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 2,914)

Showing posts 58,261 - 58,280 of105,854
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Linda the lonely widow

Romeoville, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62258
Dec 1, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Please present this proof of resurrection.
Note: The Bible is not "proof". It is an ascertation only, and not sufficient to provide evidence for resurrection.
Go stick your head in a toliet

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62262
Dec 1, 2012
 
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Psychological evidence exists of Christs resurrection for a start. And I'm not talking about illusions or other such hocus pocus.
Links, please?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62263
Dec 1, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what you propose is nonsense. Science is repeatable. If an observation or experiment is not repeatable it is not of much value, just as a single point on a graph cannot be used to make a line, surface, or solid. That is why your example of bird like fossils is not enough to convince evolutionists. Even the study of abiogenesis is being done with repeatable science. That is why even though they have had some success they have not formed a complete hypothesis of abiogenesis yet, much less a theory.
All you can do is to either find an article that you misunderstand and try to misapply or find a very fringy statement, or even worse get claims for garbage sites like tourist magazines and try to pass them off as science.
All it takes to fend off your various attacks is a mere wave of the hands. If you had something of note you would get a more substantial reply. It seems that you are willing to be a typical hypocritical lying creationist. I am just here to remind people of that fact.
They have had no success at all and that is why you fianl qualifying statement after all your babble is "they have not formed a complete hypothesis of abiogenesis yet, much less a theory".

Regardless if you can simply separate your abiogensis from the debate by the wave of a hand then so can I not have my theories on an abiogenesis of a larger scale than you propose complexity arranged itself by whatever.

If your TOE was a science it would be repeatable and not give a new flavour of the month at every turn that better supports creation.

What's repeatable? Algorithmic magic based on mising common ancestors and mostly single bones.

How come creos could make a prediction on junk dna and TOE could not? Answer, TOE is not a science.

Did TOE predict a deteriorating genome and diminishing returns around epistasis or was that another surprise you've had to scratch around and find excuses for? Well the fall at least explains it. It also demonstrates life may not be as old as evos suggest.

Does TOE really care what evolved from what, where, when, why or how as long as it all evolved?One lot of research supports another until the lot of falsified.

Did TOE predict life arising as plant life and then animal life in the sea,(rather than a pond)? Genesis did.

Your big reply is that TOE is repeatable. That is babble. Prove it. Where is your evidence eeing as you like to quack about it so much.

I'd say that I can and have supported my view to at least the level of credibility you have on offer, including the 6 points of creationist support I offer. I don't even have to rely on creationist work, that is the fun thing. There are many well scientifically credentialed that also suggest evolutionary support is lacking.

What you call my finge statements are backed and supported and have never been refuted by anything more than the scientific value of your post above. You evos squark for support and then when it is provided you bury your heads in the sand because you cannot refute it. Hubris from you and not a link to be seen oh lazy one.

You are a face saver and evader that is gobsmacked into resorting to ridicule in place of science.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62264
Dec 1, 2012
 
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely 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 are 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 plant s 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, and now you may have a monster based on whim. 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...

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. The data supports creationism and the woffley excuses hypothesised 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 creationists 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. The headlines are not a misrepresentation of the data found before story telling is applied.

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

Not a word of the above has been successfully refuted.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Topanga

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62265
Dec 1, 2012
 
Orangelion wrote:
The bible is historically accurate, as well as their being proper evidence historically that Christ resurrected. And the prophecies in the bible were true, and are true, and will be true, evidentially.
The Bible is not 'historically accurate'...that implies that the whole thing is accurate...it is not. SOME things are historically accurate...SOME are not. As a for instance, the Exodus is NOT historically accurate, Adam and Eve are not historically accurate, The Flood and the Tower of Babel are not historically accurate. Jerusalem was not a major city in the time of David and Solomon.

No, there is not 'proper evidence' for the Resurrection of Jesus, there is barely evidence that Jesus existed...let alone was a God.

All the prophecies you talk about are really strained to arrive at what you think is their interpretation . I wouldn't trust them at all

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Topanga

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62266
Dec 1, 2012
 
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Israelites were not a nation at that time when they were in Egypt, of course they couldn't record Israel, because they have gone away, and became a nation when they are far away from Egypt, out for their reach and not recordable.
The Egyptians also never recorded the loss of a million+ people from the population, they also never recorded the 'plagues' which would have totally destroyed the whole civilization, they also never recorded a world-destroying 'Flood' that wiped out their whole civilization.

Face it dude, the whole Old Testament is mythical crappola and Christianity bases its whole 'shtick' on it.

Christianity is going down because its whole basis is a pack of lies and myths.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62267
Dec 1, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya. http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
Carbon 14 dating of samples taken from the Michigan whale bones by Harington produced enigmatic results; the age reported for the sperm whale was less than 190 years; the results for the finback whale were 790 - 650 years old, and the right whale was dated as being between 810 and 690 years old.(Holman, 1995, p. 207) Perhaps these results reflect some kind of recent contamination.

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html

Mammalia
Cetacea - Balaenopteridae Balaenoptera sp.
Balaenoptera sp. Lacepede 1804 rorqual

C. E. Harington. 1977. Marine mammals in the Champlain Sea and the Great Lakes. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288:508-537 [M. Uhen/M. Uhen]

bone radiocarbon dated at 720 +- 70 B.P.

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl... States&state=Michigan& is_real_user=1&basic=yes &type=view&match_subge nera=1

<<<Mind you, there are still questions as to how these specimens ever got to Michigan, but it certainly does NOT (at least not yet) count as evidence against the Theory of Evolution.>>>
MazHere wrote:
and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet, and now you may have a monster based on whim.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
The very Nature journal you referenced is evidence of such an theropod. Your paranoia notwithstanding.
MazHere wrote:
The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
Not a word of the above has been successfully refuted.
Well, yes. Actually it has.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62268
Dec 1, 2012
 
broken link above:

" http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl... States&state=Michigan& is_real_user=1&basic=yes &type=view&match_subge nera=1"

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62269
Dec 1, 2012
 
( http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl... States&state=Michigan& is_real_user=1&basic=yes &type=view&match_subge nera=1)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62271
Dec 1, 2012
 
Linda the lonely widow wrote:
<quoted text>Go stick your head in a toliet
With an attitude like that, no wonder you're 'lonely'.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62272
Dec 1, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so called 'natural processes' are examples of 'poofing'. eg abiogenesis, theropods with avian feet and common ancestors.
So we both rely on "Just because we can't repeat the experiment now with our limited scientific knowledge does not mean that it can't happen". It is just that most evos are hipocrites and expect a higher level of substantiation from a creationist than you evos have ever been able to provide. eg abiogenesis, theropods with avian feet and common ancestors.
This is to detract from the fact that the entire theory of evolution is built on a straw man living on foundations of sand.
The straw man foundations are further supported by the instability of TOE. The constant change and falsifications highlight the straw man TOE is built on very clearly.
TOE remains a philosophy. It is no more different than any other philosophical assertion. In the majority the faith is that life arose without any interference other than natural processes. TOE is actually a faith/philosophy that evos are trying to turn into a science. TOE is not a science. At the moment it is far from being a science.
Yes true sciences get tweaked. However a theory that is so unstable about every fact that relates to it that being the how, when, where and why to evolution still remains up for grabs. Evolutionists like to send this monster of a relative to closet.
Indeed if life and engrams can be broken down to elements then a coalescence is possible.
Really, the same as you, I don't care. Maybe God went off into one of these dimensions astrophysicists speak about and grew life in a petrie dish. In that case we would both be right and so would Aliens bringing life to earth. After all, God is not an earth life form, nor is He organic.
The thing is to suggest that non life can organize itself into a complex factory of reproduction is no less an example of poofing than faster creation, it is just a matter of scale.
I suggest a siperior intelligence exists and can do it on a major scale. You suggest that non life can organize itself into a complex factory of reproduction. I suggest although I evoke a deity, my scenario still appears to be more plausible than yours.

A comedy or a comedy of errors?

How do you define a "siperior intelligence"?

ROTHFLMFAO


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62273
Dec 1, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely 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 are 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 plant s 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, and now you may have a monster based on whim. 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...
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. The data supports creationism and the woffley excuses hypothesised 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 creationists 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. The headlines are not a misrepresentation of the data found before story telling is applied.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, woffle, rhetoric and pure speculation.
Not a word of the above has been successfully refuted.

All of this has been refuted by myself and others. Your continuing to repeated long refuted notions is a symptom of either intellectual dishonesty or stupidity.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62274
Dec 1, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
They have had no success at all and that is why you fianl qualifying statement after all your babble is "they have not formed a complete hypothesis of abiogenesis yet, much less a theory".
Regardless if you can simply separate your abiogensis from the debate by the wave of a hand then so can I not have my theories on an abiogenesis of a larger scale than you propose complexity arranged itself by whatever.
If your TOE was a science it would be repeatable and not give a new flavour of the month at every turn that better supports creation.
What's repeatable? Algorithmic magic based on mising common ancestors and mostly single bones.
How come creos could make a prediction on junk dna and TOE could not? Answer, TOE is not a science.
Did TOE predict a deteriorating genome and diminishing returns around epistasis or was that another surprise you've had to scratch around and find excuses for? Well the fall at least explains it. It also demonstrates life may not be as old as evos suggest.
Does TOE really care what evolved from what, where, when, why or how as long as it all evolved?One lot of research supports another until the lot of falsified.
Did TOE predict life arising as plant life and then animal life in the sea,(rather than a pond)? Genesis did.
Your big reply is that TOE is repeatable. That is babble. Prove it. Where is your evidence eeing as you like to quack about it so much.
I'd say that I can and have supported my view to at least the level of credibility you have on offer, including the 6 points of creationist support I offer. I don't even have to rely on creationist work, that is the fun thing. There are many well scientifically credentialed that also suggest evolutionary support is lacking.
What you call my finge statements are backed and supported and have never been refuted by anything more than the scientific value of your post above. You evos squark for support and then when it is provided you bury your heads in the sand because you cannot refute it. Hubris from you and not a link to be seen oh lazy one.
You are a face saver and evader that is gobsmacked into resorting to ridicule in place of science.

So, what I see is someone who does not actually understand the scientific method and has really no clue as to what evolution actually says.

You can knock down straw men till your blue in the balls, but it does not mean anything.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62275
Dec 1, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what I see is someone who does not actually understand the scientific method and has really no clue as to what evolution actually says.
You can knock down straw men till your blue in the balls, but it does not mean anything.
Maz is female, so perhaps you should say blue in the waffle. I would link it, but I might get in trouble. Google search the term Blue Waffle.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Topanga

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62276
Dec 1, 2012
 
.
“The biggest obstacle to the equality of women in our society is the bible, the Genesis story in particular.”– Elizabeth Cady Straton, Suffragette (1895 A Womens Bible)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62277
Dec 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz is female, so perhaps you should say blue in the waffle. I would link it, but I might get in trouble. Google search the term Blue Waffle.
I think I'm gonna be sick.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62278
Dec 1, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I'm gonna be sick.
Sorry, I should have warned you.

But apt, right?

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62279
Dec 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Psychological evidence exists of Christs resurrection for a start. And I'm not talking about illusions or other such hocus pocus.
"psychology evidence"

bahahahahaha!!!

"Tell me Jesus, how does it feel to be on that cross?"

"Well, Dr. Freud, it really hurts. I think I'm developing a phobia of nails."

"Tell me about your mother..."

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62280
Dec 1, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
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 creationists 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. The headlines are not a misrepresentation of the data found before story telling is applied.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, woffle, rhetoric and pure speculation.
Not a word of the above has been successfully refuted.
I just picked your last one - it doesn't back up the claims you made.

It's an update on the state of affairs in discussion mutation rates. It doesn't talk about hoaxes, falsifications or anything that you falsely claim above.

Here's a quote from the middle of it:

"Geneticists have previously estimated mutation rates by comparing the human genome with the sequences of other primates. On the basis of species-divergence dates gleaned — ironically — from fossil evidence, they concluded that in human DNA, each letter mutates once every billion years.“It’s a suspiciously round number,” says Linda Vigilant, a molecular anthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. The suspicion turned out to be justified."

In other words, you made false, unsupported claims. Since you're a creationist, and given that creationists lie constantly, it's pretty tempting to conclude you did this on purpose. I'm not sure why you would, though, so I'll assume you just misread the article. Now that you know it doesn't back up your claim, we can reject your conclusion.

“Pepsi is better than coke”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

and better with rum

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62281
Dec 1, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
All of this has been refuted by myself and others. Your continuing to repeated long refuted notions is a symptom of either intellectual dishonesty or stupidity.
Ah. One of those people then.

You know, I've never met an honest creationist.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 58,261 - 58,280 of105,854
|
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.

251 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min Princess Hey 131,406
Missing Boy Found Safe ... in Toy Claw Machine 8 min Doc J 6
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 8 min David0407 136,092
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 14 min tallyho 33,412
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 17 min La Leche 16,397
Word Association. (Nov '10) 18 min Bezeer 15,562
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 18 min Reverse Cowgirl 3,694
clark county nevada rancher facing tyranny from... 20 min tallyho 127
Coffee with Pie! (Sep '08) 31 min Billy R 34,881
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 53 min Krypteia 11,586
Lets Ask Billy R! (May '12) 57 min AHarleyhoney 2,200
•••
•••
•••
•••