Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64293 Dec 10, 2012
Bad link Maz.

Please, you are the only one who waffles here. You don't want me to post a link to your waffle, trust me.

Genetics is not my specialty by any means. So I am at a bit of a disadvantage here. Of course it is not your specialty either and you have made many obvious mistakes and they have been pointed out to you.

As I said, not only does the entire genome have to be functional for the creationists to have even half of a leg to stand on, it has to be functional in a way consistent with creationism. Geneticists have already shown that chickens have ancestral genes, and these would have been among the "junk DNA" for teeth, claws on their wings (think Archaeopteryx) scales and dinosaur type tails (think Archy, again). That right there is a killer for creation.

Back to the topic of ERV's. ERV's mirror the nested hierarchy found in nature. Creationists not only have to show that ERV's are functional, since there is nothing that says the genetic code cannot co-opt ERV's in fact it has in spots, they have to show why they are in the exact same place in all of the species that share the same ERV's. A rather tall order too.

And that is just genetics. Creationism is shot down in just about every branch of science that there is. That is why unless you can come up with a scientific explanation for why things are the way we observe them using a creationist paradigm your idea is toast.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#64294 Dec 10, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
A Hint--the Bible is just ONE book, containing many chapters of the " world civ as some saw it". NOT a telebision series with before and after sequels.
That's why we have SCIENCE.
You are not making any sense. What I quoted is from a religious website owned by a scientist who is the director of the NIH and past director of the human genome project.

What is the 'world civ'??
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64295 Dec 10, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Are you from Jamaica?
Hey now :-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#64296 Dec 10, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Just pointing out some of the errors of your LACK of thought process.
And you do this by quoting someone else and tying it to me??

Perhaps you need to take a nap...or take your medicine.

You're not making any sense.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64297 Dec 10, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>This thread is concerning creation and I believe the Creator is the God of the Bible.
"According to whom"?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64298 Dec 10, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
And you do this by quoting someone else and tying it to me??
Perhaps you need to take a nap...or take your medicine.
You're not making any sense.
Are you talking to yourself?

Sounds like it.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#64299 Dec 10, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
and the error of the ignorance of your OWN denial.
The OT is FULL of the wretchedness of sinners!!
Course-a LOT of people already KNOW that.
You are not really making any sense here.

The Old Testament is demonstrated to be just a bunch of myths and allegory...not real in any sense. And just think how many people have fallen for it.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64300 Dec 10, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not making any sense. What I quoted is from a religious website owned by a scientist who is the director of the NIH and past director of the human genome project.
What is the 'world civ'??
"World Civilization" as scribed by more than one.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64301 Dec 10, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Big Bang Evidence for God
— By Frank Turek {PART 1}
..Nonsense deleted..
Knighty, you tipped your hand too early. The video you linked first proved that either Turek is an idiot or a liar. Why would we pay any attention to anything else that he had his hand in?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64302 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?
Actually haplotypes are cropping up more and more these days, in the studies of variables that sometimes can foster GOOD evolutionary changes, according to environmental aspects that may require the need for such.

"Junk DNA" tsk--tacky, tacky sounding.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64303 Dec 10, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not really making any sense here.
The Old Testament is demonstrated to be just a bunch of myths and allegory...not real in any sense. And just think how many people have fallen for it.
As many BOOKS of of histroical antiquities have shown, wiht out a doubt.

No need to preach here--I've been in the "choirs" for a quite some time myself, quite contentedly, and prefer to keep such personal realms to myself.

But DNA and Science--whole OTHER game. Love to yap about the stuff--love it!!
reality

Germantown, OH

#64304 Dec 10, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Is anyone interested in reality? I'm just telling it as I see it!
There you have it, folks! A creationist admits to the world he randomly proselyetizes about "the Creator" to people everywhere, whether they care to hear about it or not. Wow, what a jerk!

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#64305 Dec 10, 2012
Just wanted to let Maz Here know that when I got up this morning and checked, the theory of evolution still stood. All of biology is still holding up.

Keep clicking your heels together and muttering "there is no place like ignorance. there is no place like ignorance" Maz. Maybe the real world will finally go away for you.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#64306 Dec 10, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey now :-)
???

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64307 Dec 10, 2012
Who Really Commits the "God of the Gaps" Fallacy?
— By Frank Turek
The God-of-the-Gaps fallacy occurs when someone falsely believes that God caused the event when it really was caused by undiscovered natural phenomena. For example, people used to believe that lightning was caused directly by God. There was a gap in our knowledge of nature, so we attributed the effect to God. Darwinists assert that theists are doing the same thing by claiming that God created the universe and life. Are they correct? No, for a number of reasons.
First, when we conclude that intelligence created the first cell or the human brain, it's not simply because we lack evidence of a natural explanation; it's also because we have positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent cause. A message (specified complexity) is empirically detectable. When we detect a message, like "Take out the garbage, Mom" or 1,000 encyclopedias, we know that it must come from an intelligent being because all of our observational experience tells us that messages come only from intelligent beings. Every time we observe a message, it comes from an intelligent being. We couple this data with the fact that we never observe natural laws creating messages, and we know an intelligent being must be the cause. That's a valid scientific conclusion based on observation and repetition. It's not an argument from ignorance, nor is it based on any "gap" in our knowledge.
Second, Intelligent Design scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes. They are not opposed to continued research into a natural explanation for the first life. They're simply observing that all known natural explanations fail, and all empirically detectable evidence points to an intelligent Designer.
Now, one can question the wisdom of continuing to look for a natural cause of life. William Dembski, who has published extensive research on Intelligent Design, asks, "When does determination [to find a natural cause] become pigheadedness?... How long are we to continue a search before we have the right to give up the search and declare not only that continuing the search is vain but also that the very object of the search is nonexistent?” Consider the implications of Dembski's question. Should we keep looking for a natural cause for phenomena like Mount Rushmore or messages like "Take out the garbage, Mom"? When is the case closed?
Walter Bradley, a coauthor of the seminal work The Mystery of Life's Origin, believes "there ­doesn't seem to be the potential of finding a [natural explanation]" for the origin of life. He added, "I think people who believe that life emerged naturalistically need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there's an Intelligent Designer.” Regardless of whether or not you think we should keep looking for a natural explanation, the main point is that ID scientists are open to both natural and intelligent causes. It just so happens that an intelligent cause best fits the evidence.
Third, the Intelligent Design conclusion is falsifiable. In other words, ID could be disproven if natural laws were some day discovered to create specified complexity. However, the same cannot be said about the Darwinist position. Darwinists don't allow falsification of their "creation story" because, as we have described, they don't allow any other creation story to be considered. Their "science" is not tentative or open to correction; it's more closed-minded than the most dogmatic church doctrine the Darwinists are so apt to criticize.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64308 Dec 10, 2012
Finally, it's actually the Darwinists who are committing a kind of God-of the-Gaps fallacy. Darwin himself was once accused of considering natural selection "an active power or Deity" (see chapter 4 of Origin of Species). But it seems that natural selection actually is the deity or "God of the Gaps"for the Darwinists of today. When they are totally at a loss for how irreducibly complex, information-rich biological systems came into existence, they simply cover their gap in knowledge by claiming that natural selection, time, and chance did it.

The ability of such a mechanism to create information-rich biological systems runs counter to the observational evidence. Mutations that aren’t neutral are nearly always harmful, and time and chance do the Darwinists no good, as we explained in chapter 5. At best, natural selection may be responsible for minor changes in living species, but it cannot explain the origin of the basic forms of life. You need a living thing to start with for any natural selection to take place.Yet, despite the obvious problems with their mechanism, Darwinists insist that Natural Selection covers any gap in their knowledge.Moreover, they willfully ignore the positive, empirically detectable evidence for an intelligent being. This is not science but the dogma of a secular religion. One could say that Darwinists, like the opponents of Galileo, are letting their religion (or at least their philosophy) overrule scientific observations.

http://www.crossexamined.org/articles-detail.... Really Commits the "God of the Gaps" Fallacy?

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64309 Dec 10, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Knighty, you tipped your hand too early. The video you linked first proved that either Turek is an idiot or a liar. Why would we pay any attention to anything else that he had his hand in?
If you don't understand...ask...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64310 Dec 10, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, we still don't have an answer to why humans have different blood types or why we have different races. Or do you?
Sure. First:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/34...

And as for the development of races it's long been known as evolutionary adaptation to local environments. Either that or humans were magically poofed white people in the garden of Eden and that all the other races that sprang from them were inferior due to TEH FALL.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64311 Dec 10, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
NO I don't deny it. It is just lacking in scientific evidence, that's all.
Uhuh. Just ignoring the literally BILLIONS of pieces of evidence I provided which you couldn't even get your head around anyway.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64312 Dec 10, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
think outside the box, where else could life on earth have come from?
Yup, that was out the box alright.

There are times when "thinking" outside the box is not necessarily a good thing...

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
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 3 min Old Sam 137,902
True or False Game 5 min Old Sam 378
Truck containing 36,000 pounds of Crisco stolen 8 min -Lea- 37
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 9 min Old Sam 29,495
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 10 min Crazy Jae 77,366
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 11 min Old Sam 17,792
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 13 min Old Sam 3,526
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 20 min -Lea- 22,231
During Obama's Speech at Democratic Campaign Ra... 24 min Sam 31
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 36 min wichita-rick 148,965

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE