Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63924 Dec 8, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought the current creationist hypothesis was that the human genome was deteriorating at an alarming rate. Doesn't mutation cause a loss of information, turning more and more DNA into useless noise? Shouldn't it be expected that there will be a not-insignificant portion of the human genome that is... well,'junk?'
No! Deterioration does not result in non coding dna.

For example the deterioration of the human male Y chromosome relates to the loss of genes, not the accumulation of junk.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MensHealthNews/s...

Indeed evolutionists just go with the flow and don't care as they can invent any story as they go along. You have a philosophy, not a science.

Your irrefuteable evidence for TOE in junk dna has been sent to that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past full of what once upon a time was evidence.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63925 Dec 8, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Freakshow.....the tales are true. That's why your ass is even here. Give credit when credit is due. You reject God, then you are nothing but a fool of common nature. A leaf on a tree which you say evolved. God starts with the very basics, for we were simply, humans.
Many evos believe in God. If they have got that right, they may even understand Him way better than you do.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63926 Dec 8, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, so, some chunk of the genome must therefore be useless by now, right?
Stop chasing your tail in desperation. I have just spoken to evidence that suggests 100% of the genome is functional. Deterioration does not amount to junk or useless dna.

You evos were wrong, so man up and handle it.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63927 Dec 8, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholicism is the opposite of Christian.
Nope, Catholicism is the opposite of Mormon.
Tyler in _______

Flourtown, PA

#63928 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop chasing your tail in desperation. I have just spoken to evidence that suggests 100% of the genome is functional. Deterioration does not amount to junk or useless dna.
You evos were wrong, so man up and handle it.
So when you say deterioration, you mean genes just disappear, not that they get scrambled or randomized? Where does mutation fit in then? Does it result in equivalent information? If not, does the lost information become 'junk' or just vanish?

I have so many questions! It's okay if you can't answer all of them, not everyone's a creation biologist.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63929 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

Although I class creationism as a philosophy like TOE, creationism appears to be built on better foundations than TOE.
I classify both as theories, not but not as philosophies.
Tyler in _______

Flourtown, PA

#63930 Dec 8, 2012
Also, does that mean the human genome was actually longer in the past and is gradually shrinking?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63931 Dec 8, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I was wrong I was using second hand info from something I heard years ago I'm sorry.
One of your better traits, I give you props for being strong enough to admit you were wrong, most don't want to admit this because they actually think it even means anything. What Adolf was, really has no bearing on what other people do, it's truly a non-issue, as are all such historical characters. Stalin too, a deconverted christian, who eliminated religion in a very heinous manner simply because the threatened his government's power, for example. It has no bearing on how other atheists and deconverts are, it has no bearing on christians either, he's a perfect example because he was ... everything. So if one person can make a whole group look bad, Stalin screwed humanity forever.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63932 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop chasing your tail in desperation. I have just spoken to evidence that suggests 100% of the genome is functional. Deterioration does not amount to junk or useless dna.
You evos were wrong, so man up and handle it.
You love using terms and concepts made up only by creationists. Sadly, that seems to be all you use.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#63933 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Stop chasing your tail in desperation. I have just spoken to evidence that suggests 100% of the genome is functional. Deterioration does not amount to junk or useless dna.
You evos were wrong, so man up and handle it.
Are you claiming that our genome is deteriorating without losing function? Can you explain?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63934 Dec 8, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
I classify both as theories, not but not as philosophies.
Creationism is not a theory, it is simply a blind assertions. A scientific theory requires at least a working model, which creationism does not have. this working model has to be built from facts and ideas which were brought to light by facts, like the fact that things evolve leading eventually to us formulating a workable model of how things evolve, why they do, and what impact it has on them. Creationism doesn't have that. The data has to be follow, not forced, it also has to be testable, repeatable, and demonstrable, some combination of the three or preferably all three. Creationism has none of that. A theories mechanisms and laws must be well defined, no ambiguity, and must be understood by everyone the same way. Good luck getting that from any creationism supporter.

The theory of evolution was formulated to explain the fact of evolution, it contains a workable model that has predictive capabilities which assist other branches of scientific research, and is indispensable to all branches of medical science today.

Creationism has three words, "god dun it," and that's it. It's neither beneficial, testable, reproducible, or in any way helpful, it's a non-answer to a concept that's not even qualified to be called a hypothesis, it's not even a guess, it's nothing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63935 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I can do better than that. I can claim that idiot evos are handing me creationist evidence on a silver platter then inventing hand waves to sticky tape your theories together.
Are you going to suck eggs or what? Dinosaurs DO NOT have hollow bones you evotard.
Arch is NOT an intermediate because it displays only theropod traits and NO unique modern bird traits and is bolstered by mirepresentation. Your whale evidence is also a fraudulent misrepresentation. Nothing I could present could be worse than the instability and rubbish you have to present.
That is what the data demonstrates and I think that means that your evolutionary research, as sick as this may sound, supports creationism, and your invented scenarios support TOE.
Indeed my 6 points still stand and you have convoluted misrepresentation to support TOE.
Flying Spaghetti Monster you are dense!

I never made the claim that dinosaurs in general have hollow bones, you complete turd eating creatard. I said that Archy was and provided four article that supported that claim. Archaeopteryx is the perfect transitional by the "proof" you give yourself.

And you are a complete creatard. Your whale article was blown away by only four words that were above your sixth grade level of science.

Lastly, no, none of your articles gave any scientific evidence at all by definition. It is clear that you do not know what scientific evidence is.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63936 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
These still stand 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, 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 excuses, hubris, rhetoric and pure speculation.
No Maz, shake your blue waffle somewhere else, the odor is atrocious.

You never made the case for any of these supporting your claim. All you have done is to list a series of articles that support evolution along with your idiot misinterpretation of them.

In other words, wrong Maz, try again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63938 Dec 8, 2012
And Maz, the reason why none of those article give any scientific support to creationism, besides the fact that they support evolution, is not the fault of evolutionists. It is creationists own fault that no articles world wide give any scientific evidence that supports creationism.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63939 Dec 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>

Creationism has three words, "god dun it," and that's it. It's neither beneficial, testable, reproducible, or in any way helpful, it's a non-answer to a concept that's not even qualified to be called a hypothesis, it's not even a guess, it's nothing.
Well, creationism may not be a good theory. Seems to me to be scarcely more
than a hypothesis, but I am being generous, and for a purpose too. I think it helps to see it as a theory, so that one can motivate the need to apply the scientific method to it. For instance, if it is a theory, then the creos can stop the silly Faith inherently trumps theory meme. Next we can start to categorize the robustness and quality of that theory as compared to others.

We all recognize that some theories hardly rise above wild guesses, while others are really solid if you look at the amount of verification that has been accomplished, and the quality of the methods.

Sure that gives room for a lot of complexity, and there is an invalid kind
of debate that attempts to overwhelm with detail and irrelevancies, but that can be handled in the long run, and does sometimes expose unnecessary
weaknesses in the correct theory, which is ultimately beneficial.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63940 Dec 8, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, creationism may not be a good theory. Seems to me to be scarcely more
than a hypothesis, but I am being generous, and for a purpose too. I think it helps to see it as a theory, so that one can motivate the need to apply the scientific method to it. For instance, if it is a theory, then the creos can stop the silly Faith inherently trumps theory meme. Next we can start to categorize the robustness and quality of that theory as compared to others.
We all recognize that some theories hardly rise above wild guesses, while others are really solid if you look at the amount of verification that has been accomplished, and the quality of the methods.
Sure that gives room for a lot of complexity, and there is an invalid kind
of debate that attempts to overwhelm with detail and irrelevancies, but that can be handled in the long run, and does sometimes expose unnecessary
weaknesses in the correct theory, which is ultimately beneficial.
Hypothesis? What's the hypothesis? The world wants to know, well, the intelligent portion of the world. Go ahead, answer it if you can, what is the hypothesis, no one else has actually answered that questions yet.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#63941 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Maz, the reason why none of those article give any scientific support to creationism, besides the fact that they support evolution, is not the fault of evolutionists. It is creationists own fault that no articles world wide give any scientific evidence that supports creationism.
The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)

http://www.livescience.com/11316-top-10-intel...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#63942 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop chasing your tail in desperation. I have just spoken to evidence that suggests 100% of the genome is functional. Deterioration does not amount to junk or useless dna.
You evos were wrong, so man up and handle it.
Hi Maz

This is Russell
A fellow Aussie

You're doing a GREAT job....please keep going!

Do not give in to the bigotry either

I have said on numerous occasions that I will no sooner cease linking to Creation.com than ask Rosa Parks to give up her seat

A number on this forum....who will remain nameless...unless they disclose themselves....have had their bottoms walloped BIG TIME with 'evo-god's mangled carcass'....in my own words

Check out this part of the parallel "debate"...if you can call it that....it's been more like an evo-blood bath with evo-carnage everywhere...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...

One of the present evo-god worshippers you are debating with CAN NOT ever accept he is wrong....even when unequivocally proven to be lying...

He just cant!

Its pathological....or pathetic...pathologiaclly pathetic

Utterly Sub-standard..in a zone...of lies....wink...wink

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63943 Dec 8, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Maz
This is Russell
A fellow Aussie
You're doing a GREAT job....please keep going!
Do not give in to the bigotry either
I have said on numerous occasions that I will no sooner cease linking to Creation.com than ask Rosa Parks to give up her seat
A number on this forum....who will remain nameless...unless they disclose themselves....have had their bottoms walloped BIG TIME with 'evo-god's mangled carcass'....in my own words
Check out this part of the parallel "debate"...if you can call it that....it's been more like an evo-blood bath with evo-carnage everywhere...
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...
One of the present evo-god worshippers you are debating with CAN NOT ever accept he is wrong....even when unequivocally proven to be lying...
He just cant!
Its pathological....or pathetic...pathologiaclly pathetic
Utterly Sub-standard..in a zone...of lies....wink...wink
Oh look! Another Ray Comfort!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63944 Dec 8, 2012
Yes, evo carnage everywhere. Of course that means poor Russell getting the snot beaten out of him daily by people who actually understand science.

Russell is such an idiot he does not know when he has been beaten and lies so much he can no longer tell when someone else is telling the truth.

And of course he makes the gravest of errors that not even Maz is stupid enough to do, and that takes some stupid, he uses Creation.com as a source! ROTFLMAO!

Russell, come back soon with some more jokes for us. You latest loss was epic, to say the least.

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
Topix Talk 11 min dandylioness 30
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 13 min Michael 150,935
The letter H (Jun '13) 17 min dandylioness 616
Things men does that women hate 20 min dandylioness 4
Bill Cosby 32 min dandylioness 136
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 33 min Ali Masood 652
Company Unveils Electronically-Powered Skates 40 min dandylioness 7
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr Independent1 7,848
Two chocolate makers warn of huge annual deficit 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 140
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr Independent1 23,887

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE