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 3,060)

Showing posts 61,181 - 61,200 of105,937
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65250
Dec 14, 2012
 
lisawow wrote:
<quoted text>From now on all arguments for and against evolution must be backed up with no less authority than the chorus from a pop music song..........
But no disco!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Topanga

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65251
Dec 14, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
Darwin Buster Three: The laws of genetics prevent "ape to human evolution" from ever taking place. One reason is there is no genetic mechanism that creates new genes. But "ape to human evolution" relies on apes and humans having the ability to create new genes with new functions. New genes are required in order to have morphological changes, such as gills into lungs or more efficient brains. So called "gene duplication" is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. Although bacteria can duplicate existing genes by mistake through "gene duplication," this only occurs in single sex bacteria and this is not evidence that apes and humans can create new genes with new functions.
http://darwinconspiracy.com/
Gee, in spite of all that....we now know that it DID happen. You creationists just need to stop. You are ALWAYS wrong.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65252
Dec 14, 2012
 
Dude, you're a talking A-SS

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65253
Dec 14, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
Yeah. Don't forget the bible code as well.

{head/desk}
ItsObvious

Savage, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65254
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an over-exaggerated hypothesis with zero evidence.
Makes good sci-fi though.
I don't like to look at what is explained and rather find ways to explain what is not. For example evolution is totally acceptable but does not explain(nor for its intents and purposes should it) why all civilizations point upwards to the sky when telling where there gods came from. How come never from across the ocean? Always from the sky? And even so, when white people came to foreign lands, natives accepted them as gods. So if these "savages"(not my term) could believe people coming from across the ocean were gods, is it really too out there to say that thousands of years ago, someone did come from the sky? Given that in even more modern times people still believed those coming from across the ocean were gods that easily, why were they never coming from across the ocean before?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65255
Dec 14, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
uh, they probably had an agenda much like you all evilutionists do
Probably.

And my agenda is...?
Cybele wrote:
God could probably wipe out the entire human race, so watch out! LOL
Apparently it already did. At least twice. Which is why none of us are here talking about it right now.

Still waiting for Maz or Russ to explain that one too...

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65256
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters. Each one busts and invalidates "ape to human evolution."



But of course almost all atheist scientists refuse to admit any of them because they worship Darwin And almost all scientists are atheists because people of faith no longer seek careers in science.



Also, you probably have not even read any news about any of this because there is a very powerful worldwide atheist Darwin Conspiracy that actively suppresses the truth about evolution and instead spreads lies.



This is why we created this website. We are here to combat the Darwin Conspiracy and bring you the scientific information you need to make your own judgment about "ape to human evolution" theory.



To help you to begin to understand the truth about "ape to human evolution" theory, we prepared the following short summary of the theory, and we provide you with some details about the first Darwin Buster we listed above. In the future, about every five weeks, we will add details about the other three Darwin Busters.





SUMMARY OF "APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION" THEORY



Darwinians have asserted that humans evolved from the African ape, and they have proposed the following theory as to how "ape to human evolution" is supposed to have occurred:

Ape to Human Evolution Theory In a Nutshell



Darwinians tell us that the biological differences between humans and apes can be entirely accounted for in the differences in their genes (DNA).



They have claimed for decades that the "genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical."



They insist that apes evolved into humans because of gradual changes to their genome. The biological instrument for "ape to human evolution" is changes in the genome, especially the genes.



Darwinians further theorize that each such change in the apes' genes was minor but over the course of over six million years, the accumulation of such small changes in the genes of apes resulted in "ape to human evolution."



Darwin's supporters boast that there are "genes that make us human" and that soon they will find and identify all such genes.









In summary - Darwinians claim the ape genome evolved into the human genome through changes in apes' genes and very few changes were necessary because the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.



But since 2001, scientific researchers in genetics and embryology have discovered proof that virtually every detail of "ape to human evolution" is contradicted by scientific facts.



Below are some of the recent discoveries that prove "ape to human evolution" is impossible.

http://darwinconspiracy.com/
ItsObvious

Savage, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65257
Dec 14, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever heard of paragraphs???
Makes stuff on the screen MUCH easier to read
Sorry man I'm new here lol by the way just pitching ideas of possibilities, however improbable they are
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65258
Dec 14, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
But no disco!
Hey, there is still the OCCASIONAL disco song that's okay.

Just no country, okay?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65259
Dec 14, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
Dude, you're a talking A-SS
Why thank you. I must say your coherent and rational rebuttals have been as equally as impressive as Maz or Russ.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65260
Dec 14, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. Don't forget the bible code as well.
{head/desk}
It was gonna be either her or Knightmare. In fact I think Knight already has if we go back far enough.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65261
Dec 14, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just downright lying! You can't be any more wrong!
How so? Why is he wrong? Do you actually think music, rocks or DNA couldn't exist without math?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65262
Dec 14, 2012
 
ItsObvious wrote:
Prove this wrong.
Your claim. You prove it true.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65263
Dec 14, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
In that's it biochemistry.
<quoted text>
Sorry but you're way wrong here. Music existed long before man developed mathematics. Music does not depend on math though it can be described with math
That's just the fact of reality.

We learned language after everything else developed. You don't expect babies to talk right after birth. But that doesn't mean reality doesn't exist. We interpret things through language. Math is a universal language.
ItsObvious

Savage, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65264
Dec 14, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters. Each one busts and invalidates "ape to human evolution."
But of course almost all atheist scientists refuse to admit any of them because they worship Darwin And almost all scientists are atheists because people of faith no longer seek careers in science.
Also, you probably have not even read any news about any of this because there is a very powerful worldwide atheist Darwin Conspiracy that actively suppresses the truth about evolution and instead spreads lies.
This is why we created this website. We are here to combat the Darwin Conspiracy and bring you the scientific information you need to make your own judgment about "ape to human evolution" theory.
To help you to begin to understand the truth about "ape to human evolution" theory, we prepared the following short summary of the theory, and we provide you with some details about the first Darwin Buster we listed above. In the future, about every five weeks, we will add details about the other three Darwin Busters.
SUMMARY OF "APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION" THEORY
Darwinians have asserted that humans evolved from the African ape, and they have proposed the following theory as to how "ape to human evolution" is supposed to have occurred:
Ape to Human Evolution Theory In a Nutshell

Darwinians tell us that the biological differences between humans and apes can be entirely accounted for in the differences in their genes (DNA).
They have claimed for decades that the "genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical."
They insist that apes evolved into humans because of gradual changes to their genome. The biological instrument for "ape to human evolution" is changes in the genome, especially the genes.
Darwinians further theorize that each such change in the apes' genes was minor but over the course of over six million years, the accumulation of such small changes in the genes of apes resulted in "ape to human evolution."
Darwin's supporters boast that there are "genes that make us human" and that soon they will find and identify all such genes.
In summary - Darwinians claim the ape genome evolved into the human genome through changes in apes' genes and very few changes were necessary because the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.
But since 2001, scientific researchers in genetics and embryology have discovered proof that virtually every detail of "ape to human evolution" is contradicted by scientific facts.
Below are some of the recent discoveries that prove "ape to human evolution" is impossible.
http://darwinconspiracy.com/
But not alien intervention;)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65265
Dec 14, 2012
 
ItsObvious wrote:
Chimps will be speaking in the next century and creationists will see first hand. However I believe this study greatly exaggerates the part about them evolving faster(physiologically I don't doubt they are however I doubt the human study involved the evolution in human intelligence and behavior due to cultural pressures which would raise our evolution rates)
http://www.avantnews.com/news/25668-the-race-...
<<Ahem>>

Disclaimer

"All material published on Avant News, with the possible exception of information provided by external sites, is fictitious, satirical, and intended for entertainment purposes only. While many of the individuals and entities appearing in articles on Avant News are real, all events, quotations and anything else having to do with those individuals and entities are entirely fictitious. As far as we know."

http://www.avantnews.com/news/content/about-a...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65266
Dec 14, 2012
 
ItsObvious wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like to look at what is explained and rather find ways to explain what is not. For example evolution is totally acceptable but does not explain(nor for its intents and purposes should it) why all civilizations point upwards to the sky when telling where there gods came from. How come never from across the ocean? Always from the sky? And even so, when white people came to foreign lands, natives accepted them as gods. So if these "savages"(not my term) could believe people coming from across the ocean were gods, is it really too out there to say that thousands of years ago, someone did come from the sky? Given that in even more modern times people still believed those coming from across the ocean were gods that easily, why were they never coming from across the ocean before?
Logistics suggests that space-aliens is unlikely. That's not to say aliens, even advanced civilisations don't exist. It's just the sheer scale of the universe makes it problematic to be able to contact each other.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65267
Dec 14, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Sort and sweet means you want to evade and are not prepared to defend ervs against my claim that your algorithmic magic is all gibberish.
What part of this are you totally ignoring?
"Researchers could not isolate a functioning, infectious HERV-K virus from human samples to study its possible function, though.
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".
It is a frudulent misrepresentation, indeed, and there is no denying it.
I see you have zilch to say about your 'old' and 'new/recent' ervs.
That my man, is the end of this topic you chose on ervs. If one cannot speak to a topic they should shut up or avoid it as you are now doing, or at least not be so stupid as to choose it.
If you refuse to defend the reasoning behind presumed ancient ervs then you loose by default, as this is the entire basis of the ERV myth.
Yes, I understand that, it is clear that you didn't.

The evolution of an ERV does not stop simply because it is an ERV. By picking the most common base they got around the problem of evolution since each lineage of ERV's would have evolved independently of the others. It was not fraudulent in any way.

One more time Maz, how is that fraudulent in any way at all? They knew that the ERV would have evolved. They took steps to correct for that evolution. Are you truly this dense that you cannot look at this from an evolutionary paradigm? ERV's do not make sense from a creationist paradigm at all, perhaps that is your problem. ERV's fit the evolutionary paradigm, they do not fit the creationist one.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65268
Dec 14, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters. Each one busts and invalidates "ape to human evolution."
Unfortunately we busted each one of those summaries.

So uh...

(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65269
Dec 14, 2012
 
ItsObvious wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry man I'm new here lol by the way just pitching ideas of possibilities, however improbable they are
Well if you're into ancient alien theories with no evidence, Cybele's your gal!

:-)

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61,181 - 61,200 of105,937
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••