Evolution vs. Creation

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

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105707 Nov 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are correct, what are the consequences?
If you are wrong, what are the consequnces?
Is there any actual point to this discussion, any practical consequence at all that depend on the outcome?
NO
That makes it an utter waste of time. You might as well be arguing about whether Jesus ever swatted a mosquito.
Can a' worms dude...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#105708 Nov 12, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Modern humans sometimes have to uses their hands for balance, particularly in unusual situations.
Smaller brained creatures with excellent balance usually have smaller, lighter skeletons.
I am not saying that H.E. had poor balance but I am saying that it must have been relative to their size (similar to us) and weight (in all probability heavier than us) with a smaller brain capacity.
It could however have been that balance were expanded in place of other skills that require relatively large amounts brain functionality, for example language.
being a snowboarder, i have often been called a knuckle-dragger. and yes, sometimes i do use my hands to aid in balance when i am carving some seriously sick turns with my body just inches off the snow...

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105709 Nov 12, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Although Dan is a real nice guy, unlike you, and he is approachable for sure, do you have any evidence that he is more knowledgeable than me and in what subjects are you referring? Or is it just your god given guesswork doing it’s thing and guessing?
Yer a gurl

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105710 Nov 12, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Doink!
Charles, really, stop while you're ahead. Out of curiosity, where are you from?(If you say England, I'll scream) I ask this because there may be a language issue here, maybe you're expressing yourself in a language that's not native to you and therefore are erroneously appearing to quite limited in thought. This I would understand. For this is the only reason you could possibly associate Faraday as the "owner" of electricity. Certainly Faraday had a great influence in both electrical and chemical fields. As an electrical engineer, I have the utmost respect for this man, and would give my left testicle (albeit unwillingly) to have an opportunity to sit down for an afternoon beer with this man just to shoot the sh!t, but you can't possibly believe in any way shape of form that he was responsible for electricity being what it is today, better yet having 'ownership'. Seriously Dude, WTF?
Oh, crap. Now I'm really confused. Who owns lightening then? Thor or Ben Franklin?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105711 Nov 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So here we are today and the best you and the other evos here can do is beg sciences correcting mechanism. IOW, you are telling me that you cannot present any research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt endlessly and without limit while I can present plenty of research data that supports the opposite claim.

Well Subby that's just great Subby because despite your ridicule of our documented account, as far as SCIENCE goes you cannot scientifically refute my claim. The best you can do is beg your disbelief in the first documented account of life arising in the sea because you cannot refute the claim that the genomes ability to adapt is limited. That's great and you don't realize how great that is for us, like it or not.

The claim that the genome cannot possibly be billions of years old is a testable hypothesis that can be supported and falsified, and you evos cannot speak to it. GREAT! That's what I like to see, Subby. However as far as science goes, you're excuses are not acceptable.

This below is the testable claim using genomics that suggests life on earth cannot possibly be billions of years old.

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. 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 paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#105712 Nov 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, crap. Now I'm really confused. Who owns lightening then? Thor or Ben Franklin?
ummm...Danny Zuko?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105713 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Everybody has the right to write whatever they want. That does not make their writing valid for uses in debates.

For example the stories of Mother Goose have no place in this debate. Nor do stories by uneducated fools.

In a scientific debate articles based upon peer reviewed science is what matters.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105714 Nov 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So here we are today and the best you and the other evos here can do is beg sciences correcting mechanism. IOW, you are telling me that you cannot present any research that demonstrates the genomes ability to adapt endlessly and without limit while I can present plenty of research data that supports the opposite claim.
Well Subby that's just great Subby because despite your ridicule of our documented account, as far as SCIENCE goes you cannot scientifically refute my claim. The best you can do is beg your disbelief in the first documented account of life arising in the sea because you cannot refute the claim that the genomes ability to adapt is limited. That's great and you don't realize how great that is for us, like it or not.
The claim that the genome cannot possibly be billions of years old is a testable hypothesis that can be supported and falsified, and you evos cannot speak to it. GREAT! That's what I like to see, Subby. However as far as science goes, you're excuses are not acceptable.
This below is the testable claim using genomics that suggests life on earth cannot possibly be billions of years old.
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. 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 paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
Mav, the point was that that article you quoted did not support your idiocy. That is all that needs to be said. Now if you can ask a question without a wall of text trying to defend your idiocy that no one is going to read I would be happy to try to answer it.

Please try not to ask stupid questions.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105715 Nov 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, crap. Now I'm really confused. Who owns lightening then? Thor or Ben Franklin?
Lol, England obviously.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105716 Nov 12, 2013
And Mav, it does your side no good if you constantly make bad links to real science sites and good links to bad science sites. Sanford's work was debunked before it was even published, and you know this.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105717 Nov 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So here we are today and the best you and the other evos here can do is beg sciences correcting mechanism...
Maz, you are obviously just a troll with one redundant text, and no interest in this topic whatsoever. Please go elswhere.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105718 Nov 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Mav, the point was that that article you quoted did not support your idiocy. That is all that needs to be said. Now if you can ask a question without a wall of text trying to defend your idiocy that no one is going to read I would be happy to try to answer it.
Please try not to ask stupid questions.
Subby are you in the know at all, or are you just another evo puppet hanging off a string saying "they said so"? Do tell us, please!.

Actually what you are offering is handwaving. If you do not have the science knowledge or research skills to find research then fess up to it instead of looking like an uneducated evo puppet hanging off a string trying to be one of the big boys, when clearly, you are not.

The research data is the data. I have quoted the data. You are welcome to source your own and deomonstrate if I have misrepresented the researh. I haven't at all. I am asking for reseach data to challeng me, not your most humble opinion.

The claim that the genome cannot possibly be billions of years old is a testable hypothesis that evolutionists are unable to refute or challenge, let alone falsify. This is a testable hypothesis that can be drawn from the first documented account of life arising in the sea and ending in the appearance mankind.

Indeed the research I have presented demonstates the genome is not designed to allow an organism like a dog to evolve/adapt into something like an elephant/dinosaur. Breeders have been proving it for centuries.

If you disagree then stop being a lazy thread loafer and put some research or reasoning behnd your empty words. I doubt you can. You like to spam, ridicule and press buttons, that's it for you.

I actually have solid OBSERVATION that far outweighs computer modelling.

Now are you going to bother to offer more than the evo penchants you call science and actually present some research?.

Answer: No Subby can't, but will just keep penchanting and spamming for the heck of it to save face on forum.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105719 Nov 12, 2013
This research is NOT misrepresented and does give your evo researchers the need to prattle on even more as to why what they find has some escape clause hidden somewhere.

Go for it Subby, because at present you evos are looking a little prattly, opinionated and research less.

The data is more consistent with a creationist paradigm, than an evolutionary one. It is simply impossible for mankind to be 2 millions years old. Below is evidence that mankind cannot possibly have evolved but that the documented biblical creation account is being validated, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not. I don't care what men of faith, like you, think.

“Haldane (1927) showed that an organism that suffers regular mutations with fixed deleterious effects evolves toward a stable mutation–selection balance. Wright and Dobzhansky (1946) introduced the study of nonfixed fitnesses and considered the effects of frequency-dependent fitness values, while Kimura and Ohta (1970) studied advantageous mutations (inversions) that gradually lose their fitness advantage. Here I present results for the population genetics of positive mutations that with time become truly deleterious.”

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

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

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 ...

We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations. We found a number of cases of decompensatory interactions, an extreme form of antagonistic epistasis in which the second mutation is actually deleterious in the presence of the first. In the vast majority of cases, recombination uniting two beneficial mutations into the same genome would not be favored by selection, as the recombinant could not outcompete its constituent single mutations.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Ado ...

"Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."

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

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. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches. Th evos here can't offer anything at all except spam.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105720 Nov 12, 2013
Maz, your continued inability to properly link anything but links from creatard sites is more than highly suspicious.

How does a moron continually screw up the links to scientific sites and yet always gets creatard sites linked correctly. I do believe you are doing it on purpose.

Maz, until you link properly all it takes to debunk you is hand waving. I have been waiting for you to post actual links to actual articles that support you. You have not done so yet.

And once again as the great Hitch pointed out, "Claims made without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence". Your claims are dismissed until you learn how to link properly.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105721 Nov 12, 2013
So how many think that Maz's continued bad links are on purpose? That is my thought. In the past she had no problem linking articles. Of course every time she did we pointed out how she misinterpreted the linked articles. All you have to do to ruin a link is to change one character.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#105722 Nov 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
So how many think that Maz's continued bad links are on purpose? That is my thought. In the past she had no problem linking articles. Of course every time she did we pointed out how she misinterpreted the linked articles. All you have to do to ruin a link is to change one character.
that would mean her intelligence increased by an order of magnitude...

maybe one of her fundie sites told her this is a good way to use bogus links...

too close to call.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105723 Nov 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
This research is NOT misrepresented
Maz, are you forgetting that all you do is misrepresent science and that you already admitted your position is Godmagic? Tell us again how invisble Jewish wizardry passes the scientific method.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105724 Nov 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Life is devolving as per a documented account.
In which case you should have no problem in explaining why such a position contradicts your claims of a 100% functional genome and also, use calculations based on mutation rates as per Sanford's "model" to inform us precisely when the human genome will reach genetic critical mass causing the human population to (finally) start decreasing worldwide.
MazHere wrote:
Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist paradigm and gives evolutionists headaches. Th evos here can't offer anything at all except spam.
Or right. That must be why you keep contradicting all your previous claims then.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105725 Nov 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Indeed the research I have presented demonstates the genome is not designed to allow an organism like a dog to evolve/adapt into something like an elephant/dinosaur. Breeders have been proving it for centuries.
Oh my FSM, MAZ HAS FOUND THAT WE CAN'T PROVIDE HIM WITH VIOLATIONS OF NESTED HIERARCHIES!

You uh, can thank evolution for that.

Gee Maz, what's next? Thermodynamics? Why are there still monkeys?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105726 Nov 12, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A) Long term isolation of populations.
B) The Tower of Babel.
What's your choice, Chuckles?
Well remember that fundies are obsessed with sex.

Option B, obviously.

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
Thanx And Goodbye 8 min Wolftracks 8
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 13 min dragoon70056 4,516
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 18 min COOTERDOG 28,667
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 21 min COOTERDOG 55,795
Donald fella spirit gal broke up 27 min buck 1
Cartoon picture on Mrs Clinton 27 min dragoon70056 17
Giant beaver captured at Phoenix-area lake 28 min Kevin 41
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 43 min dragoon70056 3,645
Lets Discuss Men (Dec '13) 1 hr DILF 502
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr TALLYHO 8541 38,516
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr Good-Evil 155,369
More from around the web