Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201148 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62025 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No more like evolutionists inability to offer any credible and stable data on the how, when, where or why of evolutionary theory.
..and poofing avian feet onto mythical theropods and dead elements organising themselves into complex factories of reproduction.
Nice work on that straw-man! Got anything substantial? Maybe when you start having some scientific consistency.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62026 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Are any evotards going to present some evidence of their own or are they going to continue to prove they are loosers with nothing more than attitudes to defend their sorry selves with?
I am just going to repost my posts every day until one of you loosers actually provides some data and links to support your big mouths.
Been waiting for you for many weeks now. You ignored it the first time, you've ignored everything since. So why ask for evidence you have no interest in and will reject on theological grounds anyway?

Don't worry, we already know. And so does God.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#62027 Nov 30, 2012
Let’s recap shall we.

1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome is likely to be found to be functional.

This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

2. Creationists predictions around vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...

3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plants to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment.

Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62028 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the bad stuff is certainly not because of my religion
I'm wondering if your sarcasm detector is working. But theologically speaking, if your theology was correct, then ultimately yes. All the bad stuff is because of your deity. It's responsible for everything.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#62029 Nov 30, 2012
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationist can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.

Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, woffle, rhetoric and pure speculation.

And evos can do no more than woffle on in their defence.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#62030 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Woops forgot the link
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...
So now you lot can just picj whastever rate you want and call that empirical evidence. Great work, you lot!

This is called "quote-mining".

It is a common practice among weak minded individuals.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#62031 Nov 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Been waiting for you for many weeks now. You ignored it the first time, you've ignored everything since. So why ask for evidence you have no interest in and will reject on theological grounds anyway?
Don't worry, we already know. And so does God.
No links, no evidence, only evotard banter and self ego stroking in an evo orgy of denial, yet again.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62032 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right the life and death of Christ means nothing as long as you're blind to the importance of it.
Not blind. It really was pointless. I understand sending Christ down to spread the Lord's Word and all that, but the sacrifice was utterly irrelevant.
Bat Foy wrote:
You say God commits mass murder but conveniently ignore the reasons for it.
The reason is that the god of the OT is an ahole. Much like most other gods of the day really.
Bat Foy wrote:
If as you claim it's just a myth than what's wrong with it?
Depends. Are we talking about its contradictory illogical nature? Or are we talking about its historical and scientific inaccuracies? Or are we talking about the habit of fundies like Maz using it as justification to be aholes?

At least Jefferson had the right idea - take the good bits and throw out the bad.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#62033 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have observed nothing of the kind and neither have your researchers.
Intergalactic shadows are missing and the singularity breaks down at the moment of the big bang. That is what you know.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...
You may notice I actually provide data to support my view.
No links= opinionated woffle.That would refer to YOU.

Interesting. Your last contention was based the big bang being TRUE and now you are suggesting the big bang may NOT be true.

Please pick a lane.

And you did not refute the gravity probe B data which I have linked to half a dozen times. Try googling "Gravity Probe B".

It's so easy even a creotard can do it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#62034 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No more like evolutionists inability to offer any credible and stable data on the how, when, where or why of evolutionary theory.
..and poofing avian feet onto mythical theropods and dead elements organising themselves into complex factories of reproduction.

Explain to us the credible and stable data evidencing creation, again. I must have missed it.

Oh, and please give the theory of creationism as well as the litany of predictions creationism makes THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN VERIFIED.

Not ones that you pray will be verified. That is just wishful thinking crap.

Or will you ignore this challenge again?

How sad, 150 years and creationism does not even have a working hypothesis. Sad indeed.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62035 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
All the dim wits have to do is compare your simplistic replies to mine.
I dare any one of you to repost any evidence of a substantive reply to me,let alone one that has been maintained.
By 'Dismiss', you mean like the twoddle you lot shoved down creos throats in junk dna being proof of evolution then scuttlebutting off to cover your behinds with what? Suck eggs with plenty left over on your faces.
In sucking eggs you lot have substantiated, even with biased woffle, a creationst prediction. Well done you evos!
The same goes for all your 'empirical evidence' for human knucklewalking ancestry. This was overturned on the back of one single fossil and not a scrap of evidence for one entire half of the human/chimp split.
No it wasn't. Focussing on one fossil alone to make your point ignores all the other fossils, the clear evolutionary trend observed in the fossil record, the genomic evidence, comparative anatomy, and nested hierarchies across all of them.
MazHere wrote:
The same goes for every example of my six points that you continue to say I have misrepresented but are unable to suggest why.
We are able to say why. You have only avoided it.
MazHere wrote:
I can see another idiot that is requesting evidnece for creation again and hence I will repost all my posts.
What for? They never demonstrated your case the first time.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
That would be because I am having a discussion with a gaggle of geese that can do not more than quack as demonstrated.
You're not having a discussion with anybody. You're spamming, the rest of us are debunking it. There hasn't been any discussion. Nor has there been any debate. In fact there hasn't been any valid scientific doubt over the validity of evolution since the discovery of DNA at the very latest.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62036 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Let’s recap shall we.
Only a lot of contradictory creationist apologetics, which ultimately relies on GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC.

1 - Contradicts Genesis and Sanford. Also we have evidence of what WERE functional but function no longer.

2 - The functions are not the same function any longer. And some are simply no longer functional. I don't need nipples.

3 - Contradicts the other Genesis account. Evolution also predicts the specifics FAR more accurately. By the way, plants did NOT appear before the sun. That's just dumb.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#62037 Nov 30, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. Your last contention was based the big bang being TRUE and now you are suggesting the big bang may NOT be true.
Please pick a lane.
And you did not refute the gravity probe B data which I have linked to half a dozen times. Try googling "Gravity Probe B".
It's so easy even a creotard can do it.
Actually my summation would be one creationist against a plethora of evos and naturalists that have not got the slightest idea just how flawed all their woffle actually is.

Creos have parsinomy and data on their side on many fronts including the earth being special, if we choose. Evolutionist have woffle in place of data and evoke more mysteries than any creo has a need to.

IOW for the purposes of the thread topic..Creation is supported by data and TOE is supported by woffle as my 6 points demonstrate in a supported and robust manner.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62038 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationist can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, woffle, rhetoric and pure speculation.
And evos can do no more than woffle on in their defence.
4 - Contradicts genetics, doesn't take natural selection into account, doesn't account for beneficial mutations, doesn't account to growing populations and genetic diversification (data already provided), contradicts Genesis, contradicts previous claims (such as evolution being non-falsifiable) creationist supposition relies on conflicting data.

5 - Merely repeat of 4

6 - Mere re-arrangements within nested hierarchies is not a problem for evolution, but total violations would be. Claimant is only complaining that demonstrated data does NOT contradict or falsify evolution. That's not our problem.

7 - Although 7 isn't on Maz's list, he's still relying on "If not A then B wins by default". Meaning he's still using a logical fallacy to make his case, not to mention all his observable contradictions and hypocrisy.

8 - Goddidit with magic is not science, period.

9 - Evolution has been demonstrated, long before he even arrived. Although info is presented over and over it has only been ignored rather than addressed.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62039 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No links, no evidence, only evotard banter and self ego stroking in an evo orgy of denial, yet again.
Projection.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62040 Nov 30, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. Your last contention was based the big bang being TRUE and now you are suggesting the big bang may NOT be true.
Please pick a lane.
You're joking, right?

:-/

The Earth is young because the Earth is old. That's his argument.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#62041 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
All the dim wits have to do is compare your simplistic replies to mine.
I dare any one of you to repost any evidence of a substantive reply to me,let alone one that has been maintained.
By 'Dismiss', you mean like the twoddle you lot shoved down creos throats in junk dna being proof of evolution then scuttlebutting off to cover your behinds with what? Suck eggs with plenty left over on your faces.
In sucking eggs you lot have substantiated, even with biased woffle, a creationst prediction. Well done you evos!
The same goes for all your 'empirical evidence' for human knucklewalking ancestry. This was overturned on the back of one single fossil and not a scrap of evidence for one entire half of the human/chimp split.
The same goes for every example of my six points that you continue to say I have misrepresented but are unable to suggest why.
I can see another idiot that is requesting evidnece for creation again and hence I will repost all my posts.
That would be because I am having a discussion with a gaggle of geese that can do not more than quack as demonstrated.

page from the mazhere playbook.

1. Make unsupported assertions.
2. Pretend to support them by quoting information that in no way support creationism nor call evolution into question.
3. Claim to offer substance while offering nothing real.
4. Deny substance of opponents.
5. Call people names.
6. Ignore the substance of all responses.
7. GoTo 1.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62042 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually my summation would be one creationist against a plethora of evos and naturalists
Read: mean old atheists.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> that have not got the slightest idea just how flawed all their woffle actually is.
Uh, yeah sure. How old is the Earth again?(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
Creos have parsinomy and data on their side on many fronts including the earth being special, if we choose.
That's because magic solves everything.

It ain't scientific though.
MazHere wrote:
Evolutionist have woffle in place of data and evoke more mysteries than any creo has a need to.
Because Goddidit with magic answers everything.

By answering nothing.

Science in the meantime knows what it can and admits to what it doesn't know. And it knows a fair bit. Certainly far more than any creationist.
MazHere wrote:
IOW for the purposes of the thread topic..Creation is supported by data and TOE is supported by woffle as my 6 points demonstrate in a supported and robust manner.
Except for all your contradictions. Are you ready to stop being a hypocrite yet? Or that lying for Jesus pass you got from Almighty God Himself still valid?

Thought so.

Carry on Maz.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#62043 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Let’s recap shall we.
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome is likely to be found to be functional.
This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
2. Creationists predictions around vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plants to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment.
Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...

1. Proven to be untrue.
2. Proven to be untrue.
3. Hysterical!!!!!
and also untrue.

And again links that support evolution. Very nice waste of internet space.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#62044 Nov 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You're joking, right?
:-/
The Earth is young because the Earth is old. That's his argument.

She is more obnoxious than KAB and dumber than Psycho. That is one hellofa combination.

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
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 3 min Dont_You_Dare 8,549
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 4 min Dont_You_Dare 8,913
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min Sharlene45 194,218
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 27 min Aussie Kev 35,521
News Trump's Newest Ad Is So Frickin' WeirdBy Olivia... 40 min spud 29
The last word in the sentence must rhyme with t... (Aug '15) 54 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1,134
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 35,095
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Grace Nerissa 58,058
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 8 hr Knock off purse s... 7,798
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 11 hr Enzo49 8,479
More from around the web