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 2,866)

Showing posts 57,301 - 57,320 of111,872
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61287
Nov 27, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not goal-directed.
Nobody told Stan Lee that. In the comic book universe, everyone who gets hit with radiation, injected with toxins, or is the victim of a bad upbringing gains super powers. Nobody actually dies from exposure to harsh conditions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61288
Nov 27, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If by they, you mean creos, adaptation is not of any concern.
Of course not. You're a creationist.(shrug)

That means legitimate scientific problems to your own position are all fixed by Jewmagic. Which is non-demonstrable and therefore not scientific. Hence science is not your concern.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Of course it's limited. But as SD pointed out that slowing adaptation doesn't prevent it from going further. You need it to stop entirely or otherwise any point you make is worthless. You also need it to carry on at a much faster rate than evolution to account for your Genesis and Flood scenarios. Since you can't address your inconsistencies your assertions can be considered fiction.
MazHere wrote:
You also have a fossil record of species that were unable to adapt
Yes, extinctions are numerous. We also have a fossil record that demonstrates a distinctive evolutionary change.
MazHere wrote:
not to speak of the data on climate change.
Why do you hate kittens?
MazHere wrote:
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.
Wrong, since if mutations occur at too high a rate then that would destroy all life. Creationism needs it to be limitless as this is exactly what it needs, just without all of the problems that go with it.
MazHere wrote:
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.
No, individuals don't evolve. Populations do. The environment applies pressure on populations, and populations that are unable to adapt will be at a survival disadvantage, or may even be wiped out completely. If they are not then evolution can continue. And if there is life, there is evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61289
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.
Social behaviors can change over time, but many apes do live in groups also. In fact there are relatively few who are solitary.

By the way, humans ARE apes. And it was a creationist who pointed it out (laying down the foundations for evolution and by extention modern biology as he did so).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61290
Nov 27, 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.
... and therefore not an "information loss". Duh.

I have a few ridiculously simple questions for ya:

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?

How come you constantly ignore the blatant inconsistencies of your own position?

Why do you always lie and ignore anything theologically inconvenient?

Remember, God is watching...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61291
Nov 27, 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.
Well the ONLY thing that can bring evolution to a grinding halt would be is if the Earth is young, say, only about 6,000 years?

Oh sorry, you said SCIENTIFIC.

Forget it then. Never mind.

:-/
Hello

Whitesboro, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61292
Nov 27, 2012
 
Why does it metter. Let people believ what they want. If you gruel care what someone else thinks,han you have much bigger problems in your life. I believe in a mix of creationism and evolution. You believe what you want
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61293
Nov 27, 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?
Since fossilization is rare, no. However we DO have them:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61294
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.
Wow, can one say massive amount of projection and big fat straw-man? Your "scientific alternative" is JEWMAGIC. And wildly inconsistent with itself, much less reality. Nevertheless, you are unable to address rebuttals or any of your own problems.

In short bub, you're the LAST person who should be accusing anyone of hypocrisy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61295
Nov 27, 2012
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo Christine
MazHere is an obvious spambot.
Ya think?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61296
Nov 27, 2012
 
Hello wrote:
Why does it metter. Let people believ what they want. If you gruel care what someone else thinks,han you have much bigger problems in your life. I believe in a mix of creationism and evolution. You believe what you want
People CAN believe whatever they want.

HOWEVER. In your country you currently have a sizable amount of religious fundamentalists (mostly Christian derivatives) who are attempting to teach religious superstition in public school science classes. This is MAJOR LEAGUE dumb. It is also illegal. But they don't care because they want to be just like the nutjobs you find in certain parts of the Middle East all wanting to blow each other up over which God has the bigger dangly bits.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61297
Nov 27, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
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.
More tha 80% of our DNA does not contribute to the development of our phenotype and much is recognized as leftover bits and pieces from earlier forms. "Junk" would be a suitable descriptive term. You keep repeateing that something else is the case, but are apparently not bright enough to discuss it.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Explain and support,
MazHere wrote:
There appears to be more data that supports an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt than supports an unlimited ability to adapt.
There is none to support a limit if you mean, by "organism", a population or lineage. If you're referring to individuals, then you just have your head up your ass.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61298
Nov 27, 2012
 
The Constitution***I READ IT FOR THE ARTICLES****;)
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61299
Nov 27, 2012
 
The Constitution***I READ IT FOR THE ARTICLES**** ;-).
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61300
Nov 27, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Temple & Smoller has has been refuted and dark energy reaffirmed earlier this year with the SMC data.
Not that this matters. Nothing in Temple & Smoller's research indicated creationism is supportable.
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?
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61302
Nov 27, 2012
 
*DON'T try SO HARD to FIT IN when you were BORN to STAND OUT* Steve Jobs said a lot at his Stanford Commencement Address when he said "Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma- which is living with the results of other peoples thinking. Don't let the noise of others opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61303
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?
Dark matter has been discovered, indirectly observed and can be measured

http://www.space.com/16412-dark-matter-filame...
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61305
Nov 27, 2012
 
Why focus on dark matter? Look at the Hubble Telescopes pictures of our amazing universe. We are a part of workmanship from the hand of an artist.

“Licensed to Ill”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61306
Nov 27, 2012
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
More tha 80% of our DNA does not contribute to the development of our phenotype and much is recognized as leftover bits and pieces from earlier forms. "Junk" would be a suitable descriptive term. You keep repeateing that something else is the case, but are apparently not bright enough to discuss it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

:p

What was previously referred to as junk dna has been found to be very important for gene regulation (expression and suppression). For many years it was thought that the underlying genes were primarily responsible for differences between species, but we have come to realize that two species can have the same exact underlying genes that control skeletal structure, for example, but by simply turning them on at different times during development and for different durations and at different locations you can have two species with skeletal structures that look completely different. Itís not that the underlying genes that control skeletal structure code for different proteins that explains these differences, but how these genes are regulated that does so. What was previously referred to as junk DNA is responsible for controlling this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/05...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61307
Nov 27, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Listen you silly evolutionist, you have replied exactly as predicted. TOE has not credible predictive ability but evolutionists are very predictable.

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.

The papers on the overwhelmingly negative effects of epitasis was published and peer reviewed in 2011.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

The work on drosophila is also published and peer reviewed, you quacker.

http://f1000.com/prime/5457956

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.

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.

Creos, this once again provides solid evidence that evolutionists are hypocrites of the highest order. 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.

I have supplied peer reviewed research you fool

Now how about presenting your own? Not likely.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61308
Nov 27, 2012
 
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
:p
What was previously referred to as junk dna has been found to be very important for gene regulation (expression and suppression). For many years it was thought that the underlying genes were primarily responsible for differences between species, but we have come to realize that two species can have the same exact underlying genes that control skeletal structure, for example, but by simply turning them on at different times during development and for different durations and at different locations you can have two species with skeletal structures that look completely different. Itís not that the underlying genes that control skeletal structure code for different proteins that explains these differences, but how these genes are regulated that does so. What was previously referred to as junk DNA is responsible for controlling this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/05...
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.

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..

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 57,301 - 57,320 of111,872
|
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.

170 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Add a word and drop a word 2 min SUG here 921
The letter 'T' (Nov '12) 3 min quilterqueen 1,066
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 4 min quilterqueen 468
True False Game (Jun '11) 5 min greymouser 9,518
A-Z of "ANY WORD" that comes to mind! (Sep '12) 5 min quilterqueen 768
what are you wearing? (Mar '12) 6 min night machine 172
What's your tip for the day? 11 min Ozzie 15
What is the meaning of life? 17 min Ozzie 37
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 24 min greymouser 140,415
How to become Unbannable 28 min cretin56 79
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr Old Sam 14,125
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••