation from creos than they ever can supply.
My bet is you'll side wind, evade, ignore, go quack at what I have presented and basically do anything except provide any support at all for an organisms limitless adaptability.
Yo Maz!

Just a question...

Ever taken drugs?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#61274 Nov 27, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't fault you for your honesty.
Can you imagine, a supreme being, the creator of all, requiring you, the created, to do anything for it?

Can you imagine this supreme being requiring you to preform rituals to please it?

How f'ing stupid are you?

What do you require of your child?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61275 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I absolutlely love the way people make such statements like as if what is on offer is actually proven to be factual
Ö
deleted for topic space restrictions see http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q... for full text
Ö
The way the universe is expanding is proven and measurable, just because it to big a concept for your minute mentality is no ones fault but your own

Lets not forget that is ancient history, the actual event does now make sense, the maths of Dr Param Singh alleviates the problems of infinities and now scientists are daring to calculate what happened BEFORE the event. www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ .

Lets also not forget the physics of the event is a logical and natural progression of the observations of Edwin Hubble in the 1930s. Itís one of the most fundamental cosmological findings ever and given the colossal sums spent on research you would think a flaw (any flaw) would have been found by now. You also must remember that not only is it proven there is essential technology that calculates the expansion of the universe into itís output, GPS for example.

What are you babbling about? Outer edge of the bubble? Is Santa not coming to you this Christmas?

Methinks you need to rephrase that 96% matter to be energy phrase. First think about what you are trying to say. Matter is not energy, matter is made from energy and in time will atrophy to its former state.

However 83% of the universe has already been found to be dark ďmatterĒ, Sloan Digital Sky Survey http://www.sdss.org/ and yet only a few years ago dark matter was just a theory to explain a mathematical inconsistency. Now it can be indirectly observed and measured, you obviously donít keep up with scientific progress

The event is only problematic to the godbots, there is no problem with the fact, the problem is the reasons and there are at least 27 theories that I know of to explain that reason and you can count on the fact that none of them claim goddidit. The work of Dr Param Singh allows these theories to be mathematically investigated.

That is not a theory, it is a guess, dark matter exists, the universe is expands from all points and therefore nowhere is the centre.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativ...
Or you could argue that everywhere is the centre. Either way it most certainly does not centre on an insignificant ball of rock about three quarters of the way out on he western spiral arm of one galaxy of billions of galaxies, thatís just your own massive godmadeyou ego that makes you think that.

I have looked up you Wallace g smith and cannot seem to find any accreditation or mainstream support for his blogs so we can only assume that you are citing an un peer reviewed godbot blogger as your source, well done

You will also notice my links are to educational and scientific establishments, not blogs

The predicted afterglow is called the CMB or cosmic microwave background, that too can be measured http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~borrill/cmb/planck... .

No it wonít be very publicised because as yet because it is incomplete work, the simplest explanation is that all three required ingredients, light, object and observer are in the correct order to form a shadow.

No scientist believed the earth is in a special position, only godbots have that dream.

Andromeda is moving towards earth at about 400,000 kph, what god would allow a cosmic event like galaxies colliding wipe out his creation?

A few percent of the observable universe is moving contrary to the general expansion, not only andromeda. The work of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton helps explain this as well as other anomalies observable in our universe

Although I am not a cosmologist it is one of my hobbies and I can pretty much guarantee I know considerably more actual fact on the subject than a godbot creationist who is only hoping to find errors and loopholes

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#61276 Nov 27, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The way the universe is expanding is proven and measurable, just because it to big a concept for your minute mentality is no ones fault but your own
Lets not forget that is ancient history, the actual event does now make sense, the maths of Dr Param Singh alleviates the problems of infinities and now scientists are daring to calculate what happened BEFORE the event. www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ .
Lets also not forget the physics of the event is a logical and natural progression of the observations of Edwin Hubble in the 1930s. Itís one of the most fundamental cosmological findings ever and given the colossal sums spent on research you would think a flaw (any flaw) would have been found by now. You also must remember that not only is it proven there is essential technology that calculates the expansion of the universe into itís output, GPS for example.
What are you babbling about? Outer edge of the bubble? Is Santa not coming to you this Christmas?
Methinks you need to rephrase that 96% matter to be energy phrase. First think about what you are trying to say. Matter is not energy, matter is made from energy and in time will atrophy to its former state.
However 83% of the universe has already been found to be dark ďmatterĒ, Sloan Digital Sky Survey http://www.sdss.org/ and yet only a few years ago dark matter was just a theory to explain a mathematical inconsistency. Now it can be indirectly observed and measured, you obviously donít keep up with scientific progress
The event is only problematic to the godbots, there is no problem with the fact, the problem is the reasons and there are at least 27 theories that I know of to explain that reason and you can count on the fact that none of them claim goddidit. The work of Dr Param Singh allows these theories to be mathematically investigated.
That is not a theory, it is a guess, dark matter exists, the universe is expands from all points and therefore nowhere is the centre.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativ...
Or you could argue that everywhere is the centre. Either way it most certainly does not centre on an insignificant ball of rock about three quarters of the way out on he western spiral arm of one galaxy of billions of galaxies, thatís just your own massive godmadeyou ego that makes you think that.
I have looked up you Wallace g smith and cannot seem to find any accreditation or mainstream support for his blogs so we can only assume that you are citing an un peer reviewed godbot blogger as your source, well done
You will also notice my links are to educational and scientific establishments, not blogs
The predicted afterglow is called the CMB or cosmic microwave background, that too can be measured http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/~borrill/cmb/planck... .
No it wonít be very publicised because as yet because it is incomplete work, the simplest explanation is that all three required ingredients, light, object and observer are in the correct order to form a shadow.
No scientist believed the earth is in a special position, only godbots have that dream.
Andromeda is moving towards earth at about 400,000 kph, what god would allow a cosmic event like galaxies colliding wipe out his creation?
A few percent of the observable universe is moving contrary to the general expansion, not only andromeda. The work of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton helps explain this as well as other anomalies observable in our universe
Although I am not a cosmologist it is one of my hobbies and I can pretty much guarantee I know considerably more actual fact on the subject than a godbot creationist who is only hoping to find errors and loopholes
Yo Christine

MazHere is an obvious spambot.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61277 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed as has all the work that suggests so called vestigial organs have function that resulted in evos having to suck it up and change their definition of vestigial.
I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.
Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy. You may now go off and search for your own algorithmic magic based on your own assumptions and try to make that dwoddle look as if it refutes Sanford.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
While you're at it you may as well explain how research that suggests an overwhelmingly negative effect re epitasis does not support Sanfords claims that there are limits to the amount of adaptation and accumulation of mutations an organism can undergo without such huge costs that the process could not have continued for over 4 billion years without all organisms going into extinction.
Ahh right so I see you have found 2 links that are irrelevant to you position and hoped I would nit notice.

FYI, junk DNA is misnamed and a term only used by godbots because they have not actual facts to hang on to.

It is known that the misnamed junk DNA which doesnít code for proteins actually provides the instructions for the construction and operation of cellular systems.

Junk DNA Not Junk After All
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/2500...

Chartings work? What is that? The reason they have to disguise there work is because without the subterfuge they cannot justigy their work, even with the subterfuge there has be no creationist work (N O N E) to date that has in any way benefited science or humanity.

Now for your links, you obviously have not read the content of the papers but seen the titles and thought wahooo, something I can use. I suggest you actually read the papers and take them in the context of laboratory experiments under laboratory conditions before making false claims about them.

What has been proven here is that inbreeding is never successful, this we know, are your father and mother brother and sister?

Ok you have made yourself clear, you have a belief but are too clueless to actually understand it and question it so hunt for any hint of agreement to justify you own belief.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61278 Nov 27, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo Christine
MazHere is an obvious spambot.
A total tosser but itís fun exposing her

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 min Tom2Tone 151,082
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 6 min Hatti_Hollerand 23,996
Flesh-Eating Maggots Removed From Man's Head 6 min Maxxx Payne 5
Ferguson Grand Jury Reaches Decision 7 min Sublime1 170
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 9 min Jolly 6,616
Big dawg 10 min Harrison Freebird 624
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 20 min Hoosier Hillbilly 55,065
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 2 hr Sublime1 8,044
Bill Cosby 9 hr wichita-rick 199

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE