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 3,009)

Showing posts 60,161 - 60,180 of111,636
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64261
Dec 10, 2012
 
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!!!..

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64262
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

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!!!..
....oooookay....

<<Kong backing away slowly>>
reality

Germantown, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64263
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
....oooookay....
<<Kong backing away slowly>>
I bet PMS evolved.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64264
Dec 10, 2012
 
Liberal wrote:
(The me talk is a nod to just how dumb some, again some, liberals can be.)
Ah. Another mook who thinks which way people vote is relevant to the validity of science.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64265
Dec 10, 2012
 
reality wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet PMS evolved.
I would have guessed LSD....or some other 3-letter combination.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64266
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Makesure100 wrote:
Get a life by feeling yourself first.
Uhhhh... too much info, pal.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64267
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64268
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64277
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

http://www.godtube.com/watch/...

Intelligent Design - Frank Turek - Today's Christian Videos

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 60,161 - 60,180 of111,636
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••