Evolution vs. Creation

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

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105638 Nov 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You still got it wrong. No mistaking that.
<quoted text>
As noted before, it is downright hysterical that you would use a peer-reviewed paper to show that peer-reviewed papers are mostly wrong.
Has it ever crossed your tiny, little mind that this paper is likely wrong as well?
No. I didn't think so.
The funniest part is starting out your hypothesis using peer reviewed papers ...with a paper.. that says...
the papers are probably wrong.
Shoot yourself in the foot then run for the car. lol

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#105639 Nov 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Erectus was a runner, no knuckle dragger, they could outrun us.
and weren't neandertals bigger, stronger and better adapted physically to the environment of europe at that time than erectus?

but the bigger brains of erectus won out in a biological blink of an eye.

just like the bigger brains of you folks are winning out over mazhair in the blink of an eye...

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105640 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your tiny little brain that can't come up with one shred of empirical evidence that demonstrates the genome can 'evolve' for billions of years. That, you dim witted evo, is the reason why you lot will now spam and troll adnauseum for as long as you can post.
However, there is tons of evidence that the genome cannot 'evolve' for billions years without going into extinction. You lot require many non plausible scenarios to hand wave away evidence for the creationist paradigm.
We don't need your stupid flawed research because anyone can see in current breeding methods, variation is limited. That would be first hand observed empirical evidence. You will never breed a dog as large as an elephant, no matter how hard they try and suggest a microbe can evolve into an elephant.
Using your own empirical evidence that you lot are always squacking about and then hitting you over the head with it, is just more of the fun to have here here.
So suck it up and keep fluffing your feathers and ridiculing and looking like an evo fool. That is the entertainment I am here for.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/...

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/ast...

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...



http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplaine...

We can provide you with that in spades.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#105641 Nov 11, 2013
Tell us about the science of the talking snake.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Another idiot, researchless reply from a gob smacked evo trying to save face on forum and TOE from zombification.
Then demonstrate unlimited adaptability is posssible, seeing as you lot can't 'prove' anything. LOL!

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105642 Nov 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanford was refuted 28 days before his book was officially released to the public. The first ever incident of a
"scientific" thesis being refuted before it was proposed.
I see you are still spamming pseudoscientific crap culled from creotard sites.
Worthless.
Sisyphus? very appropriate

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105643 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
SBT, bones decompose over time. Populations do not follow Kent Hovinds simple exponential curve.
If Ayala tried to make his claim 40 years ago he was wrong then. The only reason that our population made be "devolving" is because now we can takes care of the genetically inferior.
In the past natural selection culled the human race, stopping "devolution". We don't have that now, we have evolution.
So fossils deteriorate in such a short amount of time? What about the massive number of fossil remains your side date as multiple MY's old? Ayala was right. Culled the human race? So your "cave men" were cannibals. In the Karoo in SA they estimate the fossil deposit at 200,000 sq miles ranging from 2000-5000ft deep. An average fossil/sq meter cal was done giving an estimate of 150,000,000+ fossils exposed on the surface alone. As no bottom to top evolution is observed, these appear deposited in one watery event and are collectible today. So that is the math. Use math to calculate the number of people who lived on earth with the most conservative factor and you get around 10X26th power. The universe would not contain the volume of bones.
Again uniform measurements fail you.

http://www.rae.org/pdf/800Billion.pdf
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105644 Nov 11, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So fossils deteriorate in such a short amount of time? What about the massive number of fossil remains your side date as multiple MY's old? Ayala was right. Culled the human race? So your "cave men" were cannibals. In the Karoo in SA they estimate the fossil deposit at 200,000 sq miles ranging from 2000-5000ft deep. An average fossil/sq meter cal was done giving an estimate of 150,000,000+ fossils exposed on the surface alone. As no bottom to top evolution is observed, these appear deposited in one watery event and are collectible today. So that is the math. Use math to calculate the number of people who lived on earth with the most conservative factor and you get around 10X26th power. The universe would not contain the volume of bones.
Again uniform measurements fail you.
http://www.rae.org/pdf/800Billion.pdf
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...
My oh my, you are quite the moron today. Very few bones become fossils. For land based animals it is incredibly small, less that one out of a million on average. Perhaps even less than one out of a billion.

Massive fail on your part. And please, don't make the incredibly idiotic mistake of comparing fossils from sea life to fossils form land life.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105645 Nov 11, 2013
I also see that you could not find any valid sources for your links. In case you didn't know both of your sources come from creatard sites and therefore are not valid.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105646 Nov 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen any cartoon. All I have seen is the fossil evidence showing intermediate stages.
And contrary to your claim of a predetermined end, each of those stages was adaptive in its own right. Meaning the process was not directed towards creating the 3-boned middle ear but could have stopped at any point in the transformation if there was no adaptive advantage to further change.
This is the mistake you guys always make. Whenever you launch your silly IC claims, you always forget that intermediate stages are only intermediate in hindsight and that these adaptations may have had completely different functions at any point in the past.
The Corti is a soft tissue organ and not expected to be found in 200 million year old fossils under normal circumstances so we have no record of its appearance and development. No biologist would assume it showed up in its current state from the beginning.
But luckily we DO have the evidence of the bone assembly changing gradually from reptilian to mammalian. In fossils that are simultaneously making other changes to the skeleton in accordance with that same transformation.
Evolution explains that. What is your alternative? A succession of "created" species that just happen to match evolutionary expectations, just happened to appear in the fossil record at the right times? Not just for the middle ear of mammals, but for all the transformations of life so far. Where are the enormous number of fossils that would predate any possible evolutionary antecedent if evolution had not been the driving force?

Sorry, you have 1 bone to 3 bone, no 2 bone ear transition animals. and their is a pile of conflict in the lit over these hopefuls. The simplistic approach of saying it and having is a big diff. Take a chihuahua and great dane dog forms, one may choose among skeletons, line them up and claim evolution was at work, but no, a dog is a dog and the pure genetic information in the primal created dog kind,(although God was not limited to create one), allowed broad variation and adaptation, but that's not evolution. The DNA and concordant operable work together bones and organs are not so simplistically evolved, they require an end-game plan designed by the Almighty through DNA information and must be reconciled.

We know tens of thousands of creatures have gone extinct, many in recent years. A Fossil deposit may hold a variety of kinds dieing together in a catastrophic event but are found to be utterly unrelated to each other in taxonomy in the beds. When a big picture is taken in a fossil bed evolution is nowhere to be found, but evo claims support from the fossil record as paleontologists line up those that seem similar in homology from different sites, but they are mistaken. The quote I referenced mentions that actual appearance and functions are very difficult to determine from bones. With so many creatures now extinct and no new one's forming, things are proved to be running down, not up. This is what the bible teaches, creation is over.

In Oregon for instance, one localized deposit contains mice, opossums and lemurs, all buried at the same time. As these species represent our common decent ancestors and no between kinds are found, I call this Intermediates Lost, because there never were any!

http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105647 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I also see that you could not find any valid sources for your links. In case you didn't know both of your sources come from creatard sites and therefore are not valid.
See the Pic of the Karoo? and there are a pile of references in those links. But pretend like the Karoo doesn't exist, all 200,000 sq miles of it.(Specially never let that place get into a HS textbook, like a proton motor, the kids may get confused, or think your side is wrong). The sources are valid from licensed professionals that have every right to print their findings and summaries.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105648 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The examples of French, Italian, Latin, Greek, Danish, German, Swedish, Spanish words each finding their way into the English language
Also the links to several academic articles describing the history, roots and development of the English language
It seems to me than in your deliberate ignorance you have typically ignored those examples.
‘No’‘you’‘have’‘not’ asked ‘me’ that “question” at ‘all’ but ‘you’ are ‘welcome’‘to’‘your’“vain” lies ‘regarding’ the ‘language’ of the ‘English’“nation”
Note some people may find the usage of the words in quotes (and semi) to be highly amusing in the context but I guess it will be way beyond you
Besides what does that matter, times change, language changes and grows and develops with that time. The English language of today is not the same as the English language of 100 years ago and going back much further you would be hard pressed to understand it, over 200 years it has changes beyond recognition.
Like i said, the same with other world languages. All those developments never took place outside, but inside England, that is why it started there.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105649 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The examples of French, Italian, Latin, Greek, Danish, German, Swedish, Spanish words each finding their way into the English language
Also the links to several academic articles describing the history, roots and development of the English language
It seems to me than in your deliberate ignorance you have typically ignored those examples.
‘No’‘you’‘have’‘not’ asked ‘me’ that “question” at ‘all’ but ‘you’ are ‘welcome’‘to’‘your’“vain” lies ‘regarding’ the ‘language’ of the ‘English’“nation”
Note some people may find the usage of the words in quotes (and semi) to be highly amusing in the context but I guess it will be way beyond you
Besides what does that matter, times change, language changes and grows and develops with that time. The English language of today is not the same as the English language of 100 years ago and going back much further you would be hard pressed to understand it, over 200 years it has changes beyond recognition.
Yes. That is why English is a complex or compound language with many words having the same meaning. So, what is your point?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105650 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The examples of French, Italian, Latin, Greek, Danish, German, Swedish, Spanish words each finding their way into the English language
Also the links to several academic articles describing the history, roots and development of the English language
It seems to me than in your deliberate ignorance you have typically ignored those examples.
‘No’‘you’‘have’‘not’ asked ‘me’ that “question” at ‘all’ but ‘you’ are ‘welcome’‘to’‘your’“vain” lies ‘regarding’ the ‘language’ of the ‘English’“nation”
Note some people may find the usage of the words in quotes (and semi) to be highly amusing in the context but I guess it will be way beyond you
Besides what does that matter, times change, language changes and grows and develops with that time. The English language of today is not the same as the English language of 100 years ago and going back much further you would be hard pressed to understand it, over 200 years it has changes beyond recognition.
Academic Articles?
You or any one else can never bend or change the fact, English started and it belongs to England. The Genesis, metamorphosis, etc, all took place in a place called, England. Learn!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105651 Nov 11, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a silly little man!
Your Francophobic behavior doesn't change a thing in the world, and in case you haven't noticed, the locals aren't exactly bonding with you in some kind of Anglo-Saxon/Germanic tradition.
All you've done is reinforce everyone's belief that God, if there was one, isn't on your side, and since nobody ELSE is, they're inclined to gang up on you. You tend to play that kind of martyr but you're such an ugly little troll, it's not like anyone will be sympathetic either.
Anyway, I'm mostly Irish with a touch if just about anything else American. If I'm part French, so be it! I spent a good deal of time along the Rivera and found it a very pleasant place.
No matter the accolades, praises and the oppositions, truth always prevails. Yes or no? I don't care where you came from. I fight and stand for the truth.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105652 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
No, academic evidence is academic evidence and I choose not to waste any more of my time on your stupidity over the subject of language
You are indeed the stupid. If you can not answer the question, then your claims are wrong. Simple. English started in England, period.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105653 Nov 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's from the 16th century Italian word "independente."
What is your point - the U.S. Declaration of Independence belongs to Italy?
" Independente ", and " independence ", does the two words sounds the same in your ears?
Why are you guys not using the former instead of the latter?
Just accept the fact, English belongs to England.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105654 Nov 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's from the 16th century Italian word "independente."
What is your point - the U.S. Declaration of Independence belongs to Italy?
And again, are English, Italian, and other languages the same, even though linguistically, they came from one another or the same source?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105655 Nov 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Too bad. This language thing is wicked awesome for sure. Yall, or is it yawl been up the crick and down the holler on this.
I was hoping that we might be able to examine the English language in the United States. Since it is the same language. Perhaps take off our sombreros and set down over some tortillas and whoop this puppy. Roundup this whole language thing in a big ole word rodeo before we all end up in the calaboose. Whadda ya say buckaroos?
Why are some of your folks here against the truth that, English started in England?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105656 Nov 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does origination convey ownership of a language?
Repetition!
It was first spoken there before any other. Ok?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105657 Nov 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
So? Why does that imply ownership?
First and foremost, unlike some others here, do you accept that?
Back to your question. Despite the death of Faraday, his name is still ringing on electricity, has the owner.

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
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 10 min David0407 78,587
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 15 min Doug77 5,039
Happy April Fools Day. (Apr '11) 17 min Spirit67_ 31
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 22 min Spirit67_ 8,162
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 29 min Doug77 28,202
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 33 min Jennifer Renee 10,307
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 35 min mr goodwrench 9,616
motorcycle traveling stories 59 min bros before hos 58
Still arguing with Billy R (Oct '09) 2 hr Hitesrunprincess 543
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr Whose Fool 159,974
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 6 hr dragoon70056 266
More from around the web