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
60,001 - 60,020 of 114,621 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64139
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so now you are quibbling over 20%, despite your own researchers saying that likely 100% will be found to be functional. Is that your desperate strategy now? You fool and desperate waste of space.
I'd say I have the upper hand whilst you grab hold of a straws.
I have not failed to show how creos predicted at all because I posted reference to a debate a creo had with an evo about junk not being junk. Your are really stupid and desperate. You lot actually had evidence of junk dna that was no more than farting in the wind.
So are you saying that when the last 20% is found to have function you will shut the frig up and stop your stupidity. I doubt it!
I'd say jumping from 98% junk to 80% functional is validation in motion. Note, I am sticking with my prediction and not knee jerk explaining why God would even have 20% junk in the genome.
Is this 20% proof of evolution?
What about you evos? Too bad you can't say the same thing. Knee jerkers!
You have not refuted this..
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...
Everything above is true and suffiently supported, and you have desperation and bravado to offer to save face on this forum.
Oops, I responded to the wrong rant. I was rudely awoken and had not had my coffee yet, but in my defense all of Maz's waffle flapping sounds the same after a while. Let's see how wrong she is this time.

No, 20% nonfunctionality in DNA is still enough to sink any creationist claims. And evolutionists never put great stock in the claim of "junk DNA". Why should they? In fact I have never seen anyone make this claim except for creatards claiming that evolutionists have. Perhaps that one lone voice that Maz linked. And she claims of creationist predictions and she has yet to link any. Even if there was pure 100% functionality, no ERV's no ancient genomes, which are of course not Junk DNA, that would not do any harm to the theory of evolution. As I said, the Junk DNA claim was not even accepted by all evolutionists,especially not genetic evolutionists that understand the subject. This was an idea that sunk and buried, and still does sink and bury cretinism.

No evolutionists are scurrying away in shame. We are merely pointing out how incredibly wrong idiots like Maz are.

Let's see if I can explain this in logic terms that even our creatard "friend" can understand. Let's call evolution E and creationism C. And the latest kerfuffle we will call G for genome.

Now in its original form it was always a case of:

If G then not C.

It was never:

If not G then not E.

Right now it is still in a form of:

If G then Not C

Since there is far too much non-coding DNA for creationists to account for.

And even if that remaining 20% is found to be functional they still need to explain ancient genes in the genome and ERV's. Two topics that we see Maz running from with her nasty blue waffle flapping away.

At best Maz can only hope for is a Not G situation. And of course Not G does not imply C in anyway.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64141
Dec 9, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Try some researched history then-

Simon Sebag Montefiore bookuh.

A little hard to follow the tree branches sometimes but worth the read...alll the way to the LAST pages.

Even Bill Clinton supposedly gave it a big thumbs up.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64142
Dec 9, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
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
and do notice, just the mention of the actual author and his work is sufficient, for those of us who realize--MANY can and DO, think for themselves, and need no further dribble, on things that are already WRITTEN by someone else.

Mostly because book reviews are a dime a dozen--almost anyone can do one--so best to read anything for ones SELF, because no one can think for anyone else!!
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64143
Dec 9, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>from the world of trapped inside a little square ignobox of nothing but self serving blahblahblah
Above aka also Why SOME of us have Always prefered to read, research, question and Always, Always--think for ourselves!! Because it'd be pretty boring to live in such a limited "self know it all world" and have to miss interesting stuff like below!

Underground Tunnels Found in Israel Used In Ancient Jewish Revolt
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
March 15, 2006

A series of underground chambers and tunnels recently found in Israel were likely used as refuges during the First Jewish Revolt, archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority announced.

Storage jars found in one pit were an apparent stockpile of foodstuffs for the uprising against Roman rule that began in A.D. 66.

"The pits are connected to each other by short tunnels, and it seems that they were used as hiding refuges—a kind of concealed subterranean home—that were built prior to the Great Revolt against the Romans," Alexandre said in a statement.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64144
Dec 9, 2012
 
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>

My son would often start a conversation with, "Do you want to know something..." and I always reply with, "I want to know everything!"
There's your problem.

There's NO such thing.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64145
Dec 9, 2012
 
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Britain, like most of Europe and America is Christian, celebrates Christmas and Easter, but people don't pray or go to church like they used to, and we don't have the fundamentalists who preach hate about homosexuals or abortion, we don't have many creationists, but Britain is still culturally a Christian country, even if most people dont believe these days
Ok.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64146
Dec 9, 2012
 
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Britain, like most of Europe and America is Christian, celebrates Christmas and Easter, but people don't pray or go to church like they used to, and we don't have the fundamentalists who preach hate about homosexuals or abortion, we don't have many creationists, but Britain is still culturally a Christian country, even if most people dont believe these days
They don't believe these days?
Interesting!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64147
Dec 9, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oops, I responded to the wrong rant. I was rudely awoken and had not had my coffee yet, but in my defense all of Maz's waffle flapping sounds the same after a while. Let's see how wrong she is this time.
No, 20% nonfunctionality in DNA is still enough to sink any creationist claims. And evolutionists never put great stock in the claim of "junk DNA". Why should they?

(BECAUSE EVOS WANKED OVER IT FOR OVER A DECADE SAYING IT WAS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION) SAYS MAZ.

In fact I have never seen anyone make this claim except for creatards claiming that evolutionists have. Perhaps that one lone voice that Maz linked. And she claims of creationist predictions and she has yet to link any.

Even if there was pure 100% functionality, no ERV's no ancient genomes, which are of course not Junk DNA, that would not do any harm to the theory of evolution. As I said, the Junk DNA claim was not even accepted by all evolutionists,especially not genetic evolutionists that understand the subject. This was an idea that sunk and buried, and still does sink and bury cretinism.
No evolutionists are scurrying away in shame. We are merely pointing out how incredibly wrong idiots like Maz are.
Let's see if I can explain this in logic terms that even our creatard "friend" can understand. Let's call evolution E and creationism C. And the latest kerfuffle we will call G for genome.
Now in its original form it was always a case of:
If G then not C.
It was never:
If not G then not E.
Right now it is still in a form of:
If G then Not C
Since there is far too much non-coding DNA for creationists to account for.
And even if that remaining 20% is found to be functional they still need to explain ancient genes in the genome and ERV's. Two topics that we see Maz running from with her nasty blue waffle flapping away.
At best Maz can only hope for is a Not G situation. And of course Not G does not imply C in anyway.
Behes letter to Nature, published 2003

The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose?

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene0...

Miller...

From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/in...

Who is the idiot? Subby is because he is as ignorant and desperate as they come.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64148
Dec 9, 2012
 
This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...

And from an evo scientist with more qualifications than Subby.
If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion.“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

You likewise look pathetically stupid like Miller. I can visualize you there clinging to your straw of the remaining 20% and quivering and holding strong in faith and hope that your researchers will not be made total fools instead of just 80% fools..

So creationist predictions are being validated as time goes on and that is exactly what predictability is supposed to look like as opposed to TOEs knee jerk science of anything goes that has the predictive capability of a crystal ball.

Evos would be the ones wiping egg off their face, now clutching and straw grabbing at that last 20%, of 98%.

Hence my claim is exactly correct, creo predictions and claims are continuing to be validated, just like I said.

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...

Hence the claim a creationist prediction continues to be validated is correct. You evos are now on notice. My point 1 is established.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64149
Dec 9, 2012
 
Subby..

Indeed I have presented a Nature publication that demonstrates creos claiming junk dna would be found to be functional. I have proven creos made their claims aforetime in 1998 and again in 2003 in the paper submitted to Nature.

I have presented evidence that evos rebuked creos predictions in Miller and that idiot, proffessor Moran, on Sandwalk.

I have presented evidence that the proposed evolutionary claim of 98% non functionality that supported TOE has gone to 80% functionality with credentialled evos suggesting it will likely go to 100%.

Therefore my claim is correct. Creationist predictions are being validated as time goes on like any prediction that has any merit should. Unlike TOE that has the predictive capability of a crystal ball.

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...

Point 1 is established.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64150
Dec 9, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Behes letter to Nature, published 2003
The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose?
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene0...
Miller...
From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/in...
Who is the idiot? Subby is because he is as ignorant and desperate as they come.
It appears that rather than me being the stinky one, Subduction Zone smells of ignorance and evasion and needs to suck eggs with the rest of the gaggle.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64151
Dec 9, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Behes letter to Nature, published 2003
The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose?
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene0...
Miller...
From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/in...
Who is the idiot? Subby is because he is as ignorant and desperate as they come.
Nope, another Maz failure. You claimed that BEFORE the first news of "junk DNA" came out that creationists had predicted that the entire genome would be functional. This is not even a a prediction after "junk DNA" was first discovered. This is an article of a discredited creatard grasping at straws after the discovery that gave them a glimmer of hope was made.

You still have no answer for ancestral genes and ERV's. I will keep reminding you of that failure of yours.

As I have said, so far you have nothing. There is still not "there" there in your arguments.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64152
Dec 9, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Subby..
Indeed I have presented a Nature publication that demonstrates creos claiming junk dna would be found to be functional. I have proven creos made their claims aforetime in 1998 and again in 2003 in the paper submitted to Nature.
I have presented evidence that evos rebuked creos predictions in Miller and that idiot, proffessor Moran, on Sandwalk.
I have presented evidence that the proposed evolutionary claim of 98% non functionality that supported TOE has gone to 80% functionality with credentialled evos suggesting it will likely go to 100%.
Therefore my claim is correct. Creationist predictions are being validated as time goes on like any prediction that has any merit should. Unlike TOE that has the predictive capability of a crystal ball.
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...
Point 1 is established.
I have not seen any Nature publications where creationists made such predictions. Remember, predictions have to be made BEFORE the event, otherwise they are not predictions but either explanations or rationalizations.

And no, Moran showed why your claims are still wrong.

And lastly the so called claim of 80% functionality is largely due to loosening of the definition. Place keepers are hardly functional and it is more likely a new use for old DNA.

And you have steadfastly ignored the enormous problem of ancestoral DNA and ERV's. When you can answer those huge problems with arguments that are better than mere handwaving you might have something.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64153
Dec 9, 2012
 
And Mav, this is from the Discover article:
Scientists have long recognised that some non-coding DNA has a function,
Yes, like ERV's, and ancestral genes. Those were never considered to be junk.
Please try to understand the articles that you link.

As I have said time after time, "junk DNA" is a term similar to "UFO" when the DNA is identified it is no longer "junk".

In other words: Wrong Maz, try again.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64155
Dec 9, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so now you are quibbling over 20%, despite your own researchers saying that likely 100% will be found to be functional.
If it turns out there is still 20% non-functional DNA, would that discredit creation science entirely?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64156
Dec 9, 2012
 
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
If it turns out there is still 20% non-functional DNA, would that discredit creation science entirely?
And not to mention the ERV's and ancestral genes that Maz wants to ignore.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64157
Dec 9, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Above aka also Why SOME of us have Always prefered to read, research, question and Always, Always--think for ourselves!! Because it'd be pretty boring to live in such a limited "self know it all world" and have to miss interesting stuff like below!
Underground Tunnels Found in Israel Used In Ancient Jewish Revolt
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
March 15, 2006
A series of underground chambers and tunnels recently found in Israel were likely used as refuges during the First Jewish Revolt, archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority announced.
Storage jars found in one pit were an apparent stockpile of foodstuffs for the uprising against Roman rule that began in A.D. 66.
"The pits are connected to each other by short tunnels, and it seems that they were used as hiding refuges—a kind of concealed subterranean home—that were built prior to the Great Revolt against the Romans," Alexandre said in a statement.
I don't believe I wrote the little blurb you quoted in this reply.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64158
Dec 9, 2012
 
From the BBC:
"Science shows that the Biblical creation story is not literally true, and demonstrates that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are myths and not historical figures.
This destroys the idea of original sin as being caused by the misbehaviour of the first man and woman, and the idea of inheriting guilt or punishment for that misbehaviour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/chris...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64159
Dec 9, 2012
 
Does genetics support a single couple (Adam and Eve)?

NO...

http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-...
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64160
Dec 9, 2012
 
In quiet moments like this, I usually like to compose a dirty limerick or two to get the drama going. Maybe a bit of Wagner parody will suffice!

"I killed the wabbit!!

.....I killed the wabbit!!!"

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••