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 3,041)

Showing posts 60,801 - 60,820 of105,890
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64865
Dec 12, 2012
 
The purpose of creationism is not to enlighten, but rather to support and prove the existence of God. As a logical argument, it fails (i.e., it's invalid) because the necessary first premise--"There is a God"--is also the conclusion. A classical example of irrationality and really poor reasoning.

Hence, those who argue in favor of creationism are demonstrating poor reasoning skills and are being irrational.

You creationist will never ever win creationism arguments by using scientific tools (the very thing you hate); similarly, supporters of science will never win arguments about science by relying on beliefs.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64866
Dec 12, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already lost this debate Subby. Arch does not have a reversed hallux which was around 212mya and before arch.
Hence, as I said, you can wiggle and struggle and present anything you like and it will not be and cannot be an intermediate because modern birds were already here before arch and I have the dated footprints to support that claim. You have a mythical theropod. It is really that simple.
No, I won the debate. Not having a reversed hallux is an excellent characteristic of a transitional fossil. It will not have ALL avian characteristics. You know what we call animals that have only avian traits? Birds. You truly are intent on illustrating that you have no clue about what would constitute a transitional species.

When you come up with something other than just "bird like" foot prints then you might have a claim. Until then, you lose.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64867
Dec 12, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
What caused life to begin where there had never been life before? Science has repeatedly demonstrated that life comes only from life.
Which is incorrect.

You were not alive. Now you are. Everything you are was once made up of non-living elements.

Ergo, life from non-life.

In fact your very first question itself violates your own premise. Life beginning where there was once no life before.

Life from non-life.

It's called abiogenesis.

HOW it happened is another question. Natural causes? Or magic Jew?

Either way it has no bearing on the validity of evolution.
Knightmare wrote:
This is a law of science called the "Law of Biogenesis."
... which I'm afraid is only bastardized by creationists, as it was only referring to the once held belief that fully-formed organisms could arise where none were before, such as maggots in rotting meat. Then people realised bugs laid eggs in corpses. It did not address the possibility of life developing over time from naturally occurring chemical processes however.
Knightmare wrote:
The opposite of this law would be spontaneous generation - life beginning spontaneously from non-living matter. But science has repeatedly proved this cannot happen.
In other words, the 'Law of Biogenesis' falsified creationism.

Well, except for the bit about where it's fixed by magic. Nothing can falsify that.
Knightmare wrote:
So every living thing must come from a previous living thing. You received life from your parents, who in turn received it from their parents, etc. The same is true for all living things.
Ah, the infinite regression fallacy. Since God, what you call a "living thing" did NOT have to come from a previous living thing. Hence you've just violated your own premise.
Knightmare wrote:
But evolution requires that, when you go back far enough, non-living matter somehow came to life by chance where there was no life before.
Chemistry is not "chance".

So Kay, since this has been pointed out to you like a thousand times over, why are you repeating this creationist lie? You WANT to be thought of as a big liar for Jesus ahole such as Maz and Russ? Really?
Knightmare wrote:
Evolution requires spontaneous generation in complete violation of scientific evidence.
Nope, not evolution. Creationism requires spontaneous generation in complete violation of scientific evidence.

Magic poof! Animals!

Spontaneous generation.

Creationism.

Evolution doesn't care whether it was magically poofed or not. All it requires is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you have to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Good luck.
Knightmare wrote:
So evolution cannot explain even the origin of the very first form of life.
And it doesn't have to. For the very same reason that gravity doesn't have to explain the origin of mass.

The criticism you make, now shown to be baseless, is also quite hypocritical. As Goddidit with magic doesn't actually explain anything either.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64868
Dec 12, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Listen Pal, the fact that you evos quack, adnauseum, about your science yet run away from it. That's why fools like you stay away from the likes of scientific discussion and prefer to prattle on hearing youself quack.
All you lot are on this thread for is to get your jollies for the day in bigotted ridicule.
Ya know, you're putting Earth in danger by overloading all them irony meters, Maz.
MazHere wrote:
TOE is taught in schools because the public has been fooled into thinking these evo reseachers know what they are talking about.
TOE is a waste of paper and any biology student can throw out any text book by the time it hits the book shelf because some its claims will have already been falsified or outdated. You have libraries of waffle that have been falsified.
So when's your face gonna appear on Time magazine then? When's your Nobel Prize coming?

Kinda like your rebuttals, eh? Wait until Jesus comes back?
MazHere wrote:
If you had a scientific bone in your entire body you'd be on here defending this science of yours, which you are not.
Again, irony meters up full. What's your "scientific alternative" again?

Oh yeah - GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!

Very scientific.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64869
Dec 12, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on you evos with big attitudes and not much more....
Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?
This is the sort of nonssense you lot believe. Why? Is it because you are sheep that follow without understanding, or are you geese that just like to quack for the heck of it.
I have given my answer, now you lot egocentrics tell me your own, or can't you, or are you too embarassed to.
Already answered Maz.

Just like many others of your posts have been answered and in turn remain unaddressed by you.

Any time ya like Maz.

Gimme all your lovin'.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64870
Dec 12, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you did not pick it up, I am saying these are NOT ancestral genes and I am presenting an argument as to why they are not, one point at a time starting here.
The reason they are not ancestral is because evos can't tell the difference between an ancestral or independently acquired ervs and they basically handwave away inconsistency with a plethora of terminology.
Now answer the question, how do they tell the differrence?
Already answered Maz.

Your perfectly designed eyes giving you a problem? Or they a little poor now since TEH FALL?

Creationism can't tell either way can it? If it's good then it's designed and if it's bad it's Teh Fall. Just as long as evolution is wrong no matter what. Even if you (pretend to) use science you don't even believe in anyway.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64871
Dec 12, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you did not pick it up, I am saying these are NOT ancestral genes and I am presenting an argument as to why they are not, one point at a time starting here.
The reason they are not ancestral is because evos can't tell the difference between an ancestral or independently acquired ervs and they basically handwave away inconsistency with a plethora of terminology.
Now answer the question, how do they tell the differrence?
You fool!

You don't pay too much attention. Ancestral genes and ERV's are two DIFFERENT topics. Ancestral genes are genes that are now turned off. Genes from an ancestor. In chickens we have found ancestral genes for teeth, scales, dinosaur tales, and dinosaur claws on the front of the wings. Those are ancestral genes. ERV's are totally different.

We have not found ancestral genes in humans, can you guess why?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64872
Dec 12, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already lost this debate Subby. Arch does not have a reversed hallux which was around 212mya and before arch.
Hence, as I said, you can wiggle and struggle and present anything you like and it will not be and cannot be an intermediate because modern birds were already here before arch and I have the dated footprints to support that claim. You have a mythical theropod. It is really that simple.
Anyone say Arch was the first?(shrug)

Why are you referring to phenomena that existed before the Earth was magically poofed into existence 6,000 years ago anyway?

Don't worry, we already know.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64873
Dec 12, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

Because you've bought into a few soundbites from a bunch of ignorant superstitious reality-denying hicks who believe that all science is wrong because it was all magically poofed into existence by an invisible Jewish wizard 6,000 years ago.
Like I said - archaeoraptor (the faked Chinese fossil you were referring to) was discovered to be a fake because dinosaur experts (evolutionary scientists) spotted the forgery, using science you reject. Piltdown Man is another example of a forgery which was exposed by experts using evolutionary science you reject. But creationists still mention it because they require the ad-hom of linking a forgery to evolution because they can't deal with scientific reality. Archaeopteryx on the other hand is NOT a fake. We have at least ten of them. A fine example of a transitional fossil, so much so that creationists will say absolutely anything to avoid accepting the fact it's a transitional - they've called it fake, just a dino and just a bird. Anything but exactly what it is - an organism with both dino *and* bird features, EXACTLY as predicted by evolution. They even go as far as calling it a "mosaic", which is really just a crappy way of saying it's a transitional but they just don't have the guts to admit it.
So let's put it politely, science is NOT your strong suit.
At all.
Yah that dino-bird is no more real than a flying fish (discovered where else - China) LOL.

Thanks to evolution, we could probably evolve into some alien-like species with larger brains and colonize the moon.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And in case you haven't noticed, both those theories are accepted by the scientific community. The reason being they both make valid predictions based on observable phenomena. The Big Bang for example predicted background radiation to an accuracy of 3 parts per million IIRC.
Are you aware that there are scientists that object the Big Bang?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists only offer magic as an alternative. You offer ZIP as an alternative. Except for the claim that abiogenesis was due to aliens popping by in a flying saucer.
Which has zero evidence.
Ya zero evidence. Ask a pilot or an astronaut if they'd seen something out there. You'd be surprised. Maybe Carl Sagan was deluded too?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So uh, yeah, you ARE a science denier. You don't know very much about science and are just one of the millions of throngs of people who think that complete ignorance of a subject is a PERFECT place from which to critique science.
This is why no-one takes you seriously.
And you're serious? You talk like you understand everything about science. If you did, you would then at least detect its flaws (or gaps). Many modern day theories will someday get superseded or replaced. Come on even Einstein was wrong!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64874
Dec 12, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

We have not found ancestral genes in humans, can you guess why?
please do tell

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64875
Dec 12, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
please do tell
To find them in chickens they have to activate them in embryos. Do you think that there might be a slight moral problem with experimenting in this way with human embryos?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64876
Dec 12, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
Yah that dino-bird is no more real than a flying fish (discovered where else - China) LOL.
Which one? You couldn't even tell them apart.(shrug) All you wanted to do was just mention a fake and blame it on evolution. I guess that means the Mona Lisa is BS because some people have faked it.
Cybele wrote:
Thanks to evolution, we could probably evolve into some alien-like species with larger brains and colonize the moon.
If it weren't for too many politicians and war-mongers with small brains we may have been able to do that decades ago.
Cybele wrote:
Are you aware that there are scientists that object the Big Bang?
And of those, how many of them are accomplished astrophysicists?

Sure, they COULD be right and the BB wrong. But until they have the weight of evidence on THEIR side we stick with the strongest theory. Plate tectonics wasn't taken very seriously at first but eventually the evidence caught up until it was difficult to deny.

But hey, we DO still have creationists.(shrug)
Cybele wrote:
Ya zero evidence. Ask a pilot or an astronaut if they'd seen something out there. You'd be surprised. Maybe Carl Sagan was deluded too?
Um, I'm aware of a few astronauts and pilots who have claimed to have seen things, but unfortunately personal subjective alleged eyewitness events are about as reliable as those who claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead.

And why would I call Sagan deluded? Have I EVER at all once denied the potential existence of alien life? Bub, I already SAID that I think the likelihood is already quite likely, in fact I'd say it's a near certainty. It's just we DON'T have evidence yet because we've hardly explored the majority of our solar system yet, much less the rest of the universe. The REASON we don't have evidence yet, and quite probably never will is because the distances are too great.
Cybele wrote:
And you're serious? You talk like you understand everything about science.
No, I just understand more than you. But that's not much of a compliment.
Cybele wrote:
If you did, you would then at least detect its flaws (or gaps).
We can in EVERY scientific theory. It's normal. But scientific theories make PREDICTIONS from those gaps. That's how scientific theories work.

Then science-deniers lie and claim there are gaps where there aren't any, or exaggerate beyond the point of rationality any that DO exist. Kinda like when really dumb people (rather stupidly) ask for "the missing link", get provided with fifteen, then say there's still no evidence.
Cybele wrote:
Many modern day theories will someday get superseded or replaced. Come on even Einstein was wrong!
I've already been over this. Einstein was not wrong. Even Newton was not wrong. Newton's gravity was just inaccurate past certain scales, but still works fine for sending vehicles around Earth and to most of the solar system. Einstein's Relativity was even more accurate. And again, quantum physics is even more accurate than that. But we already know that even that's not perfect (though it's pretty darn good). But the original basic premise of gravitation is still the same. Same with evolution. By the way things are going, evolution will only get refined as more evidence comes in, but it's not likely that common ancestry itself will be completely overturned.

That's a fundie's wet dream.
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64877
Dec 12, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already lost this debate Subby. Arch does not have a reversed hallux which was around 212mya and before arch.
Hence, as I said, you can wiggle and struggle and present anything you like and it will not be and cannot be an intermediate because modern birds were already here before arch and I have the dated footprints to support that claim. You have a mythical theropod. It is really that simple.
"Dated footprints"? Legitimate believers in creationism do not believe in any dating method that contradicts the idea that the Earth is only 10K or so years old.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64878
Dec 12, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
To find them in chickens they have to activate them in embryos. Do you think that there might be a slight moral problem with experimenting in this way with human embryos?
To elaborate a bit further for the slow people, deactivated genes for teeth in chickens are reactivated and the chickens grow teeth during embryological development. However this fuses the beak together, meaning they don't live very long.

So purposely reactivating ancient extinct traits in humans might not be a great idea.

.

Maz however will think (okay maybe not THINK per se) differently! Since Creationism "predicts" ALL genes have "function", and that humans have only LOST our "perfect" genetics over time due to TEH FALL, then reactivating those genes would be a GREAT idea! Imagine, for the first time we could get that much closer to Adam and Eve, and what the "perfect human" being would be like!!! Imagine all the medical knowledge gained and all the diseases we could cure!

So I don't know why they don't just go ahead and do it.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64879
Dec 12, 2012
 
Jesus Diablo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Dated footprints"? Legitimate believers in creationism do not believe in any dating method that contradicts the idea that the Earth is only 10K or so years old.
Oh don't worry it's okay, Maz is a massive hypocrite! Gets a free pass from God and everything. Just ignore that minor technical detail about the 9th Commandment. All's good when lying for Jesus.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64880
Dec 12, 2012
 
You also have to love how Maz thinks that avian traits are traits that are held only by birds. She is no limited to a reversed hallux and that alone, and that one is shaky too. She keeps referring to footprints that not even the finders of would swear are bird footprints, as evidence that birds evolved long before Archy. That may be, yet archy still could qualify as a transitional species. A transitional need not to be the actual parent species of all present birds. Another concept beyond her limited understanding.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64881
Dec 12, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So because we don't know everything yet then that makes your personal incredulity a valid argument therefore it was all done by an invisible magic Jew?
And if you were living in Newton's age you would also be laughing at gravitationalists at ever thinking they could POSSIBLY predict the correct orbit of Mercury since even Newton's so-called "law" of gravity couldn't do it.
Guess what we can do now?
You laugh at scientists for being monkeys fumbling around in the dark. Yet that fumbling has given you all your modern benefits that you enjoy every day. And yet still you laugh. While you sit there on your fat lazy azz.(shrug)
A typical Dude response when faced with the truth that life cannot have arsien through natural crap;

incredulity, yeah like the kind astrobiologists have
jew magic , as opposed to goo magic,
always throw in gravity as if that supports life from goo Ha,Ha
I laugh at puddle gooists who mix ingredients to make life
and always include the shruggg!
as for being lazy, I worked today

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64882
Dec 12, 2012
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
A typical Dude response when faced with the truth that life cannot have arsien through natural crap;
incredulity, yeah like the kind astrobiologists have
jew magic , as opposed to goo magic,
always throw in gravity as if that supports life from goo Ha,Ha
I laugh at puddle gooists who mix ingredients to make life
and always include the shruggg!
as for being lazy, I worked today
so you still have nothing to support your superstitious beliefs. While we have a series of successful experiments that keep getting us closer and closer to the goal of proving that life can arise on its own.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64883
Dec 12, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Which one? You couldn't even tell them apart.(shrug) All you wanted to do was just mention a fake and blame it on evolution. I guess that means the Mona Lisa is BS because some people have faked it.
I doubt that you can tell if a fossil is real or fake. That's the problem.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If it weren't for too many politicians and war-mongers with small brains we may have been able to do that decades ago.
<quoted text>
And of those, how many of them are accomplished astrophysicists?
Sure, they COULD be right and the BB wrong. But until they have the weight of evidence on THEIR side we stick with the strongest theory. Plate tectonics wasn't taken very seriously at first but eventually the evidence caught up until it was difficult to deny.
But hey, we DO still have creationists.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Um, I'm aware of a few astronauts and pilots who have claimed to have seen things, but unfortunately personal subjective alleged eyewitness events are about as reliable as those who claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead.
Don't we love those politicians? Should we trust everyone in the scientific community?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

And why would I call Sagan deluded? Have I EVER at all once denied the potential existence of alien life? Bub, I already SAID that I think the likelihood is already quite likely, in fact I'd say it's a near certainty. It's just we DON'T have evidence yet because we've hardly explored the majority of our solar system yet, much less the rest of the universe. The REASON we don't have evidence yet, and quite probably never will is because the distances are too great.
Okay I guess we can agree on this part.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I just understand more than you. But that's not much of a compliment.
No you don't, you pretend you do!
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We can in EVERY scientific theory. It's normal. But scientific theories make PREDICTIONS from those gaps. That's how scientific theories work.
Then science-deniers lie and claim there are gaps where there aren't any, or exaggerate beyond the point of rationality any that DO exist. Kinda like when really dumb people (rather stupidly) ask for "the missing link", get provided with fifteen, then say there's still no evidence.
Actually, I've read about the transitional fossils. I have come to my own conclusions but I won't say it just yet. I still have questions and I will post when ready.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already been over this. Einstein was not wrong. Even Newton was not wrong. Newton's gravity was just inaccurate past certain scales, but still works fine for sending vehicles around Earth and to most of the solar system. Einstein's Relativity was even more accurate. And again, quantum physics is even more accurate than that. But we already know that even that's not perfect (though it's pretty darn good). But the original basic premise of gravitation is still the same. Same with evolution. By the way things are going, evolution will only get refined as more evidence comes in, but it's not likely that common ancestry itself will be completely overturned.
That's a fundie's wet dream.
So everything Einstein said was right? Are you sure about that? I'm not talking about the theory of relativity in particular. There are other things that he mentioned that are unlikely to be true.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64884
Dec 12, 2012
 
Maz, I have a way to check if ERV's fit the evolutionary paradigm or the creationist one.

Before I go and state what would be the creationist position on ERV's I will let you answer this question. What sort of differences should be seen between in the same ERV observed in different species?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 60,801 - 60,820 of105,890
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••