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 4,459)

Showing posts 89,161 - 89,180 of112,019
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94163
Jun 27, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you would not know logic if it sat on your face and farted
Looks pretty logical to me
That must have happened to you. What a wonderful experience.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94164
Jun 27, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Shut up chaz, the premier word in the English language is French
Shut up, Chriz, the premier words in French are mostly in Latin. The same with all languages.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94165
Jun 27, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times do you have to be told Cuckles, the U.S. got it as part
of a package deal when we bought London Bridge. England was going
through a tough time then and was selling off some artifacts. The
English Language was on of those artifacts.
So now you need to practice saying American belongs to the
Americans!!
Wake up! why? because your nightmares are just too much.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94166
Jun 27, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what I said
I said the “premier” word
Note the definition of “premier”
First in status or importance; principal or chief:
First to occur or exist; earliest
First in importance, rank, etc.
First in occurrence; earliest
Note also that the earliest word which "evolved" into an English word is either "cinnamon." a spice used several thousand years ago. The word is of Hebrew origin (it is found in the 30th chapter of Exodus).
Or “water” which has counterparts in several languages that have influenced English, I believe the oldest use of the word water was in the Hittite language
No matter how you chop it, French is not the "premier" word in English. It isn't even the premier word in French. The earliest word is likely to be the simplest and most primal. Ma or mama.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94167
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Shut up, Chriz, the premier words in French are mostly in Latin. The same with all languages.
The premier words in: Mandarin are Latin? Navajo are Latin? Swahili are Latin? Hindi are Latin?

Never ask a Christian anglophile for a correct answer, all you'll get is a "right and proper" one.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94168
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yet another cowardly dodge from Mike.
Cowardly dodge, huh? You cite a 40+ year old publication as if it were still germane today. If you knew what you were talking about and understood the modern definition of homology, you wouldn't make such a foolish mistake.

But continue to act like a jackass, Dr Phony.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94169
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowardly dodge, huh? You cite a 40+ year old publication as if it were still germane today. If you knew what you were talking about and understood the modern definition of homology, you wouldn't make such a foolish mistake.
But continue to act like a jackass, Dr Phony.
So, Mike...you're predicting that every journal published today will be garbage in 40 years.
The "modern definition of homology" is a carefully contrived rationalization tailored to fit evolution.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94170
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
First off we need to see the source of your claim. Very often the answer is there.
Please, no invalid creatard sources. I don't like creatard sources since they openly admit that they will lie if necessary.
Please, evotard sources...like talkorigins, since they openly lie when necessary.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94171
Jun 27, 2013
 
BiggBBoss wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Adaptation is very different from evolution. The various colors of our skin may be an example. Skin Has a biological mechanism that adopts to protect us. This is not evolution. And this is what causes me problems with this debate. People do not understand the difference. And no one has even dared to try To explain away one of my earlier comments...
The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue? So for evolution to work the number of genes would have to about double and reorganize themselves. There is NO biological mechanism that allows for this to happen. Mutating genes is very different than creating genes. Plus reorganizing them! Someone previously suggested that conception would allow for this to happen- lol. You cannot evolve through conception. Genetic recombination will also not cause evolution in a species.
Asked and answered.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94172
Jun 27, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So, Mike...you're predicting that every journal published today will be garbage in 40 years.
The "modern definition of homology" is a carefully contrived rationalization tailored to fit evolution.
Here we go again with the fake doctor. I didn't say that and you should know that. So either your lying or a moron. Go back and read what I did say until you get it like the good little dunce that you are.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94173
Jun 27, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
The "modern definition of homology" is a carefully contrived rationalization tailored to fit evolution.
Thanks for admitting that you KNEW the information you cited was outdated.

We already knew you're a fraud though.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94175
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowardly dodge, huh? You cite a 40+ year old publication as if it were still germane today. If you knew what you were talking about and understood the modern definition of homology, you wouldn't make such a foolish mistake.
But continue to act like a jackass, Dr Phony.
If you think De Beer's research is irrelevant today, then state specifically what has been done to disprove it. Broadly stating that all research dating back to 1971 should be discounted is stupid. His research has withstood 40+ years of scrutiny, and he commands a great deal of respect as an embryologist.

All that has been done is re-defining terminology. Homologous structures produced by non-homologous genes are now designated "analogous". Inventing new words doesn't erase any obstacles to evolution.

This is yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. You can imagine that the flipper of a dolphin is homologous to the hand of a man. Genetic studies disprove your intuitions. Naive hunches must capitulate to science.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94176
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So, Mike...you're predicting that every journal published today will be garbage in 40 years.
The "modern definition of homology" is a carefully contrived rationalization tailored to fit evolution.
"Modern definition of homology" was coined by Owens in 1843.
"Origin of Species" was published in 1859.

According to your statement and your own biblical standards, the Theory of Evolution was prophesied and fulfilled.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94177
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Modern definition of homology" was coined by Owens in 1843.
"Origin of Species" was published in 1859.
According to your statement and your own biblical standards, the Theory of Evolution was prophesied and fulfilled.
Totally irrelevant comment.
Mike was referring to a revised definition homology made after 1971, because De Beer's research debunked Darwin's claims of relatedness by simplistically documenting homology.

And what's this nonsense about ToE fulfilling Biblical prophesy?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94178
Jun 27, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, evotard sources...like talkorigins, since they openly lie when necessary.
It really gets to you tards that that is not the case isn't it?

We have shown that the honesty of your site is extremely dubious. So much so that you are afraid to use it when that was your source for an idea, your latest DeBeer's claim for example.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94179
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally irrelevant comment.
Mike was referring to a revised definition homology made after 1971, because De Beer's research debunked Darwin's claims of relatedness by simplistically documenting homology.
And what's this nonsense about ToE fulfilling Biblical prophesy?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
I don't think you have the slightest idea what anyone is talking about, unless their sentence ends with "In Jesus' name, Amen."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94180
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally irrelevant comment.
Mike was referring to a revised definition homology made after 1971, because De Beer's research debunked Darwin's claims of relatedness by simplistically documenting homology.
And what's this nonsense about ToE fulfilling Biblical prophesy?
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
From your description of the process he debunked nothing.

That is one of the reasons that we demand the sources. It is extremely doubtful that DeBeer was as stupid as you are. There always is the possibility. Your description of DeBeer only showed that someone, probably you, misunderstood the genome.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94181
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you have the slightest idea what anyone is talking about, unless their sentence ends with "In Jesus' name, Amen."
To HST the scientific world is one of continuous whooshing sounds as idea after idea shoots right over his head.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94182
Jun 27, 2013
 
And thanks for mentioning Talk Origins, HST:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB811.h...
Evolutionist Gavin de Beer (1971) has shown that homologous structures arise from different, nonhomologous genes, which means that they cannot be derived from common ancestors.
Source:

Kofahl, Robert E., 2003. Handy dandy evolution refuter, chpt. 10. < http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder... ;
Response:

It was 1971 when de Beer made his argument. That was before technology for manipulating DNA made it possible to examine genes directly, so de Beer's conclusions (and those of Hardy 1965, making essentially the same argument) were based on indirect evidence. Since then, many similar genes have been found to participate in the development of homologous structures (see, e.g., Carroll 2005).

Granted, some of the examples raised by de Beer have not yet been explained in detail. For example, some organs considered homologous arise from different layers of embryological tissues. But although such cases are not explained, that does not mean they are unexplainable. We now know that organs can be stimulated to grow in many parts of the body (such as eyes growing on a fly's wings) simply by ensuring that the proper signalling chemicals are present. Thus homologous organs arising from different areas may result simply from mutations in where signalling proteins are expressed.

The difference in finger development between birds and theropod dinosaurs shows an example of how a small difference in development can lead to a nonobvious difference in adult form.
References:

Carroll, Sean B. 2005. Endless Forms Most Beautiful. New York: W. W. Norton.
de Beer, Gavin. 1971. Homology, an unsolved problem. Oxford Biology Readers, J.J. Head and O.E. Lowenstein, eds., Oxford University Press. Reprinted (abridged) in Ridley, Mark, 1997. Evolution. Oxford University Press, 211-221.
Hardy, Alister. 1965. The Living Stream, New York: Harper & Row, pp. 209-219.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94183
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think De Beer's research is irrelevant today, then state specifically what has been done to disprove it. Broadly stating that all research dating back to 1971 should be discounted is stupid. His research has withstood 40+ years of scrutiny, and he commands a great deal of respect as an embryologist.
All that has been done is re-defining terminology. Homologous structures produced by non-homologous genes are now designated "analogous". Inventing new words doesn't erase any obstacles to evolution.
This is yet another failed prediction of Darwinism. You can imagine that the flipper of a dolphin is homologous to the hand of a man. Genetic studies disprove your intuitions. Naive hunches must capitulate to science.
Listen up, you stupid shit. I didn't say DeBeer's research was irrelevant.(You just can't resist lying about what others say, can you? Some sort of personality defect. I imagine). I said that his opinion on homology was out of date. A lot has happened since 1971. We were barely scratching the surface in DNA understanding back then. Science has since refined the definition.

That's what pisses you off, isn't it? That science gets closer and closer to understand everything around us. Pushing your god of genesis further and further into a corner. Tough cookies that you have to live with such fear.

And where is this genetic study you referred to? Or was that just one more of your lies?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 89,161 - 89,180 of112,019
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••