Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

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!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64286 Dec 10, 2012
We are not moving on from this Subby untill the general discussion around junk dna is finalized.

That is because I intend on having it out all over again on every one of the 6 points I have made. I am not having you crap all over the place with BS and then say some mythical post of yours dealt with the matter. We are now stuck at number 1, which I have supported and you have evaded.

If I remember correctly, first you waffled on about the integrity of an article until I published the research, then waffled on about requiring some peer reviewed standard crap maintaining creos claims, and I gave you a letter from a creo published in Nature, then you wanted to divert to ervs, then you showed your stupid by suggesting creos and evos should make claims before the discovery of the junk to make claims about and now you are just looking plain stupid and desperate.

While you are looking for the guts to admit defeat at refuting my point 1, and after many of your posts I still can't see what the heck you are trying to say or do, other than the usual face saving evasion evos are actually good at.

Here is the warm up for the erv challenge.

I predict ervs will be found to have function. This is based on the philosophical assertion that if the genome was designed God has no need to make useless dna. I assert that ERVs are not remnants of ancient viral infections but are functional genetic elements that are a part of a designed genome.

This genomic material evos refer to as ERVs appears to be part of other regulatory networks in organisms that are involved in an organisms well being.

What Made ERV LTRS Immediately Turn into Essential Gene Regulators Upon Insertion?

•“We also present evidence that the functional TF binding sites of the human b3GAL-T5 LTR promoter were present in the original consensus sequence for this class of LTRs. Upon similar analysis of other ERV sequences, we have concluded that this evolutionary history is shared by certain other LTR gene promoters, and may be a general phenomenon.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science... -
4GXVG6Y-1&_user=10&_rd oc=1&fmt=&_orig=search &_sort=d&view=
c&_acct=C000050221&_ve rsion=1&_urlVersion=0& _userid=10&md5=
19c2ea074bec5e7313b36ce1630e38 a8

Now when, and if ever, you decide to 'man up' a little, we will move on to the ERV myth.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64287 Dec 10, 2012
Big Bang Evidence for God
— By Frank Turek {PART 2}

I mentioned in the debate that other scientists who made Big-Bang-related discoveries also conclude that the evidence is consistent with the Biblical account. Robert Wilson—co-discoverer of the Radiation Afterglow, which won him a Noble Prize in Physics—observed,“Certainly there was something that set it off. Certainly, if you’re religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.” George Smoot—co-discoverer of the Great Galaxy Seeds which won him a Nobel Prize as well—echoed Wilson’s assessment by saying,“There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”

How did Hitchens respond to this evidence? Predictably, he said that I was “speculating”—that no one can get behind the Big Bang event. I say “predictably” because that’s exactly the response Dr.Jastrow said is common for atheists who have their own religion—the religion of science. Jastrow wrote,“There is a kind of religion in science ... every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause.... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications—in science this is known as ‘refusing to speculate.’”

Hitchens admits the evidence but ignores its implications in order to blindly maintain his own religious faith (watch the entire debate at CrossExamined.org ). How is it speculation to say that since all space,time, and matter were created that the cause must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial? That’s not speculation, but following the evidence where it leads.

Dr. Jastrow, despite his agnosticism, told us where the evidence leads. He ended his book this way:“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

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

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#64288 Dec 10, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Is anyone interested in reality? I'm just telling it as I see it!
So when do you start talking about reality?
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#64289 Dec 10, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Radiometric dating.
This does not tell us of the deriviation of the first stage of rocks or if they originated with suddenness or not.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64290 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So when do you start talking about reality?
http://www.marcofolio.net/images/stories/fun/...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ckBlasgNSzg/SueOGY4...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#64291 Dec 10, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Hey now, where'd you get that photograph of me?

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64292 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey now, where'd you get that photograph of me?
LOL!

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
why is geno stalking 5 min Hoosier Hillbilly 9
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 6 min Hoosier Hillbilly 25,396
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 7 min Spirit67_ 5,976
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 8 min Hoosier Hillbilly 26,669
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 9 min Hoosier Hillbilly 3,960
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 13 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2,924
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 14 min Hoosier Hillbilly 4,219
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 18 min dirty white boy- 152,341
True or False Game 33 min mr goodwrench 1,239
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 1 hr chortle 68
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr dragoon70056 37,713