Evolution vs. Creation

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

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105727 Nov 12, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup I’ve examined (briefly) the skeleton of H.Erectus, which is why I believe that in some situations they had to crouch and use all fours. In some situations modern humans do also need to adopt this technique, balance, scrambling up hills etc.
Thanks for the link, although it does not confirm my belief is does highlight the points that lead me to believe that H.E. sometimes used their knuckles but also aspects that oppose the idea to some extent, increased leg length etc. I found the link to Climatic Adaptations and Hominid Evolution very interesting.
Not seen that documentary, there was a recent on about fossilised Australian aborigine footprints of a running man that showed he was much faster than the fasted modern human.
Erectus was human you know? Just not our species, they were hunters that ran down game. Even we are capable of running faster animals into the ground, though they can run faster humans have something they don't. The ability to cool while running, we sweat and cool , they cannot so with endurance we can run down faster animals , who will die from heat exhaustion. While we can maintain. This is how we were once, but erectus was a pure runner who had less tools but more stamina to the chase. Hfy could tell you but haven't seen her around in awhile .

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#105728 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.
Life is billions of years old...Multicellular organisms are only about half a billion years old.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105729 Nov 12, 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.
Hardly. That's why there is uniformity in the fossil record. That's why velociraptors didn't outrun humans, turtles or trees while running away from floodwaters. That's why nuclear power stations aren't blowing up at random worldwide due to them being based on radiometric decay rates assuming a young Earth. That's why the entire universe isn't sterilised of life due to the massive amount of heat your alternative would incur.

Doesn't matter though, there is no problem that can't be solved with a liberal application of invisible Jewmagic!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105730 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
they require an end-game plan designed by the Almighty through DNA information and must be reconciled.
Very well then! Via what mechanism?

And did the Almighty make a fossil with feathers and three middle-ear bones?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105731 Nov 12, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Sisyphus? very appropriate
Nice insult. But where's your rebuttal? Oh wait, unlike us you're only capable of the former, not the latter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105732 Nov 12, 2013
MazHere wrote:
You can't prove abiogeneis so I guess by your reasoning TOE has been falsified.
Nope. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. For the same reason the theory of gravity doesn't have to explain the origin of mass. All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. Best of luck old boy.
MazHere wrote:
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.
Um, do you think you could repeat that BS a couple more times? I think you only took out about a thousand irony meters with that one.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105733 Nov 12, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
See I give you a chance and you still just rant with a little biocthing thrown in. That is all you know how to do and you never post anything worth addressing. I rest my case.
Only case you've ever had was full of your own dirty underwear.(shrug)

That's why you fundies avoid everything inconvenient. Verifiable fact, observed on this thread everyday.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105734 Nov 12, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
relax , breath you are speaking incoherently , or is this normal for you?
Dang. That was another meter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105735 Nov 12, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The biggest difference between the things I named and living systems,,, the things I named are in reality simple systems compared to living systems. But yet the simple systems need a designer. Enough said on that.
Therefore complex biological systems are nothing like designs. I agree.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105736 Nov 12, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Shh! don't tell anyone else that DNA arises only from natural processes.
It's your secret , no one else knows!
Oh, my bad. I guess this means you're about to present evidence to the contrary.

Any day now.

.

Right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105737 Nov 12, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Two idiotic comments
Where did the first living system acquire it's heredity.
Complexity is not a marker of design? flagellum motor
It might be. How is "complexity" measured? What is the demarcation line between design and non-design? And how was that line determined in an objective manner via the scientific method? What are the mechanisms of design and what evidence do you have of those mechanisms? Of course you are aware that I do not want this to be answered with 'Humans make (whatever) therefore God make humans'.
Zamarra

Torrance, CA

#105738 Nov 12, 2013
I'm a Bible-Believing Calvinist Creationist, but although there are plenty of scientific evidences for it (see Bob Jones University Space and Earth Science Books for examples) creation can't be fully explained or proven by science because Supernatural things cannot.
However, I would like to contend that Evolution can't be explained Scientifically either.
1. For something to be scientific, it must be observable, measurable, and repeatable. Nobody observed or measured evolution, and nobody can make it repeat itself. It is not apparently happening now, so all evolution is theory and not science.
2. Much of the basis of science is circular reasoning. Example: there are rock layers that are supposed to be x number of years old and scientists "know" that by the fossils. And they know how old the fossils are by what rock layer they're in. The problem: not only is it circular reasoning, but there is the additional problem that some "newer" rock layers and fossils are buried way beneath "older." ones.
3. I imagine you'll answer number 2 with something about carbon dating. The problem:Carbon dating has only been proven accurate with something up to 5000 years. All beyond that has been speculation because nobody has been able to find something that they know FOR SURE is older than that to compare with.
4. Is matter eternal? If not where is it from?
5. Thought question: Even if evolutionists could come up with a theory with fewer holes that matched up with all the evidence, does something being theoretically possible make it historical fact?
6. I realize this is long, but if anyone is still reading, please remember that you can't make a point by just insulting everyone who disagrees with you. It destroys your credibility, no matter how sound and logical your arguments may be. Please please consider that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105739 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
Read up on clotting to the point where you can understand the process and imagine yourself debating Behe in front of an unbiased audience. It's complicated and no where in the biological world is it in any form simple. This is the basic question of ID, the existence of complex processes/organisms makes good sense for ID and the burden of proof rests on evolution to explain your side, like MO-1, your done before your start.
Bub, Dover already happened. I can guarantee you that if Behe argued for ID in front of me right now, EVERYONE in the entire world will know EXACTLY what they knew about ID when they made it up - that something did something, somehow, somewhere, at sometime. In fact that's precisely what happened when the DI Dellows themselves turned up to review their buddie Meyer's new book. Something intelligent did something intelligent. Wowzer.
SBT wrote:
On Behe, how can you know his position, today? I will tell you from first hand knowledge, your sources are wrong or outdated.
Yes, it seems pretty much all your claims apparently rely on first-hand anecdotes which no-one else can verify. All I can tell you is from what he's said in the past. Although an IDCreationist he has said that God might be dead, and also that common ancestry is "basically" the correct model (a point which he had to concede in his rather public debate with ERV), that he hasn't done any "scientific research" into IC, and that he's now touring the church circuit fleecing money of rubes like you by giving speeches telling ya that ID proves Godmagic and evolution is from Satan. Okay, I might have exaggerated that last bit about Satan.

Since then, as far as I am aware, any changes in his theological outlook have not been made public. But it would not be all that unusual, such as his pal Billy having to convert to YECism from OECism so that they wouldn't get him EXPELLED from their church 'teaching' seminars.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105740 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, God doesn't make junk
I'm sorry but this contradicts the Bible.

But thanks once again for telling us all that you don't give a crap about science.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105741 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Seen anyone on your side step up an debate him in public?
I thought Dover was very public. As was his debate with Abbie a little later:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv-h...

I suspect this is why he didn't turn up to the online unveiling of his pal's book on apologetics.

(evil grin)
Mugwump

Barnsley, UK

#105742 Nov 12, 2013
Zamarra wrote:
I'm a Bible-Believing Calvinist Creationist, but although there are plenty of scientific evidences for it (see Bob Jones University Space and Earth Science Books for examples) creation can't be fully explained or proven by science because Supernatural things cannot.
However, I would like to contend that Evolution can't be explained Scientifically either.
1. For something to be scientific, it must be observable, measurable, and repeatable. Nobody observed or measured evolution, and nobody can make it repeat itself. It is not apparently happening now, so all evolution is theory and not science.
2. Much of the basis of science is circular reasoning. Example: there are rock layers that are supposed to be x number of years old and scientists "know" that by the fossils. And they know how old the fossils are by what rock layer they're in. The problem: not only is it circular reasoning, but there is the additional problem that some "newer" rock layers and fossils are buried way beneath "older." ones.
3. I imagine you'll answer number 2 with something about carbon dating. The problem:Carbon dating has only been proven accurate with something up to 5000 years. All beyond that has been speculation because nobody has been able to find something that they know FOR SURE is older than that to compare with.
4. Is matter eternal? If not where is it from?
5. Thought question: Even if evolutionists could come up with a theory with fewer holes that matched up with all the evidence, does something being theoretically possible make it historical fact?
6. I realize this is long, but if anyone is still reading, please remember that you can't make a point by just insulting everyone who disagrees with you. It destroys your credibility, no matter how sound and logical your arguments may be. Please please consider that.
First you will find most on this forum to only resort to insults when either
A) the ''recipient'' starts hurling them first
B) the 'recipient' insists they know more than people whom have spent their lives studying the subject.

Anyway , few points.

1)
science doesn't require DIRECT observation, evolution can be observed directly in the small timescales we have, and indirectly via the fossil record, genetics and is repeatable (see lenski)

2)
This is simply wrong, rocks are not dated by fossils and visa-versa but by independent methods which just happen to correlate (cool huh?)

3)
Carbon dating is good upto about 60k years, however other radiometric dating methods are available.

4) this is an evolution forum, so not sure of your point

5) you haven't really presented any holes , possibly just some misconceptions, but there are various falsifications of ToE which would destroy it - that is how scientific theories work - just hasn't happened.
Furthermore , if a more compelling explaination of the diversity of life was presented then it may trump ToE , however again, this hasn't happened - have you got such a theory ?, that is supported by multiple lines of evidence , and can be falsified.

6)
See my opening paragraph

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
Ferguson Grand Jury Reaches Decision 4 min Analyst 502
blame it on....??? (Aug '13) 7 min SLY WEST 29
How's your weather today? (Mar '12) 13 min whatimeisit 5,093
Bill Cosby 16 min NinaRocks 268
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 26 min SLY WEST 7,192
ozzie = pie? (Nov '13) 27 min Yes 19
Word goes to the Movies (Nov '08) 32 min whatimeisit 14,094
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 50 min wichita-rick 24,062
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 151,192
Internal Server Errors 3 hr TALLYHO 8541 40

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE