Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

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

Comments (Page 2,865)

Showing posts 57,281 - 57,300 of111,702
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61267
Nov 26, 2012
 
This website is not accepting posts...11:40 Arizona time.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61274
Nov 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61279
Nov 27, 2012
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
A total tosser but itís fun exposing her
Something that applies to Maz, Yellodog, Sir Doctor, Timesten, Bongo and all those idiots:

"Reality has a liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61280
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.
Are you really this stupid?

Creationists CANNOT supply any level of substantiation
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61281
Nov 27, 2012
 
At the risk of starting it all over, I think we finally silenced the zealotry of you-know-who!

Now, I wonder if we can take MazHere's junk science away from her before she beheads herself with it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61282
Nov 27, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Holding hell over the head of anyone not willing to see your point of view is a bit harsh.
Indeed, in fact it's the very height of hubris. C-L has no more clue about who goes up or down at the end of the day than anyone else does. He should beware his actions as I'm sure he wouldn't want to be unpleasantly surprised at the end and find himself consigned to the depths with all us heathens.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61283
Nov 27, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Surprise for evos, but not for creos.
Everything is a surprise to creos, since they can't make any valid predictions. You keep trotting out the creationist lie about junk DNA. Yet according Sanford himself creationism predicts junk DNA. While you predict 100% function. Neither of these even matter to creo's since any and all problems are fixed with the "scientific mechanism" of Jewmagic. It doesn't matter that you contradict yourself six ways from Sunday, the ONLY prediction you make is that "Evilushun iz rong therefore JEWMAGIC!"

And maybe it is. But you sure ain't gonna demonstrate it by spouting inconsistent creationist apologetics.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
Now do please mount an appropriate refute to Sanfords work and present your evidence as I have bothered to do.
Thanx
Done. You're welcome.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61284
Nov 27, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
In answer to your fist statement Maz, no a rate is not a limit. There is no limit to how far you can travel at 5 mph. In other words: Wrong try again.
And the LAST thing creos want is to limit evolution when talking about Genesis or Noah. Oh well, back to the drawing board for Maz.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61285
Nov 27, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so at that rate how long until we get our super x men powers?
Evolution is not goal-directed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61286
Nov 27, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
You have now demonstrated without doubt that you don't know a heck of a lot about this stuff. For a start it is fairly common knowledge that most,70%, of mutations are deleterious. That is not knew info at all.
Oh the irony. Actually most are neutral. That's why people born with serious debilitating mutations that have a detrimental effect on their ability to reproduce are the exception, and not the rule. Also it doesn't matter even if you are right, since you've already admitted beneficial mutations happen, ergo they will naturally spread through the population quicker than deleterous ones. This is supported by the fact of current human diversification and increasing population levels, and that Sanford's anti-reality YEC apologetics still can't give us a date for genomic critical mass. Which by the way contradicts YECism anyway
MazHere wrote:
The vast majority are not benign, we are meant to have had millions of mutations in the genome since we were fury apes, and a mutation quite often results in a loss of information
ONLY when bases are lost. This is not the norm for mutations. You are using "information" incorrectly, but thanks for pointing out the reference disagreed with you and hence doesn't support you.
MazHere wrote:
Also, you do realize don't you, that all this is based on computer modelling, algorithmic magic and many assumptions, and yet you are still incorrect and have not refuted even point one, let alone point 3 which is the one the epitasis research more refers to.
In summation, you got everything wrong; so you're welcome to try again.
On the contrary, we've pointed out not only why reality contradicts you, but your own assertions contradict each other. You cannot possibly hope to debunk science in such a manner. And you never address anything at all. Doesn't stop you from being dishonest and spouting off BS anyway.

So what's the "scientific theory" of creationism? How long till you realize that your own position (Jewmagic) completely obliterates anything you try here?

Keep skipping skippy.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 57,281 - 57,300 of111,702
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

113 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Word Association. (Nov '10) 7 min Nfreebird 16,520
What is the meaning of life? 11 min cjt12 29
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 19 min Cyan in CA 28,564
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 20 min CJ Rocker 4,684
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 22 min Doug77 6,065
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 23 min wichita-rick 140,340
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 32 min cjt12 1,262
Woman Watching TV Learns of Her Home's Violent ... 1 hr Phyllis Schlafly s Stain 2
How to become Unbannable 1 hr SLACK 71
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 hr last_call 14,113
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••