Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#61757 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The go tell Wiki they have supplied rubbish. At the moment I have supplied evidence that Sanfords work was peer reviewed and you just want to save face here.
Only morons do that.
It is not about Sanford being peer reviewed, you moron. It is about my providing research from your own researchersdd that support his work, regardless.
If you weren't such a baffoon you would be able to demonstrae how empirical evience that speaks to the deteriorating genome doesn really mean what it says.
Yopu evos should be good at that because the entirety of evolutionary research is more supportive of a creationist paradigm and evos always have to come up with convoluted woffle to demonstrate why the data isn't really saying what it appears to say.
I can support my view. You cannot support yours. That much, after so many replies, is evident.
Here is your big chance, big mouth. Provide peer reviewed research that demonstrates the genome is NOT deteriorating as I suggest.
Bet you can't? More woffle is my prediction again.
You attempt to support you view with references to unreviewed bad science, sources of questionable validity and actual work that doesn't say what you claim. YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FOOL!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#61758 Nov 29, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
No facts only means facts
i.e.
something that is indisputably the case.
something that actually exists
something known to exist
something that happened
something known to be true
a truth known by actual experience
a truth known by actual observation
Faith is not fact, faith is faith, faith is belief. Rather like ‘truth’ and ‘morality’ there are interpretations that chrsitians place on the word(s) in order so suite their own belief.
That does not change the meaning it just means that christians who do this do not understand the meaning
Read the bible and see what faith did in the lives of those believers that applied it.
That faith is still applicable (tenable) to date.
Faith is reality...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61759 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Calling evotard Subduction Zone, that is too simple to even get himself out of his own way...
7.^ Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P., ReMine, W.(2007). Mendel's Accountant: a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program. SCPE 8(2): 147-165. http://www.scpe.org .
8.^ Sanford, J.C., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P., ReMine, W.(2007). Using computer simulation to understand mutation accumulation dynamics and genetic load. In Shi et al.(Eds.),
ICCS 2007, Part II, LNCS 4488 (pp.386-392), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
The above are Sanfords published papers.
If you weren't such a quacker you would have see that in the Wiki link.
The request was for peer reviewed material. Published, yes, but not peer reviewed. Do you even know the difference?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61760 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Suck it up. You are just another moron that does not know what peer reviewed research looks like. Quacker!
So says the lady (perhaps an incorrect term considering the condition of her waffle) that has no idea what is a peer reviewed article.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#61761 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
I suggest there is ample data to suggest the genome is deteriorating as Sanford suggesdted and evolutionists have merely hand waved their own data away.
The above is peer reviewed research that says the genome is deteriorating, you evotards!
So you acknowledge that over time genes are changing? Thank you. End of discussion. I win. That was easy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61762 Nov 29, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
Wow! Perhaps creatards can learn.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61763 Nov 29, 2012
I see it all so clearly now I can't believe I have been so blind. I'm switching side
I'm free from the bondage.
Yes I have changed my mind I should get the blue car instead of the red one.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#61764 Nov 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? So ... no christian ever goes to the doctor, not one, not for anything, not even for an Aspirin? If you wanted to prove your religion was reality at all, you'd all avoid the doctor your whole lives, and never once get sick, not once. Then you'd have evidence to support your assertion.
No assertions here, except you just wanted to make things up. Some Surgical or Medical doctors do apply faith through prayers and it is really working for them unlike others who do not.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#61765 Nov 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? So ... no christian ever goes to the doctor, not one, not for anything, not even for an Aspirin? If you wanted to prove your religion was reality at all, you'd all avoid the doctor your whole lives, and never once get sick, not once. Then you'd have evidence to support your assertion.
Again, you are also looking at one side of the coin. People do take drugs and yet still ended up dying. Why?
So, it is just a matter of faith. Faith is real, halleluyah!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#61766 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Got any *quotes* from your "authority"?
No, I didn't think so. Funny how you claim an authority from a book you don't even have.
<quoted text>
I repeat, as usual, got any *quotes* from your "authority"?
No, I didn't think so.
You've never even read his book, obviously.
Until you stop replying and challenge my information. You remain a loser.
Cyril Babaev's work is on the internet. Be a man, check it and see the disappointment of your life. Until then. Keep playing.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#61767 Nov 29, 2012
I repeat, as usual, got any *quotes* from your "authority"?
No, I didn't think so.
You've never even read his book, obviously.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Until you stop replying and challenge my information. You remain a loser.
The only "loser" here is the person who is asking for their critics to remain silent. I guess that's your only option when you can't support your claims with evidence.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Cyril Babaev's work is on the internet.
Prove it. Provide a link to a document written by him in which he says that modern Germans can understand Old English.

If you don't, we'll know you're lying.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61768 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you want to digress. The fake that you are.
My post above does address the burden of proof that the genome could not possibly have evolved over billions of years.
Creation is supported. TOE is falsified.
The burden is now on you to supply some shred of evidence to the contrary instead of chasing your tail.
We creos already know you can't support your view. Prove me wrong.
You are the one who digressed from the topic. What a lying little hypocrite you are.

And yes, when you make a positive statement in a debate you are the one who must supply the evidence that supports your argument. The other side merely has to point out that you made a statement without evidence.

You have no idea how a scientific debate goes. We as evolutionists can supply all sorts of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. You BY DEFINITION cannot provide scientific evidence that supports your side.

Scientific evidence supports or refutes a scientific theory or hypothesis. Without a scientific theory or hypothesis scientific evidence does not apply. Your side is too afraid to come up with scientific hypotheses, and remember you need to have a hypothesis before it can become a theory, since hypotheses are testable.

Though you cannot recreate "creation" if it occurred it should have left evidence behind. The observation of that evidence should enable you to make a hypothesis and when you have done that we can test it.

Until then when it comes to scientific evidence you do not have any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evide...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#61769 Nov 29, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Read the bible and see what faith did in the lives of those believers that applied it.
That faith is still applicable (tenable) to date.
Faith is reality...
'Faith is reality"?

Having your imagination obstruct your instinctual intuition isn't reality.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#61770 Nov 29, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Suck it up. You are just another moron that does not know what peer reviewed research looks like. Quacker!
Good thing I am not, I would have to keep company with you.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#61771 Nov 29, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>No assertions here, except you just wanted to make things up. Some Surgical or Medical doctors do apply faith through prayers and it is really working for them unlike others who do not.
If this was even remotely true prayer would have extended the average life span not modern medicine.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61772 Nov 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>I repeat, as usual, got any *quotes* from your "authority"?
No, I didn't think so.
You've never even read his book, obviously.

The only "loser" here is the person who is asking for their critics to remain silent. I guess that's your only option when you can't support your claims with evidence.

Charles Idemi wrote, "Cyril Babaev's work is on the internet."

Prove it. Provide a link to a document written by him in which he says that modern Germans can understand Old English.

If you don't, we'll know you're lying.
http://babaev.tripod.com/archive/grammar43.ht...
I'm not to sure but I think this is the evidence you want I used google

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61773 Nov 29, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>If this was even remotely true prayer would have extended the average life span not modern medicine.
This would be assuming the average person prayed wouldn't it? Or that the answer to that prayer wasn't medicine.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#61774 Nov 29, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
http://babaev.tripod.com/archive/grammar43.ht...
I'm not to sure but I think this is the evidence you want I used google
Too bad nothing on that page says that modern Germans can understand Old English.

It says only that "there is much more in common between Old English and German, than between Modern English and German."

Of course, one can just as easily say that there is much more in common between Modern English and Sanskrit then between Modern English and Chinese, but that doesn't mean that speakers of Modern English understand Sanskrit, does it?

I'm afraid that Charlie's "authority" doesn't support his claim.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61775 Nov 29, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>'Faith is reality"?

Having your imagination obstruct your instinctual intuition isn't reality.
So you don't believe in God nor faith. Having faith is the act of belief no matter what you call it. Faith is real. Please stick to your science and leave faith to the faithful. Science can debate faith all it wants you won't disprove it.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#61776 Nov 29, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one who digressed from the topic. What a lying little hypocrite you are.
And yes, when you make a positive statement in a debate you are the one who must supply the evidence that supports your argument. The other side merely has to point out that you made a statement without evidence.
You have no idea how a scientific debate goes. We as evolutionists can supply all sorts of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. You BY DEFINITION cannot provide scientific evidence that supports your side.
Scientific evidence supports or refutes a scientific theory or hypothesis. Without a scientific theory or hypothesis scientific evidence does not apply. Your side is too afraid to come up with scientific hypotheses, and remember you need to have a hypothesis before it can become a theory, since hypotheses are testable.
Though you cannot recreate "creation" if it occurred it should have left evidence behind. The observation of that evidence should enable you to make a hypothesis and when you have done that we can test it.
Until then when it comes to scientific evidence you do not have any.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evide...
Excellent reply SZ.

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
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 3 min Hatti_Hollerand 7,829
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 7 min Papa Smurfaletto 5,505
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 13 min Princess Hey 140,133
motorcycle traveling stories 15 min Sublime1 607
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min wichita-rick 161,497
hoosier hillbilly (Sep '12) 17 min Princess Hey 1,763
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 19 min Papa Smurfaletto 10,734
Things that make life eaiser... 31 min TALLYHO 8541 145
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 1 hr MrsGladToBeMe 8,363
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 hr Camilla 28,882
More from around the web