Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#62007 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you are gobsmacked and the best you can do is try to get me to spell woffle the way you would like. I am not refering to food. I am refering to my version of the manin gof woffle meaning unsupported rhetoric and hubris.
Sorry, I'm still not getting how genetic evidence from 300 million years ago proves that Goddidit with magic 6,000 years ago. Could you run that one by us again?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62008 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
As all can see I have been able to provide links to research that support my claims. I have reposted some of them. Unfortunately the opposition is quite inept at supporting TOE, and are quite content with the scientific reflection of ‘quack‘ to support their view, with an obvious lack of links to research. No links=opinionated woffle.
Let’s recap shall we and see how these evos are doing in supporting TOE over creation over 2 posts.
Sorry, I still don't see how fossil evidence from millions of years ago proves that Jesus rode on a velociraptor 2,000 years ago. Perhaps you could go into a little more detail?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62009 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, woffle, rhetoric and pure speculation.
Hmm. Except for the part where you used evidence for evolution and utterly failed to demonstrate Goddidit with magic without ever creating that evolution evidence for you to use in the first place.

Darn.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62010 Nov 30, 2012
Poor Maz, she is like Sisyphus rolling that rock up the hill. She thinks she is about to get to the top and her own rock rolls over her and drags her back to the bottom of the hill.

Of course she is not challenging a hill in reality, but a mountain. She includes all branches of science as "evolution", since they all support evolution. She needs to debunk physics, chemistry, cosmology, biology, biology, biology, biology,....,geology, paleontology, archaeology and others. They all support evolution so she calls them all "evolution". You might think she would have got a clue by now.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#62011 Nov 30, 2012
Maz, The 'sciencedaily' links you provided on your post #61895 ("Rotting Y Chromosome") did not work. I believe I have found the links you intended to use in support of your contention that the human genome is deteriorating.

If I'm not in error, you were quoting as your sources:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/...

Please confirm whether or not these were the articles/papers you were quoting from.

Thank you.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#62012 Nov 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, all bad stuff is because people don't pay enough attention to YOUR religion...
All of the bad stuff is certainly not because of my religion
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62013 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Now I have supported the underpinning reasons as to why I suggest creationism is better supported than evolution.[/QUTOE]

Except:

1 - The writer offers solutions, which are in fact supported by scientific papers (as we did this exact dance about 6 weeks ago). Ergo it has not falsified evolution.

2 - The writer being an evolutionary biologist does not support YECism, ergo it does not support YECism.

3 - There is no claim that a pure base-by-base comparison shows chickens and chimps to be more similar than chimps to humans. Ergo chimps are still our closest genomic match, as explained by evolution.

4 - YECism offers no alternative hypothesis or predictions. In fact it has no way of telling us which genomes should be similar to which organisms at all. There is no reason for any kind of similarity, for nested hierarchies, or in fact no reason for DNA at all. Anything is possible when your alternative is magic.

5 - This genetic evidence allegedly appeared before the universe was even here, meaning you can't even use it as evidence. Yet every time data conflicts with your suppositions you claim the complete opposite and claim it supports creationism.

[QUOTE who="MazHere"]Instea d of chasing ones tail I would suggest that evos offer their substantiated predictions, if you actually have any, that are as robust as the creationist predictions validated that I have spoken to.
Why do you believe the genome in general is not deteriorating?
Because the data presented over the past 14 pages or so demonstrates diversification, not genomic deterioration. Numerous times I've pointed out problems with Sanford's claims only to be left unaddressed. I have no problem with that.
MazHere wrote:
Even I can answer some evo thoughts around that. Did you know most of TOE is misrepresented?
Yet regardless of what you say the fact will always remain that there is substantial data that supports a creationist paradigm and evos are left to come up with convolutions as to why such data does not falsify TOE and are left with unsupported rhetoric in the end as an evolutionary support.
Projection.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62014 Nov 30, 2012
Corrected quote tags:
MazHere wrote:
Now I have supported the underpinning reasons as to why I suggest creationism is better supported than evolution.
Except:

1 - The writer offers solutions, which are in fact supported by scientific papers (as we did this exact dance about 6 weeks ago). Ergo it has not falsified evolution.

2 - The writer being an evolutionary biologist does not support YECism, ergo it does not support YECism.

3 - There is no claim that a pure base-by-base comparison shows chickens and chimps to be more similar than chimps to humans. Ergo chimps are still our closest genomic match, as explained by evolution.

4 - YECism offers no alternative hypothesis or predictions. In fact it has no way of telling us which genomes should be similar to which organisms at all. There is no reason for any kind of similarity, for nested hierarchies, or in fact no reason for DNA at all. Anything is possible when your alternative is magic.

5 - This genetic evidence allegedly appeared before the universe was even here, meaning you can't even use it as evidence. Yet every time data conflicts with your suppositions you claim the complete opposite and claim it supports creationism.
MazHere wrote:
Instead of chasing ones tail I would suggest that evos offer their substantiated predictions, if you actually have any, that are as robust as the creationist predictions validated that I have spoken to.
Why do you believe the genome in general is not deteriorating?
Because the data presented over the past 14 pages or so demonstrates diversification, not genomic deterioration. Numerous times I've pointed out problems with Sanford's claims only to be left unaddressed. I have no problem with that.
MazHere wrote:
Even I can answer some evo thoughts around that. Did you know most of TOE is misrepresented?
Yet regardless of what you say the fact will always remain that there is substantial data that supports a creationist paradigm and evos are left to come up with convolutions as to why such data does not falsify TOE and are left with unsupported rhetoric in the end as an evolutionary support.
Projection.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62015 Nov 30, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, one quick question: As a Creationist, are you an 'old world creationist', or a 'young world creationist'?
How old is the earth & the universe?
Doesn't matter. Goddidit with magic. Hence evidence is irrelevant. He's fond of Sanford though, who is a YEC. But that doesn't stop Maz from referencing old Earth data.

So in short he's a scientifically inconsistent dishonest hypocrite with nothing to support his case.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62016 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you call fiction I call divinely inspired.
Some people claimed to be divinely inspired back in the sixties when they wrote great music.

Turns out they were just high.
Bat Foy wrote:
You say it's old I say it is relevant.
Subjective religious opinions are only relevant to the subject.
Bat Foy wrote:
What you call science I call the blatant denial of a valid and real God.
Reality doesn't care what you think. Reality just IS. If it happens to disagree with your baseless religious opinions then that's your problem.(shrug)

Since: Sep 12

United States

#62017 Nov 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>No-one. It's a non-falsifiable concept.

That's not a good thing if one wants their concepts to be taken seriously.

Bat Foy wrote, "Where does God claim to be the first mass murder?"

Global flood.

Don't worry though, it never really happened.

Bat Foy wrote, "Man commits rape man started slavery."

And God endorsed it.

Unless the Bible is wrong.

Bat Foy wrote, "As for selfish sending your son to die so that a bunch of ungrateful people can spit in his face and turn away from him all for the chance some might choose him and make heaven. Yeah that sounds selfish. "

Nah, just stupid. Sending a piece of yourself down in the form of your son as a human and letting its biological form bleed to death over a period of 3-7 days for no reason whatsoever since nothing can really harm him what being immortal and all and what was it for anyway? Well, nothing really. Just an excuse for a blood sacrifice. A throwback to the early days.(shrug)
You're right the life and death of Christ means nothing as long as you're blind to the importance of it.
You say God commits mass murder but conveniently ignore the reasons for it. If as you claim it's just a myth than what's wrong with it?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62018 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well my bully of a God can sink your physics. Why if God can create everything in 6 days while you say billions of years can the same God beat mr Einsteins THEORY? All powerful God trumps super smart guy. I believe it was you who told me it isn't science fact until it can be tested as it is impossible for man to test infinite power it is just a very educated guess by a very smart man. Who by the way also believed in God.
God can't do anything if it doesn't exist. As of right now the existence of such an entity cannot be demonstrated. Ergo either your god doesn't exist or it did it exactly the way you didn't want it to. Because apparently your baseless religious opinions don't mean all that much to Him either.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#62020 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.
I was wondering if you were ever going to provide anything substantial. By that I don't count the links to research articles that you misrepresent.

You have already claimed to have refuted evolution. When will we see that in publication? I believe the Journal of the Society of Fundamentalist Whack Jobs might be a good venue.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62021 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
BTW, I like earth at the centre of the universe
Yup. And you at the very centre of that Earth. It all revolves around you, you see.

Yeah, I can see you're one of those big ego types. God DEFINITELY gave you a free pass to be an ahole. It's a dirty job but somebody's gotta do it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62022 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No links and only opinionated woffle as opposed to a substatial post. You're reply demonstrates what a pitiful goose you and your cohorts are.
You loose. I win.
End of discussion with you.
Really? You just admitted that no links are ever relevant to whatever you post.

You lose, we win. End of discussion with you. But then, it ended weeks ago when you starting skipping everything inconvenient. Which was only days, perhaps even hours after you started posting.(shrug)

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62023 Nov 30, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Evidence has been presented time and time again. You, as a radical anti-science, anti-thinking creationismist, dismiss it all. Keep posting your creatard rubbish. It amuses me.
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62024 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.
Actually you don't provide data to support your view since it all contradicts you. 94% of our galaxy is in direct contradiction to your position. Unless you claim (again) that the difference between 6,000 years and 13.71 billion years doesn't matter a dime, but then that would only contradict at least half of all your posts, undercutting every single one of your arguments in the process.

Fantastic work!

But then we both know that all you'll do is carry on being a dishonest lying hypocrite.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, 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

Birkenhead, 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

Everton, 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...

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 game! (Nov '11) 3 min Truths 3,043
Happy New Year 2015 3 min Explain yourslef 13
20,000th Post Wins - 2d Edition (Jan '13) 4 min Truths 1,751
ChANge "2" letter ChANgLE 5 min to the tooth fairy 69
Change-Six-Of-Six-Letters....Fun Game! 7 min Northners 434
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 8 min beatlesinafog 7,632
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 9 min Dadgam you 7,810
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 57 min black shuck 152,874
Is it possible to....... 3 hr wichita-rick 613
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr eleanorigby 37,787
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 hr -Lea- 26,019
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 5 hr DondoDork 3,034
More from around the web