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 2,868)

Showing posts 57,341 - 57,360 of106,299
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.
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?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 57,341 - 57,360 of106,299
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••