Evolution vs. Creation

[Charles Idemi]

AustinHook wrote:

<quoted text>
And they can't change who God isn't either.
Not being able to prove something one way or the other is still not being able to prove something one way or the other.
Of course none of that nonsense prevents me from hoping you are right.

I am not asking you for any favour. I am only telling you that, you can not deny the validity of the bible and the creator.

[Charles Idemi]

AustinHook wrote:

<quoted text>
And after almost 2 to the seventeenth power postings on this thread, we don't seem a lot closer to answering even one more important question for certain. Funny thing, it seems to me that the "God is God" logical identity axiom redux doesn't even try to answer a question.
Anyway, once science answers all the questions I'll know it isn't science any more.

Dreaming.

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
They're almost in the same latitude.

Oh I see. Okay then, we'll do it the way the Biblical "literalists" do it and say it's almost the same, like a circle is almost like a ball.

Cybele wrote:

How about Chinese and Indians or Russians? You know how close Tibet is to India and Pakistan. Why are their physical attributes so different from each other? What is in the environment that caused these differences?

Have you even bothered to try looking up for yourself? Or have you even considered the fact that since evolution occurs anyway (we're all born different remember) that simple change over time would also be another factor? If I can't answer each and every one of your mindless questions do you REALLY think that the theory of evolution is in any danger just because someone who believes (with no evidence at all whatsoever) that aliens made life didn't get their questions answered on some random internet forum full of geeks? Srsly? And if so are you therefore suggesting that all human races were also created separately and did NOT come from a common ancestor? Even many reality-denying dumb-as-a-post YEC's would raise their eyebrows at that one.

[The Dude]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL! You do know there are myriads of mountains everywhere right? BTW, they built that Great Wall of China. LMAO!
Keep guessing though.

Yeah, cuz that could never be a factor could it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/02...

Another creation "science" discovery... oh, wait...

[Charles Idemi]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry Charlie, I don't hate God. How can one hate something that doesn't exist. I also don't hate the Bible. I like debating the creationists on this forum and the Bible is the subject of many, many debates.
Sorry again Charles, but the Old Testament is pretty much disproven by science today...really. I suspect you creationists will go on denying this for a long long time, but we (science) hold the actual truth on the matter...you don't.

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.

[The Dude]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Not even Genesis but Exodus 200 vs 1 to 3 or take it further to verse 18.

I was always kinda partial to Matthew 4:8 myself.

[Knightkore]

http://www.jesuscreated.org/images/Creation_E...

The most under attack is the creation mentioned in the Book of Genesis Chapter 1. Mostly people (even some Christians) believe in evolution. Some went on saying that day or "Youm" mentioned in the Bible means a period. Let us examine how unscientific this creation is.

[Jesus Diablo]

If creationism is what it's all about, see how far it'll get you in nearly any intellectual discussion. Of course, if you hang out with individuals with similar opinions, then you'll probably shine. But then you need to consider your audience.

[Charles Idemi]

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.

[The Dude]

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!

[Charles Idemi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[thewordofme]

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.

[thewordofme]

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???

[AustinHook]

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!

[Kong_]

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.