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 3,958)

Showing posts 79,141 - 79,160 of111,729
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83757
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Your failure to produce any proof...wiki is not proof of anything...scientific papers are even question until repeat experiment is shown to verify.
It's not tough anymore...science is rapidly improving in technique.
So it's your contention that scientific papers do not involve repeatable experimentation? How very curious.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83758
Mar 29, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
What I mean is who manufactured a ufo to be this large (mile long) that flies real slow with no sound.
Any theories or ideas you may have, I would like to hear them.
I'm not sure why you would want us to try to support your hypotheses which we don't necessarily agree with.

Oh wait - yes I do. You have no evidence so have to ask us to provide evidence for your position. Most other fundies do this too.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83759
Mar 29, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
4 million years? Well the lineages of humans and chimps diverged around 6-7 million years ago we DO have that evidence. As for the humans that are left today, it's also worth bearing in mind that geographical separation is less of a factor today due to the development of boats and planes. So the constant mixing of genes slows things down.
Of course. But what of the thousands of years of separation worldwide...before that travel had any effect?
.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83760
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that NONE of it can positively prove the progressive evolution of humans from any given origin...and yet it is posited as proof positive...It is what it is...spoof
Then a DNA test cannot demonstrate that you are related to either of your parents?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83761
Mar 29, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I pointed out many things to Hog a day or two ago which were pseudo-scientific yet people still believed them. The thing you're not grasping is that faith does not REQUIRE evidence. That's why people can still have faith in concepts which either have no evidence, or just plain wrong (like young Earth creationism).
Faith does not stay when one has evidence. Faith DISAPPEARS with evidence. Evidence makes faith superfluous.
This is neither child's play nor comedy, but this is reality. For we work by faith and not by sight.
Food for thought, Frodo.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83762
Mar 29, 2013
 
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
THose who happened to be born with the genetic makeup for a longer neck would tend, as a group, to eat better, live longer, reproduce more and thus pass that setup of genes throughout the population eventually.
It has nothing to do with "mutative cellular action within spermiation or zygote." LOL
Yeah, I thought he was making up new words too.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83763
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Do show where and how those transitions are actuality.
You can not or you would be world renowned and instantly famous.
This "clear" record is anything but "clear".
Actually you are incorrect, as the linkys I have since provided demonstrate. In actual fact if you were able to falsify evolution it would be YOU who would be world renowned and instantly famous.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
That is where all the controversy is and has been for centuries.
Any real researcher or scientific researcher know this as common knowledge.
Sorry bub, but there hasn't been any "controversy" over the validity of evolution since the discovery of DNA at the very latest. The only GENUINE scientific controversies over evolutionary biology are the specifics of HOW it occurred (which is normal in any scientific field), not whether or not it DID occur.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83764
Mar 29, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. So like others noted we have established that the Bible is in error.
<quoted text>
No, but we don't have to be. We just have to be more accurate than the Bible. And its fundies.
Was there a flood or not?
The answer is, there was flood and the bible said so.
The issue is, whether it was global or regional.
To me, i believe the people then thought it was global, this does not mean that the bible is in error.
The magnitude of the flood led to that conclusion.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83765
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> I have no doubt that evolution is a reality. I do have a problem with the chronological placement and resulting "story" of historical evolution concerning human existence as presented by anthropologists and historians....and the influences (terrestrial and extraterrestrial) upon that depiction...which is quite obviously flawed and unsubstantiated.
Um... what on Earth (no pun intended) does the "extra-terrestrial" have to do with any of this?

Don't tell me we have another Infinite-Force!

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83766
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Then it would not have been transferred to the generations, so none would have ever grown larger length necks(which is a ludicrous example anyway).
Actually if changes provide an advantage that's a darn good reason why those characteristics spread through populations.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83767
Mar 29, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"The giraffe is an unusual animal that contains an interesting design mechanism. Did you know that a full grown giraffe's heart weighs over 24 pounds and pumps 16 gallons a minute? Because the giraffe's heart is much larger than his head, a series of special one-way, back-flow preventer valves are needed in the neck to regulate the flow of blood to the head, especially when the giraffe is bending down to get that much needed drink of water. Without these valves, the immense blood pressure coupled with gravity would make for one nasty headache and other such repercussions. Elastic blood vessels in the giraffe's head allow harboring of enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when bent in this position.
The creationist points out that this intricate design mechanism is, you guessed it, a design! The evolutionist will have you believe that this system evolved with time, that eventually a giraffe mutated merrily along until the valves properly formed in the neck and the elastic blood vessels sufficiently formed in the head (along with other details left out here).
If evolution is true, the struggle for the Giraffe to survive must have been one ugly sight!
So what you're saying is the "designer" messed up the design of the giraffe neck so it needed to put blood pumps that go up then down then back up again in order to prevent the giraffe from fainting whenever it lifts its head? Or instead it could have come up with something a little more direct and less convoluted, and while it was at it, add more neck vertibrae so that it doesn't have to do this:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HTcPRZE_-eI/TqQfNwD...
sam

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83769
Mar 29, 2013
 
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
And
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
.
and
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83770
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> What ? 7% of maybe 42 efrv's...and even that "may" be significant...is NOT [slam the door] evidence of anything except wishful thinking, and really stretching the "gumby" guy.
Yeah, it's pretty much slam the door, except to promoters of pseudo-science.(shrug)

Otherwise then you can provide an alternative mechanism for ERV insertion at orthologous positions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83771
Mar 29, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
42? Where ARE you getting your information?
He's getting information?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83772
Mar 29, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me point out where your entire premise falls apart utterly:
<quoted text>
Mutations are NEW information. If you transfer EXISTING information that is NOT new information. Organism 1 does not "transfer" mutations to its offspring organism 2. Organism 1 transfers its existing genetic material to organism 2 and organism 2 undergoes mutations during development, thereby ending up with a small amount of genetic material which is NOT shared by either parent.
Nope. I don't buy it.
Denovo mutations are "disorders".
Somatic mutations can not be passed on to new generations.
Hereditary mutations come from the parent(s), and are inherent in the cells of the offspring.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83773
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Several places in history are completely out of sync with the accepted view of the intellectual and societal disposition of the proposed "evolution" of humans. I don't think ALL the evidence is being objectively considered, and is causing considerable difficulty in the formation of discovery of a proper timeline of evolution and involved factors...mostly because of control of the "funding" for research, and the need to be accepted academically, even knowing that the information and methods are in error.
Ah, gotcha. It's the evil world-wide atheist Darwinist evolutionist elitist scientist liberal socialist Communist Nazi anti-Christian God-hating Satan-worshipping baby-eating Jewish Illumanati conspiracy at work then.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83774
Mar 29, 2013
 
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> From a paper 2 years more recent than yours.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...
Ah, so you accept evolution then. Jolly good!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83775
Mar 29, 2013
 
Gillette wrote:
Ah, 3:30 Central USA time, about 8:00 in the evening England time.
The Dude is home from work, has had dinner, and sits down at his computer for a pleasant evening of swatting Christian creationist kooks!:)
And about to have a beer. Cheers!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83776
Mar 29, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Simply smashing job...ol' boy!
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/721940736/h602A0...

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83777
Mar 29, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Here it is again:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
And:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
Not sure what you mean by the "reasons" for mutation. They simply happen. That's why you are born with around 125 to 175 mutations which are not shared by either of your parents. This is a normal part of human reproduction. So to me it sounds like you are thinking that evolution involves some kind of goal-direction. This is a common mistake made by creationists, which probably stems from their assumption that humans were always the intended goal since God made them that way.
I don't know where you get this idea that I am a creationist, but if that makes you feel all fuzzy, then have at it.
I don't see any "goal" in evolution. In fact, from what I see it is more of regression than progression.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 79,141 - 79,160 of111,729
|
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.

113 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
**Words with a Silent Letter** (Jun '13) 3 min quilterqueen 110
a to z word association... (Feb '11) 5 min quilterqueen 695
Word Association (Jun '10) 6 min _Word Woman_ 25,798
Post how you feel (Oct '12) 8 min quilterqueen 303
Word goes to the Movies (Nov '08) 9 min whatimeisit 13,954
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 11 min CJ Rocker 140,343
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 21 min cjt12 6,066
Should Topx sue Trolls 48 min -Persephone- 13
What is the meaning of life? 59 min cjt12 29
How to become Unbannable 2 hr SLACK 71
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 hr last_call 14,113
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••