Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106096 Nov 16, 2013
Listen Subby and Dan if you think your hubris has any substance the both of you are bigger idiots than I thought.

You would have to be one of the most laziest evos ever.

You fluff and dance around giving challenges and then think your hubris has some sort of merit. I am not fooled by your ability to spam.

If the change of the 4 million years initially speculated down to 4my does not constitute having been wrong intially, to you idiots, then all I can say is no wonder you have all been sucked in. LOL!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106097 Nov 16, 2013
Repost

Listen Subby and Dan if you think your hubris has any substance the both of you are bigger idiots than I thought.

You would have to be one of the most laziest evos ever.

You fluff and dance around giving challenges and then think your hubris has some sort of merit. I am not fooled by your ability to spam.

If the change of the 15 million years initially speculated down to 4my does not constitute having been wrong intially, to you idiots, then all I can say is no wonder you have all been sucked in. LOL!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106098 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Listen Subby and Dan if you think your hubris has any substance the both of you are bigger idiots than I thought.
You would have to be one of the most laziest evos ever.
You fluff and dance around giving challenges and then think your hubris has some sort of merit. I am not fooled by your ability to spam.
If the change of the 4 million years initially speculated down to 4my does not constitute having been wrong intially, to you idiots, then all I can say is no wonder you have all been sucked in. LOL!
Hubris!? What a a joke. And this coming from an idiot who thinks she understand the articles that she links.

How are we lazy? You give us idiotically easy challenges and then we meet them. Now if we could not debunk your idiocy you might have a point. Seriously I wish you would bring a challenging problem for us. But all you have is simple minded twaddle.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#106099 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Listen Subby and Dan if you think your hubris has any substance the both of you are bigger idiots than I thought.
You would have to be one of the most laziest evos ever.
You fluff and dance around giving challenges and then think your hubris has some sort of merit. I am not fooled by your ability to spam.
If the change of the 4 million years initially speculated down to 4my does not constitute having been wrong intially, to you idiots, then all I can say is no wonder you have all been sucked in. LOL!
Nothing of substance in this rant that refutes evolution.

Next.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#106100 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Repost
Listen Subby and Dan if you think your hubris has any substance the both of you are bigger idiots than I thought.
You would have to be one of the most laziest evos ever.
You fluff and dance around giving challenges and then think your hubris has some sort of merit. I am not fooled by your ability to spam.
If the change of the 15 million years initially speculated down to 4my does not constitute having been wrong intially, to you idiots, then all I can say is no wonder you have all been sucked in. LOL!
Again, nothing of substance to refute evolution here.

So there is a difference in the timing based on new fossil findings. You interpret that to mean the whole body of science is tumbling down. Do you stop your car and go back every time you hit a bump because you think you killed someone? That is your logic, not mine.

You spend a lot of time rambling on about something that doesn't mean what you say it means. Then you get all pissy and insulting when you are told that it is wrong and why.

You're still mad because we dropped that house on your sister aren't you.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106101 Nov 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hubris!? What a a joke. And this coming from an idiot who thinks she understand the articles that she links.
How are we lazy? You give us idiotically easy challenges and then we meet them. Now if we could not debunk your idiocy you might have a point. Seriously I wish you would bring a challenging problem for us. But all you have is simple minded twaddle.
What a pair of confused dorks you and Dan are. I undestand the research perfectly well. You are so stupid you reckon ridiculing me without one word to demonstrate exacatly what I have misrepresented makes you a hero. Instead it demonstrates you are an incompetent dungspinner full of yourself.

This is about you idiots demonstrating the data aligns with TOE better than a creationists paradigm

Let's recap how you lot have done so far.

I have posted empirical data that attests to genomic mechanisms that reduce or limit an organisms ability to adapt and you mainitain this is excellent evidence for evolution rather than creation.

You challenged me to cite 'wrongs' with whale fossil evidence. I presented Basilosaurus that is older than Indohyus, and has reduced the evolution of land animal to fully aquatic in 4 million years, and you manintain this is great evidence for evolution and rsearchers never got anything wrong.

You challenged me to define human beings, which I did. Then I asked you to define human beings and you ignored me and headed for the hills.

In between we've have goons like Dan and Aura with her icecream..and now you have the hide to call me an idiot, you retarded boofhead.

DER to you!

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#106102 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What a pair of confused dorks you and Dan are. I undestand the research perfectly well. You are so stupid you reckon ridiculing me without one word to demonstrate exacatly what I have misrepresented makes you a hero. Instead it demonstrates you are an incompetent dungspinner full of yourself.
This is about you idiots demonstrating the data aligns with TOE better than a creationists paradigm
Let's recap how you lot have done so far.
I have posted empirical data that attests to genomic mechanisms that reduce or limit an organisms ability to adapt and you mainitain this is excellent evidence for evolution rather than creation.
You challenged me to cite 'wrongs' with whale fossil evidence. I presented Basilosaurus that is older than Indohyus, and has reduced the evolution of land animal to fully aquatic in 4 million years, and you manintain this is great evidence for evolution and rsearchers never got anything wrong.
You challenged me to define human beings, which I did. Then I asked you to define human beings and you ignored me and headed for the hills.
In between we've have goons like Dan and Aura with her icecream..and now you have the hide to call me an idiot, you retarded boofhead.
DER to you!
Oh Maz. You do still care. I was afraid we had lost that spark between us.

So you cited a new piece of information that in no way refutes the evolution of whales. Well done. You could have just said that, but I know how you like to fill page after page of ad hom attacks and pointless quibbles. You know how that sparks me and makes me want to go down under, you naughty thing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106103 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What a pair of confused dorks you and Dan are. I undestand the research perfectly well. You are so stupid you reckon ridiculing me without one word to demonstrate exacatly what I have misrepresented makes you a hero. Instead it demonstrates you are an incompetent dungspinner full of yourself.
Give us something worth debunking. Right now your inflated blue waffle must be making you delusional. You have given nothing of significance yet. Post something that is a bit meaty and we will get more serious.
This is about you idiots demonstrating the data aligns with TOE better than a creationists paradigm
You haven't yet to post any. All you have demonstrated is that you are an idiot.
Let's recap how you lot have done so far.
I have posted empirical data that attests to genomic mechanisms that reduce or limit an organisms ability to adapt and you mainitain this is excellent evidence for evolution rather than creation.
No, you haven't. And that's the problem. All you have posted is are articles about how evolution occurs and that you did not understand.
You challenged me to cite 'wrongs' with whale fossil evidence. I presented Basilosaurus that is older than Indohyus, and has reduced the evolution of land animal to fully aquatic in 4 million years, and you manintain this is great evidence for evolution and rsearchers never got anything wrong.
How quickly you forgot. That is exactly what you did not do. You do know that Nat. Geo. does make the occasional boner when it comes to scientific articles. You could not find any other evidence that agreed with that date. That would be a failure on you part.
You challenged me to define human beings, which I did. Then I asked you to define human beings and you ignored me and headed for the hills.
I must have missed that one. We were probably laughing to hard at the rest of the idiocy that you posted. You probably screwed that one up two. I have told you that since you lie and try to do a version of the Gish Gallop that you are allowed only one topic per post. Did you make a mistake and double up?
In between we've have goons like Dan and Aura with her icecream..and now you have the hide to call me an idiot, you retarded boofhead.
DER to you!
I was extremely nice to you when we tried to respond to your idiocy. Dan and Aura have been rather kind too, all things considered.

So do you have anything at all, or are you still just an idiot?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#106104 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What a pair of confused dorks you and Dan are. I undestand the research perfectly well. You are so stupid you reckon ridiculing me without one word to demonstrate exacatly what I have misrepresented makes you a hero. Instead it demonstrates you are an incompetent dungspinner full of yourself.
This is about you idiots demonstrating the data aligns with TOE better than a creationists paradigm
Let's recap how you lot have done so far.
I have posted empirical data that attests to genomic mechanisms that reduce or limit an organisms ability to adapt and you mainitain this is excellent evidence for evolution rather than creation.
You challenged me to cite 'wrongs' with whale fossil evidence. I presented Basilosaurus that is older than Indohyus, and has reduced the evolution of land animal to fully aquatic in 4 million years, and you manintain this is great evidence for evolution and rsearchers never got anything wrong.
You challenged me to define human beings, which I did. Then I asked you to define human beings and you ignored me and headed for the hills.
In between we've have goons like Dan and Aura with her icecream..and now you have the hide to call me an idiot, you retarded boofhead.
DER to you!
But you're the cutest little self licking ice cream cone head this side of the pecos ?
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#106105 Nov 16, 2013
you have failed to cite falsifiable scientific research that supports the idea of a talking snake. You are a liar and a charlatan telling lies for Jesus.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What a pair of confused dorks you and Dan are. I undestand the research perfectly well. You are so stupid you reckon ridiculing me without one word to demonstrate exacatly what I have misrepresented makes you a hero. Instead it demonstrates you are an incompetent dungspinner full of yourself.
This is about you idiots demonstrating the data aligns with TOE better than a creationists paradigm
Let's recap how you lot have done so far.
I have posted empirical data that attests to genomic mechanisms that reduce or limit an organisms ability to adapt and you mainitain this is excellent evidence for evolution rather than creation.
You challenged me to cite 'wrongs' with whale fossil evidence. I presented Basilosaurus that is older than Indohyus, and has reduced the evolution of land animal to fully aquatic in 4 million years, and you manintain this is great evidence for evolution and rsearchers never got anything wrong.
You challenged me to define human beings, which I did. Then I asked you to define human beings and you ignored me and headed for the hills.
In between we've have goons like Dan and Aura with her icecream..and now you have the hide to call me an idiot, you retarded boofhead.
DER to you!
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#106106 Nov 16, 2013
Still waiting for empirical data that supports a talking snake. Religion kills brains dead.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What a pair of confused dorks you and Dan are. I undestand the research perfectly well. You are so stupid you reckon ridiculing me without one word to demonstrate exacatly what I have misrepresented makes you a hero. Instead it demonstrates you are an incompetent dungspinner full of yourself.
This is about you idiots demonstrating the data aligns with TOE better than a creationists paradigm
Let's recap how you lot have done so far.
I have posted empirical data that attests to genomic mechanisms that reduce or limit an organisms ability to adapt and you mainitain this is excellent evidence for evolution rather than creation.
You challenged me to cite 'wrongs' with whale fossil evidence. I presented Basilosaurus that is older than Indohyus, and has reduced the evolution of land animal to fully aquatic in 4 million years, and you manintain this is great evidence for evolution and rsearchers never got anything wrong.
You challenged me to define human beings, which I did. Then I asked you to define human beings and you ignored me and headed for the hills.
In between we've have goons like Dan and Aura with her icecream..and now you have the hide to call me an idiot, you retarded boofhead.
DER to you!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106107 Nov 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Oh Maz. You do still care. I was afraid we had lost that spark between us.
So you cited a new piece of information that in no way refutes the evolution of whales. Well done. You could have just said that, but I know how you like to fill page after page of ad hom attacks and pointless quibbles. You know how that sparks me and makes me want to go down under, you naughty thing.
Actually the secret is that we both know that a change from 15my to 4my and decendants that predate their ancestors is a hoot, but you think ignoring it and making fun of me will save your silly face on forum. Yours and Subbys credibility is seriously shot but let's sweep that under the carpet as well along with evolutionary inconsistencies.

BTW, This has nothing to do with caring for you, I should tell you so as not to get your hopes up, seeing as you have also lost all understanding of social cues.

When you lot reckon you can put something up that looks convincing and actually supports a microbe having the genetic variability to adapt into a dinosaur, against all odds, you are welcome to post it. Until then you can all join the long list of evo loosers in the 'dealt with' rubbish bin.

Here is something else for you to ignore and say I and no one else can understand...

Speed Limit To The Pace Of Evolution, Biologists Say

In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/...

..and the evolutionary juggerflop pants on....

Let's see what the next evo spam bot has to offer.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#106108 Nov 17, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My French is a lot iffy but it appears to be better than chuckes English
What is your first language? French? Irish (real Gaelic Irish, not the Irish accented English) or are you going to keep me guessing?
And that does not change the reality about England' s origination of the English language.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106109 Nov 17, 2013
davy wrote:
Still waiting for empirical data that supports a talking snake. Religion kills brains dead.
<quoted text>
Here is another evo quacker out for his jollies for the day. Go get a life if you're too silly to participte!

Have you ever heard of this....

Einstein's equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that a huge amount of energy will create matter in this way.

This is how these aliens your researchers keep looking for but refuse to see are able to create and take on form.

Given that energy is neither created nor destroyed you can feel free to explain where the initial energy came from. Until then, you can believe in your ghosts that hold the universe together and the multiple dimensions required.

We can play this game of you silly evos demanding more substantiation than you can ever present for any of your claims. However, you need to understand you still remain a confirmed looser.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106110 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the secret is that we both know that a change from 15my to 4my and decendants that predate their ancestors is a hoot, but you think ignoring it and making fun of me will save your silly face on forum. Yours and Subbys credibility is seriously shot but let's sweep that under the carpet as well along with evolutionary inconsistencies.
BTW, This has nothing to do with caring for you, I should tell you so as not to get your hopes up, seeing as you have also lost all understanding of social cues.
When you lot reckon you can put something up that looks convincing and actually supports a microbe having the genetic variability to adapt into a dinosaur, against all odds, you are welcome to post it. Until then you can all join the long list of evo loosers in the 'dealt with' rubbish bin.
Here is something else for you to ignore and say I and no one else can understand...
Speed Limit To The Pace Of Evolution, Biologists Say
In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/...
..and the evolutionary juggerflop pants on....
Let's see what the next evo spam bot has to offer.
Maz, I have no problem with this concept. In fact if you understood many of the articles that you linked you would have seen that many of them did not say that evolution cannot happen. It says that there is a limit to how fast evolution can happen.

In other words evolution takes time.

I am sure that that speed limit has not been broken as life evolved on this planet.

I wish in some ways that I had not immediately agreed with this article. I would like to see what your pointy little head thought of it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106111 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is another evo quacker out for his jollies for the day. Go get a life if you're too silly to participte!
Have you ever heard of this....
Einstein's equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that a huge amount of energy will create matter in this way.
This is how these aliens your researchers keep looking for but refuse to see are able to create and take on form.
Given that energy is neither created nor destroyed you can feel free to explain where the initial energy came from. Until then, you can believe in your ghosts that hold the universe together and the multiple dimensions required.
We can play this game of you silly evos demanding more substantiation than you can ever present for any of your claims. However, you need to understand you still remain a confirmed looser.
Read Lawrence Krauss's book or watch some of his videos. He will explain how the total energy of the universe is zero. In his opinion no energy was need to "start the universe". If you add up positive energy and negative energy it balances out. And he can do the math. Would you like a link to his video.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#106112 Nov 17, 2013
davy wrote:
Still waiting for empirical data that supports a talking snake. Religion kills brains dead.
<quoted text>
And that again does not change the validity of God. He exist and no one can disprove that.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106113 Nov 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Read Lawrence Krauss's book or watch some of his videos. He will explain how the total energy of the universe is zero. In his opinion no energy was need to "start the universe". If you add up positive energy and negative energy it balances out. And he can do the math. Would you like a link to his video.
I'd prefer a link to his research or an article that speaks to his research, instead of someone blabbing on a video. What's Krauss got to say about mysterious dark energy and matter? Does he think it is rubbish also? Does he challenge Eienstiens theories of general relativity? etc etc. Sure I'd like to hear what he has to say.

I can present a theory that puts the earth at the centre of the universe and falsifies the philosophy the cosmic sciences are based on, the Copernican principle. Would you like me to post the link?

Unfortunately none of the above sweeps our little secrets around evolutionary inconsistencies and empirical evidence for limited adaptation, under the carpet.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106114 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the secret is that we both know that a change from 15my to 4my and decendants that predate their ancestors is a hoot, but you think ignoring it and making fun of me will save your silly face on forum. Yours and Subbys credibility is seriously shot but let's sweep that under the carpet as well along with evolutionary inconsistencies.
BTW, This has nothing to do with caring for you, I should tell you so as not to get your hopes up, seeing as you have also lost all understanding of social cues.
When you lot reckon you can put something up that looks convincing and actually supports a microbe having the genetic variability to adapt into a dinosaur, against all odds, you are welcome to post it. Until then you can all join the long list of evo loosers in the 'dealt with' rubbish bin.
Here is something else for you to ignore and say I and no one else can understand...
Speed Limit To The Pace Of Evolution, Biologists Say
In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/...
..and the evolutionary juggerflop pants on....
Let's see what the next evo spam bot has to offer.
Just in case you still don't understand the article that you linked here is a quote from it that is very telling:

"In some theoretically conceivable landscapes, fitness levels are expected to increase exponentially forever because of an inexhaustible supply of beneficial mutations. But in more realistic landscapes the rate of adaptive substitutions (mutations that improve an organism's fitness) eventually lose steam, resulting in sub-linear fitness growth. In some of these landscapes, the fitness eventually levels out and the organism ceases to adapt, even though mutations may continue to accrue."

Do you understand that? It says some previous simple models the rate of evolution was supposed to continually increase. That was not found to be the case. Eventually the rate of evolution slows. It can even stop for some populations. What was overturned in this work was the concept of an ever increasing rate of evolution. And I don't think anyone has any problems with that. It does not say that evolution is too fast in nature. It does not say that evolution did not happen in nature. It says that there is a limit to how fast an organism can evolve. That is all.

So you should take at least some consolation from this. Your beta will not evolve overnight into a piranha and bite your fingers off next time you try to feed it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106115 Nov 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd prefer a link to his research or an article that speaks to his research, instead of someone blabbing on a video. What's Krauss got to say about mysterious dark energy and matter? Does he think it is rubbish also? Does he challenge Eienstiens theories of general relativity? etc etc. Sure I'd like to hear what he has to say.
I can present a theory that puts the earth at the centre of the universe and falsifies the philosophy the cosmic sciences are based on, the Copernican principle. Would you like me to post the link?
Unfortunately none of the above sweeps our little secrets around evolutionary inconsistencies and empirical evidence for limited adaptation, under the carpet.
Then you can buy his book online. He accepts Dark Matter and Dark Energy and does not challenge Einstein. Why would he think that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are rubbish? We have observed Dark Matter in several ways. A physicist could explain how we know Dark Energy exists.

If you are too cheap to buy his book here is a video of his. It is worth the watch:

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 min Wolftracks 152,794
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 min -Lea- 25,876
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 16 min Crystal_Clear722 3,031
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 17 min Old Sam 7,776
*SEPT 2015 --- SIGNS of 7 YR Tribulation 'start' 20 min FeastTrumpetsYTube 1
Those Damn Liberals 22 min Chilli J 6
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 22 min Crystal_Clear722 4,049
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 1 hr toad4754 3,015
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Enzo49 37,763
Woman Switches Seats on Plane, Spends 3 Days in... 3 hr Bubbletoes 10
More from around the web