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

#64005 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Maz is still repeating her bogus claim of genetic deterioration.
Maz, the articles you find don't support you. They are lab studies where they took away half of the evolutionary process. They are only studying random mutation. You and all of your other creatard friends conveniently keep forgetting the other half of the equation; naturals selection.
Yes, it is easy to debunk evolution, if you only allow half of it. You will see creatards claim "Random mutation alone will not cause evolution" or "Random selection will only go so far". And both of these statements are true on their own and they are both LIES since they ignore the other half of the driving process of evolution.
Keep on making your busted claims Maz and we will keep busting them. You are only fooling yourself and your creatard friends. At least you outperform Russell in that regard.
You need to remember your own words that lab studies take away half of the equation which speaks to research credibility to begin with. Lab studies are at least observation and rely less on algorithmic magic.

You have not overturned any of my 6 points yet. Now you want to say that the data on the deteriorating genome and epistasis is what?...Not the entire story! Congratulations!

You tell me of a bit that makes such a huge difference to any point I have made.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64006 Dec 8, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
I have seen evidence that ocean water was once over the hills of Kentucky. The man that showed it to me is a world renowned agate expert, but what he found wasn't an agate and it could only have came from the ocean.
Yes, geology explains that. The flood does not.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64007 Dec 8, 2012
Subby

I said there are limits to adaptation. I have presented data that speaks to limits to adaptation. These are the negative effects and restrictions produced by accumulating beneficial mutations as well as the degenerating genome. Of course evos theorize further how these do not stop adaptation. However you do not have credible evidence of this as it is based on speculation.

Your data may not falsify TOE according to evos but it does present limits to adaptation;... which is what I am looking for in supporting my claim, adaptation is limited. Is the connection to difficult for you to grasp?. Evo researchers then speculate further of course as to why and how this can go on for billions of years and not grind to a halt.

These above are not LIES. My assertions are based on factual information and below is another example. The fall of man however explains why a genome created perfectly and fully functional is now deteriorating and why mankind suffers so many diseases.

What other driving force of evolution are you refering to that addresses deterioration? Is it the intelligent genome that knows which mutation will be beneficial or deleterious at any given time to irradicate? So far it appears to not have done so well!

Take this for example..

"We estimate that humans and chimpanzees have accumulated approximately 140,000 slightly deleterious mutations each, mutations that would have been eliminated by selection in murids. These mutations have small effects, since it can be inferred that they have selection coefficients less than 1/Ne for hominids, i.e., less than 10−4. It should be noted that it is unlikely that the mutation accumulation is due to a recent relaxation of natural selection in humans due to an improvement in our living conditions [32], since the time of this improvement is short relative the overall length of human evolution. We would not expect the decline in fitness to continue indefinitely, since the absolute strength of selection on new mutations, both advantageous and deleterious, may increase as fitness declines [33]. Furthermore, this accumulation of deleterious mutations may have been compensated in part by adaptive substitutions in gene expression control regions and elsewhere in the genome."
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

The science of maybe, unlikely and perhaps explains it all....

Note above evos find the accumulation of deleterious mutations is called small effect when we can see all the diseases that affect mankind and no other, and they do not EXPECT the decline in fitness to continue because of bla. Actually the entire thing is algorithmic bla, but that is what you guys have got.

The data suggests in this study the human genome is deteriorating and then they go on to infer and speculate as to why this won't continue, the same for the Y chromosome.

So would you like to try and tell me exactly which nail I am not hitting on the head here?

It is not about debunking TOE. I have presented 6 ways I can support creationism. This is in counter to evos saying creos can never present support. Some of these also suggest TOE is challenged, but that is just the icing on the cake.

What have you got that is so convincing to you that you call your self an evolutionist rather than a parrot?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64008 Dec 8, 2012
Congratulations Mav, you misinterpreted another article. And what is that supposed to prove?

The writers of that paper clearly do not believe what you believe so why do you think that it supports you in any way?

All you have offered to date is a mixture of articles that you did not understand and misinterpreted. eaily debunkable sources, and the rare fringe article of dubious veracity.

And this last article is from a bit of a questionable source. Due to economics open access journals are less reliable than regular peer reviewed journals. The peer review of your article is a bit dubious to say the least.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64009 Dec 8, 2012
Maz, do you understand yet why there is no scientific evidence for creation?

I seriously doubt if you do.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#64010 Dec 8, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so now you are saying God wrote the bible and Jesus edited it. Pfft I don't even believe that.
Pfft. no. I am not saying god or jesus even exist, let alone have author anything! I am saying that man wrote the bible so that they could control other man with it.

There is no way that a god would worry about female virginity, so much so that it would have the female murdered for not being one. Only a man, who believes that women are property would worry about female virginity.

Only man would have slaves and think that it was OK.

Only man would think that killing a slave would be OK.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64011 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, geology explains that. The flood does not.
"Prof. Beer was part of the team on board "Mediterranean Explorer" that recently headed to the Black Sea off the coast of Turkey, the site where historians believe the great biblical flood occurred. EcoOcean and an international team believe they have found evidence to substantiate what is written in the Bible.

Says Weil, "We found that indeed a flood happened around that time. From core samples, we see that a flood broke through the natural barrier separating the Mediterranean Sea and the freshwater Black Sea, bringing with it seashells that only grow in a marine environment. There was no doubt that it was a fast flood -- one that covered an expanse four times the size of Israel. It might not have been Noah, as it is written in the Bible, but we believe people in that region had to build boats in order to save their animals from drowning. We think that the ones who survived were fishermen -- they already had the boats."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/...

And this link to some info from a religious organization.

http://www.ucg.org/christian-living/evidence-...

Geology also has its problems and terms like 'reworking' to explain why fossils are where they should not be and visa versa.

I don't think any evidence against a global flood is any more robust than any evidence for one.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64012 Dec 8, 2012
Maz, one more point. If you actually debated your claims you might learn something. Instead all you do is a variation of hit and run.

And of course you are one of the worst sort of creationists. You are so hypocritical that you will not state clearly what you believe in, only what you don't believe in. It is always easy to deny, especially if you don't have to defend your beliefs at the same time.

You are taking a chickenshit approach to this topic.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64013 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, do you understand yet why there is no scientific evidence for creation?
I seriously doubt if you do.
The above statement comes from an evo that can't tell the difference between data and hypothesis about the data.

Would you like to start again then?..

Letís recap shall we.

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 Ďa differentí 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.

So tell me again how the deteriorating genome supports TOE better than creationism? Oh that's right,..with Hubris! Have you given up so soon?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64014 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
"Prof. Beer was part of the team on board "Mediterranean Explorer" that recently headed to the Black Sea off the coast of Turkey, the site where historians believe the great biblical flood occurred. EcoOcean and an international team believe they have found evidence to substantiate what is written in the Bible.
Says Weil, "We found that indeed a flood happened around that time. From core samples, we see that a flood broke through the natural barrier separating the Mediterranean Sea and the freshwater Black Sea, bringing with it seashells that only grow in a marine environment. There was no doubt that it was a fast flood -- one that covered an expanse four times the size of Israel. It might not have been Noah, as it is written in the Bible, but we believe people in that region had to build boats in order to save their animals from drowning. We think that the ones who survived were fishermen -- they already had the boats."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/...
And this link to some info from a religious organization.
http://www.ucg.org/christian-living/evidence-...
Geology also has its problems and terms like 'reworking' to explain why fossils are where they should not be and visa versa.
I don't think any evidence against a global flood is any more robust than any evidence for one.
No, there is no undebunked evidence for a worldwide flood. There is evidence for local floods. So what? The Black Sea may have formed by flooding of the local area. If you ever look into the rate of flooding you would have seen that it was a flood that you could have crawled away from, walking would leave it far behind. The flooding of the Mediterranean goes even further back but again it is a flood that could be out-walked.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64015 Dec 8, 2012
And Maz, your two sources disagree with each other. So which one is true in your eyes? One says that there was a small local flood. I have no problem with that. The other says there was a global flood. That is pure BS. Which one do you believe in?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64016 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The above statement comes from an evo that can't tell the difference between data and hypothesis about the data.
Would you like to start again then?..
Letís recap shall we.
1..Bullshit deleted..
Recapping bullshit that does not make it any more true the tenth time around than the first time.

Pick a subject and see if you can prove your claim. Until then you are debunked by the Gish Gallop rule of debate.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64017 Dec 8, 2012
And Maz, you need to use sources that agree with each other and with you. Or if your sources do not agree with you it is up to you to show how they are wrong. If you use disagreeing sources it is safe to assume that both are wrong as far as the debate goes.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64018 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Congratulations Mav, you misinterpreted another article. And what is that supposed to prove?
The writers of that paper clearly do not believe what you believe so why do you think that it supports you in any way?
All you have offered to date is a mixture of articles that you did not understand and misinterpreted. eaily debunkable sources, and the rare fringe article of dubious veracity.
And this last article is from a bit of a questionable source. Due to economics open access journals are less reliable than regular peer reviewed journals. The peer review of your article is a bit dubious to say the least.
I have not misinterpreted anything at all. The majority of the research articles I can present are peer reviewed research, including the one on the deteriorating human genome. You have flown from that and resorted again to hubris and opinion.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

My argument on arch still stands that it is a feathered dinosaur and nothing more with a reversed hallux predating it by 60my.

You bombed out on junk dna and cannot wipe that egg off your face nor can you refute that creos have had a prediction validated whilst you could not even make one.

Your choice to handwave the above away does not make it go away.

So again you are full of hubris and scratch around trying to score useless points and offer gibberish.

You evotards wanted peer reviewed research and you got it. Now you are still quacking, when you basically present nothing more than your twoddly opinion and stuff all peer reviewed research of your own. Hypocrites!. You ridicule peer reviewed research on the back of your uneducated opinion when it suits you.

Evos look better when they are chasing their tails in philosophy. That way no one can easily tell how ignorant some are.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64020 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Recapping bullshit that does not make it any more true the tenth time around than the first time.
Pick a subject and see if you can prove your claim. Until then you are debunked by the Gish Gallop rule of debate.
I don't bow down to Gish any more than you bow down to Ruben who disagrees with the dino to bird deal.

The subject is non coding dna, and right back to the start just for you...

The claim is 1. Evolutionists are big mouthed geese quacking.
2. Creationists predictions have been validated
3. TOE could make no prediction on non coding dna.

Evidence: A decade of 'junk dna' has been falsified and validated creationist predictions and falsified evolutionists claims around 98% junk dna.

Your turn....Go...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64021 Dec 8, 2012
Again, if you want to use a source that disagrees with you, you need to show how it is wrong and how your conclusion is correct.

Your last one disagrees with your conclusion. Therefore you have misinterpreted it. There conclusion is that their data supports a specific model of evolution, not the bullshit you preach:

"The importance of effective population size in influencing the organization and complexity of genomes has recently been highlighted [37]. Our findings support the idea that microevolutionary processes are also strongly influenced by population size, and are evidence for the nearly neutral model of molecular evolution [38] in mammalian genomes."

You keep making the mistake of thinking a constraint on rate is a constraint on how far a creature can evolve. A constraint on speed of 20 mph does not mean you cannot take a 1,000 mile trip. It will only take you 50 hours, where at 50 miles per hour it would take you 20 hours.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#64022 Dec 8, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
I have seen evidence that ocean water was once over the hills of Kentucky. The man that showed it to me is a world renowned agate expert, but what he found wasn't an agate and it could only have came from the ocean.
Yup, from at least as far back as 300 million years ago.

Not in the time period when humans existed.

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#64023 Dec 8, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>Pfft. no. I am not saying god or jesus even exist, let alone have author anything! I am saying that man wrote the bible so that they could control other man with it.

There is no way that a god would worry about female virginity, so much so that it would have the female murdered for not being one. Only a man, who believes that women are property would worry about female virginity.

Only man would have slaves and think that it was OK.

Only man would think that killing a slave would be OK.
It is easy to look at some else's life or into some story and say what you would have done. However it is much more difficult to look at our own lives sometimes and not just see our problems but also to find the solution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64024 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't bow down to Gish any more than you bow down to Ruben who disagrees with the dino to bird deal.
The subject is non coding dna, and right back to the start just for you...
The claim is 1. Evolutionists are big mouthed geese quacking.
2. Creationists predictions have been validated
3. TOE could make no prediction on non coding dna.
Evidence: A decade of 'junk dna' has been falsified and validated creationist predictions and falsified evolutionists claims around 98% junk dna.
Your turn....Go...
No, that was never the case. The term "junk DNA" is a popular press description. It is not that of evolution. The finding that non-coding DNA may have some purpose does not debunk the theory of evolution in any way. In fact when "junk DNA" was first discovered it bothered certain evolutionists since they had no explanation for it with the theory.

And you still have not debunked the concept of ERV's. Most ERV's have no purpose, but since we knew their source they were never considered to be "junk DNA". You need to find something that specifically shows that ERV's do not support evolution and we are wrong about their source.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64025 Dec 8, 2012
And Maz, since you seem to think you are an expert on genomes, can you explain why chickens have genes for teeth, scales, dinosaur type tails, and "hands"?

http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/the-di...

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
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 9 min Parden Pard 30,393
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 12 min Hoosier Hillbilly 55,334
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 17 min Denny CranesPlace 24,168
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 17 min TALLYHO 8541 37,810
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 18 min Roxie Darling 26,058
Should the St Patricks Day parade be open to th... 21 min Hoosier Hillbilly 17
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 24 min Judy 123 6,994
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 50 min Analog man 7,865
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr black shuck 152,934
Is it possible to....... 2 hr beatlesinafog 621
More from around the web