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 3,028)

Showing posts 60,541 - 60,560 of111,977
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64647
Dec 11, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
You are the one that wants to talk ervs. So far it appears that TOE's predictions and gobble around junk dna are the ones being shot down so far. You do not get to make my benchmarks any more than I get to determine yours. Evos are the ones looking like fools at present.
Really? Because we ain't the ones who have to lie all the time.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
The fact of my point one is that creationist predictions and claims around junk DNA are being validated at the same time as evolutionists initial claims around junk dna are being falsified. Creos have the upper hand regardless of how proud evos are and how much they struggle. Evos cannot make solid predictions.
Projection. Since you are using evidence which is older than the Earth itself, according to you. And how well is your ability to predict protein function coming along? Still 96% worse than ours? Thought so.
MazHere wrote:
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.
You have struggled and failed.
And if I remember correctly, and I do, you've had a whooooole bunch of stuff debunked and you still can't address it. And the only reason why you can't get creationism taken seriously by the scientific community is because of the big evil world-wide atheist evolutionist Darwinist conspiracy. Our cunning master plan for world domination is going well it seems!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64648
Dec 11, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I was always kinda partial to Matthew 4:8 myself.
It is revealing fact that tells us vividly that, all flesh or humans must be tempted, no matter how holy and powerful you are.
Take it further to verse 10 ( Math. 4 vs 10).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64649
Dec 11, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
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?
I see you're still arguing against a straw-man.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
MazHere wrote:
WHAT ARE TOE'S PREDICTIONS AROUND JUNK DNA? Let's first establish IF TOE made any predictions around ervs. IF NOT THEN TOE IS PROVEN TO BE A KNEE JERK PSUEDO SCIENCE WITH NO PREDICTIVE VALUE.
After you give me TOE's prediction, let's talk about this below and what evolutionists class as 'the same' erv and why a functional piece of genomic material may be just where it needs to be to perform its function, rather than where it died as 'junk', which has nothing to do with ancestry. We can also talk about the fact that evos have never observed the endogenization of a retrovirus and the entire concept is purely theoretical.
I see. So you are claiming to share NO ERV markers at all with either of your parents? Really? Are you claiming that NO OTHER organism shares them with any others either? Really?
MazHere wrote:
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
It's called orthology.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism again?

I'll wait. I might look like ZZ-Top by the time we get it but I'll wait.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64650
Dec 11, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
As I have previously stated, atheists gobble on about how NOT special the earth and mankind is on the back of all observed data suggesting the earth and mankind are special.
Of course it's special. To US. Because we're here. However that alone is not evidence that it was "designed", a hypothesis for which you still have no evidence or mechanism.
MazHere wrote:
'Goldilocks' is the term often used and if anyone talks of aliens they are nuts as none have been verified. Then they deny the possible existence of an alien life form, just because it is not organic and explainable with our limited knowledge, where we can hardly explain all we can observe.
So if you want to gobble on about "Not being able to prove something one way or the other is still not being able to prove something one way or the other.", then atheists and evolutionists are leaders in using the strategy you spoke to and calling that science.
Aliens? Sure, we can't prove them one way or the other. But then there's an entire universe out there, and if we exist there's no reason why life can't exist elsewhere. And there's nothing wrong with speculating on that. Of course it's quite disingenuous to equate evolution with speculation on alien life, as at least one of these has been verified.
MazHere wrote:
Indeed the proof in the pudding is evos and particularly atheists needing to chase thier tails in hypocritical philosophical rhetoric staying as far away from science as they possibly can.
Projection. And every time you mention atheism you're shooting yourself in the foot. Science doesn't give a fig about atheism. But all you can do is whine about them because they happen to be right when they point out you have no scientific evidence of your invisible magical Jew.

Poor diddums.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64651
Dec 11, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Russell, you are wrong again.
Mitochondrial Eve lived about 150,000+- years ago. She is the female who ALL of today's women descended from.
Y Chromosomal Adam lived about 50,000 to 60,000+- years ago and he is the ancestor of ALL males alive today.
It doesn't count when they are far apart like that. There was never a time when our ancient ancestors were just one couple. The DNA proves that.
Adam and Eve, as written in the Bible, NEVER existed. The Bible is completely wrong on this story, and it is now provable.
Unless Goddidit with magic. Which is not verifiable either way. Which happens to be Russ and Maz's position.

So why the heck are they pretending to talk about science and evidence then?

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64652
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
Assertions using the name of science can not disprove the existence of God.
Every one are subjected to their opinions whether true or false.
But no one in the history of mankind and the universe are able to disprove the existence of God.
None.
Big deal, no-one can disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64653
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> It is revealing fact that tells us vividly that, all flesh or humans must be tempted, no matter how holy and powerful you are.
Take it further to verse 10 ( Math. 4 vs 10).
Actually I stopped at talking lizard.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64654
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Dreaming. Denying God's existence is like denying ones life. Humans despite the advent of drugs, still ends up dying. Science just can not stop that.
Why, Bill?
Because God truly exist.
You are making assumptions here that don't necessarily follow.

Because we die is not proof that God exists my friend.

There will always be gaps in what we want to do and what we can do.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64655
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
Assertions using the name of science can not disprove the existence of God.
Every one are subjected to their opinions whether true or false.
But no one in the history of mankind and the universe are able to disprove the existence of God.
None.
AND no one in the history of mankind and the universe has been able to PROVE the existence of God...or any god.

However facts of science may be used in dissembling the lies about religion. We CAN and HAVE disproven much of the Bible...what does that say about the credibility of the religion itself???

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64656
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Crazy talk!
Have you seen any one living forever? none.
Wait a sec. I thought you were claiming to be one of the immortals -- confidentially expecting resurrection due to your faith in Jesus, where as the rest of us faithless ephemerals were doomed, and you were lording it over us.

Hey, I am getting close to checking out of this forum. Maybe a couple more posts to go. Gotta get my life back. It has been fun, but folks don't take things so hard, and be nice. Merry Christmas all!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64657
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
Assertions using the name of science can not disprove the existence of God.
Every one are subjected to their opinions whether true or false.
But no one in the history of mankind and the universe are able to disprove the existence of God.
None.
Perhaps not. Then again, scientists haven't tried to disprove God (many scientists are quite religious, mind you).

But.

Science CAN provide evidence that the "Creation" account given in Genesis is incorrect, that the universe, earth, and life itself did not form under in the method(s) and time scales described in the Bible.
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64658
Dec 11, 2012
 
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a sec. I thought you were claiming to be one of the immortals -- confidentially expecting resurrection due to your faith in Jesus, where as the rest of us faithless ephemerals were doomed, and you were lording it over us.
Hey, I am getting close to checking out of this forum. Maybe a couple more posts to go. Gotta get my life back. It has been fun, but folks don't take things so hard, and be nice. Merry Christmas all!
And a Happy New Year to you sir!

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64659
Dec 11, 2012
 
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64660
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
Assertions using the name of science can not disprove the existence of God.
Every one are subjected to their opinions whether true or false.
But no one in the history of mankind and the universe are able to disprove the existence of God.
None.
Science doesn't set out nor is interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. It's purpose if far more limited, it is limited to facts. It attempts to prove/disprove them through repeatable experiments that support/don't support the previous result. It's rational. Here's a simple science experiment to illustrate: 1+1=2. Now you try it. See? Same result. There's no opinion or beliefs involved.

On the other hand, religion is not fact based. It is, by it's own admission, a belief system (it's silly to say "I believe" 1+1 is 2 because it's a proven fact that it is 2). Beliefs are not, by definition, either right or wrong (that would make them a fact). Beliefs are either held or not (it's equally silly to say that God in fact exists because a belief of such an existence is not subject to independent verification). You can only legitimately question whether or not the individual actually believes (if one does, fine; as a belief it's neither right nor wrong)or not (if one does not, fine; as a belief it's neither right nor wrong). Or the strength of his/her belief. As such, it is, by definition, irrational.

The problem is using rationality to explain the irrational and vice-versa (like trying to squeeze a square peg in a round hole). Otherwise called a "categorical mistake."

So does God exist? Well of course not.
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64661
Dec 11, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps not. Then again, scientists haven't tried to disprove God (many scientists are quite religious, mind you).
But.
Science CAN provide evidence that the "Creation" account given in Genesis is incorrect, that the universe, earth, and life itself did not form under in the method(s) and time scales described in the Bible.
I agree. The problem is that religious individuals are using irrationality to explain rational features. Doesn't work; better, cannot work. To explain rational features one needs to use rational arguments. Similarly, to explain irrational features on needs to rely on irrationality. This will not "prove" anything in the scientific sense, it will only prove one's belief system. Hence, it's correct to say "I believe in creationism" and incorrect to say "Creationism is a fact." The latter statement is akin to saying "A square is round."

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64662
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Jesus Diablo wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't set out nor is interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. It's purpose if far more limited, it is limited to facts. It attempts to prove/disprove them through repeatable experiments that support/don't support the previous result. It's rational. Here's a simple science experiment to illustrate: 1+1=2. Now you try it. See? Same result. There's no opinion or beliefs involved.
On the other hand, religion is not fact based. It is, by it's own admission, a belief system (it's silly to say "I believe" 1+1 is 2 because it's a proven fact that it is 2). Beliefs are not, by definition, either right or wrong (that would make them a fact). Beliefs are either held or not (it's equally silly to say that God in fact exists because a belief of such an existence is not subject to independent verification). You can only legitimately question whether or not the individual actually believes (if one does, fine; as a belief it's neither right nor wrong)or not (if one does not, fine; as a belief it's neither right nor wrong). Or the strength of his/her belief. As such, it is, by definition, irrational.
The problem is using rationality to explain the irrational and vice-versa (like trying to squeeze a square peg in a round hole). Otherwise called a "categorical mistake."
So does God exist? Well of course not.
Hmm...so the universe just came together finely tuned randomly?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64663
Dec 11, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Big deal, no-one can disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Whatever. But that does not change who God truly is. God exist.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64664
Dec 11, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I stopped at talking lizard.
Whatever, dream boy.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64665
Dec 11, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You are making assumptions here that don't necessarily follow.
Because we die is not proof that God exists my friend.
There will always be gaps in what we want to do and what we can do.
And that gaps vividly proves the existence of God.
reality

Germantown, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64666
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And that gaps vividly proves the existence of God.
Huh? What?
You obviously didn't bother to try out for your high school debate team and/or you very conveniently slept with your college LOG101 professor.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 60,541 - 60,560 of111,977
|
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.

167 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min CJ Rocker 140,593
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 18 min Hatti_Hollerand 137,029
tell me one word to describe yourself (Jun '09) 19 min _Brenda_ 15,412
Get Well Soon, Princess Hey!!! 20 min Donald 40
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 22 min Bezeer 5,569
98% of men believe women are worthless. (Aug '08) 23 min _Word Woman_ 856
Word Association (Mar '10) 26 min Bezeer 15,624
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Petal Power 34,791
10 Weird Health Tricks You Won't Believe 2 hr Pat Robertson s Fatwass 1
ask amy rose 2 hr Independent1 22
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••