Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61321 Nov 27, 2012
Subby some more. I have to head to work now but I am dying to hook into this ribbish you posted on Sanfords refute.

From your link..

"These shared functional and nonfunctional DNA sequences help us to trace the common lineages of diverse organisms. Considering the striking physical variations among living things, it was a surprise for some scientists in the late twentieth century to discover the degree of commonality among genotypes. This was a key factor in changing Michael Dentonís mind on the viability of evolutionary theory."

What does this idiot have to say now that at least 80% of the genome is now known to be functional?

ERVs have some vital functions.

This is going to turn into another vestigial organ fiasco.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61322 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Keep using ridicule because you'll never out debate me using science.
Yup. In order to do that then you would actually require a scientific position to counter ours.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61323 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what conversations you have had, you have yet to deal with me.
Nor do I have to be sucked into talking to philosophy seeing as evos can't mange the rubbish they call their science.
The bible is the only spiritual writing where the composers do not take glory for themselves and did not live in shameless luxury. As far as humanity is concerned, that is a miracle itself.
I believe in God because
Who cares, your beliefs are irrelevant to reality.
MazHere wrote:
I want to. I also believe in God because as observed earth is at the centre of the universe. I can present a theory that supports that claim
A scientific one?!? Well actually no...
MazHere wrote:
and depite all the rhetoric on alien life we have not found any.
Correct.

You however claim to have found God.

Just whatsimaheck do you think that would BE?
MazHere wrote:
So with all the available data, and disregarding all the woffley speculation it dsure does look to me that Copernicus was a fool and we certainly are special.
Yes, you are special and important. Would you like me to pat your head in approval?
MazHere wrote:
Belief in God does not inform this debate as there are theist evolutionists. I suggest they have been sucked in and mesmerized by evolutionary misrepresentation and empirical evidence that is not empirical at all.
Your suggestions are irrelevant to reality.
MazHere wrote:
As usual you evos run for phisosophy when the reality of your psudo science is highlighted.
Projection.
MazHere wrote:
TOE needs to be taken out of he science streams and put in with philosophy. It is there that assumptive reasonings should be dealt with until they come up with something stable that actually looks like a science.
Unfortunately for you evolution is staying where it belongs, the scientific arena. If you fundies did more science and less lying and preaching then maybe you'd get taken seriously by the scientific community.

Don't worry, God loves you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61324 Nov 27, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Space.com has an article out about dark matter and how they HOPE to discover it in about three or four years. So if science hasn't discovered it yet how has Temple Smoller been refuted?
Because one theory makes accurate predictions, one doesn't.

Don't see why fundies fuss about dark matter anyway. It's not evolution, it's not anti-God. Heck, maybe it IS the missing God they've been looking for.
Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#61325 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what conversations you have had, you have yet to deal with me.
I can tell you are REALLY nervous. Don't worry, Iíll be gentle since it's your first time. I promise.:p
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>The bible is the only spiritual writing where the composers do not take glory for themselves and did not live in shameless luxury. As far as humanity is concerned, that is a miracle itself.
How do you know he composers didnít live in shameless luxury? No one even knows who composed the bible or how they lived.

Also if shameless luxury were such a bad thing, why would god let the Vatican be so luxurious? Ever been? Ever toured the museums there? Sheesh they have so much plunder from over the ages, itís ridiculous.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>I believe in God because I want to.
Do you have something against pink unicorns and leprechauns? Why donít you want to believe in them? Wouldnít it be cool if you could get a pot of god from a leprechaun Ö but wait, what if they were like the one from the creepy movie Ö The one that killed everyone who tried to take his gold and said ďIím the leprechaunĒ in a creepy voice. On second thought, maybe we better just stick to unicorns.:p
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>I also believe in God because as observed earth is at the centre of the universe.


Itís not observed that the earth is at the center of universe.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>I can present a theory that supports that claim, and depite all the rhetoric on alien life we have not found any.
I probably shouldnít ask, but whatís your theory?

Do you think the fact that we havenít found any alien life might have to do with the fact that we havenít looked in very many places? There are more stars in the universe than all the grains of sand on every beach on the earth. We've haven't even left our own solar system.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So with all the available data, and disregarding all the woffley speculation it dsure does look to me that Copernicus was a fool and we certainly are special.
If that is true, then why have you not shared any of this data?
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Belief in God does not inform this debate as there are theist evolutionists. I suggest they have been sucked in and mesmerized by evolutionary misrepresentation and empirical evidence that is not empirical at all.
But clearly you are not a theist evolutionist. So it is relevant to this debate between you and me. Furthermore, if we can rule out god, then some other mechanism must be responsible for life.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61326 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Listen you silly evolutionist, you have replied exactly as predicted. TOE has not credible predictive ability but evolutionists are very predictable.
Really? I demonstrated otherwise. You've been ducking for weeks. Rather predictably I might add.
MazHere wrote:
Your lot sprooke off about requiring peer reviewed research and then have your own end up in the garbage bin and never present your own.
Actually we have. You present peer-reviewed research which was done using science you reject anyway then come to the complete opposite conclusion and misrepresent the paper involved. Except for Sanford, who like you is simply a major league hypocrite.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
Sandfords work on genetic entropy was also peer reviewed and that is why the work was ridiculed at the time only to now again be supported by work that speaks to other limits.
What I hate most is really stupid evolutionists that like to pretend they have something to say but in actual fact it is all hubris and save face positioning.
Ah, you should have no problem addressing it then, instead of merely spamming the same bollox over and over and insulting anyone who disagrees with you.

(sound of crickets chirping)
MazHere wrote:
You are either an idiot that has no idea what peer reviewed research is and you just like to quack on about it or you are intentionally sacrificed your integrity and credibility just to save face on the forum. I actually can't believe you are that uneducated.
As I predicted Kitten has woffled on with hubris instead of presenting her own supports for an organisms ability to adapt limitlessly. Rather she has demonstrated that she has no idea what published research is and likely thinks Nature and Discovery are creationist sites.
Bub, is JEWMAGIC scientifically peer-reviewed?

Still waiting Maz.
MazHere wrote:
Creos, this once again provides solid evidence that evolutionists are hypocrites of the highest order.
How so? How many times have I demonstrated the complete lack of scientific integrity of your position?

Too many to count.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
They can present nothing themselves, will whine and stuggle over anything a creo presents, yet will continue to demand a higher level of substantiation from an creationist than they are able to supply themselves. Kitten has proven it yet again.
Well your position IS Goddidit with magic, so yeah, that WOULD take a bit of convincing.

Duh.
MazHere wrote:
I have supplied peer reviewed research you fool
Now how about presenting your own? Not likely.
Done and done. You present evolution papers then say they don't support what they say they support and support Goddidit with magic instead. A closer look reveals this not to be the case. Then when YOUR position is examined you run and squeal like a dog with its tail caught in the door.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#61327 Nov 27, 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.
Quite interesting. I love every bit of your post. I quite appreciate what you said concerning one of my post. May God continue to give you the strength as you go about doing his works, amen. God bless you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61328 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
We have actually had this conversation here and evos are scurrying away and don't want to talk about it anymore. They are now avoiding this by every means because they can see that creos have actually been validated and they have had their empirical evidence exposed for what it is, rubbish.
It has been demonstrated that indeed junk dna is not junk at all, as you say. 80% of the genome is now known to be functional and researchers suggest that it is very likely that 100% of the genome will be found to be functional.
Your claim contradicts Sanford and Genesis. Your claim does not address that it is not function that is the issue, but rather the predicted pattern of inheritance, that which evolution can do and creationism cannot. Your claim is repetitive junk which has already been addressed.
MazHere wrote:
Creationists predicted that no junk would be found in the genome and research is validating same. Evos can't make a prediction, everything, junk or no junk, they wil make it all support TOE with their handwaving..
Translation: Maz is unable to address the evidence.
MazHere wrote:
The decade of evos shoving junk dna down evos support for evolution and their scathing attacks on creos based on the empirical evidence of junk dna has demonstrated these researchers are severely lacking.
But thanks for bringing it up again, I just love it and I know evos hate this conversation so much.
I don't hate making your dishonesty plain to see. Keep skipping, skippy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61329 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is Subduction Zone? I am still out to demonstate earns his points with woffle.
Finally he has actually had a go at providing more than his opinion.
The sad fact is that if Subby actually researched his claims prior to posting he would have very quickly learned that his assumption in relation to 'neutral' mutations being the more numerous was very incorrect and has never been a scientific assertion, ever.
So not only is Subby outdated, he actually makes up his own science as he goes along, and likely thinks every one here is too stupid to notice.
Evolutionists have not presented evidence to support the hypothesis that adaptation can carry on for billions of years without limit, let alone not succuming to the costs. Recent data is more suggestive of limits rather than anything else.
You evos have bombed out on so much, junk dna, vestigial organs, ervs, chromosome 2, fossil evidence that better aligns with creationism, creos having no evidence to present etc. Now you lot are going to have a fantastic time with me demonstrating that this adaptation you insist is evolution in motion is limitless and can be supported. Surely you have some algorithmic magic to support your view here. There is algorithmic magic to support just about anything including contradictory views. That is the beauty of evolutionary science.
For now I am still waiting for Subby to show us all how evo algorithmic magic is better than Sanfords.
Easy. We rely on reality. Sanford relies on inconsistency and Jewish manipulation of the physics of the universe. Even if we did use magic like you do ours is better because we have a Beer Volcano. Simples. Creationism loses. If we stick to the science though creationism hasn't even lost, it just hasn't bothered to turn up on the starting line. Since it's only our side that's doing anything that works. You mooks are still complaining about materialism.

Aww!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61330 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Subduction Zone
Sanfords work has been peer reviewed.
Not his book or his anti-evolution nonsense he hasn't. You know this. We know this. He knows this. The scientific community knows this. Yet you fail to mention this.

Why is that?
MazHere wrote:
Sanford and colleagues developed the quantitative forward genetic modeling program Mendel's Accountant. Sanford et al. published two peer reviewed papers dealing with genetic entropy in computing journals concerned with modeling methodology.[7][8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford
Interesting, his computer modelling has been submitted to a... computer modelling journal. Not a biology one. Thought it was quite curious, what with Baumgardner being part of it and all (which isn't even his real name if I recall.

Of course also using computer model one sets up the axioms before calculations are run. Tell me, did he ever do any genetic calculations starting with a single pair of humans 6,000 years ago? And if so, was this peer-reviewed in a valid *biology* journal?
MazHere wrote:
Here is one clip from your link.
So Behe may be right about the probability of chloroquine resistance. However, that says nothing about an ďedgeĒ to evolution. Although for chloroquine resistance in malaria there may be only one, narrow target (the two specific proteins in PfCRT), there are many, many other possible pairs of mutations in any living being. For organisms with say 10**9 base pairs, there are 10**18 possible two-point simultaneous mutations. Behe is implicitly assuming that only a single, pre-specified one of all these 10**18 pairs of mutations could possibly be useful in developing any new protein binding site.That is nonsense. Granted, most of these 10**18 pairwise mutations will be neutral or deleterious to fitness, and perhaps (as in the case of chloroquine resistance in malaria) there is only one pairwise mutation will achieve one specified result, but this in no way implies that some other pairwise mutation cannot achieve some other beneficial effect. As one reviewer noted, this is a ďpainfully basicĒ error on Beheís part.
Here the author knocks Behe by saying that Behe has made an assumption, an assumption that may be right. That is what algorithmic magic is all about.
Ah, so to you science is merely apologetics? That explains a lot.
MazHere wrote:
Unless you can supply evidence that some other pair wise mutation has occured then Behe can assume what he likes just like evos do. That is what TOE in its' entirety is built on. That is why they make huge mistakes like saying non coding dna is junk and their assumptions were incorrect.
Your lie has already been addressed numerous times.
MazHere wrote:
There is no fundamental error, there is a fundamental assumption and you lot do exactly the same thing. I don't see this work refuted at all here.
You wouldn't see anything refuted because you're not interested.(shrug)

The validity of biology certainly does not rest on your lack of intellectual integrity. Much as you wish it would.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61331 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Don't evolutionists also limit their studies and ignore differences all the time.
Projection.
MazHere wrote:
"As is usual for major mutations, most frameshift mutations are very deleterious to the organism. This is not a problem for evolution, since the highly deleterious mutations will be removed from the population by natural selection, whereas the rare beneficial frameshift mutation can give its bearer a selective advantage."
Where is the evidence for this claim?
Life.

Sorry bub, it ain't OUR fault that Sanford's BS leads to total destruction of Earth. Thousands of years ago.
MazHere wrote:
Indeed new research suggests the accumulating effects of epitasis and beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly NEGATIVE. Hence this using ones own assumptions to suggest anothers assumption is not a refute at all. Hence evos rarely refute creationist work in reality.
This is the point that I made at the very beginning. Evos refute creo work on the basis of their own assumptions. That is also why I request the research for any points, so I can pull apart the assumptions it is based on.
Hence Sanfords work is as good as any you can present. Even if I did not have Sanfords work the accumulating data is more suggestive of limits to adaptation than anything else.
Despite this we have already pointed out Sanford's error. And your dishonesty for merely repeating it over and over.
MazHere wrote:
The other point evos try to make, that creationists cannot present support for their view is also falsified because creos have predictions that have been validated, fossils that align more with a creationist paradigm then TOE, biased evo research that still suggests that adaptation should actually have ground to a halt, evidence that 70% of mutations are deleterious and only evo handwaving to suggest evolutions proceeds limitlessly.
(yawn)
MazHere wrote:
So that initial claim is incorrect because indeed there is support for creationist paradigms.
False. "If not A therefore B" is a logical fallacy. That's all you have.
MazHere wrote:
F It is just that evos are too ignorant, egocentric and self righteous to admit to it.
Over all creos have had their predictions validated in relation to junk dna and vestigial organs where as evos could make no prediction at all in their fun fare of psuedo science. Nested hierarchies are arbitrary and depend on assumptions and pick a box homology. Overall the fossil evidence better aligns with Genesis than with TOE.
Keep lying and skipping, skippy.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61332 Nov 27, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>I am an evo, and I do not hate this conversation in the least bit. I've never once had to rely on junk DNA to mop the floor with creationists. So, I do not need to rely on junk dna to shoot down every reason you feel your god does exist and every reason you feel that you need a god for life to exist.

I’ve done this dance many times, and I have grown tired of it, but since it’s been awhile, if you would like, let’s do do this exercise one last time, just for kicks:

Please explain why you feel your god must exist. What proof or logic do you use to support your belief? Is there any? Or is it just faith?

Also are you Christian? If not, what are you? What do you think of the gods of other religions? Are they false?

Please explain why you feel god must have created life.
I'm a Christian I believe in God because of several points in my life where I had problems and beyond all logical reasoning God was there. As far as other Gods I only believe in one true God. I neither force my beliefs on other nor hold a grudge so to speak against evos such as yourself. I have seen God work in ways you can't explain away as coincidence. I believe God created all life because I have no reason to doubt it. If you care to dance please make it a waltz I'm not much of a dancer.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61333 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Subby some more. I have to head to work now but I am dying to hook into this ribbish you posted on Sanfords refute.
From your link..
"These shared functional and nonfunctional DNA sequences help us to trace the common lineages of diverse organisms. Considering the striking physical variations among living things, it was a surprise for some scientists in the late twentieth century to discover the degree of commonality among genotypes. This was a key factor in changing Michael Dentonís mind on the viability of evolutionary theory."
Oh joy. Denton. He had an epiphany since the 80's, but creationists still quote his early religious apologetics despite the fact he doesn't agree with them any more.
MazHere wrote:
What does this idiot have to say now that at least 80% of the genome is now known to be functional?
ERVs have some vital functions. This is going to turn into another vestigial organ fiasco.
ERV's having function is not a problem for evolution. Evolution predicts DNA changes can lead to function. Creo's claim otherwise. Therefore ERV's support evolution or ERV's are not ERV's and creationists still call them ERV's for... what reason? And do they have any other mechanism other than Jewmagic to account for them?

Nope.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61334 Nov 27, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
Itís not observed that the earth is at the center of universe.
Hey, the Bible sez it's at the center and relativity sez it looks like the center where ever we are anyway, therefore can't we just say that the Earth IS the center just like the Bible sez?!?

MAZ WANTS TO BE SPECIAL!!!

>:-(
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#61336 Nov 27, 2012
Jim wrote:
he bible was written by ignorance people who though the earth was flat.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

“happy to be horny”

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#61337 Nov 27, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well just make sure it doesn't happen again!
And remember next time herd sheep. Goat horns can be dangerous!
The thing is, as befits a union, we were trying to play both sides of the belief issue for our own benefit and ended up giving up the sheep to the local Muslims in return for some really stylish sandals and 2 sick days per millenium..........

“happy to be horny”

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#61338 Nov 27, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a Christian I believe in God because of several points in my life where I had problems and beyond all logical reasoning God was there. As far as other Gods I only believe in one true God. I neither force my beliefs on other nor hold a grudge so to speak against evos such as yourself. I have seen God work in ways you can't explain away as coincidence. I believe God created all life because I have no reason to doubt it. If you care to dance please make it a waltz I'm not much of a dancer.
There is no problem in believing in things of course, the problems arise when that belief becomes taken as a truth for no other reason than said belief has been given too much gravitas..........
Anonymous

London, UK

#61339 Nov 27, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
So fine dont believe and dont live a good life. Take the risk,it is your eternal soul at risk. I mean being a good Christian is so easy and feels so right and good. Tell me why take the risk.
If your Christian god does exist, which is extremely unlikely, but if he does he will know that you are only a Christian because you don't want to risk being wrong and don't want to risk going to hell, but really you have serious doubts about god but worship him just incase, hedging your bets, that makes you a fake Christian, only in it to avoid hell in the unlikely event that the bible is true, not gunna work is it

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61340 Nov 27, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Subduction Zone
Sanfords work has been peer reviewed.

False. He, in a most cowardly and profit seeking manor, published his "work" in a popular "science" book.

The only "research" that has been done is Baumgardner's "work" that was published in an ON-LINE Computing Journal!!!

The "research" in question used data that was completely made up with a made up algorythem.

Only a complete moron would be duped by crap like this.

BTW, do you want to buy some swamp land in Florida?
Anonymous

UK

#61341 Nov 27, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Think as you wish. It is your soul that will fry if you dont except God. I hope you did not raise any children. Sad if you did to know they will fry also.
What total nonsense, what kind of god do you believe in, why would god create man and give us logical brains that require evidence to believe something, and then send us to hell for using the logic brains that he gave us, that makes absolutely no sense, why would he come to earth and leave no evidence even thoe he knows that humans will find it difficult to believe in something without proof, because that's the way he made us, and the brains he gave us, so now hes going to send people to hell just for being what he made them. I've heard christians say that only Christians go to heaven, so what about all the people who lived in Asia centuries ago, most had never left their areas and would not of even heard of the bible or Christianity, but they are now burning in hell because they were unfortunate enough to have never been taught about christianity, your religeon makes no sense and is totally retarded, aparently god knows everything, so he knows the future and knows whether we will go to hell or not before were even born, if thats the case then why would he bother coming to earth, another of Christianitys illogical tripe

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's your tip for the day? 4 min SUG here 1,017
last word - first (Jun '12) 5 min Vladimir Voitka 6,948
A Potpourri of Expressions in Words & Rhyme (Sep '12) 6 min wichita-rick 786
Word Association (Jun '10) 7 min Vladimir Voitka 26,326
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 7 min Vector aka Victor... 54,569
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 9 min Vladimir Voitka 77,388
I Like..... (Mar '14) 14 min AmyFaith 265
In pictures: Glamour model spends a 30k on plas... 1 hr Fast Eddie 9
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Crazy Beautiful 146,968
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr Spirit67_ 20,044
Woman commits suicide by crocodile 1 hr Weird 0ne 2 20
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 3 hr Crazy Beautiful 5,575
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••