Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63803 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
It's too bad the archaic, pitch fork and torch carrying witchlike types haven't figured out-that mid-eVILE type of barbaric animalistic thoughtlessness--went out with the dark ages--and theoretically creationism AND evolution--CAN and DO exist, for MANY-- cohesively!!(as many Scientists who were known to be quite religious, as well as scientific, in the past, would verify in agreement).
By the way, no one, except for a few creatards here, is arguing that the theory of evolution disproves the existence of god. There are many Christians, Jews, and even Muslims that believe the theory of evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63804 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between mere animalistic behavior, and civilized society.
Civilized people can control themselves by litening to a little thing called conscience. Animals often can't.
Once again, why do you think that animals don't have a conscience? They have a different conscience than you do, though a lot of your reactions had to be taught to you also.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63805 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith should not be confused with history...or science.
SEE: EISTIEN.
Eistien?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63806 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I live in Cali
Cali, Colombia?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63807 Dec 7, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
While I don't disagree totally and I am in no way saying we shouldn't teach evolution nor am I saying don't teach creation.
When you have kids grade school to jr high who have been raised with parents who believe the creation story. Than a teacher tells them "no you your parents and anyone else who believes in creation is stupid we evolved" the kid is going to break one side or the other and it can drive a rift between parent and child or child to teacher. Rifts of mistrust can kill a relationship.
Unfortunately there are teachers with no sensitivity. Most are much better than that, and they just say here we are studying the theory of evolution, the way science understands it. It won't hurt to know what others think, even if you end up with a different opinion.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63808 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Remember Subby
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 hubris 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.
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. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, hubris, rhetoric and pure speculation.
Hence challenging my interpretation of the data only requires evos to hand wave the data away and turn it into an evolutionary consundrum. I can accept the data above for what it is whist you invent hand waving scenarios.
Actually all of those articles support the theory of evolution. They do not support creationism in any way.

Don't you know the baby Jebus cries when you lie?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63809 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference between mere animalistic behavior, and civilized society.
Civilized people can control themselves by litening to a little thing called conscience. Animals often can't.
They can't? That's news to the other animals:

http://desmoines.whotv.com/news/news/66311-ap...
http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/08/28/nat...

Even bats will help out their needy. So, you were lying what?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#63810 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Sooo...you like Eisntien? He's always been one of my favorites too!!
So, who the heck is Eisntien???

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#63811 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>There are many Christians, Jews, and even Muslims that believe the theory of evolution.
How could they not believe in evolution?

I mean the Bible itself puts dinosaurs co-habitating with man during the same period of time - kinda' like the Flinstones.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63812 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, why do you think that animals don't have a conscience? They have a different conscience than you do, though a lot of your reactions had to be taught to you also.
It's amazing actually, for so long we thought we were alone, we were not "one of them" ... and now we find that we are more alike to the other animals than we could have dreamed. We are not alone, we have plenty of family here, on Earth. Even reptiles exhibit the same emotional and caring responses a lot. Apes have psychotic individuals like we do. Birds use tools like makeshift shovels and spades to cultivate food. It's more fun to see what we thought was "human" behavior in the animals than it is to see the "animal" behavior of religious people.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#63813 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Check out some of the latest, MUCH more modern secular books some time--
For example, oh..one something like- the History of Israel and Judea.
Been a lot warring over there-just like some of those ancient books say---for a LONG long time!!
Yeah, the newer books about Israel and Judea are telling it like it is instead of trying to fit archaeology into a Biblical mode. The magical Exodus never happened.

Pretty soon there will be nothing left of the Pentateuch as it is disproven now.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63814 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, there are countless articles that affirm that Arcaheopteryx had hollow bones. Here's one:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Birds are dinosaurs.
You may now put that foot of yours further down your mouth. Your link says nothing about arch having hollow bones.

Instead it said.....

"Our research shows us that this is much more like a dinosaur than a modern bird," says Gregory Erickson of the Department of Biological Science at Florida State University in Tallahassee, and a lead author on the new report, which was published online yesterday in the journal PLoS ONE. By looking at the growth patterns in bone, Erickson and his colleagues were able to discover that Archaeopteryx had a slow and stilted growing period like other dinosaurs, and unlike modern birds, which "just explode into adult size," he explains.

Archaeopteryx's bones, including annual growth lines, small blood vessels and parallel bone cells, shared by other similar-size dinosaurs, such as the Jeholornis prima."

SO, ACTUALLY YOUR ARTICLE SUPPORTS ME.

Now how do you suppose these bright ones OBSERVED this? They didn't. Instead they got out their algorithmic magic, filled it with unkown and speculative insertion values still based on a predetermined connection.

This is also what it says....

"Despite the general similarities to modern birds—feathers, a beak and a wishbone—that led to its avian categorization in the first place, the Archaeopteryx "would be very foreign to bird-watchers today," Erickson says.

The headline is BYE BYE BIRDIE, New Look at Archaeopteryx Shows It Was More Dinosaur Than Bird .... Did you happen to read that?

Now this above is rubbish because Trex had feathers and arch did not 'evolve' the feathers as an intermedate step.

As for the wishbone, all you evos have avoided commentary on the fact that the dino wishbone, furcula, looks nothing at all like a bird wishbone.

As for the beak, this is another fraudulent misrepresentation to fool the public into thinking these researchers know what they are saying. In actual fact Arch's beak was no more similar to the beak dinos have and a plethora of other creatures share.

"The terms beak and rostrum are also used to refer to a similar mouthpart in some Ornithischian dinosaurs, monotremes, cephalopods (see Cephalopod beak), cetaceans, billfishes, pufferfishes, turtles, Anuran tadpoles and sirens."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beak

The reason why you evos cannot clearly dilineate a bird from a dinosaur is that you simply refuse to look at difference. You all are absolutely so indoctrinated into evolutionary theory that you are blind and look to all with evo goggles.

You one thing you 'know' from the fossil record and life today is that a plethora of creatues share many similar traits. One does not tell creatures apart by looking to the similarities, one looks to the differences which I also do. That is why I can be a heck of a lot clear in separating familial homological relationships and discontinuities than evos can.

Evos take these footprints and invent mythical theropods to explain them, backed by a plehtora of algorithmic magic that suggests conflicting results and claims that are hugely misrepresented.

I say again, on my point 3, I have fossilised evidence of modern bird footprints that display a reversed hallux and look exactly like modern bird footprints look like. That assertion is based on the science of observation. You have hubris and often non plausible hypothesis to explain them.

I manintain my 6 points in support of a creationist paradigm are certianly no worse, yet appear to be more rubust and credible than anything an evolutionist can provide in support of their view.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63815 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually all of those articles support the theory of evolution. They do not support creationism in any way.
Don't you know the baby Jebus cries when you lie?
So we are going to start again are we? That is your strategy?

How does a deteriorating genome support TOE again??????????

Oh that's right, YOU have NO idea!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63816 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You may now put that foot of yours further down your mouth. Your link says nothing about arch having hollow bones.
Instead it said.....
"Our research shows us that this is much more like a dinosaur than a modern bird," says Gregory Erickson of the Department of Biological Science at Florida State University in Tallahassee, and a lead author on the new report, which was published online yesterday in the journal PLoS ONE. By looking at the growth patterns in bone, Erickson and his colleagues were able to discover that Archaeopteryx had a slow and stilted growing period like other dinosaurs, and unlike modern birds, which "just explode into adult size," he explains.
Archaeopteryx's bones, including annual growth lines, small blood vessels and parallel bone cells, shared by other similar-size dinosaurs, such as the Jeholornis prima."
SO, ACTUALLY YOUR ARTICLE SUPPORTS ME.
Now how do you suppose these bright ones OBSERVED this? They didn't. Instead they got out their algorithmic magic, filled it with unkown and speculative insertion values still based on a predetermined connection.
This is also what it says....
"Despite the general similarities to modern birds—feathers, a beak and a wishbone—that led to its avian categorization in the first place, the Archaeopteryx "would be very foreign to bird-watchers today," Erickson says.
The headline is BYE BYE BIRDIE, New Look at Archaeopteryx Shows It Was More Dinosaur Than Bird .... Did you happen to read that?
Now this above is rubbish because Trex had feathers and arch did not 'evolve' the feathers as an intermedate step.
As for the wishbone, all you evos have avoided commentary on the fact that the dino wishbone, furcula, looks nothing at all like a bird wishbone.
As for the beak, this is another fraudulent misrepresentation to fool the public into thinking these researchers know what they are saying. In actual fact Arch's beak was no more similar to the beak dinos have and a plethora of other creatures share.
"The terms beak and rostrum are also used to refer to a similar mouthpart in some Ornithischian dinosaurs, monotremes, cephalopods (see Cephalopod beak), cetaceans, billfishes, pufferfishes, turtles, Anuran tadpoles and sirens."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beak
The reason why you evos cannot clearly dilineate a bird from a dinosaur is that you simply refuse to look at difference. You all are absolutely so indoctrinated into evolutionary theory that you are blind and look to all with evo goggles.
You one thing you 'know' from the fossil record and life today is that a plethora of creatues share many similar traits. One does not tell creatures apart by looking to the similarities, one looks to the differences which I also do. That is why I can be a heck of a lot clear in separating familial homological relationships and discontinuities than evos can.
Evos take these footprints and invent mythical theropods to explain them, backed by a plehtora of algorithmic magic that suggests conflicting results and claims that are hugely misrepresented.
I say again, on my point 3, I have fossilised evidence of modern bird footprints that display a reversed hallux and look exactly like modern bird footprints look like. That assertion is based on the science of observation. You have hubris and often non plausible hypothesis to explain them.
I manintain my 6 points in support of a creationist paradigm are certianly no worse, yet appear to be more rubust and credible than anything an evolutionist can provide in support of their view.
Learn to read:

"or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63817 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Edited to remove shabby thinking, lies, erroneous misinformation and fantasy denial.
When can no longer learn, then one is lost. Mas Here is lost here and there and everywhere.
But do not fear, Maz Here is a mad hare and happy with her lies to bear.
Something is out of whack in the Outback.
Reason is put assunder in the Land Down Under.
But of fear we still have no cause.
There remain many intelligent people in the Land of Oz.
It is just that not as many of them seem to post here.
With apologies to Blue Nose and others.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63818 Dec 7, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's amazing actually, for so long we thought we were alone, we were not "one of them" ... and now we find that we are more alike to the other animals than we could have dreamed. We are not alone, we have plenty of family here, on Earth. Even reptiles exhibit the same emotional and caring responses a lot. Apes have psychotic individuals like we do. Birds use tools like makeshift shovels and spades to cultivate food. It's more fun to see what we thought was "human" behavior in the animals than it is to see the "animal" behavior of religious people.
That would be because despite all the rhetoric and similarity many non closely related species share, only mankind, a furless, obligate bipedal primate, can make meaning of the world and conceive the concept of a God and afterlife. Despite sign language a fur laiden ape will never conceive of a God, no matter how many generations of signing you evoke.

The mind of God is where we refect the likeness of God, not in the limbs tetrapods and whales are supposed to share which is ridiculous, nor the neural spindles primates share with whales and nothing in between.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#63819 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So we are going to start again are we? That is your strategy?
How does a deteriorating genome support TOE again??????????
Oh that's right, YOU have NO idea!
Wouldn't a deteriorating genome cast doubt on a creater? Unless he was a creator as ingnorant and evil as you.

Does God then, have a deteriorating genome?

Biblical creation does not line up with the fossil record and nothing you have posted so far cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

But you keep trying dear, and one day those voices in your head will stop screaming.
Anonymous

UK

#63820 Dec 7, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> What do you mean?
Are you indirectly or directly saying that Christianity are not in the majority in the UK ?
No, Britain, like most of Europe and America is Christian, celebrates Christmas and Easter, but people don't pray or go to church like they used to, and we don't have the fundamentalists who preach hate about homosexuals or abortion, we don't have many creationists, but Britain is still culturally a Christian country, even if most people dont believe these days

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63821 Dec 7, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn to read:
"or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."
YOU learn to read and comprehend together like a human being is supposed to be able to do. This is what the article says...

"Modern birds—or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."

IOW.. Modern birds HAVE a DIFFERENT set of traits, including hollow bones than their predecessors, eg Arch. In my other article ARCH HAS A DIFFERENT GROWTH RATE TO BIRDS and LIKE DINOSAURS.

ARCH DID NOT HAVE HOLLOW BONES, you and the rest of the gaggle of geese! Nor did it have a furcula that looked anything like a modern bird, nor are feathers solely an avian trait, nor are dino beaks, and the entirely of evolutionary theory is based on ROT, yet my 6 points stand strong.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63822 Dec 7, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Wouldn't a deteriorating genome cast doubt on a creater? Unless he was a creator as ingnorant and evil as you.
Does God then, have a deteriorating genome?
Biblical creation does not line up with the fossil record and nothing you have posted so far cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
But you keep trying dear, and one day those voices in your head will stop screaming.
Well if you disagree then you will start posting more than you opinion and articulate why I am wrong.

It has taken weeks to get you evo idiots to start talking science instead of hubris and now after a quick and failed jolst you are back to your hubris with nothing not a link to be seen.

The deteriorating genome supports 2 claims, 1. the fall of man and 2. that life could not have been 'evolving' for billions of years due to the cost. That I have supported with data that DOES say the genome is deteriorating and then goes on to evoke hubris based on nothing more than algorithmic magical hand waving to explain it.

If you disagree then get that lazy ass and head working and come up with something more than 'quack quack'.

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
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 5 min andet1987 40,736
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min SLY WEST 152,569
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 9 min andet1987 24,799
Woman Plagued With Stuffy Nosefor 18 Years 12 min Spotted Girl 2
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 12 min andet1987 1,093
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 15 min Scarbelly Bob 19
Goats Milk with Princess (Jan '10) 15 min okimar 46,363
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 1 hr andet1987 2,904
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr beatlesinafog 7,640
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 2 hr Will Dockery 24,144
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr -Persephone- 25,760
More from around the web