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 3,005)

Showing posts 60,081 - 60,100 of106,042
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 12

Grand Prairie, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64132
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, the god of the gaps argument. Brilliant.

No one in science has ever claimed to know it all! But believers claim that their unseen god knows it all. What does that make them?
1st off I just had this talk with kitten go read her post it was better than yours.
2nd when believers say God knows it all it makes them FAITHFUL.
Before you spend the next couple of weeks trying to make me doubt God the other evos and atheists have been at it for 3 weeks and they had way better arguments than you do.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64133
Dec 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it's ok to own a slave much less kill one. My wife is not my property and anyone who says different can argue with her about it.
As for the mind of God besides what's in the bible I can't tell you I can honestly say I don't want to know what's on Gods mind.
Here is the point. You are picking and choosing what parts of your Bible to believe on what feels good rather than on evidence. In the O.T. it was okay own a slave. Not only was it okay to own a slave, it was alright to beat a slave. You could beat a slave within an inch of its life and as long as it did not die in the next day or two you were alright. In fact the slave could die a week after the beating and that was not a crime. You could get out of a rape charge by paying the father, not the women, but the father of a women that you raped and marrying her. I am sure women would just love that. There is all sorts of immoral nonsense in the O.T. that you reject and yet you ignore science and believe what is obviously a fairy tale in the first book of the Bible.

Now there is some good philosophy in the N.T.. A lot of it makes sense. And if it helps you that is fine. But you can pretty much throw the O.T. away. There is an amazing amount of extremely immoral behavior and nonsense in it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64134
Dec 9, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, try to bring up one point. Make it the strongest point. Your Gish Gallops are obvious lies.
So how does this "new" discovery help cretinism or IDiocy in any way?
I will repeat that they did not find the whole genome to be functioning yet. Only that much more of it is functioning that was thought in the past. Some of those functions are old functions that hurt creationism. Dinosaur teeth, scales, tales, and claws in a chicken hurt creationism, they do not help it and those are some of the finds of what used to be "junk DNA". Do you need articles on how they found those? I will be happy to supply them.
Second, none of your cited scientific articles support your side in the least. You have only gone to them for their title or at most their abstracts. None of them put a limit on evolution. The people who wrote them did not think there was a limit on evolution.
Lastly you have failed to produce the articles that you claim exist. You have failed to show how creationists predicted a totally useful DNA before "Junk DNA" was discovered. Nor have you shown any articles that predict that all DNA would be found to have a use by creationists even after this latest discovery. Probably because they are aware of the old genes that have been found that already debunk creationism.
So that is at least three strikes and you are out.
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.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64135
Dec 9, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it's ok to own a slave much less kill one. My wife is not my property and anyone who says different can argue with her about it.
As for the mind of God besides what's in the bible I can't tell you I can honestly say I don't want to know what's on Gods mind.
But your god said that it was ok and that your wife is your property. I am certainly not defending your myth, just telling you what most preachers will not.

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

I guess that is the major difference between a believer and a non-believer; the non-believer is driven to ask questions. That is why believers say, "Don't question god!" Why not? Is he afraid of my questions?

Teachers who did not know the material, also hate questions, but a person well versed, welcomes questions.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64136
Dec 9, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
1st off I just had this talk with kitten go read her post it was better than yours.
2nd when believers say God knows it all it makes them FAITHFUL.
Before you spend the next couple of weeks trying to make me doubt God the other evos and atheists have been at it for 3 weeks and they had way better arguments than you do.
I never claimed to be a good writer! I certainly would never put myself on the same level of knowledge as many of the others on here. They are very well educated. I have not spoken with a christian who was well educated on evolution or the bible.

My arguments are simple.
Would a supreme being worry about only the human females virginity? Would a supreme being allow owning and murdering a slave?
Would a supreme being require a rape victim to marry her rapist?

Three very simple questions and the obvious answer is, no.

If jesus is god and a god cannot die, why do christians claim that he died for their sins?

Very simple logic. Not much of an IQ is needed to answer these very simple questions.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64137
Dec 9, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Interesting. In my observation, it's more like religion drags it's
heals a lot longer than science does, and only changes it's practice,
kicking and screaming when the difference between an evolving
understanding of reality, as well as an evolving culture, becomes too
incredibly awkward.

Of course modern science hasn't been around that long, so it's harder to take the long view. The modern science framework, of cherishing
the competition of ideas, seems pretty foreign to how religion works,
and allows the much faster rate of change that we see in science.

In a country where freedom of religion is guaranteed, I notice that
religion changes mainly by the splitting away of new factions, while the older faction keeps it's beliefs constant, but may diminish in
numbers of adherents. Of course at the same time there are
individuals who drift away from religious cliques into a rainbow of
private interpretations, or even just ignore the whole thing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64138
Dec 9, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I should not need to provide any more you ignorant evotard. Are you suggesting that creos did not make claims around junk dna? Moron. When did you last support anything you say with anything let alone peer reviewed research..the big evo quack....
2. Waffle and crap.
3. waffle and crap. Ask your creotard researchers what junk is. They invented the term. You evotards don't even understand your own terms now. Ha Ha.
And the rest are crap also with nothing more than the simplistic replies of a child.
Don't forget it is evo researchers that have found 80% functionality and are expecting to find 100%. Would you like to wager what is left of your credibility on that?
All I have to do is demonstate that creos made claims around junk dna and I have pegged them back to 1998. I do not have to produce peer reviewed research evotard because most intelligent evos already know that creos preached that.
I have produced evidence to support creos made these claims well in advance, and you would have to be a desperate moron to suggest otherwise as your sole defence.
Creos did not toddle off and come up with convolutions as to why God would make junk dna and role model evolutionary knee jerk science. Creos denied the existence of junk dna from its inception. If they did us eknee jerk science you would be able to find the same kind of prattle from creos as I can find from evos loudmouthing their hubris, ad nauseum.
You are a proud empty prat, trying to justify your existence on a debating forum.
1. I have supported many claims in the past and have often offered. I see that you ran away from my claims that I offered to get links on. And you idiot, at least when I get links they support my claims, unlike yours where you only think they do.

As I already told you, when it comes to your arguments there is no there there. That means you have nothing.

2. Yes, your blue waffle is rather stinky and you hate it when people show that you are an idiot.

3. Again, yes, See above. And no, the term "junk DNA" was always a popular press term. Don't make me laugh. The more proper term was always "Non-coding DNA".

And you need to learn there is a big difference between them saying they expect to and may. They claim they may be able to find 100% functionality. But remember, some of that functionality is already accounted for in ways you don't like. Ancient genes count as functionality. If they know what the genes were used for they are no longer junk. Remember the chicken. The sort of research they did on chicken embryos obviously cannot be done on people. And ERV's don't count as junk DNA, they were never counted that way. We knew where they came from so they weren't junk.

You still have no answer for either of those last two unpleasant facts for creatards

So it seems that like normal you have nothing and you get pissed off when someone points out that you have nothing. Take your stinking flapping blue waffle elsewhere.

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

London, 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

London, 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

London, 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

London, 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

Marrickville, 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

Marrickville, 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

Marrickville, 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

Marrickville, 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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 60,081 - 60,100 of106,042
|
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.

195 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Word Association (Mar '10) 6 min Lia Russell 14,504
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min nooneuneedtoknow 131,810
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 8 min cathouse cowboy 4,509
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 9 min cathouse cowboy 4,399
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 11 min honeymylove 136,125
Word Association. (Nov '10) 12 min cathouse cowboy 15,607
If you HAD to marry someone on TOPIX, who would... 14 min eleanorigby 159
when pops can't stand the heat ..... 16 min SLACK 19
clark county nevada rancher facing tyranny from... 2 hr Bob 286
Lets Ask Billy R! (May '12) 4 hr Harrison Freebird 2,272
•••
•••
•••
•••