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 2,887)

Showing posts 57,721 - 57,740 of111,998
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61753
Nov 29, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have provided many proofs over the last week. Creos predictions around non conding dna and vestigial organs is being validated as opposed to evolutionary predictions. I have discussed fossil evidence that better aligns with creationism, I have demonstrated the actual twoddle behind anyone algorithmic magic and now I will demonstrate that evolutionary research can offer support for just about anything.
For instance, the slowest proposed mutation rate puts the common ancestor of humans and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he says: more than 20 million years before dates derived from abundant fossil evidence. This very slow clock has the common ancestor of monkeys and humans co-existing with the last dinosaurs.“It gets very complicated,” deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
If you have something to say then demonstrate with peer reviewed research that the genome is not deteriorating and that despite epistasis and a degenerating genome evolution has gone on for 4 billion years.
I can and have suported my view very well, and with peer reviewed research. I predict evolutionists can't.
If this were just a bit longer you could wipe with it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61754
Nov 29, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
What is genetic entropy? Geneticist John Sanford made a proposal which included the accumulation of mutations will always ultimately decrease fitness in a process he called “genetic entropy”. This data (1) supports young earth creationism and less importantly (2) effectively falsifies the current theory of evolution. That is the general theme.
Both evolutionary and creationist algorithms are based on assumptions. Let’s see who can present the most robust case for their view.
This below is a study from Science.
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
“Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.“
Experiments have shown beneficial mutations working against each other which is known as antagonistic epistasis while other experiments have shown loss in fitness if they worked together rather than alone. Richard Lenski, Michigan State, known for the longest-running experiment on evolution of E. coli, discovered a law of diminishing returns with beneficial mutations due to negative epistasis!
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11
Near the end the authors did notice a type of genetic entropy,“tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness“.
I can offer several examples of evolutionary research that identify degradation and deterioration within the genome of varying organisms.
Genome Degradation in Brucella ovis Corresponds with Narrowing of Its Host Range and Tissue Tropism
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13 ...
Genomic degradation of a young Y chromosome in Drosophila miranda
http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/2/R30
Comparison of genome degradation in Paratyphi A and Typhi, human-restricted serovars of Salmonella enterica that cause typhoid
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n12/abs/ ...
Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1 ...
Male Sex Chromosome Losing Genes By Rapid Evolution, Study Reveals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/ ...
Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
The above information is not new. Sanford knew this information when he spoke to genetic entropy and published his papers.
Here is a link from 1999.
Insights into the evolutionary process of genome degradation
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ ...
I can present a plethora of such papers from published articles that speak to the deteriorating genome and overwhelmingly negative effects.
Evolutionists can argue and nit pick just as creationists can with evolutionary theory. However, I suggest that the overwhelming majority of research results from your evolutionary researchers supports Sanfords general theme, mutations lead to degradation/entropy/deteriorat ion.
I suggest there is ample data to suggest the genome is deteriorating as Sanford suggested and evolutionists have merely hand waved their own data away.
The above is peer reviewed research that says the genome is deteriorating, you evotards!
Can evos support their own view of limitless adaptability and the non deteriorating genome? The answer so far is NO!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61755
Nov 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So you report invalid results from invalid sources. Good for you. I would say you have cinched your credibility.
Suck it up. You are just another moron that does not know what peer reviewed research looks like. Quacker!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61756
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.
Do you mean the one with all of the links to various creation sites? Sites that openly admit that they will not follow the scientific method and are openly dishonest?

You need to do better than that. Oh. Wait. You can't.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Licensed to Ill”

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61762
Nov 29, 2012
 
Sublime1 wrote:
Wow! Perhaps creatards can learn.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 57,721 - 57,740 of111,998
|
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.

146 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 4 min Old Sam 25,438
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 5 min Jennifer Renee 5,576
Word Association (Mar '10) 8 min Jennifer Renee 15,630
ask amy rose 8 min cherryflower 28
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 10 min Old Sam 17,204
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 11 min Old Sam 6,103
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 11 min Old Sam 12,946
How to become Unbannable 12 min Merican 94
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 32 min sissy 140,602
What's your tip for the day? 36 min sissy 57
sleeping naked and being chubby 1 hr cretin56 25
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••