Evolution vs. Creation

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

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63496 Dec 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What questions?
I am not lying because I can present evidence to suport my view and all you obviously can provide is evasion and questions.
Archeopteryx is not an intermediate anything because all it cited intermediate traits are actually theropod traits.
I have posted a link that shows speaks to it. That is the latest flavour of the month from your researchers. Would you like me to post it again?
Feathers are found on dinosaurs,TRex has a furcula and the dino furcula looks nothing like a bird wish bone.
None of you simpletons are even brave enough to comment on the FACTS above. Evasion is a key evo strategy.
What is intermediate? I see no intermediacy at all. I have demonstrated why arch is not intermediate and all you can do is gobble about your fictious posts that contain little more than babble.
As for whales. The fact is that the carbon dating on the bones gave inconsistent results possibly due to contamination. That is what the link said and what many references to these whale bones state. That is a fact. Researchers have no explantion as to how the whale bones got there. That is also a stated fact. Rising water levels and all sorts of things can throw dating off and if you were not such a boofhead you would know that. That is just one of the flaws in carbon dating.
The whale bones were found in a geological area dated to over 290mya. That is also a fact you have no and cannot refute. There are no dinosaur fosils in Michagan and evos suggest ice sheets stripped them away. Not that I'd expect you know anything like that. That is still a fact.
What's worse for evos is that you have a huge fraudulent misrepresentation that is presented to the public in your glossy whale evolution pictures. So you evos have NO evidence for your whale evolution theory other than fraudulent misrepresentation.
The facts have been supported by research and articles from your own evolutionists. If you deny them then state which ones you deny and I will repost the link and demonstrate what an ignorant boof you are. Yiu cannot escape the facts, one can only interpret them according to their underlying assumptions.
All you can do is be ignorant along with Subby and Kong, pose challenges and then run away.
Show me this mythical evidence of intermediacy in archeopteryx or shut up. God only knows how much you lot gobble on about it.
You are addressing one of my 6 points. You are not doing well.
Hi Maz, I see you are avoiding my questions, posted here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

But here it is again:

Want to talk science, Maz? Okay, let's talk science. Answer these questions, if you please:

1) You believe in gravity, right? Tell us, in a single sentence, why the Earth does not pull the Earth towards it? How is the moon able to stay in the sky?

2) When digging for dinosaurs, why do I have to go down into deeper strata to find them? Why will I not find a dinosaur in the same strata than say, a lion, elephant or oryx?

3) When we radiometrically test the strata, why do we get more severe decay the deeper we do down?

4) GPS has allowed us to confirm that the continents are moving - at about 1-2 inches per year. Africa and South America's coast lines has a matching geologic profile - that implies that they were together at one stage in time. At the current rate of motion, the continents would have split up 97 million years ago. Do you have any other explanation that fit the facts?

5) Also by using the wonders of GPS technology, we measure that Everest is getting higher every year. Please, give a brief explanation of why

6) Take distilled water, put it into the microwave for about 5 minutes and add a spoonful of sugar. What would happen?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63497 Dec 6, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You can easily find the answer on google.
The core of computing is binary encoding. The premise is that each of the transistor switches is either on of off, represented by 1 or 0. Each bit is a BInary digiT.
Each of these switches is more-or-less useless on its own. However, you can arrange them in a sequence to get some logic.
Humans use hexadecimal representation as a form of shorthand for binary. That's a 16-base number system that goes from 0-9 then a-f, then rolls over from 0f to 10.
When you write a computer program, the compiler converts your code into opcode, a hex representation of the binary stream. The CPU interprets the opcodes and follows the program, manipulating bits in the accumulator section. In other words, it reads the binary code and uses that code to switch bits on and off in its "brain". The outgoing data is then sent to various locations in the computer, such as to the sound card, video card, hard disk, RAM, etc. You can do this by mapping each location to a virtual location in the computer. For example, you could set the address 0x2000 to be the sound card, and when you write the data 0x5e41 to 0x2000, the sound card will interpret that data and put out an analog signal to the speakers. You could also read the data at location 0x3000 to see what's on that location in the hard drive.
Plagiarism? Shame on you!

This bit was stolen from here:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_computers_us...

Another giveaway that you have no academic background. No scholar worth his salt will EVER plagiarise the work of ANYONE. I would even go as far as referencing the writer of a song when repeating a lyric.

So, we now know that you do not know the answer to the question and that you had to look it up.

Now my question is this: Do you believe the writer of the piece you plagiarised? How do you know that he/her/they have any kind of clue how a computer works?

Let me answer: You can reference it. You can go on wikipedia, you can go on howstuffworks, or talk to computer engineers and you can verify them as source.

My point: In being adamant that we need to understand every discipline involved in the Theory of Evolution, yet you use the computer while not being able to understandstand its inner workings, makes you a rather stupid-looking hypocrite

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63498 Dec 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The land form rose above the sea over 290 million years ago. The rest is speculative prattle.
They say not all was above simply because of the whale bones in one explanation. IOW they have speculated parts of the geology based on evolutionary assumptions and nothing more.
IOW the simplicity of these fossils simply being there because that is where they were when the land rose is just too simple for evos and it wrecks their TOE on whales totally. No dino fossils is also explained by your researchers who say they were dragged away by ice sheets. Meaning the land must have sunk or the sea rise above the land form since the last ice age. Der!!!
So whether you like it or not, accept the interpretattion or not, Michagan rose above the sea over 290mya and that is where the whale fossils were found. The rubbish about rising seas is another of many explanations, sounds more like a desperate bedtime story.
Evos hate pasimony and love comlications and will turn any evidence for creation into a mysrery with their hubris.
The other side of the coin is that evolutionists only have fraudulent misreprentation as their support for whale ancestry.
Hence again I say, that no support I provide for my view could possibly be worse than what evolutionists have to present.
The data, whale bones found in strata over 290myo, is hand waved away by numerous hand waving and complicated scenarios, as usual.
HAhahahaha!

290 million year old bone!

Maz, can you define this term for us:

Fossil

Methinks that you have been fed crap, and were to dumb to realise it

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63499 Dec 6, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
And one of the of closest dinosaur ancestors to birds is what? T, Rex
FYI every stage in evolution is an intermediate trait
Yep, the tyrannosaur family were the only ones we mapped thus far. Methinks if we were to take a smaller therapod, like velociraptor, Troodon, Compsognathus, or Shenzoraptor, we would find an even more definite link between therapod and bird.

Problem is that dino DNA is not really easy to come by. To say it is as scarce as hen's teeth is an understatement

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63500 Dec 6, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't quite get the "all embracing" part. At best, I gather that here we are only considering absolute faith, nothing less, even though weaker faith is also common.
OK, yes, mostly it has to do with expectation, I agree. For instance, if my light switch worked the last hundred times, I would have faith (confident expectation) that it would work one more time. That would be an example of belief in something not yet seen.(Doesn't matter that I saw it work before, I haven't seen the next attempt yet.)
Although I can think of a case where it is not a matter of expectation:
"I have faith that the sun rose at the correct time yesterday morning."
or "I have faith that Joshua's army killed every man, woman and child in Jericho except the relatives of the prostitutes." The first case perhaps being informed by my general faith in the science of the motions of the solar system, and the second case perhaps due to my trust in authority. Although perhaps it is still a matter of expectation, the one that I will not be disabused of that faith by evidence that might come to my attention later.
I can understand the association with determination, but not that determination, no matter how strongly motivated, is always unstoppable. That's only a romantic view of great determination. Such is another issue however.
Got your point. Without Faith on the part of Faraday, there would be no electricity, talk of having light for switching on and off( bulb or globe).

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63501 Dec 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The link is useless and does not identify what it has dated.
As I said the land form is over 290myo and numerous stories around the whale bones have been invented to save the evolutionary day.
This is the article abstrats of the link cited.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j....
We know that the tectonic setting of Indiana has remained relatively stable for the last 650 million years because the rocks are still relatively flat and undisturbed. The rocks do however change in thickness across the state. This is because they were deposited in low spots called basins and over high spots called arches . Indiana is bridged by an arch that stretches from the southeast corner of the state to the northwest corner. This arch is called the "Kankakee" arch and is a gentle bend or curve in the bedrock. This arch separates two basins located in the northeast and southwest portions of the state. These basins are round depressions or bowls in the bedrock that collected sediments as they were generated by marine animals or washed in from other sources. Within Indiana these two basins are called the Michigan and Illinois basins (see figure to the right).
The youngest bedrock formations that occur in Indiana are 290 million years old.
http://igs.indiana.edu/Bedrock/tectonic.cfm
Ah Maz. So we read your abstract. Where is the bit we want to see? "Whale bone found in 290 million year old strata"?
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm off for a couple days interstate with work. Catch you in a couple of days.
Try not to get crabs
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#63502 Dec 6, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
Well at least one of our partners in freedom has logical leadership. From the UK Guardian newspaper.
News that the government (UK) will mandate every new free school "to make provision for the teaching of evolution as a comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced theory" is the furthest a British government has ever gone to counter the threat of pseudoscientific creationist beliefs being taught in our state schools. It will be welcomed by all who are working for a rational and evidence-based school curriculum and sends a clear signal that Britain is not willing to go the way of countries like the *United States* or Romania, which have seen creationist advances in state schools fan the flames of culture wars. It follows an equally welcome move by the government in June, when it published its draft of a new primary national curriculum including modules on "evolution and inheritance" for children aged eight to nine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belie...
What must the United States do to rid ourselves of this blight (creationism) on humanity?
UH,,,They used to feed people who truly believe in God to the lions, but I recken they can't get away with those practices now days .......

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63503 Dec 6, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Oh crap, I almost forgot the very important trait that KittenKoder's post reminded me of( sorry to end a sentence with a preposition, hey wait, now I didn't!)
Maz, did Apatosaurus have hollow bones?
Do birds have hollow bones?
Can you guess the next question?
Did Stegosaurs have spiky tails?

Do birds currently have spiky tails?

Ha!

:P

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63504 Dec 6, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You have evidence of modern birds that predate Archaeopteryx? You better get that published.
Is this part of your avian ecology research program or part of your vertebrate paleontology research efforts?
I'd like you to meet another protobird, Anchiornis Huxleyi, currently the darling of the paleontologic community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis

This may have have been an ancestor to animals like Archaeopteryx! This predates Archaeopteryx by about 10 million years.

Also very primitive, they might have been able to glide with those small wings.

HOWEVER, by far and away the biggest breakthrough this little specimen brough us, is that fact that we were able to isolate fossilised pigmentation in its feathers!(I didn't even know that pigmentation CAN fossilise)

So an expert went and studied the shape of pigmentation and compared it to modern-day pigmentation found in feathers.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/...

I think for anyone who knows anything about dinosaurs, this little piece of fine research made them sit up. I know that it made me choke on my tea.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63505 Dec 6, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for answer I googled it for you, k?
binary code = series of numbers 1 and 0
the computer converts letters into numbers
BTW, this is red herring. Why are we talking about computers?
And what was your last question again?
I posed the question.

Why are you adamant that we ourselves must know everything about every field related to Evolution? We have demonstrated, neatly, that you are able to use a computer, without understanding jacksh*t about its inner workings

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63506 Dec 6, 2012
It started here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Bat Foy wrote:
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Here was your reply to it:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
cell fawn. lol
You clearly did not recognise that the poster was ignorant about the subject matter.

The issue was settled, of course, by our dear Madrone:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Cells don't reproduce sexually.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63507 Dec 6, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but there are many things the human brain can do that computers can't.
Not yours, though
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#63508 Dec 6, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm still looking to understand what people who claim "faith" in God, Jesus or whatever, mean by it. I figure I might be able to make at least a plausible case for some kind of God out there, and I might suspect that it was correct, but I wouldn't phrase it as faith. More likely I'd apply the word "faith" to my confidence in a light switch that had served me well already 10,000 times.
I know many people of "faith" who don't carry a lot of the baggage that the current wave of born-twicers do, and whose lives are much less messed up than those of many sceptics I know. I only wish there were an easy philosophical key to dealing with life. My experience is that religion is more like skin colour -- rather superficial to the innate personality.
As far as spying on people goes, I'm convinced that as many or more "liberal" or even non-believer politicians rationalize their need for warrantless spying as the other side does. It seems to me to be a moral failure along a different axis.
Ah! Nobody says that the need to trust in voyeurism alone is unique to conservatives.

All people who are faith zealots really have one thing in common. They live by a lifestyle of mimicry and the dark places they can't control are filled by rationalization. The most common form of rationalization usually entails a system where like-minded individuals engage in a "one hand washing the other" form of social interaction. Many people rationalize their selfishness by the act of marriage because the majority already feel that marriage entitles them to something extra.

In Charles manifestation of "faith", that option has obviously eluded him, although I suspect he still wishes to exploit it. In the mean time, he feels a great need to vindicate his will to be selfish. Of course, he thinks he needs to tap into a supernatural manifestation of the super-ego and patriarchal authority.

Too bad for him. The Christian church provides a role for his type, but it is roughly equivalent to the role of the suicidal, bomb carrying terrorist. The Church places much higher value in fraudulent female authority, nurturing a quieter myth around a secretive mythology of magical powers of intuition and the body.

The Science community does not find itself obstructed as much by that type of snake oil, but they probably should. That's where you'll find the liberal elements of shamanism, and tolerating it enables the masculine elements of church brainwashing to go unchecked.

I'd like to think that there are genuinely good-natured elements to Christianity, but I just don't see it. For the most part, they are just as much the cynical, low-paid mercenaries of a bureaucracy as the political parties are. All of those bureaucracies seek power and control through a cultural Ponzi scam that was maxed out years ago, so they seek to extract every last dime from the non-believers before turning on their own. It's just the sign of something that's outlived its purpose.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Bay of Fundy

#63509 Dec 6, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>UH,,,They used to feed people who truly believe in God to the lions, but I recken they can't get away with those practices now days .......
Yes, the Romans did feed Christians to the lions occasionally, but when Constantine legalized Christianity in the realm the Christians payed the Romans back in a very big way. Christianity started out just as evilly as Islam is today.

Many Christians today are finagling to bring religion back in control of civilization, they're called Dominionist and for a while they controlled most of the Republican Party.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Bay of Fundy

#63510 Dec 6, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe we should settle for more and better airtight compartmentalization. I notice that in daily life it works pretty well; if only the politicians would leave it alone.
Good point bud.

Do you think the creationists can be persuaded to say off of school boards and completely out of politics?

We could register all the confessed YEC's and keep them under control

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Bay of Fundy

#63511 Dec 6, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> What does one man or a few set of people going to speak against the existence of the most high.
Don't waste your time on that, because no one has ever succeeded doing that.
Ah my friend you don't understand the pure joy I receive from exposing the lie of religion to the believer.

And it IS all a big lie.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63512 Dec 6, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah my friend you don't understand the pure joy I receive from exposing the lie of religion to the believer.
And it IS all a big lie.
No cause for alarm my friend. Let us just watch and see who the liar will be.
As i have said earlier, many before you, have done more than that, but today, they are the soil of the earth. No one can beat God.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#63513 Dec 6, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Just didn't explain myself well...not to get upset my friend.

The country was set up so that religion did not control law and policy making. There was no national religion, like Sweden for instance.

In America many sects existed, but none were "officially" endorsed.

From what I understand the only reason many of the founders espoused religion was they could get killed if they disagreed too much. Religion is like that you know.

They still want it to be that way if you listen to the redneck creotards that clog many reply pages on some websites.

Religion is dangerous no matter which one you are talking about
I live in Texas and have never heard anyone say anything about killing people for not believing in God. This may be because I tend to not hang out with morons.
Abolishing religion would be just as wrong as abolishing science.
Even if it weren't what would you say should be done with the creationists of the world? Should they be fined, jailed, executed?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63514 Dec 6, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Plagiarism? Shame on you!
This bit was stolen from here:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_computers_us...
Another giveaway that you have no academic background. No scholar worth his salt will EVER plagiarise the work of ANYONE. I would even go as far as referencing the writer of a song when repeating a lyric.
So, we now know that you do not know the answer to the question and that you had to look it up.
Now my question is this: Do you believe the writer of the piece you plagiarised? How do you know that he/her/they have any kind of clue how a computer works?
Let me answer: You can reference it. You can go on wikipedia, you can go on howstuffworks, or talk to computer engineers and you can verify them as source.
My point: In being adamant that we need to understand every discipline involved in the Theory of Evolution, yet you use the computer while not being able to understandstand its inner workings, makes you a rather stupid-looking hypocrite
what did I plagiarize when I simply said you can simply find an answer on Google! You are really dumb. You evos just like to insult because when asked for REAL evidence you got none. You just resort to ad homs. How sad.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#63515 Dec 6, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, no to this one. You are referring to learnt berhaviour, not some propensity to sin that is there at birth. Those abused are more likely to abuse because they are socialised into that behavioural pattern. Likewise with "becoming your parents". Addiction is more complex - it would seem that there are some with a greater likelihood to having addictive personalities, just as there are some with mental illness who become dangerous. However, if this was something universal, it would apply to all, not just to a limited number. Don't think religion has anything to do with it, but since I'm not a psychiatrist, not qualified to judge.
My point is our children see what we do and they imitate us. Not always 100% of the time but they do. My kids will know about God and already pray and seek him out. My son wants to be a mechanic because I was my daughter wants to be an accountant because my wife is. They both want to have 2 kids and go to college because my wife and I did. I understand that life may get in the way of their dreams an goals but they follow me as I lead them.

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
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 4 min tiger_-_dad 137,722
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 5 min Vector aka Victor... 29,387
Word Association (Jun '10) 7 min Kid_Tomorrow 26,336
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 7 min Grace Nerissa 24,120
2 Arrested In State Fair Armed Robbery 11 min Christaliban 1
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 12 min Chilli J 20,197
Cops: Wash. Man Posed as Policeman ... for 25 Y... 13 min Christaliban 3
What's your tip for the day? 34 min ms_Sweeter 1,052
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Kid_Tomorrow 147,094
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr Fred Bear 5,604
I Like..... (Mar '14) 2 hr Hatti_Hollerand 306
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••