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 (Page 3,001)

Showing posts 60,001 - 60,020 of111,871
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64098
Dec 8, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
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!)
Sorry guy I only read science. I've *really* tried to read some apologetics, theological, and philosophical stuff, but found myself disagreeing or seeing known lies and/or half truths on practically every page.

Regarding the Exodus and Joshua's non-existent conquests, Google the name Ze'ev Herzog and check out his works. Ze’ev Herzog, is an Israeli archaeologist, professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University specializing in social archaeology, ancient architecture and field archaeology. Ze’ev Herzog has been the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005. He is perhaps the most famous Israeli who has said that there was no Exodus and Joshua never conquered all those cities.
http://www.hayadan.org.il/bible-no-evidence-2...

Another one you can check is Israel Finkelstein He is an Israeli archaeologist and academic. He is currently the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University and is also the co-director of excavations at Megiddo in northern Israel. Previously, he served as Director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University from 1996-2002. He wrote a very popular and influential book *The Bible Unearthed* wherein he lays out the evidence, piece by piece, for the way the Hebrews and their society actually did form. http://isfn.skytech.co.il/

If you get in to some really deep research on the Exodus subject you will find that for many many years it has been reported in some circles that there has NEVER been ANY tangible proof found for the Exodus...anywhere. Israel had possession of the Sinai peninsula for years after the 6 day war against Egypt and they THOROUGHLY scoured the area for evidence

Considering that it is now thought that Moses never wrote the Pentateuch and what was written was around the time of the Hebrew exile in Babylon, circa. 700-500 BC (Moses supposedly 1400+- BC) we find that one more strike against the story

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64099
Dec 8, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
One day you will realize that trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory does not equal evidence for creation. That will be a momentous occasion. Pointing out one small, inconsequential thing and ignoring the plethora of evidence for evolution is dishonest and desperate. Why do you even care so much? Can't you still enjoy your god and your religion without frantically trying to disprove one of the most successful theories in modern science? It's akin to some idiot trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth because his holy book told him so. Oh wait, you guys already did that. Didn't work out too well.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64100
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?
Do you have a personality disorder of some sort? Why do you constantly regurgitate the same talking points over, and over, and over, and over again? Seriously, I'm curious. All it takes is one comment for you to launch into a "summary" of the debate.(Debate is not really an accurate description, it's more of a showcase for your ignorance)

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64101
Dec 8, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, we'll stick to one, the falsification of junk dna being the validation of a creationist prediction made before your recent findings.
Creationists DON'T F_CKING MAKE PREDICTIONS YOU GOD DAMN IDIOT.

There. Sorry. You say that so much, and it really gets on my nerves. They make after the fact predictions, and that's it. You can't piggy back evolutionary theory for your predictions. Make your own, falsifiable theory. Until then, your god is not science.

Since: Sep 12

Grand Prairie, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64102
Dec 8, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>One day you will realize that trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory does not equal evidence for creation. That will be a momentous occasion. Pointing out one small, inconsequential thing and ignoring the plethora of evidence for evolution is dishonest and desperate. Why do you even care so much? Can't you still enjoy your god and your religion without frantically trying to disprove one of the most successful theories in modern science? It's akin to some idiot trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth because his holy book told him so. Oh wait, you guys already did that. Didn't work out too well.
Science hasn't always had super ideas either. It just seems history forgets those as time moves on. Nobody likes cocky science just like nobody likes cocky religion.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64103
Dec 8, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
All great points that should end in "we think" no matter what you think you know you maybe able to remove most uncertainty but you will never know it all. In the quest for certainty only an idiot claims to know it all and has history has shown us even the "small stuff" can change I'm positive to I'm not sure.
KittenKoder has a great answer to you on comment #64050

Consider this: Archaeologists have been telling us for decades that they had worked out the sequence of hominids from monkey to human, and that sequence did not have room for a Adam and Eve scenario like in the Bible. Creationists just ignored the evidence.

Then the paleoanthropologists and archaeologists found evidence that modern humans (Homo-sapiens...us) were roaming the African savannas around 200,000 years ago. This apparently also leaves no room for the Adam and Eve story as the Bible relates. Creationists just ignored this news.

Now, most recently, DNA science has not only backed up the 200,000 year old date, but has also shown that we are connected by blood to earlier Hominids and that most humans alive today (except sub-Saharan Africans) carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood. I think this definitively kills the Adam and Eve story as related in the Bible.

So we pretty much can delete them from the truth column and demote them to just allegory.

This creates a REAL problem for Jesus (well actually a lot more stuff also) courtesy of Paul's meddling with what he thought was REAL history, but turned out to not be so.

You see as time goes on and scientists do their thing without regard to what happens to some perceived truth as they report their findings...things ARE changing. A lot of different sciences have converged to make Genesis and Exodus toast...except as allegory.

Now, whatever will we do about Jesus??
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64104
Dec 8, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The only thing I can draw from this response is that you are yourself unsure how it works.

Hrm, I'll have to go find someone else who can explain how this isn't a contradiction in the hypothesis..........

I mean, because, if it is a contradiction, then obviously something isn't right, right?

Idek I'll let you know my results if I can find a creationist biologist to dumb this down for me.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64105
Dec 8, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
In case you chose not to notice Subby, the above has a loud mouth evo, like you, going his hardest and obviously making a fool of himself, in light of more recent research.

TOE said that junk dna was evidence for evolution only a few years ago. I suggest the opposite should now be evidence against evolution unless evos are pretenders in their claims of using credible scientific method.

The many Darwinists who strongly pushed (and many still do) the Junk DNA claim predicted that nearly 99% of the entire human genome, the portion that was non-coding, was mostly just left-over junk DNA. They as good as predicted this based on TOE as they shoved it down creos mouths like the big mouth above.

So what now you evos? Have you got anything better than 'evovacant, woops and who cares', to offer.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64106
Dec 8, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Science hasn't always had super ideas either. It just seems history forgets those as time moves on. Nobody likes cocky science just like nobody likes cocky religion.
No, as time moves on, science self corrects. That is one of the reasons why science is such an effective tool for gaining knowledge - it allows for modification in light of new evidence. Now, scientists are humans too, and are therefore subject to human flaws, so sometimes they mess up just like everyone else - but that's why science itself has built in mechanisms for eliminating bias, confirming results, and changing in light of new data. A major difference between science and religion is that science starts from a hypothesis, checks to see if the observations support it, and then it comes to a conclusion; religion works the other way in that it starts from a conclusion (god did it) and looks for evidence to support it's preconceived notions.

That being said, it shouldn't matter. Science and religion are two different things. It's the fundamentalists who want to pretend that science and religion are diametrically opposed - when in reality they serve two different purposes. Science is a tool for learning about our universe, and religion (for those who want/need it) is a tool for gaining spiritual satisfaction. There doesn't need to be a competition, and there isn't one except in the minds of a few extremists. Religion, for some people, has it's place, but to act as if it can even come close to explaining our universe as well as science does is absurd.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64107
Dec 8, 2012
 
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing I can draw from this response is that you are yourself unsure how it works.
Hrm, I'll have to go find someone else who can explain how this isn't a contradiction in the hypothesis..........
I mean, because, if it is a contradiction, then obviously something isn't right, right?
Idek I'll let you know my results if I can find a creationist biologist to dumb this down for me.
When you learn to post appropriate replies instead of hot air I will engage with you. For now, your research says what it says and your algorithmic magic does not change that and neither does your diversions.

eg, limits to adaptation via negative epistasis and genome deterioration, creos ability to make predictions while evos are still wondering what went wrong!.

Sorry your evo babble did not lead me down the garden path into the land of evo confusion. I know better! You should too!

Since: Sep 12

Grand Prairie, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64108
Dec 8, 2012
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No, as time moves on, science self corrects. That is one of the reasons why science is such an effective tool for gaining knowledge - it allows for modification in light of new evidence. Now, scientists are humans too, and are therefore subject to human flaws, so sometimes they mess up just like everyone else - but that's why science itself has built in mechanisms for eliminating bias, confirming results, and changing in light of new data. A major difference between science and religion is that science starts from a hypothesis, checks to see if the observations support it, and then it comes to a conclusion; religion works the other way in that it starts from a conclusion (god did it) and looks for evidence to support it's preconceived notions.

That being said, it shouldn't matter. Science and religion are two different things. It's the fundamentalists who want to pretend that science and religion are diametrically opposed - when in reality they serve two different purposes. Science is a tool for learning about our universe, and religion (for those who want/need it) is a tool for gaining spiritual satisfaction. There doesn't need to be a competition, and there isn't one except in the minds of a few extremists. Religion, for some people, has it's place, but to act as if it can even come close to explaining our universe as well as science does is absurd.
I would argue science and religion are very close.
Science can recognize when it makes a mistake and changes.
Religion does the same this is proven by we no longer go on crusades to Jerusalem. We no longer own slaves. No more purification through pain (fire torture) we don't hunt witches. I think you get the point. Most modern Christians find these acts as they were done to be wicked.
So science and religion are growing and always changing.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64109
Dec 8, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
When you learn to post appropriate replies instead of hot air I will engage with you. For now, your research says what it says and your algorithmic magic does not change that and neither does your diversions.
eg, limits to adaptation via negative epistasis and genome deterioration, creos ability to make predictions while evos are still wondering what went wrong!.
Sorry your evo babble did not lead me down the garden path into the land of evo confusion. I know better! You should too!
If you don't know you can just say you don't know, there's no need to get all uptight about it. Gosh. I will just go get an explanation from someone else that is familiar with the subject. It's not exactly third grade algebra, after all; I'm not expecting you to be an expert on creationist biology.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64110
Dec 8, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you chose not to notice Subby, the above has a loud mouth evo, like you, going his hardest and obviously making a fool of himself, in light of more recent research.
TOE said that junk dna was evidence for evolution only a few years ago. I suggest the opposite should now be evidence against evolution unless evos are pretenders in their claims of using credible scientific method.
The many Darwinists who strongly pushed (and many still do) the Junk DNA claim predicted that nearly 99% of the entire human genome, the portion that was non-coding, was mostly just left-over junk DNA. They as good as predicted this based on TOE as they shoved it down creos mouths like the big mouth above.
So what now you evos? Have you got anything better than 'evovacant, woops and who cares', to offer.
No, not necessarily. There are facts that will sink one idea and yet are neutral to another. The idea of junk DNA was deadly to creationism, but really made no difference either way for evolution. In fact quite a few evolutionary biologists were bothered by the idea. That is one reason why I keep wondering why you keep getting your panties in a knot over this topic.

All that it would mean if all DNA served a present day purpose, and there is evidence that that will never be the case. Then you could say that that particular aspect of DNA has not ruled out creationism yet. Not a lot to crow about if you ask me.

So before you start to crow in victory you should be more aware of what you are crowing about.

And now on to how "junk DNA" still shows creationism to be bunk. Some of the identified genes, therefore no longer junk, used to code for features of the animals ancestors and reflect its evolutionary path. You are still ducking about genes found in chickens that are currently "turned off" that cause it to grow teeth, scales, a "dinosaur" tale, and "hands". All features of its dinosaur ancestors.

Nor have you answered the question of ERV's that were never considered to be "junk".
LOL

Europe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64111
Dec 8, 2012
 
LOL:-D

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64112
Dec 8, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Maz, what of ERV's? Those were never counted as "junk DNA" since they were recognized very early for what they are. Do you have an explanation for them that will not leave us rolling in the aisles?
Only if you admit that I can support my view, can I be bothered fluttering onto something else based on magic.

ERVs are ghosts that evos chase with algorithmic magic. ERVS are not left over remnants of virus they are tiny functional genomic sequence that may look vaguely like a virus when resequenced based on models of assumption. Phoenix is a simulated computer model, not an actual, virus brought back from the dead.

I have posted a loudmouth that gobbled about junk dna and discredited an entire paper on the basis of junk dna despite all the gobble about some ervs being found to be functional.

So are you going to admit that I can support 1. that creos at least claimed well in advance that there would be no junk dna. 2. Evos claimed there would be junk dna and suposedly found it. 3. Evos were falsified. 4. Creos were validated 5.Of the two, creos appear to have more merit than evos on this one point re non coding dna.

The above is the support for my first point of 6 for creationism.
We can go onto No 2 or ervs, when you admit to the above paragraph.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64113
Dec 8, 2012
 
Maz, part of your problem is that you work with the false dichotomy that if evolution is false then creationism is true. That is not necessarily the case. There could be many other possibilities.

Another major problem for creationism is that no one on your side has the guts nor brains to make a real creationism hypothesis. The guts aren't there because they know that hypotheses are testable and they are afraid of tests, having failed all of them to date. There are no current active creationism hypotheses. And you don't have to know everything to create a working hypotheses. Darwin definitely did not know anything and evolution started, like all modern day science does, as a hypothesis. He tested his idea and found that it worked. It as been tested for the entire 150 years since it became a theory by many others and it has always been found to work.

Back to my point that I was making. Scientific evidence, by definition, is evidence that supports or counters a scientific theory or hypothesis. Since creationists are too afraid to construct a scientific hypothesis there can be no scientific evidence for creationism. Of course to be fair there is any against it either. But then no scientist considers anything real when even the followers of the idea are afraid to test it. So you cannot have found any scientific evidence that supports creation at all. No one is willing to write a working hypothesis that the evidence can weigh against.

This is not some cute game that scientists play at. Scientists are very contentious people and would be just as likely to go into denial as anyone else. What cannot be denied is when evidence fits a theory. For example all fossil evidence fits into the evolutionary paradigm. None found so far does not. Since there is not creation hypothesis you cannot make the same claim. Do you see why the creation of hypotheses and theories is so important to scientists. This method is time tested and it produces results. All of modern science, not just evolution is based upon this approach.

So if you want to be a denying luddite, go ahead. You will get laughed at. If you want to call anything as scientific evidence for, or against creationism, then you or your pals need to come up with a hypothesis ASAP.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64114
Dec 8, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, not necessarily. There are facts that will sink one idea and yet are neutral to another. The idea of junk DNA was deadly to creationism, but really made no difference either way for evolution. In fact quite a few evolutionary biologists were bothered by the idea. That is one reason why I keep wondering why you keep getting your panties in a knot over this topic.
All that it would mean if all DNA served a present day purpose, and there is evidence that that will never be the case. Then you could say that that particular aspect of DNA has not ruled out creationism yet. Not a lot to crow about if you ask me.
So before you start to crow in victory you should be more aware of what you are crowing about.
And now on to how "junk DNA" still shows creationism to be bunk. Some of the identified genes, therefore no longer junk, used to code for features of the animals ancestors and reflect its evolutionary path. You are still ducking about genes found in chickens that are currently "turned off" that cause it to grow teeth, scales, a "dinosaur" tale, and "hands". All features of its dinosaur ancestors.
Nor have you answered the question of ERV's that were never considered to be "junk".
I don't care about your waffle around what is turned on and off. It has function. So non functional genomic material demonstrated an evolutionary path and now functional non coding dna also demonstrates an evolutionary path. That is twoddle. You can't get any deep ancestries right and you reckon you can get these ghost ervs into some order.

Admit that I have demonstrated that creos claimed there to be no junk dna many years before it was found to have function and have been validated.

Admit that some evos have shoved junk dna down creos throats as evidence for evolution and now should suck eggs.

Admit that evos would rather hang themselves than admit to being wrong about anything.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64115
Dec 8, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, part of your problem is that you work with the false dichotomy that if evolution is false then creationism is true. That is not necessarily the case. There could be many other possibilities.
Another major problem for creationism is that no one on your side has the guts nor brains to make a real creationism hypothesis. The guts aren't there because they know that hypotheses are testable and they are afraid of tests, having failed all of them to date. There are no current active creationism hypotheses. And you don't have to know everything to create a working hypotheses. Darwin definitely did not know anything and evolution started, like all modern day science does, as a hypothesis. He tested his idea and found that it worked. It as been tested for the entire 150 years since it became a theory by many others and it has always been found to work.
Back to my point that I was making. Scientific evidence, by definition, is evidence that supports or counters a scientific theory or hypothesis. Since creationists are too afraid to construct a scientific hypothesis there can be no scientific evidence for creationism. Of course to be fair there is any against it either. But then no scientist considers anything real when even the followers of the idea are afraid to test it. So you cannot have found any scientific evidence that supports creation at all. No one is willing to write a working hypothesis that the evidence can weigh against.
This is not some cute game that scientists play at. Scientists are very contentious people and would be just as likely to go into denial as anyone else. What cannot be denied is when evidence fits a theory. For example all fossil evidence fits into the evolutionary paradigm. None found so far does not. Since there is not creation hypothesis you cannot make the same claim. Do you see why the creation of hypotheses and theories is so important to scientists. This method is time tested and it produces results. All of modern science, not just evolution is based upon this approach.
So if you want to be a denying luddite, go ahead. You will get laughed at. If you want to call anything as scientific evidence for, or against creationism, then you or your pals need to come up with a hypothesis ASAP.
No more of your farting Subby. I am not dealing with the theory of everything. I am backing my one point on junk dna, 1/6, and you will either suck it up or shut up.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64116
Dec 9, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you admit that I can support my view, can I be bothered fluttering onto something else based on magic.
ERVs are ghosts that evos chase with algorithmic magic. ERVS are not left over remnants of virus they are tiny functional genomic sequence that may look vaguely like a virus when resequenced based on models of assumption. Phoenix is a simulated computer model, not an actual, virus brought back from the dead.
I have posted a loudmouth that gobbled about junk dna and discredited an entire paper on the basis of junk dna despite all the gobble about some ervs being found to be functional.
So are you going to admit that I can support 1. that creos at least claimed well in advance that there would be no junk dna. 2. Evos claimed there would be junk dna and suposedly found it. 3. Evos were falsified. 4. Creos were validated 5.Of the two, creos appear to have more merit than evos on this one point re non coding dna.
The above is the support for my first point of 6 for creationism.
We can go onto No 2 or ervs, when you admit to the above paragraph.
No, you posted someone who brought up very good points about why you are wrong.

1. Creos may have claimed there would be no junk DNA, you did not post any papers where that was claimed. Please do so.

2. No, some may have, some didn't, and a lot depends upon the definition of junk DNA.

3. No, they weren't. Again, what is junk DNA? If one definition includes left over genes that can be artificially turned on again that give an animal characteristics of its ancestors then we have found junk DNA. At any rate we have found evidence of evolution in DNA. If it also has another use today that does not take away the use that it had in the past.

4. Definitely not the case. See above.

5. Again no. For you to "win" you would have to prove that the entire DNA has a purpose now and that it did not have a different purpose in the past. You already lost on the latter part so definitely NO.

6. Since you lost on all of the past it looks like you will continue to duck on ERV's. Too bad. It is of course another terrible loss by creationists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64117
Dec 9, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No more of your farting Subby. I am not dealing with the theory of everything. I am backing my one point on junk dna, 1/6, and you will either suck it up or shut up.
And you lost on that. Sorry Maz, you will have to find some other topic to rant about.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 60,001 - 60,020 of111,871
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••