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
60,781 - 60,800 of 113,167 Comments Last updated 19 min ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64907
Dec 12, 2012
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
When did I ever claim that? what! alzhiemers got you boy.Be sure to edit.
I don't edit, unless it's for space. So make up your mind. Did the linky you gave falsify abiogenesis? Or not? If you say it did then you're lying. If you say it didn't then it means you made no point other than scientists are still conducting research which you don't give a shite about because you've already convinced yourself that abio is wrong because Goddidit with magic.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64908
Dec 12, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Subby...Here is an example of a hand waving excuse from evos.....
One particularly remarkable incidence of functionality with regards these sequences is the involvement of the highly fusogenic retroviral envelope proteins (the syncytins) which are known to be crucially involved in the formation of the placenta syncytiotrophoblast layer generated by trophoblast cell fusion. These proteins are absolutely critical for placental development in humans and mice. The different kinds of Syncytin protein are called "syncytin-A" and "syncytin-B" (found in mice); "syncytin-1" and "syncytin-2" (found in humans). But here's the remarkable thing: Although serving exactly the same function, syncytin-A and syncytin-B are not related to syncytin-1 and syncytin-2. Syncytin protein also plays the same function in rabbits (syncytin-ory1). But rabbit syncytin is not related to either the mouse or the human form. These ERVs are not even on the same chromosome. Syncytin-1 is on chromosome 7; syncytin-2 is on chromosome 6; syncytin-A is on chromosome 5; and syncytin-B is on chromosome 14.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/3/725.abstrac...
This is yet another example of a supposed virus hitting the germ line and immediately becoming an integral part of a system, which is impossible. Refute with research if you wish but I have grown weary of your hummble opinion, circular discussion, evasion and laziness in researching and providing appropriate responses. You chose this topic, now go learn something about it, instead of wasting your entire day, every day, on line talking in circles.
I am actually presenting the start of an argument in this simple question you have refused to answer.
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
If you don't know, just say so. If the correct answer is too obviously biased to speak to then just keep evading it.
I have given my answer to the question, now it's your turn seeing as you'd like to think you know what an acestral gene might be.
Did you realize the rabbits can also be carriers of a specific genetic viral disease, that when propogated correctly, is on the CDC top five list of BIOlogical warfare agents?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64909
Dec 12, 2012
 
Russell wrote:
Go on
Admit it...
You are a Christian
You previously have said words to the effect..
Life begat life...
YOU"RE RIGHT!
You're still misquoting me.
Russell wrote:
Now you say and have been saying..
God dunnit with magic...
YOU"RE RIGHT!
He did
Then you have no scientific case and all your posts are superfluous.
Russell wrote:
What is your explanation for there being 3 mtDNA lineages????
Only only one Y chromosome?
What are you even asking for this when you're not interested in science? It's how DNA works. Can't give you an answer now, maybe tomorrow I'll look it up. But for now I'm happy that you got caught lying again and that you've admitted again that you have no scientific case to speak of, ergo your posts for the past few months here are worthless as always.
Russell wrote:
And HOW ON EARTH DID THE COMPLEMENT MAC EVOLVE?
Microsoft let 'em.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64910
Dec 12, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong, Einstein's (please note spelling) predicted black holes. Perhaps if you spelled correctly you would have been able to Google search that for yourself.
The mathematical equation falls short-but you KNOW that.

(and why would I use Google--when I can BING)
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64911
Dec 12, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Bo, but evolution doesn't have to worry about abio. Simples.
Oh yes it does
Sorry mate
Please
Refer to the GTE.....again....and again...and again
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64912
Dec 12, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you realize the rabbits can also be carriers of a specific genetic viral disease, that when propogated correctly, is on the CDC top five list of BIOlogical warfare agents?
Another reason why Noah didn't stand a chance.

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2007/noah-ra...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64913
Dec 12, 2012
 
Jesus Diablo wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah?!? And quoting the bible?!? Are you freak'n serious? Holy crap. Now I'm scared!
Don't be scared
Be smart...

What wrong with quoting the Bible?
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64914
Dec 12, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course apes or dinosaurs did not fall out of the sky. I never said anything like that.
Apes and dinosaurs evolved on earth...just like everything else.
And of course we evolved from the great apes as has been proven recently.
Whats up with the screaming??
What did the apes "evolve from"?

Darwin's INCOMPLETE theory is VERY passe now--as are the 2nd grade pictographs of it.
Science has moved WAY beyond, by leaps and bounds.

What did those "apes" evolve from?

YOU (emphasis) might want to catch up a little!!

The first systematic presentation of evolution was put forth by the French scientist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1774-1829) in 1809. Lamarck described a mechanism by which he believed evolution could occur. This mechanism was known as "the inheritance of acquired characteristics."

Lamarck started his scientific career as a botanist, but in 1793 he became one of the founding professors of the Musee National d'Histoire Naturelle as an expert on invertebrates. His work on classifying worms, spiders, molluscs, and other boneless creatures was far ahead of his time.

Assume that there were salamanders living in some grasslands. Suppose, Lamarck argued, that these salamanders had a hard time walking because their short legs couldn't trample the tall grasses or reach the ground. Suppose that these salamanders began to slither on their bellies to move from place to place. Because they didn't use their legs, the leg muscles wasted away from disuse and the legs thus became small. Lamarck's theory said that the salamanders passed this acquired trait to their offspring. In time the salamander's legs were used so rarely that they disappeared. Thus, Lamarck argued, legless salamanders evolved from salamanders by inheriting the acquired characteristic of having no legs. Lamarck presented no experimental evidence or observation and his theory fell out of scientific favor. The next significant idea came from the British scientist Charles Darwin.

In 1837 Darwin began his first notebook on evolution.

So, As we see from some gathered FACTS-- Darwin's theory was NOT only NOT wholly original to him, but NOT very recent, at all.

Capish?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64915
Dec 12, 2012
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes it does
Sorry mate
Please
Refer to the GTE.....again....and again...and again
Nope. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. It does not care if life developed naturally or if it was magically poofed into being by an invisible magical wizard. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck.

Or do you also reject the theory of gravity? That doesn't explain the origin of mass, but it still works.

Do you also reject the germ theory of disease? That doesn't explain the origin of germs, but it still works.

Likewise evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64916
Dec 12, 2012
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be scared
Be smart...
What wrong with quoting the Bible?
Nothing. It's when you pretend it's relevant to science there becomes a problem.

Yeah the Romans were mean to early Christians. Yeah there was a guy called Herod.

No there were no talking donkeys and lizards. No there was no global flood.

No the Earth is not a flat square circle at the center of a geocentric universe.

Goddidit with magic? Well maybe, but can't be scientifically substantiated. We COULD all be trapped in the Matrix.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64917
Dec 12, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. It does not care if life developed naturally or if it was magically poofed into being by an invisible magical wizard. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck.
Or do you also reject the theory of gravity? That doesn't explain the origin of mass, but it still works.
Do you also reject the germ theory of disease? That doesn't explain the origin of germs, but it still works.
Likewise evolution.
Do we havta repeat the black hole mass inequality in equation remedial stuff AGAIN?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64918
Dec 12, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still misquoting me.
<quoted text>
Then you have no scientific case and all your posts are superfluous.
<quoted text>
What are you even asking for this when you're not interested in science? It's how DNA works. Can't give you an answer now, maybe tomorrow I'll look it up. But for now I'm happy that you got caught lying again and that you've admitted again that you have no scientific case to speak of, ergo your posts for the past few months here are worthless as always.
<quoted text>
Microsoft let 'em.
I am not misquoting you Bud
Its all in writing

Or were you being your usual sarcastic self?

It scarcely matters, tho'...

Does life beget life?

There is NO evidence for the evolution of any biological cascade requiring enzymatic regulation

Check tomorrow, Bud

I thought you had said you had a background in immunology?

The complement cascade needs to be very finely regulated to prevent damage to self-cells by antibody-directed complement-mediated lysis. Further, the complement cascade needs to be controlled because degradation products of the complement proteins can diffuse (and thereby cause damage) to adjacent cells. The complement cascade is thus very tightly regulated by several circulating and membrane-bound proteins.

ALL HAVE TO BE PRESENT SIMULTANEOUSLY TO WORK!
No allowance for millions of years of evo-god magic....

Yet another hopeless FAIL for evolutionary paradigms
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64919
Dec 12, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
What did the apes "evolve from"?
Darwin's INCOMPLETE theory is VERY passe now--as are the 2nd grade pictographs of it.
Science has moved WAY beyond, by leaps and bounds.
What did those "apes" evolve from?
YOU (emphasis) might want to catch up a little!!
Old world monkeys IIRC. You've never looked at the biological classification system, have you?
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
The first systematic presentation of evolution was put forth by the French scientist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1774-1829) in 1809. Lamarck described a mechanism by which he believed evolution could occur. This mechanism was known as "the inheritance of acquired characteristics."
Lamarck started his scientific career as a botanist, but in 1793 he became one of the founding professors of the Musee National d'Histoire Naturelle as an expert on invertebrates. His work on classifying worms, spiders, molluscs, and other boneless creatures was far ahead of his time.
Assume that there were salamanders living in some grasslands. Suppose, Lamarck argued, that these salamanders had a hard time walking because their short legs couldn't trample the tall grasses or reach the ground. Suppose that these salamanders began to slither on their bellies to move from place to place. Because they didn't use their legs, the leg muscles wasted away from disuse and the legs thus became small. Lamarck's theory said that the salamanders passed this acquired trait to their offspring. In time the salamander's legs were used so rarely that they disappeared. Thus, Lamarck argued, legless salamanders evolved from salamanders by inheriting the acquired characteristic of having no legs. Lamarck presented no experimental evidence or observation and his theory fell out of scientific favor. The next significant idea came from the British scientist Charles Darwin.
In 1837 Darwin began his first notebook on evolution.
So, As we see from some gathered FACTS-- Darwin's theory was NOT only NOT wholly original to him, but NOT very recent, at all.
Capish?
No it wasn't. Darwin's contribution was proposing the mechanism of natural selection. He built his work of earlier people, just as all scientists do. It was Linnaeus for example who came up with our biological classification system, which the basic idea is still in use today. And he was by all accounts a creationist. It was him who pointed out that humans were apes. Ironically this creationist helped lay down the basis of evolution.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64920
Dec 12, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course apes or dinosaurs did not fall out of the sky. I never said anything like that.
Apes and dinosaurs evolved on earth...just like everything else.
And of course we evolved from the great apes as has been proven recently.
Whats up with the screaming??
But yew might like this book--

3. Alexander Mebane's "Darwin's Creation Myth", available from:

The SourceBook Project
P.O. Box 107
Glen Arm, Md. 21057
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64921
Dec 12, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You are coming off incoherent and a bit crazy here bud. You might want to set down and chill for awhile
and WASTE time in life?

No thanks....but you have fun "setting there" imagining!!
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64922
Dec 12, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You're coming off a little incoherent and crazy here bud, you might want to chill out some.
We get it--unless it's your own egomaniacal BS--it flys.. right over your the lump on your shoulders.

(as in NO real brain activity requuired!!)

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64923
Dec 12, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not an expert at spotting forgeries, but on the other hand I CAN tell the difference between archaeoraptor and archaeopteryx.
You could not.
<quoted text>
Then in that case if you REALLY think that scientists are really THAT untrustworthy and all hundreds of thousands of them across the planet really are involved in that big world-wide evil atheist Darwinist evolutionist Illuminati conspiracy, then I suggest you throw away your computer, stop going to hospitals, taking modern medicine or receiving modern medical treatments, get the heck out of your house, throw away your cellphone, leave your car, and go back to living in a straw hut or cave and go foraging yourself for your own live chickens.
Nah. It doesn't take an atheist to be able to find cures for diseases, trouble shoot a computer or understand COBOL or UNIX, innovate technology, invent a machine, build cars, etc. Intelligence isn't synonymous to being an atheist like you. Why should I listen to someone of random existence?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but pretending is not necessary (archaeopteryx case in point). See I post stuff, you post stuff, I address yours, you don't address mine. All you have are questions about stuff you don't know, mostly from creationist websites, and there may even be the occasional thing you point to that science doesn't know yet. But then that means you don't either. And that's when you (quite bizarrely) declare victory. It's the way things go on these threads between the evil evilushinists and science deniers.
<quoted text>
Wow, you're such a whiner maybe you should refer to yourself as a WHINOSAURUS. lol
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you have. But are your opinions worth anything?
Well, not until you become a scientist.
Are you insulting my intelligence? Because no scientist will be able to explain my experiences. No, really. Because their capacity for comprehension is limited by the confines of the scientific methods.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You appear to be reading what you want into my posts. He probably got some things right, and others wrong. But I was specifically referring to relativity, which is still correct - at least to a point. Just in the same way Newton was still correct. His work still gets our spacecraft to most of the solar system. Einstein's idea was even more correct, more accurate. He can get our probes to Mercury. And quantum physics is even more accurate and can correctly predict the positions and motions of far off astronomical phenomena. The goal is a fully-fledged quantum theory of gravity, but we don't have that yet. This is where Bohart sticks his wizard of the gaps.
blah blah blah
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64924
Dec 12, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Old world monkeys IIRC. You've never looked at the biological classification system, have you?
<quoted text>
No it wasn't. Darwin's contribution was proposing the mechanism of natural selection. He built his work of earlier people, just as all scientists do. It was Linnaeus for example who came up with our biological classification system, which the basic idea is still in use today. And he was by all accounts a creationist. It was him who pointed out that humans were apes. Ironically this creationist helped lay down the basis of evolution.
mmm... little crustaceans in cocktail sauce ....

(wanna go for some record breaking pages and pages and pages of life beyond the "ape age" ? Let me check muh shed-yewule...I have some currents and dates currently awaiting my biological examination lol)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64925
Dec 12, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Do we havta repeat the black hole mass inequality in equation remedial stuff AGAIN?
That's not relevant to my post. Claiming a theory is flawed by criticizing a completely different theory is not a very good way of doing things.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64926
Dec 12, 2012
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not misquoting you Bud
Its all in writing
Or were you being your usual sarcastic self?
Linky.
Russell wrote:
It scarcely matters, tho'...
Does life beget life?
There is NO evidence for the evolution of any biological cascade requiring enzymatic regulation
Check tomorrow, Bud
I thought you had said you had a background in immunology?
No, I never claimed that. Again, reading comprehension not your strong suit. Which I imagine is actually quite useful for creationist quoteminers, but there ya go.
Russell wrote:
The complement cascade needs to be very finely regulated to prevent damage to self-cells by antibody-directed complement-mediated lysis. Further, the complement cascade needs to be controlled because degradation products of the complement proteins can diffuse (and thereby cause damage) to adjacent cells. The complement cascade is thus very tightly regulated by several circulating and membrane-bound proteins.
ALL HAVE TO BE PRESENT SIMULTANEOUSLY TO WORK!
No allowance for millions of years of evo-god magic....
Yet another hopeless FAIL for evolutionary paradigms
First of all, let's PRETEND that the EXACT same claim made by Behe wasn't completely and utterly EVISCERATED in court.

Your proposal was already a hopeless fail before it even started.

You've just openly admitted to everyone on this whole thread that you have no scientific case, so any requirement you imagine that I have to justify myself to you is completely and utterly irrelevant. Due to your dishonesty and hypocrisy.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••