Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209806 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65354 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Almost all sciences rely on language. But reality can exist without math. Reality can exist without language. Reality can exist without science (as science is also just our interpretation of reality). Reality simply IS. Without an intelligent agent to observe reality and come up with abstract concepts like language and math (which is also a language) reality would still exist. It would simply have no-one to describe it.
I disagree. Our reality have changed over the course of time as civilizations started inventing math and language. What kind of reality would we have today if not for the great architects and engineers that built the cities and the invention of language as means of communication? Imagine a world without it. We'd be stuck in the caves and we would still be hunting for our own food. You see it differently than I do. But then again, reality is subjective. We are creating our own reality.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#65355 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Like what? They had some sort of function but you have no idea what? Yes they did. They were retroviruses. You can't even tell us what they ARE. You can't tell us what function ANYTHING has, just some vague problem that EVERYTHING WILL HAVE FUNCTION 100%!!!
THEN you go around telling us pretty much ALL mutations are deleterous because of "TEH FALL!", which the inevitable consequence of which will leave us with only ONE thing:
"JUNK" DNA!
Most people I would suggest NOT slamming themselves as hard as they can over the head with a baseball bat, but in your case I don't think it would make any difference.
<quoted text>
How were we wrong?
What explanation do you have (with evidence) of the mechanism that produced them?
Why is there orthology consistent with nested hierarchies?
Why do they look like ERV's?
Why do they act like retroviruses when put together artificially?
Why do ortholog markers show differences consistent with nested hierarchies and genetic drift?
Why are they even referred to as ERVs in the first place if they are not actually ERVs?
Why are you using evolutionary evidence you claim doesn't even work if the Earth wasn't even around then?
Why are you claiming your BS is scientific when your alternative is Godmagic?
Why bother talking about evidence as it's irrelevant to magic?
Why are you a hypocrite?
Why do you keep lying?
<quoted text>
And we ARE welcome to it. That's because it's not creationists doing successful science in this area.
<quoted text>
Your beliefs are irrelevant. "God" is scientifically undemonstrable. Maybe it exists?
If so, it used evolution. Or God is a liar. Or God is not God.
<quoted text>
Translation - you still can't provide a coherent rebuttal and are therefore required to engage in some SERIOUS projection.
Again, I will clearly state, that your nested hierarchies can only be concocted on speculations and assumptions of what any extinct retrovirus looked like.

You cannot refute that because that is a fact.

Now don't you go off into philosophical evasion and your quackery about God. If you think lifeless non intelligent elements can poof themselves into complex factories of reproduction you should have no problem believing a non organic intelligent life form could poof elements into a complex factory of reproduction on a larger scale. After all, all the waffle around universal creation is based on coalescence theory.

ERV nested hierarchies and those for anything are concocted fabrication based on many insertion values evos can only speculate about. Evos must speculate on what any ancestors genomic make up was. All you have to go on is what is here now and a few examples of older deteriorated dna.

This really is not rocket science. It is just that evos present their findings as if they actually know what they are talking about. Evos make up their sand castles of speculative support and then call that evidence that only an idiot would not accept until it is blown away, just like they did with junk dna over 10 years ago.

That is why I call all your ancestry gobble 'algorithmic magic' and algorithmic magic is just what it is.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65356 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. How many times do I have to explain to you because you don't seem to follow what I'm trying to say.
Math is a universal language. We invented language to interpret our reality - the earth, the sun, the solar system. Here's an example. If there was no formula for gravity, how else would we explain its existence? Poetry?(Even that has math)
If we had no formula then we couldn't describe it.

But gravity existed for BILLIONS of years before anyone came up with any such formula.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#65357 Dec 14, 2012
Dude...The fall does not require junk dna. It requires a change in the function of dna on as small a scale as that of, say for example, radiation.

Evos need junk, or at least you lot thought you did once upon a time. Now I guess you have no idea and will just make it up as you go along.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65358 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
I have not misrepresnented anything. It does not matter what the research was used for you fool
Of course not. Not when it's theologically inconvenient. Evolution and cancer research. By the way, had any luck in reactivated dormant genes in humans yet? Think it'll go down well?
MazHere wrote:
it is about the construct of Phoenix in so far as this ressurection is concerned.
"For each position in their final sequence they assigned the nucleotide base that was most common among the 30 originals at that position, according to a paper published online October 31 in Genome Research"
You mean those 30 broken HERVs I told you about? Broken or not broken? Fall or 100% function? I can't tell.

Apparently neither can you.
MazHere wrote:
The above means it was reconstructed and NOT resurrected, and the recon was based on an assumption of what a priori has faith in.
Reconstructed, resurrected, what's the diff? When the end result is the same. No faith required as it was a successful test.
MazHere wrote:
I am not even sure if it was a real infection or a simulated one!
That's because you don't know much or care to know.(shrug)

"Fake" infections? Isn't that what you tell your boss at work over the phone?
MazHere wrote:
You cannot refute that because that is exactly what these researchers have done. Get it? Or is that too difficult for you?
Actually it's quite simple. And I've already explained it.
MazHere wrote:
I also have the MRCA dated to around 5-7K years ago that you speculate had cohorts but cannot prove at all.
So genetics is all "speculation", even when it's testable?
MazHere wrote:
HERVs are implicated in aging as well as a host of other functions and I therefore have no more 'likely, possibly and maybes' in my scenarios than you evos appear to have no problem with.
What scenarios? Maz you HAVE NO SCENARIOS. I've been asking you the SAME questions for WEEKS!

What have you got?

GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!

And successful evolutionary research that you claim proves evolution wrong even though you don't even believe the science used in the first place.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65359 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
And so does the 2nd link to peer reviewed research you would like to ignore
Stop blowing up the irony meters Maz.

There's a REASON you have to quotemine OTHER people's research.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65360 Dec 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, let's break this down into steps.
According to the TOE the ERV's would continue to mutate and thus evolve once implanted. Yes or No?
The answer is Yes by the way, if you answer No you will have to defend that answer.
He doesn't have to defend anything.

Which is why he hasn't.(shrug)
Pete

Tampa, FL

#65361 Dec 14, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe, the solar system, the earth all existed prior to the existence of mathematics. Mathematics is a human construct. Humans came later. Fact.
The Big Bang is nonsense.......Its funny, the limits humans are born with...sensory limits, comprehension limits..Gods or Aliens? They have reached their space limit...Now, its all designed to save the rich when this rock starts to crumble.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65362 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen one here who's a theist evolutionist.
Katydid. She's a biologist too. Tends not to get involved in the threads too much as she finds the petty bickering to be well, petty bickering. She's also had her fill of dishonest creationist BS. Dogen's another. Well more of a deist really.
Cybele wrote:
Even if I didn't follow Christian beliefs, I won't be too adamant to say that God does not exist as what most hostile evos here do.
I've never said that. There are also a few agnostic evo's around. It's just we can tell the difference between philosophical speculation and scientific evidence, hence you will probably tend to mistake them to be the typical stereotype "atheist evolutionists".

There is always Skippy the 'Skeptic', our resident fundamentalist atheist. He's daft. And I slaughter him too.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#65363 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then in that case you should have no problem in forming a rebuttal.
<quoted text>
Except we made the successful prediction that mimicking the protein makeup of an ERV marker would result in a retrovirus. You didn't. You still can't even tell us what an ERV IS.
Also if you WERE correct about us merely disagreeing over different philosophies then you coming here to argue is UTTERLY pointless. As the best you could reach would be a stalemate. You may as well go home.
<quoted text>
You just keep telling yourself that.
<quoted text>
Except that you misrepresented the evidence. Again. Here, lemme give you a clue:
"Had you entered any village on Earth in around 3,000 B.C., the first person you would have met would probably be your ancestor," Hein marveled.
In other words there were still large populations and the genetics does NOT support going back to two people and two people only with no other contemporaries at all, period.
Otherwise we would not be here.
Cue JEWMAGIC.
Listen Dude will you please stop quacking.

I have presented peer reviewed research that suggests the MRHCA is 5-7k ya. That is it. So Sush!. Anything more than that is speculation. That was in response to some goose going on about support for creation. I don't really care because I already know nothing I can present in support of creation could possibly be worse than the falsifications and instability you have to offer.

All the gobble you have just ranted about is just that, gobble. The fact that I can take your own gobble and smack you with it is just a plus.

The fact that your great fantastic gobble about ervs is based on concocted hierarchies of extinct retrovirus you have not observed is also a very convenient plus.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65364 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen buddy, will you get over yourself? If I took off an ivented my own anything to show how that supports creation, I would never hear the end of it, and neither will you.
Phoenix is a fraud. It is a computer reconstructed demonstration.
You are just goosing off. These evos have exchanged HOX genes between species. Is that a new form of life? Silly!
Phoenix is made up according to how they think it should be and what they presume it should look like.
You cannot refute that. That is a fact.
What you can do is choose to believe that this is a recon that has merit in some way. That is a belief based on faith no different to mine.
What you can't do is say that, Phoenix is not a reconstruction according to a preceived priori.
SO THERE!!!

>:-(
MazHere wrote:
The other thing you can't do is answer what old erv's are more mutated away from?... given they are meant to show similarity to an extinct retrovirus evos have never seen and can only possibly speculate on according to computer modelling and an existing priori. That is a fact. You can have faith, but faith is all your beliefs are based on.
Mutated away from orthologous ERV's in other species. Have you not been paying attention?

No, of course you haven't. We've only repeated it MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65365 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
But these old mutations are scrambled and are not homologous with any retovirus evos can observe today. FACT.
So an ERV marker led us to a retrovirus EXACTLY as predicted but since that old virus doesn't exist anymore we can't prove fer sure it DEFINITELY was produced by that virus.

Thanks for demonstrating that even tests successfully demonstrating evolution are not enough for creationists because they are intellectually dishonest.

So all you need do then is do better. Perform your own test on ERV's instead. Except you can't even tell us what the heck they are in the first place.

Why are they called ERV's again?
MazHere wrote:
Therefore anything you say can only be based on deduction that is the same as priori based speculation tied to TOE, and you have now admitted to that innocently. That is...Logical deductive reasoning.THANK'S..FINALLY.
Except we tested it. Oops. What's an ERV Maz? What's the "scientific theory" of creationism, Maz?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65366 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
The term is reconstructed, not resurrected.
They would not have to reconstruct Phoenix from anything if a HERV could be lifted from a human genome alive and infectious.
Regardless, HERV-K is a 'recent' so called ERV, that has already aquired function in under 6my. You are focussing on this to detract from the substance of my point.
The point being
... that you have no substance.
MazHere wrote:
That any deduction or speculation an evolutionist makes on 'ancient' ervs, as they relate to common ancestry, is based on mutations away from an extinct retrovirus that evos have never observed, the existence and construction of which evos can only speculate about.
So you have already given me what I wanted, which is that all this hype about ervs is based on priori deductions and speculations of extinct retrovirus evos have never observed.
Thanks Subby!
Except that there is no reason why an ERV marker should reproduce a retrovirus. That is, unless ERV's are in fact ERV's.
MazHere wrote:
Hence, data re junk dna is supporting creationist predictions and falsifying evos initial claims; ervs are proving to be functional as part of the evo junk dna myth; ervs are an example of falacious speculative claims made by evos that are based purely on speculation no more robust than anything I can come with.
Next......How about my point 2.
Um, evolution data or Young Earth data? Is evolution falsifiable or non-falsifiable? TEH FALL giving us junk or 100% function? Science or Godmagic?

Keep on contradicting yourself Maz.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#65367 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, what for? You can't provide peer-reviewed research to support Godmagic so you resort to cherry-picking from peer-reviewed biology papers using science you REJECT and claiming they say the complete opposite.
But no problem.
Since AIDS is a retrovirus and studied quite a lot in recent years:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed... .
<quoted text>
Now demonstrated. Time for you to move goalposts again.
<quoted text>
Yes I saw that. They speculated that it was viral. And ended up with a retrovirus based on that speculation. It's called coming up with a hypothesis and testing it. And they were successful. That's how science works. Not that you'd know anything about that since you're a hypocritical liar for Jesus who doesn't know anything about science except how to copy-paste from real science that creationists were not even involved in and pretend it says something completely different than what it actually does say. Because after all your biological knowledge is far greater than any scientist. Especially with all those appeals to Godmagic.
Unlucky, bub.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Translation - boo hoo.
They were not successful at all and there still is no cure for aids. In fact some treatments have made the situation worse.

http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00011128

You can quack and quack and quack and quack some more. Still you cannot hide from your evolutionary quackery when it comes to junk dna. My point 1 is established and there is absolutlely nothing of substance you can offer to refute it.

After all Aides deniers are evolutionists that are truley concerned that research is on the wrong track.

http://www.rethinkingaids.com/

Indeed on my point 1, that creos made predictions and claims that are being validated as opposed to evos claims being falsified, is an undeniable fact you evos will need to suck up as much as you struggle with your pride.

That is it. You can go on and on and on and still the above claim will remain factual, and that does not depend on you liking it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65368 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function.
100% function or TEH FALL?

What's the "scientific mechanism of design", Maz?
MazHere wrote:
And now, and over 10 years later, data has gone from 98% non functional well prior to 2003, to 80% functional in 2012. I'd say on the creos have the upper hand in relation to claims around 'junk dna' over evos in relation to stable predictions and claims that are being validated in time.
100% function or TEH FALL?

What's the "scientific mechanism of design", Maz?

How is genetics going back millions of years proving Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago, Maz?
MazHere wrote:
"What creo predictions are supported by this research?".
Now you can come back with the same ignorant, tail chasing evasion Subby went on with for days.
Irony meter go booooooooommmmm.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65369 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
But these old mutations are scrambled and are not homologous with any retovirus evos can observe today. FACT.
Therefore anything you say can only be based on deduction that is the same as priori based speculation tied to TOE, and you have now admitted to that innocently. That is...Logical deductive reasoning.
THANK'S..FINALLY.....
And in the millions of years since they were attached do you think that the original ERV would have evolved, if they still survive after many millions of years. They are still recognizable as ERV's and that is a FACT.

And the fact that the virus came to life, where creatard "science" would have predicted the opposite shows that there assumption was correct.

You still lose Mav. You will always lose Mav.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65370 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Our reality have changed over the course of time as civilizations started inventing math and language. What kind of reality would we have today if not for the great architects and engineers that built the cities and the invention of language as means of communication? Imagine a world without it. We'd be stuck in the caves and we would still be hunting for our own food. You see it differently than I do. But then again, reality is subjective. We are creating our own reality.
We are affecting our own environment, sure. I'm not disputing math's ability as a tool. But like I said, gravity would still exist if we weren't around to throw math at it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#65371 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
... that you have no substance.
<quoted text>
Except that there is no reason why an ERV marker should reproduce a retrovirus. That is, unless ERV's are in fact ERV's.
<quoted text>
Um, evolution data or Young Earth data? Is evolution falsifiable or non-falsifiable? TEH FALL giving us junk or 100% function? Science or Godmagic?
Keep on contradicting yourself Maz.
How simplistic ....and I am not a YEC. If they win the day, that is just a bonus.

Listen. Are you disputing the fact that 'ancient ervs' that link to common ancestry are based on extinct retrovirus that you cannot observe?

That is it. You don't have to gobble on about anything more.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#65372 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Again, I will clearly state, that your nested hierarchies can only be concocted on speculations and assumptions of what any extinct retrovirus looked like.
You cannot refute that because that is a fact.
And you cannot refute the fact that there is no reason that ERV protein makeup should result in a retrovirus if biologists were wrong.

You still can't tell us what an ERV is.
MazHere wrote:
Now don't you go off into philosophical evasion and your quackery about God.
I leave that to you fundies.
MazHere wrote:
If you think lifeless non intelligent elements can poof themselves into complex factories of reproduction you should have no problem believing a non organic intelligent life form could poof elements into a complex factory of reproduction on a larger scale.
I note you're not addressing me in favour of this caricature.
MazHere wrote:
After all, all the waffle around universal creation is based on coalescence theory.
Universal creation is irrelevant to biological evolution. Doesn't matter how life got here, you can magically poof it if you like. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Should be easy, your Bible said it happened twice.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
ERV nested hierarchies and those for anything are concocted fabrication based on many insertion values evos can only speculate about. Evos must speculate on what any ancestors genomic make up was. All you have to go on is what is here now and a few examples of older deteriorated dna.
I'm sorry, deteriorated DNA or 100% functional DNA? I have no idea anymore. YOU have no idea anymore. WON'T SOMEONE SAVE THIS POOR CREATIONISM THEORY?!?

:-(
MazHere wrote:
This really is not rocket science. It is just that evos present their findings as if they actually know what they are talking about. Evos make up their sand castles of speculative support and then call that evidence that only an idiot would not accept until it is blown away, just like they did with junk dna over 10 years ago.
Junk DNA is wrong? Or TEH FALL happened? How many times have we addressed the junk DNA thing now?
MazHere wrote:
That is why I call all your ancestry gobble 'algorithmic magic' and algorithmic magic is just what it is.
So there! Ya know you're still using a lot of words to admit that you're unable to present a coherent rebuttal or address all of your numerous problems that have been pointed out which destroy all of your concerns before you even get off the ground.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65373 Dec 14, 2012
TheDude, Phoenix is not from an old ERV, it is from a very recent one, as far as ERV's go.

The fact that we were able to reconstruct an ERV as a working virus shows that we are correct in calling them ERV's where V stands for virus. Mav has no real answer for this and never will.

Old ancestral ERV's, say once that we share with mice. which have been separated from us for who knows how many millions of years, 50 millions at least. have evolved so much that we can only tell they are ERV's buy their shape. Of course evolution predicts a whole range of ERV's from very fresh recent ones like Phoenix which can be reactivated to ones that we have no idea of what they originally were.

This difference is a problem for creationism. Why would there be any difference in ERV's with that paradigm? But none for the TOE. It is what is expected.

I pointed this out to Mav a couple of days ago at least and she kept missing it. Now she tries to bring up this positive point for evolution as if it were a negative. Of course that is her mental disability rising to the surface.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 10 min Poppyann 9,114
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 15 min eleanorigby 61,536
2words into 2new words (May '12) 16 min Poppyann 5,114
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 17 min Poppyann 3,498
A six word game (Dec '08) 19 min Poppyann 20,157
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 21 min Poppyann 45,250
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 38 min Hoosier Hillbilly 36,251
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Joshua 200,966
Philly grey poster hangout 5 hr Spotted Girl 58
News Clinton's name spelled wrong on Hofstra Univers... 6 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 67
More from around the web