Evolution vs. Creation

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

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63061 Dec 4, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF is this?
I really will give credit to you all. I don't know how you can debate with someone like this. I would find bashing my head into a brick wall to be more enjoyable.
They are all like that. Look at the posts of MazHere, Knightmare, Charles Idemi, Occapi paquia (whatever) and many more.

It is like arguing with the cast of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

There does seem to be a method to some of the madness, though it is well managed.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63062 Dec 4, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely?
Yes.

However, I would check into that relative stupidity thing and move to the state that provides you the most. Do you think a red state or a blue state? Maybe another country perhaps.

You ponder that a while and get back to us.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63063 Dec 4, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but when truth is relative and not really absolute...
So Jesus isn't the son of God and savior? The Bible isn't the literal word of God? There was no Adam and Eve? There was no Noah and a Worldwide flood with a boat full of stinky, tired, filthy animals and the creatures they brought along with them.

Is truth only relative when it is the truth you don't subscribe to?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63064 Dec 4, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you hate kittens, Maz?
Also, sympathies with our cricket team DEMOLISHING YOURS IN THE THIRD TEST!!
Apart from Kitten on here I like kittens and hate girley games like cricket.

I do like evolutionists that evade science, like most here. That gives me joolies for the day.

A couple gave it a shot for a couple of posts, failed miserably, and now you want to talk about kittens.

For starters. Why don't you evos tell us how arch is not an intermediate anything. Arch is a variety of dinosaur and has theropod traits, like a thick and boomerang shaped wish bone that looks nothing like a bird wishbone, what so ever.

I think evolutionaruy researchers need to get new evogoggles.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63065 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So in your unbiased, expert opinion, those footprints are of modern birds made 212 mya. Do you have any further insight on this to further illuminate this issue? No? I thought not.
1. The origin and creation of these footprints are still under scrutiny and nothing conclusive has yet been found.
2. There is excitement about such finds, but no confusion.
3. Scientist are hardly shocked when new evidence comes along to adjust and fine tune the timelines associated with the evolutionary development of life on Earth.
4. Whether these findings fit the findings of noted avian biologist and paleontologist Dr. MazHere or not, they will not change the theory of evolution.
This is what you call a drowning man reaching for any straw that floats by to save himself. In this case the drowning man is MazHere and the anti-evolution creationists.
I suspect most people stop repsonding to you because doing so becomes pointless to them after awhile. I agree with them, but I believe you must endure the pointless and ignorant, because ignoring them lets their disease spread.
You may not that my siz points are accompanied by research to support my view.

You and evo researchers are as blind a rock and about as clever. There is no concern on my part about what the footprints look like.

It is your reseachers that have to scratch around like a gaggle of geese and poof them into something that saves your bird paradigm from falsification, again.

You have offered your opinion which amounts to hubris.

Your reserchers are more confused than ever they were and everything I have spoken to demonstrtes it from the deteriorating genome, to their crap about junk dna, to their changing of definitions to suit the data, to TOE's misrepresentation of genomic and fossil evidence.

Evolutionists remain gobsmacked as their flavours of the month turn to rot.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#63066 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So Jesus isn't the son of God and savior? The Bible isn't the literal word of God? There was no Adam and Eve? There was no Noah and a Worldwide flood with a boat full of stinky, tired, filthy animals and the creatures they brought along with them.
Is truth only relative when it is the truth you don't subscribe to?
Well, that last question is actually implied in my posts...

So Darwin never existed? Darwin's theories were only meant as fiction? There really is no missing link?

The universe didn't just pop into existence out of nothing because a piece of dust had nothing to do?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63067 Dec 4, 2012
See the difference between hubris and supporting an assertion.

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. 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 hubris 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 hubris 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.

Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by the hubris needed to explain the data.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63068 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So Jesus isn't the son of God and savior? The Bible isn't the literal word of God? There was no Adam and Eve? There was no Noah and a Worldwide flood with a boat full of stinky, tired, filthy animals and the creatures they brought along with them.
Is truth only relative when it is the truth you don't subscribe to?
Too bad for you evos that data suggests the species on earth had a single male and female common ancestor. The evidence for any cohorts has amazingly disappeared out of the genome.

Once again that is what even biased data indicates and evos have to evoke their evolutionary ASSUMPTION of cohorts to explain the data away.

The data supports a creationist paradigm. Hubris supports TOE.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63069 Dec 4, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
The nation Israel was a man-made creation by the United Nations in 1948. You can post all you like that there was a Great Flood, sadly archaeology does not agree with you. There were a series of flods in a variety of areas. They do not tie together, indeed some are separated by over 1,000 years. If you want to take the bible as a literal work, these are the sort of problems that arise. As a book of faith, no difficulty, but as a book of facts, no chance.
Oh! so, you mean the people were also created in 1948.
Listen, Israel as a nation has been in existence for the past millennium. It was the Romans that destroyed the nation, and renamed it Palestine.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63070 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
See the difference between hubris and supporting an assertion.
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. 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 hubris 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 a 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 hubris 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 the hubris needed to explain the data.
Dan, I think TOE should be excluded from science streams and put in with philosophies. TOE is a philosophy of faith that is suppported by misrepresentation and hubris.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63071 Dec 4, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Better tell that to Einstein, so he knows his theory of relativity doesn't hold water. After all, he did not have faith.
Faith is not limited to religion. It is all embracing. God welcomes and accepts good things.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63072 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not that my siz points are accompanied by research to support my view.
You and evo researchers are as blind a rock and about as clever. There is no concern on my part about what the footprints look like.
It is your reseachers that have to scratch around like a gaggle of geese and poof them into something that saves your bird paradigm from falsification, again.
You have offered your opinion which amounts to hubris.
Your reserchers are more confused than ever they were and everything I have spoken to demonstrtes it from the deteriorating genome, to their crap about junk dna, to their changing of definitions to suit the data, to TOE's misrepresentation of genomic and fossil evidence.
Evolutionists remain gobsmacked as their flavours of the month turn to rot.
Noted it, I have gone out of my way to show how you mischaracterize the use of these references.

It is always amusing to be judge stupid by a complete moron. You have me laughing again.

Bird paradigm? This is part of your misuse of the references. You have never gone into detail about how and what would result if these turn out to be truly the footprints of modern-like birds. You have gagged on a length about how it will destroy the theory of evolution, but with no substance to support that.

No, I have clearly called you out for your missuse of a few selected articles that do not do what you claim they do. I don't really need to offer supporting papers to do that.

You have offered your opinion, which amounts to brain damaged nonsense.

Yours is a typical trick used to overwhelm a solid position. Make a great deal of noise about nothing and misdirect the argument away from the main points. You aren't doing anything new or original. It was easy to catch and now you are flopping around trying to get back into the water so you can swim away.

No, all you have demonstrated is that you have become aware, probably through some organization that feeds you your opinion, about some possibly interesting data at the cutting edge of research. In doing so, you have demonstrated your piss poor understanding of science, the theory of evolution and even how to read and interepret your own references.

Now, declare victory and move along.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63073 Dec 4, 2012
You're changing the goalposts, Charles. We were talking about *English*, not "Modern English".
*English* includes *Old English*.
To answer the question of where *English* originated, you have to answer the question of where *Old English* originated.
That's the question you keep avoiding, Charles. That's why you keep moving the goalposts.
Charles Idemi wrote:
No. You are the one not getting the clue, are we speaking old English today or modern English?
The question isn't relevant.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Old English was started by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes
When?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63074 Dec 4, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The fall of mankind when the first man disobeyed our Creator
What "Creator" was that?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63075 Dec 4, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Our Creator has the power to create a new universe and earth where their are no flaws and death
So why not simply do that to begin with?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63076 Dec 4, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF is this?
I really will give credit to you all. I don't know how you can debate with someone like this. I would find bashing my head into a brick wall to be more enjoyable.
I know what you mean.

Evolutionists are so clever they can't distinguish between data and hubris. Creos need the patience of a saint to deal with them.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63077 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan, I think TOE should be excluded from science streams and put in with philosophies. TOE is a philosophy of faith that is suppported by misrepresentation and hubris.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory supported by 150 years of carefully reviewed, research. Every attempt to refute it has been met with failure. It is the basis of modern biology.

You can think anything you want. It is clear you don't mind being completely wrong about a subject.

You are using a tried and tired technique of taking the newest, least understood scientific findings and without review, understanding or care, calling them the club that will bring the whole theory down. On top of that you don't even understand that, that is what you are doing. Or worse, you don't care.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63078 Dec 4, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, a fact that is untrue is not a fact, it is a fiction. Not too hot on what the word fact actually means, are you?
fact
[fakt]
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law.. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
Copied and pasted from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact just to hepl you out.
A simple one:
It is a fact that if you don't read and study, you might fail. But in reality or truth that can never be true, because you might get assistance from friends or colleagues, to reverse the failure to progress.
Hence the difference.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63079 Dec 4, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
Why are the people of England alone, are called the English?
Because they are from England.

It has nothing to do with the language they speak.

Guess what you call a person who can't speak English but who was born in England and who uses British Sign Language?

You call them "English".

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#63080 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
See the difference between hubris and supporting an assertion (etc, etc...)
Repeating this discredited nonsense makes it no more convincing.

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*** (Jan '10) 3 min say it aint so 78,580
One word~~multiple meanings! (Oct '13) 3 min andet1987 747
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 4 min say it aint so 9,663
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 6 min andet1987 417
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 7 min say it aint so 5,277
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 10 min Mechanic 1,326
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 11 min andet1987 1,231
Word Association (Jun '10) 23 min dragoon70056 27,017
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 28 min dragoon70056 262
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 29 min Hatti_Hollerand 8,147
motorcycle traveling stories 48 min Beautiful Black M... 42
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr dragoon70056 40,019
More from around the web