Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
59,961 - 59,980 of 112,852 Comments Last updated 14 min ago

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Salisbury, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64090
Dec 8, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on Subby, show me how your manipulated models retract that the data shows limits to the benefits of beneficial mutations.
They don't. They simply invent models to project on that MAY present a scenario that is real and that is all. The data, is the data, despite any hubris about neutrality.
You start challenges you cannot conclude.
Come on, You keep saying you have made such wonderful posts. Where are they?
That article makes no such claims. Again, you keep misunderstanding articles. Even when you hunt in the fringes you keep coming up with nothing.

Once again those writers do not indicate that they believe in any sort of limit. You have failed to show that they are wrong in any way and are merely taking statements out of context.

When it comes to your arguments there is no "there" there.

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64091
Dec 8, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I can impress with what is called data and evidence you likely can't understand and you can offer verbal diarrhoea and farts out of your mouth. Look at the difference......
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.
You have had bad experiences with false religion. There is 1 true religion that adheres to righteousness. A God of order supplies this. See the universe and see His way. If you are humble enough to search and really find the true God, you will. You will indeed.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64092
Dec 8, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ok, we'll stick to one, the falsification of junk dna being the validation of a creationist prediction made before your recent findings.

Here is an evo biochemist quacker that refers to the IDers speaking to their creo prediction in a book.

"Sorry Michael, it is true. The genomes of many complex multicellular organisms have vast quantities of DNA that serves no purpose. It's junk. The whole argument of your book just collapsed, as did any argument for intelligent design."

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2006/12/junk-...

Here he is again making a fool out of himself.

"I have consistently maintained that there's plenty of evidence for junk DNA and those scientists who dismiss the concept are wrong. In my review of The Myth of Junk DNA I specifically addressed the claims of the ENCODE project based on their 2007 pilot study"

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/encod...

I wonder what he'll have to say about the more recent research. Ignore it, I suppose.

John Sanford in 2005 Next, in chapeter 5 of Genetic Entropy debunks the junk-DNA and pseudo-gene myth and suggests that all dna will be found to be functional.

And best of all..from 1998

"Debating this physical anthropologist, Bob Enyart was just a Christian fundamentalist talk show host who spoke from his biblical worldview. Bob argued that our knowledge of genetics was in its infancy, and that it was too early to make the determination that all those non-coding segments of DNA had no function. After this 1998 debate, the next decade of explosive genetic discoveries overwhelmingly validated this creationist perspective, so much so that aside from coding for 20,500 proteins, it is estimated that the remainder of the genome has approximately four million other functional regulatory segments of DNA. So much for junk"

http://kgov.com/journal-nature-junk-not-junk

Creationists have ALWAYS maintained that non coding dna will be found to be functional in time and that has been validated no matter how ignorant you are. We had to make that prediction because evolutionary non functional left overs were great evidence against creationism and good support for TOE. Now it's..Too bad for evos!

Don't you evos thrive on junk and evolutionary left overs? Doesn't evolution even need functionless left overs?

Why did TOE love functionless left overs before but now the opposite means zilch to them? Hmmm!

So I have dug up an example of a creationist speaking to creationists prediction that junk dna will eventually be found to be functional. Hence a creo prediction has been validated.

Now what have you as an evolutionist got to say about non coding dna? Oh let me guess. Nothing, it will be easier to be ignorant and struggle.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64093
Dec 8, 2012
 
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have had bad experiences with false religion. There is 1 true religion that adheres to righteousness. A God of order supplies this. See the universe and see His way. If you are humble enough to search and really find the true God, you will. You will indeed.
If I wanted to preach I'd go elsewhere. The true God does not care about the evolution/creation debate, He already knows. I am still curious.

I am here to see how evos can justify their incredible egos with science. So far I have found no justification with most evos being happy to talk philosophy or make challenges and then hide.

I don't really care how God created I just dislike the evoegomaniacs and like to dual with them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••