Evolution vs. Creation

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

Somerset, KY

#64069 Dec 8, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
You just seem silly about my touchy beliefs......lol
There's some out there like that... Must be harduh being that constrained and limited in thought process to a lil square box :-).
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64070 Dec 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Read the simple sentence again-and notice the word "often".

Then ask yourself why you feel the need to attack pitchfork and witchhunt style, on others.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#64071 Dec 8, 2012
The Creation story is a Bronze Age myth. This shouldn't even be a debate in the 21st Century. The Creation myth has plants growing before the sun exists. Come on people, think like adults!

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#64072 Dec 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>when you are too busy looking for miracles, you will see them in inane things, and then you will miss the important discoveries and experiences. There is a reason we treat delusions and don't just let them fester now.
Look all I am saying is if science can't explain it yet just shut up stand back and marvel the universe is an wonderful beautiful thing. I understand how the sun works how the planets move but I don't take the sunset for granted.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64073 Dec 8, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
You blow hard but produce no wind.
Let me know when you have a rational argument.
Still banking on the refuted notion of "genetic entropy"?
LOL!!!
No actually I prefer to whip evos with their own hubris. That's much more entertaining.

I am still waiting for that quacker Subby to start talking about junk dna seeing as he asked me to pick something, then he ran away from that one. I guess that was too hard to refute even with your biased conundrums. You certainly can't talk science, oh hopeless one so stick with your philosophical tail chasing.

I am still loving all the hubris about philosophy on an evolution/creation debating thread. LOOSERS!

I love that you lot have only algorithmic garble and misrepresentation to support yourselves with and that creationism has better predictivre ability than TOE.eg non coding dna
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64074 Dec 8, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Actually--the newer books just give MORE credence and verification--to much of what was written in the older books!!

(but you have to READ these types books FIRST, to realize that!)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64075 Dec 8, 2012
Yawn, more of the same from Maz.

Nothing new, just the same old song and dance. She has yet to show why the people she quotes are wrong. None of them believe her nonsense about limits to evolution, why should we believe her?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64076 Dec 8, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>A plethora? No not a plethora. My God, why didn't someone tell me she had a plethora.
Is that like a plebiscite?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64077 Dec 8, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
The Creation story is a Bronze Age myth. This shouldn't even be a debate in the 21st Century. The Creation myth has plants growing before the sun exists. Come on people, think like adults!
Water..rocks...fossils...duhm as theory lol.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64078 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No actually I prefer to whip evos with their own hubris. That's much more entertaining.
I am still waiting for that quacker Subby to start talking about junk dna seeing as he asked me to pick something, then he ran away from that one. I guess that was too hard to refute even with your biased conundrums. You certainly can't talk science, oh hopeless one so stick with your philosophical tail chasing.
I am still loving all the hubris about philosophy on an evolution/creation debating thread. LOOSERS!
I love that you lot have only algorithmic garble and misrepresentation to support yourselves with and that creationism has better predictivre ability than TOE.eg non coding dna
So let's see a cretinist paper that makes these supposed predictions, of course to be a prediction it had to be made before these latest findings came out.

So far you have supplied nothing that has any predictions from any creationists or even creatards. Actually there are very very few creationists the vast majority are creatards.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#64079 Dec 8, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Look all I am saying is if science can't explain it yet just shut up stand back and marvel the universe is an wonderful beautiful thing. I understand how the sun works how the planets move but I don't take the sunset for granted.
If we did that, we'd never get anywhere. The astronauts were not happy with just sitting back and marveling at the moon, if they were, they would have never set foot on it.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#64080 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Aah yes. That rant of Maz. I was trying to lead her up to the question about whether Archaeopteryx had hollow bones, it did by the way< and she went off on one of her Fruit Loops rants.
Of course she denied Archaeopteryx having hollow bones since according to her it is a dinosaur, and that's all.
Transitional species make for fun debates with creatards. Just let them pick which species that the animal "definitely" is and let the fun begin.
It's hilarious how she will claim similar trait as being *definitely* either "bird" or "dino" traits. As in "it had a 'dino' beak," not a "bird beak." "A movable thighbone like a 'dino,'" not a "moveable thighbone like a bird." Obviously they aren't going to be exactly the same, but how someone can go down the list, splitting hairs while assigning similar traits that are clearly supportive of evolution as "dino only" or "bird only" is beyond me. That's why she has to be a poe. The other option, that there are people like her, is too depressing.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64081 Dec 8, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>It's hilarious how she will claim similar trait as being *definitely* either "bird" or "dino" traits. As in "it had a 'dino' beak," not a "bird beak." "A movable thighbone like a 'dino,'" not a "moveable thighbone like a bird." Obviously they aren't going to be exactly the same, but how someone can go down the list, splitting hairs while assigning similar traits that are clearly supportive of evolution as "dino only" or "bird only" is beyond me. That's why she has to be a poe. The other option, that there are people like her, is too depressing.
Oh so back to arch now.

Listen buddy, the fact is that your idiot researchers have found modern bird footprints with a reversed hallux dated to 212mya that they don't know what to do with. So they blab around and try to show how a feathered dinosaur that had no reversed hallux is suposed to mean something to anyone that cares and invent a mythical theropod that is undiscovered to address the avian footprints instead. Well done geese!.

I can clearly demonstrate what is a bird with one single feature, a reversed hallux, while you lot of evos are still chasing your tails.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#64082 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Don't you know? Of course deletion is not the only form of what evolutionists call a mutation.
Again, that has nothing to do with you lot getting all your hubris around junk dna wrong and creos getting a prediction validiated on the back of it. Neither has that anything to do with data that suggests the genome is deteriorating that also has nothing to do with non coding DNA per se. That is what my point 1 is about. You want to chase around with nonsense just to justify your existence here!
You cannot refute me. No 'junk' validates a creo prediction and is support for a creationist paradigm. Evos got it wrong, should not have shoved it at creos as evidence for TOE in the first place, and will now toddle off an invent some story to explain why the oppposite of what they thought still supports TOE.
Now I see evobabble questions are the strategy of choice to engage with my point 1 of 6 supports for a creationist paradigm, is that it?
I am trying to wrap my brain around how the human genome can be 100% functional if it has been undergoing rapid deterioration for several thousand years at least if the deterioration isn't limited solely to deletion. It seems to fly in the face of logic.

Is the information-less noise that is the inevitable result of a mutation somehow functional?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64083 Dec 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, so, what peer reviewed papers about creationism has he published?
No peer review
Just peer revered

Like Newton

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64084 Dec 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So let's see a cretinist paper that makes these supposed predictions, of course to be a prediction it had to be made before these latest findings came out.
So far you have supplied nothing that has any predictions from any creationists or even creatards. Actually there are very very few creationists the vast majority are creatards.
I have and that is that the genome will not contain junk dna. God had no need to make junk and creos propoed this as soon as you idiots came up with it. Are you too stupid to know that? Or you know it but farting in evasion feels better, does it?

You are warped Subby. What happended to your offer to pick a subject, non coding dna, that you were going to tell me all about and show me I was wrong being my point 1? Were you just farting in the wind, as usual?

What about the misrepresentation of the dino wish bone and a modern bird wishbone and the mythical theropod that explains 212myo reversed hallux, that you hope to ignore.

Wipe that egg off your face you evos that in total went on about junk dna. You had zilck to quack on about and now you want it to go away just like your other falsification. Falsifiactions prove you evos don't know what you are talking about. You cannot win a trick and now you wish to play the ignorant card.

Would you like to gobble on about junk dna and tell me the predictions TOE made? Lets do number 1 of 6 again and lets see just who can support themselves. I'll bet I can dig up some old relic that demonstrates a creo prediction before you boofheads found the opposite of your theories.

Make up your mind what you want to talk about, because so far you are just making bad smells and making me offers you run off about.

What's the latest now? Are you evos going to change the meaning of 'evolutionary left overs' now to mean functional with different function. Oh heck! Where have we heard that tail chasing desperation before?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64085 Dec 8, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No peer review
Just peer revered
Like Newton
Idiot boy is back!

No, peer review is a fair process. If creationists really had a valid idea it would pass peer review.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64086 Dec 8, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am trying to wrap my brain around how the human genome can be 100% functional if it has been undergoing rapid deterioration for several thousand years at least if the deterioration isn't limited solely to deletion. It seems to fly in the face of logic.
Is the information-less noise that is the inevitable result of a mutation somehow functional?
Don't bother talking anymore you appear to be hearing enough noise for the both of us. Not even your well credentialed creotards can answer questions like that with more thn likely, perhaps and maybe. That is why they like to play with models and invent speculative excuses that often contradict each other.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64087 Dec 8, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have and that is that the genome will not contain junk dna. God had no need to make junk and creos propoed this as soon as you idiots came up with it. Are you too stupid to know that? Or you know it but farting in evasion feels better, does it?
You are warped Subby. What happended to your offer to pick a subject, non coding dna, that you were going to tell me all about and show me I was wrong being my point 1? Were you just farting in the wind, as usual?
What about the misrepresentation of the dino wish bone and a modern bird wishbone and the mythical theropod that explains 212myo reversed hallux, that you hope to ignore.
Wipe that egg off your face you evos that in total went on about junk dna. You had zilck to quack on about and now you want it to go away just like your other falsification. Falsifiactions prove you evos don't know what you are talking about. You cannot win a trick and now you wish to play the ignorant card.
Would you like to gobble on about junk dna and tell me the predictions TOE made? Lets do number 1 of 6 again and lets see just who can support themselves. I'll bet I can dig up some old relic that demonstrates a creo prediction before you boofheads found the opposite of your theories.
Make up your mind what you want to talk about, because so far you are just making bad smells and making me offers you run off about.
What's the latest now? Are you evos going to change the meaning of 'evolutionary left overs' now to mean functional with different function. Oh heck! Where have we heard that tail chasing desperation before?
No, you haven't. At least not that I have seen.

So where is your cretinist paper?

And I am willing to discuss any subject. You are the one doing a hit an run here.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64088 Dec 8, 2012
Correction,,

Don't bother talking anymore you appear to be hearing enough noise for the both of us. Not even your well credentialed evotards can answer questions like that with more than likely, perhaps and maybe. That is why they like to play with models and invent speculative excuses that often contradict each other.

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 song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min black shuck 152,873
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 12 min Hoosier Hillbilly 30,385
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 17 min Hoosier Hillbilly 5,214
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 20 min Hoosier Hillbilly 7,631
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 24 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1,807
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 31 min Hoosier Hillbilly 55,329
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 36 min Analog man 77,699
Is it possible to....... 2 hr wichita-rick 613
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr eleanorigby 37,787
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 4 hr -Lea- 26,019
Woman Switches Seats on Plane, Spends 3 Days in... 10 hr TALLYHO 8541 28
More from around the web