Evolution vs. Creation

Jan 6, 2011 Read more: Best of New Orleans 160,106
High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64266 Dec 10, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
Get a life by feeling yourself first.
Uhhhh... too much info, pal.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#64267 Dec 10, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Some folks attend mass gatherings a lot for the "social aspects" of them though.
Because people can actually worship quietly to themselves, to any creator they wish to.
So over all, we would have to deduce "your "theory" on THAT, as being a taduh bit "flawed" as well.
That is a novel interpretation and worthy of merit. I though he said gravity keeps us on Earth because God doesn't want us. A lot depends on what he means by 'attending services'.
reality

Germantown, OH

#64268 Dec 10, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The Bible tells us in GEN 1:1&2&3 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." If we could use our understanding of sound light and heat and describe the command as a literal voice which traveled upon waves of patterned compressions and rarefactions, then we can form a creation theory which seperates the event into understandable constituents. We can apply our observations concerning sound as it travels through water to make claims describing the reality.
For what reason would you want to qoute the Bible to prove any point? The Bible wasn't written by a "god". It was written by men & women just like you & I...normal everyday run of the mill homo sapiens sapiens.
reality

Germantown, OH

#64269 Dec 10, 2012
Colorado Chick wrote:
GIVE iIT UP..
Every ALIEN in the Universe ...KNOWS...THAT EARTH is a TEST SITE...Created ORIGINALS..
Then...sadly.
There are the science experiments.... that have EVOLVED...dispite being test-tube FREAKS!!!..
I bet PMS evolved.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#64270 Dec 10, 2012
reality wrote:
<quoted text>
For what reason would you want to qoute the Bible to prove any point? The Bible wasn't written by a "god". It was written by men & women just like you & I...normal everyday run of the mill homo sapiens sapiens.
This thread is concerning creation and I believe the Creator is the God of the Bible.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#64271 Dec 10, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No peer review
Just peer revered
Like Newton
Newton made his discoveries prior to the scientific method and was grandfathered in, they also proved to be inaccurate in many ways.

Care to try a more apt analogy? Like maybe his writings and notions are no better than those of Tolkien, a much more apt analogy.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64272 Dec 10, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Now you're stupid is showing. I claimed creos made their claims around junk dna being functional before it was found otherwise. Neither creos or evos could make any claims on junk dna until the stuff was found initially,..Stupid!

ERVs were classified as junk dna and we will look at that specifically when we are done with this. I am not evading anything, I have said this to you before, and don't want this discussion going down the usual tail chasing circle of evasion evos employ when they have lost a point. We are now specifically talking about creos and evos general claims around junk dna. We will talk about ervs specifically, next.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64273 Dec 10, 2012
I'll modify to make it sound not so nasty..

1. Creationist predictions and claims are continuing to be validated with 80% of the genome being found to be functional and the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional.
This continuing 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 denial, suggest TOE never did or could make a prediction around non coding dna and deny that yet another evolutionary claim and irrefutable evidence for TOE is about to be thrown into that huge rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

The research.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...

Creos claims that if God created and designed the genome DNA would be functional, as opposed to evos claims that junk dna proves evolution. Creos faced off with evos as early as 1998 and below is a published letter in Nature from Behe in 2003, whilst evos were still stuffing junk dna down creos throats as irrefutable evidence for TOE
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene0...
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/in...

I suggest my point 1 is established with sufficient evidence to back my claims. You cannot support yours.

Any claim or prediction that has merit will stand the test of time. Research has taken us from 98% junk to 80% function, with even evolutionary researchers suggesting the likelihood of 100% function. We are well on the way to a 100% validation which looks a heck of a lot better than evos that are in the process of having their initial claims and predictions on ‘junk’ dna totally falsified and will again move onto knee jerk science.

So far all I have had in reply is evasion. Evos will reply with words without meaning but cannot refute nor falsify a claim that is based on both historical evidence and recent peer reviewed research from ENCODE.

Evos may not like it, however, unfortunately for them it’s just how it is. That is called reality.

What now Subby? More quacking and denial, no doubt. You evos are denialists and haven't even got the integrity to admit that on this point creos have the upper hand at present.

When we finalize this point and you admit I have supported it, then we will go onto ERVs that were also thought to be functionless remnants and junk, and believe me I am really looking forward to that also.

You admit that I have provided evidence that creos made claims in relation to junk dna not being junk, evos made claims that junk dna supports TOE, and that creos are having their claims validated at the expense of evos claims, then you will have matured up enough to move on.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64274 Dec 10, 2012
Maz, only creatards mistakenly categorized ERV's as "junk DNA". They were recognized before we knew about coding and non-coding DNA. "Junk DNA" is very similar to the term "UFO". You wouldn't say "look at that 747, it's a UFO" nor would identified parts of the genome be called junk DNA. And ancestral genes are not junk DNA either. So that would be among the 80%. How are you going to deal with that?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#64275 Dec 10, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
I believe everytthing in the universe and on earth originated with suddenness through a miracle of creation in the beginning.
Why do you believe that?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#64276 Dec 10, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
What is your evidence that all rocks did not suddenly come into existence, and I'm not talking about fossils?
Radiometric dating.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64277 Dec 10, 2012
http://www.godtube.com/watch/...

Intelligent Design - Frank Turek - Today's Christian Videos

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64278 Dec 10, 2012
Maz, when you lie you harm your case. When noncoding DNA was first discovered it bothered many evolutionists. They thought that non-coding DNA would drop out of the genome. They realized that it could still fit in the TOE, it was not a big deal either way for us. It is a big deal for creationists. Even 1% noncoding might be fatal for creationism. Of course creationism was dead long before this subject came along so I don't know how it could be any deader.

And when you say you see evasion, that is only projection upon your part. We have answered your questions, foolish as they may be, you have not answered ours.

You still have no answer for ERV's or ancestral genes.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64279 Dec 10, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, only creatards mistakenly categorized ERV's as "junk DNA". They were recognized before we knew about coding and non-coding DNA. "Junk DNA" is very similar to the term "UFO". You wouldn't say "look at that 747, it's a UFO" nor would identified parts of the genome be called junk DNA. And ancestral genes are not junk DNA either. So that would be among the 80%. How are you going to deal with that?
Have you admitted that my point 1 is supported?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64280 Dec 10, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're stupid is showing. I claimed creos made their claims around junk dna being functional before it was found otherwise. Neither creos or evos could make any claims on junk dna until the stuff was found initially,..Stupid!
ERVs were classified as junk dna and we will look at that specifically when we are done with this. I am not evading anything, I have said this to you before, and don't want this discussion going down the usual tail chasing circle of evasion evos employ when they have lost a point. We are now specifically talking about creos and evos general claims around junk dna. We will talk about ervs specifically, next.
No, you didn't. But I am not going to shift through tons of Maz crap to find your errant post.

And no, ERV's were never classified as junk DNA, that is a mistake that creatards made.

Back to the subject of Junk DNA. Junk DNA is fatal only to creationists, it is not fatal either way to evolution. In fact all science is fatal to creationism, but that is another point.
reality

Germantown, OH

#64281 Dec 10, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>This thread is concerning creation and I believe the Creator is the God of the Bible.
Wow! What a classic! I guess I shouldn't be suprised whatsoever that a creationist would blatantly leave out 50% of this thread's title!

You believe ..."the Creator is the God of the Bible".
By directly quoting the Bible you consciously promote to others the agenda of what you percieve to be "the Creator".
If people around you desire to pick up and read the Bible. Great! Wonderful! More power to them! However, it's NOT your right to blindly shove YOUR (not the Creators)beliefs in the everyones' faces! You obviously put little or no thought to the fact that other people couldn't care less about YOUR Bible quotes.
In MY book, your activity goes way beyond rude.
It is downright arrogant.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64282 Dec 10, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you admitted that my point 1 is supported?
Part of it is supported. The fact that creationists are idiots is supported. But otherwise it is way to early to tell.

When the claim is made that 80% of the genome is functional it has to be shown "how" it is functional with more detail before creationists can claim any sort of victory. If old genes evolved new functions then creationists don't have much of a claim. "Junk DNA" would still be harmful to them.

But then every aspect of science is harmful to creationism. You know that your own ideas are untenable since you will not clearly state them. Your belief right now it "anything but evolution" and that is not a scientific belief at all.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64283 Dec 10, 2012
Big Bang Evidence for God
— By Frank Turek {PART 1}

When I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens recently, one of the eight arguments I offered for God’s existence was the creation of this supremely fine-tuned universe out of nothing. I spoke of the five mainlines of scientific evidence—denoted by the acronym SURGE—that point to the definite beginning of the space-time continuum. They are: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Expanding Universe, the Radiation Afterglow from the Big Bang Explosion, the Great galaxy seeds in the Radiation Afterglow, and Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.

While I don’t have space to unpack this evidence here (see I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist), it all points to the fact that the universe began from literally nothing physical or temporal. Once there was no time, no space, and no matter and then it all banged into existence out of nothing with great precision.

The evidence led astronomer Dr. Robert Jastrow—who until his recent death was the director of the Mount Wilson observatory once led by Edwin Hubble—to author a book called God and the Astronomers. Despite revealing in the first line of chapter 1 that he was personally agnostic about ‘religious matters,” Jastrow reviewed some of the SURGE evidence and concluded,“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

In an interview, Jastrow went even further, admitting that“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover.... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

Jastrow was not alone in evoking the supernatural to explain the beginning. Athough he found it personally “repugnant,” General Relativity expert Arthur Eddington admitted the same when he said,“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”

Now why would scientists such as Jastrow and Eddington admit,despite their personal misgivings, that there are “supernatural” forces at work? Why couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe?Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang—nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:

•spaceless—because it created space
•timeless—because it created time
•immaterial—because it created matter
•powerful—because it created out of nothing
•intelligent—because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
•personal—because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don’t make choices).
Those are the same attributes of the God of the Bible (which is one reason I believe in a the God of the Bible and not a god of mythology like Zeus).

http://www.crossexamined.org/articles-detail.... Bang Evidence for God

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64284 Dec 10, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
http://www.godtube.com/watch/? v=MB01MNNU
Intelligent Design - Frank Turek - Today's Christian Videos
Argument from idiocy. So what?
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#64285 Dec 10, 2012
reality wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! What a classic! I guess I shouldn't be suprised whatsoever that a creationist would blatantly leave out 50% of this thread's title!
You believe ..."the Creator is the God of the Bible".
By directly quoting the Bible you consciously promote to others the agenda of what you percieve to be "the Creator".
If people around you desire to pick up and read the Bible. Great! Wonderful! More power to them! However, it's NOT your right to blindly shove YOUR (not the Creators)beliefs in the everyones' faces! You obviously put little or no thought to the fact that other people couldn't care less about YOUR Bible quotes.
In MY book, your activity goes way beyond rude.
It is downright arrogant.
Is anyone interested in reality? I'm just telling it as I see it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 17 min whatimeisit 4,151
Thirteen 35 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 36 min Hoosier Hillbilly 41,485
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 38 min Hoosier Hillbilly 31,742
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 45 min Hoosier Hillbilly 56,531
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 48 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2,180
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 54 min Hoosier Hillbilly 5,173
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr wichita-rick 161,128
motorcycle traveling stories 4 hr Biker 495
News Snubbed Girl, 10, Gets Party of a Lifetime 4 hr Spotted Girl 6
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 4 hr Camilla 28,829
News Watch the bizarre moment when Scott Disick SHAV... 5 hr Christian Taliban 9
More from around the web