Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105623 Nov 11, 2013
Maz, I cannot debunk your articles if you keep submitting bad links. Why is it that you are the only one who cannot link here?

You call it hand waving, but that is all that is needed to debunk your claims. Claims made without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence.

And you should not take offense when somebody correctly describes what you do. I wanted to get replaytime up to speed on how you work here. You read articles and misinterpret them to try to support your superstitious beliefs.

There is no support for creationism to be found anywhere in science and you know it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105624 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ain't evo science great! The same fossil line up proves human knuckle walking ancestry and ancestry to a non knuckle walker. YIKES!!!! Great scientific credibility...LOL!
No wonder this has happened.....
You still got it wrong. No mistaking that.
MazHere wrote:
"Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research."
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105625 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ain't evo science great! The same fossil line up proves human knuckle walking ancestry and ancestry to a non knuckle walker. YIKES!!!! Great scientific credibility...LOL!
No wonder this has happened.....
"Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research."
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/...
And you do it once again. It has already been pointed out to you that it does not matter if more ORIGINAL science is wrong than is right. Peer reviewed publishing is only the first real step in getting an idea accepted. If it is a new idea it will be tested by others to see if it is correct or not. Usually by the time we, the lay people, come across an idea it has been tested several times and whether or not it is correct is known.

Science has this self correcting mechanism. Something totally lacking in your book of myth. And you have just shown that I was correct. You repeated posting an article that has been explained to you. It does not support your claims in any way at all.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105626 Nov 11, 2013

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105627 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, some of us work, you unemployed no hoper.....
I'd say you are the big suck tryng to get your jollies for the day by demonstrating you're an idiot. That proves you, for sure, have no hope of refuting me scientifically, you spam bot. Keep fluffing your feathers because creos can see the spam dance you evos put on when defeated.
The data aligns with a documented creationist account better than an evolutionary paradigm. You evos can only play the spam puppet as you know there is NO empirical evidence that suggest the genome can evolve for billion of years without extinction. So blabb on and stroke your ego all you want and still you are only gob smacked evos.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
yeah sure...toss in the hominem attack when proved you cannot back up your own posts...and an untrue one at that.

so, again,...and yet again...you can't seem to come up with this documented creation account that is the entire basis of your argument, can you? why is that?

there is no documented creation account.

your entire thesis is based on a proven lie.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105628 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't prove...
Once again, you show just how shallow your scientific education is.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105629 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't prove abiogeneis so I guess by your reasoning TOE has been falsified. Go back to bed idiot. These lame old penchants only show how stupid, ignorant and hypocritical you evos are.
When you reckon you have grown a brain big enough to find some empirical research that shows how on earth a genome can evolve for billions of years without extinction then you may get some of your credibility back.
The same old lame crap always comes from evos in the end.
if not abiogenesis, where did life originally come from?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105630 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.
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.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105631 Nov 11, 2013
..and when you evos are done looking like clowns you best go look for this flawed research of yours because that is the best you can come up with and still have none to present.

This will not go away with your hiding behind philosphy. Where is all this empirical evidence of yours? Sitting in the trash can of evolutionary delusions past.

The data aligns with a documented creationist account better than an evolutionary paradigm. You evos can only play the spam puppet as you know there is NO empirical evidence that suggest the genome can evolve for billion of years without extinction. So blabb on and stroke your ego all you want and still you are only gob smacked evos.

Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...

Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...

As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition

http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...

Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105632 Nov 11, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you show just how shallow your scientific education is.
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!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105633 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.
{yawn}

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105634 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
..and when you evos are done looking like clowns you best go look for this flawed research of yours because that is the best you can come up with and still have none to present.
This will not go away with your hiding behind philosphy. Where is all this empirical evidence of yours? Sitting in the trash can of evolutionary delusions past.
The data aligns with a documented creationist account better than an evolutionary paradigm. You evos can only play the spam puppet as you know there is NO empirical evidence that suggest the genome can evolve for billion of years without extinction. So blabb on and stroke your ego all you want and still you are only gob smacked evos.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
Speaking of spamming, little troll, how many times are you going to post this same bullshit?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105635 Nov 11, 2013
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!
Researchless? You mean like the two papers that I just posted for you? That you ignored because you were preoccupied with wetting your pants?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105636 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure that Erectus knuckle walked all the time, but there certainly did in some situations. However Neanderthal were completely bipedal
I recently spent a few days at la roque st christophe examining the grave and bones of a 55 thousand year old Neanderthal site, no sign of the stooped posture required for knuckle walking.
That Maz eh? Go figure.

Erectus was a runner, no knuckle dragger, they could outrun us.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105637 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, some of us work, you unemployed no hoper.....
I'd say you are the big suck tryng to get your jollies for the day by demonstrating you're an idiot. That proves you, for sure, have no hope of refuting me scientifically, you spam bot. Keep fluffing your feathers because creos can see the spam dance you evos put on when defeated.
The data aligns with a documented creationist account better than an evolutionary paradigm. You evos can only play the spam puppet as you know there is NO empirical evidence that suggest the genome can evolve for billion of years without extinction. So blabb on and stroke your ego all you want and still you are only gob smacked evos.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Life must be much younger than the evolutionary model suggests. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
You have deluded yourself beyond all possible hope of understanding.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

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

St. Croix valley

#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...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

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

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
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 8 min Hoosier Hillbilly 30,375
Mail thief tries to escape on kayak 12 min Dr Wu 3
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 13 min Hoosier Hillbilly 55,316
ChANge "2" letter ChANgLE 14 min feeble or unstea... 64
Change-Six-Of-Six-Letters....Fun Game! 17 min Yes sirs iz ure 426
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 20 min distortion of the... 26,756
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 21 min eleanorigby 37,755
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 26 min DILF 30,064
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr SayAnyhingWorthy 25,840
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 2 hr moe 3,008
7 Teens Come Home Pregnant From School Trip 2 hr DILF 74
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 6 hr _hellbilly_ 152,773
More from around the web