Evolution vs. Creation

Jan 6, 2011 Read more: Best of New Orleans 155,474
High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#106483 Nov 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So those pyramid blocks were easaly moved? So what kind of tools did the those backward ancients use to build Puma Punku? According to your age-technology progression theory they must have used sticks.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_PumaPunku....

Who ever said any of that stuff was easy?

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#106484 Nov 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm aware of his work and that of Davidovits before him.
<quoted text>
Yes. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Dr. Hawass. He is not just any, old archeologist from your local community college. He is considered by many to be one of the world's foremost authorities on Egyptology.
How about a petrographer? Dipayan Jana.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/1b249a805d9a5573e0ccd...
Here's the power point presentation he did several years ago on the subject:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c6f3a84d66ecc81473ce4...
As I said before, it's easy enough to believe things you're told that you haven't experienced first hand. Especially if you want to believe.
<quoted text>
Interesting read. But I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make.
My point is assumed evolutionary progression. We all got fed this line essentially saying if its ancient it must be "primitive", you know, go back and we are tooless cannibals, living in caves wearing leopard print. Archeology can be interpreted either way but there are some real obstructions of fact like Puma Punku.

These places are unexplainable, so to fit they throw in a stone-age date to save face. Its back to big picture thinking with all the evidence in place to consider a worldview. They have some crazy places in S. America. One port has head images of every ethnic group on earth. The bible mentions Salomon's trading fleet taking 3 years to roundtrip. Another city has steps and doorways suggesting the population was 7ft plus. Many have quarries huge distances away from the building sites, impossible to explain using today's technology.

These structures and means go into the "mystery" box because they confound the dogma, and really point to "If its ancient it's Smarter" as a very plausible concept.

Look at the cuts in those Puma Punka stones, the perfect 6mm fracture cut and clean drill holes, the jig saw fits and all. Must have been made by an advanced race. Could this have been a pre-flood city? I don't know, but it doesn't confound biblical history. Salomon mentioned technology forgotten before him.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_PumaPunku....

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106485 Nov 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look! Maz is presenting another linky which doesn't support him as usual then followed it up with another batch of lies and baseless claims. How can we stand against such intellectual inadequacy?!?
1 - You have no evidence of a young Earth, which is the only thing that would work.
I am not a YEC. So DER!

As far as YECism goes....You don't have any evidence of abiogenesis but that has never stopped the evolutionary story..
2 - Now you're contradicting SBT. Oh, and your own claim on point one. That's because you're too stupid to have the slightest clue about the consequences of your statements.
You'r a real simpleton. And NO, independent genesis is supported by toal genome functionality. There is loads of evidence for it and I have posted it. Would like to see it again, oh smart one.
3 - Until you can demonstrate every single function scientifically this particular (contradictory) claim by you will remain unevidenced. As it happens today however evolution is 96% better at predicting protein function for example than IDCreationism is. Which is stuck on zero. Like the evidence of its claims.
You don't gert to set my benchmarks for me. You lot have had to change the meaning of vestigial to mean 'different' function, instead of 'NO' function. eg apendix. You show one so called vestigial anything and I;ll show you what trash heads you all are.
4 - Fossil record indicates clear evolutionary progression which you have dealt only with pure denial, never addressing the evidence. Plus you still haven't been able to provide a rational explanation as to why the Creator is as limited as you say it is. Of course you have been unable to demonstrate it even EXISTS yet, so uh...(shrug)
No the fossils record does not show progression at all. eg Basilosaurus that predates its ancestors.

Try again, because your post is based on your opinion. Subby has already flopped out totally. There has been no evidence presented on epistasis that does nto run counter clockwise to evolutionary claims, yet support a creationist paradigm.

Subby flopped on whales, with Indohyus ambulocetus natans that coexisted and basilosaurus that predates them both. That does not demonstrate a line of descent at all and neither does any ofyour fossil evidence. It demonstrates puctuated equilibrium when something like a deer suddenly pops up in the record as something like a sea lion.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106486 Nov 22, 2013
So let's recap this 'science' you evos like to suggest you use. Certain predictions can be made from a creationist and evolutionary paradigm.

1. Adaptation is limited and organisms will remain in their familial groups. All recent genomic research runs counter clockwise to evolutionary expectations and indeed there is plenty of biased data that supports the creo paradigm that the genome is restricted and limited in its ability to adapt from microbe to dinosaur.

2. The genome will be found to be fully functional. A creator has no need to put junk in the genome as evos predicted. So far we are up to a definite 80% and well credentialled researchers eg Gingeras from ENCODE, fully expect that to rise to 100%.

3. All organs will be found to have some function. A creator as no need to make functionless organs. This has been validated with the evolutionary myth of 'NO function' being falsified.

4. Organisms will be found to appear suddenly in the fossil record and in line with a documented account of the appearance of life. This continues to be valdiated. eg Tetrapods, Cambrian explosion, animal life began in the sea.

Hence evolutionists would rather die than admit the evidence for creationism keeps mounting while evos continue to look silly with their flavours of the month and falsifications of previous claims.

Evo defaulting to the bluster of the majority is a fools talent. Evo empirical research based on algorithmic magic is only good for supporting the prevailing bias.

LOOK...

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/...

How about you present research that demonstrates negative epistasis will NOT prevent an organism from going into extinction over billions of years.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106487 Nov 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Who ever said any of that stuff was easy?
eg...Placental sharks may be harder to talk about than pyramids.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106488 Nov 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That's pretty good ..cept the Egyptians built buildings besides the pyramids, they also had devised the arch. Arches weren't discovered, they were invented.
In fact the Great Pyramid had a A corbel arch, arched chamber built within it.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/building/...
A corbel arch is an arch-like construction method but is not considered a true arch. Egyptian dwelling and public buildings of the time consisted of brick walls with wooden timbers laid across the to create a roof. They were basically sophisticated lean to's with two supporting walls. Discussing the semantics of architectural terms is interesting but really has little to do with evolution of the human species.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106489 Nov 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is assumed evolutionary progression. We all got fed this line essentially saying if its ancient it must be "primitive", you know, go back and we are tooless cannibals, living in caves wearing leopard print.
Where are getting this stuff from???
SBT wrote:
Archeology can be interpreted either way...
By you, at least.
SBT wrote:
...but there are some real obstructions of fact like Puma Punku.
These places are unexplainable, so to fit they throw in a stone-age date to save face. Its back to big picture thinking with all the evidence in place to consider a worldview. They have some crazy places in S. America. One port has head images of every ethnic group on earth. The bible mentions Salomon's trading fleet taking 3 years to roundtrip. Another city has steps and doorways suggesting the population was 7ft plus. Many have quarries huge distances away from the building sites, impossible to explain using today's technology.
These structures and means go into the "mystery" box because they confound the dogma, and really point to "If its ancient it's Smarter" as a very plausible concept.
There are without doubt, things done by earlier civilizations that are real head-scratchers. But to claim something is 'impossible to explain using today's technology' is simply incorrect. Again, people often believe what they want to believe.

Do you think this guy floated these stones through the air?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle
SBT wrote:
Look at the cuts in those Puma Punka stones, the perfect 6mm fracture cut and clean drill holes, the jig saw fits and all. Must have been made by an advanced race. Could this have been a pre-flood city? I don't know, but it doesn't confound biblical history. Salomon mentioned technology forgotten before him.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_PumaPunku....
A pre-flood city? Uh-huh.

Have a nice day.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#106490 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>English was formed from a combination of Celtic, Anglo, Saxon, and Norman. Norman was the most recent language to merge with the others and is considered to have the most influence on modern English. Since English is considered a different language then those it was built on, none of those older imported languages can be considered "English". Therefore the correct statement would be that English originated in England and evolved out of several other languages brought to England by immigrating foreign tribes. It is another example of evolution and is still evolving today. And good example of this continuing evolution of the language is the word "spaghetti" which is an Italian word that has found it's way into the mouths of English speaking people.(pun intended)
Good post Mudd, and kudos on the pun, just can't agree with Originate. Without going through the well-documented formation of English, I agree that it was formed in England, where it evolved into the first forms of English, but it's roots; it's prehistory point to it's origin which was that brought over by Germanic tribes in the beginning of the fifth century, four hundred years before England was formed as unified state.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106491 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a YEC. So DER!
As far as YECism goes....You don't have any evidence of abiogenesis but that has never stopped the evolutionary story..
<quoted text>
You'r a real simpleton. And NO, independent genesis is supported by toal genome functionality. There is loads of evidence for it and I have posted it. Would like to see it again, oh smart one.
<quoted text>
You don't gert to set my benchmarks for me. You lot have had to change the meaning of vestigial to mean 'different' function, instead of 'NO' function. eg apendix. You show one so called vestigial anything and I;ll show you what trash heads you all are.
<quoted text>
No the fossils record does not show progression at all. eg Basilosaurus that predates its ancestors.
Try again, because your post is based on your opinion. Subby has already flopped out totally. There has been no evidence presented on epistasis that does nto run counter clockwise to evolutionary claims, yet support a creationist paradigm.
Subby flopped on whales, with Indohyus ambulocetus natans that coexisted and basilosaurus that predates them both. That does not demonstrate a line of descent at all and neither does any ofyour fossil evidence. It demonstrates puctuated equilibrium when something like a deer suddenly pops up in the record as something like a sea lion.
If God waved his hand and created Adam and Eve and we are all descended from them, how could so many different races of man now exist without evolution. If there was no evolution we would all look the same. Or did God have a different creation for each race?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106492 Nov 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
These structures and means go into the "mystery" box because they confound the dogma, and really point to "If its ancient it's Smarter" as a very plausible concept.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4149

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#106493 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>A corbel arch is an arch-like construction method but is not considered a true arch. Egyptian dwelling and public buildings of the time consisted of brick walls with wooden timbers laid across the to create a roof. They were basically sophisticated lean to's with two supporting walls. Discussing the semantics of architectural terms is interesting but really has little to do with evolution of the human species.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106494 Nov 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are getting this stuff from???
Why would a placental whale have less in common with a placental shark eg bull shark, than a hippo or pig?

Sharks belonging to the family of Lamniformes can maintain their body temperature above that of the ambient water temperature and have filaments of elastic protein resembling the horny keratin in hair and feathers.

Prior to dna a whale was morphologically closer to a pig. With dna testing a whale is claimed to be evolutionarily closer to a hippo.

Given a bull shark is warm blooded, also has signs of hair proteins, both whale and shark are fully aquatic both use placental birth, it is very curious where evolutionists get their stuff from.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106495 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>If God waved his hand and created Adam and Eve and we are all descended from them, how could so many different races of man now exist without evolution. If there was no evolution we would all look the same. Or did God have a different creation for each race?
So here above we see an evolutionist leaving the land of science hoping to justify himself by poking at philosophy.

The creation MUST have the ability to interact with its environment. eg immunity, epigentic inheritance. That is why an organism has some ability to adapt but not sufficient ability to adapt out of its familial clade.eg negative epistasis with beneficial mutaions & majority deleterious mutations.

How about you explain why any variation can be given a new species name eg ring species, yet the variation within mankind is refered to as 'race' when the variation within mankind is greater than ring species.

The terms 'race' and 'breed' is just another great example of evolutionists having no idea what they are talking about.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106496 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a placental whale have less in common with a placental shark eg bull shark, than a hippo or pig?
Sharks belonging to the family of Lamniformes can maintain their body temperature above that of the ambient water temperature and have filaments of elastic protein resembling the horny keratin in hair and feathers.
Prior to dna a whale was morphologically closer to a pig. With dna testing a whale is claimed to be evolutionarily closer to a hippo.
Given a bull shark is warm blooded, also has signs of hair proteins, both whale and shark are fully aquatic both use placental birth, it is very curious where evolutionists get their stuff from.
Feeling a little spammy today, Maz?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106497 Nov 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Feeling a little spammy today, Maz?
I'd say your defering a point of science to reply with spam is indicating you are the spammy one as all evolutionists will demonstrate themselves to be. eg Aura and ice cream, having no clue how the genome can survive billions of years of negative epistasis, deleterious mutations, deteriorating genome, a hippo or pig being closer to a whale than a bull shark.

There is plenty of science on the table from creos but only spam and stupid questions from evos. That says it all!!! LOL!

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106498 Nov 22, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post Mudd, and kudos on the pun, just can't agree with Originate. Without going through the well-documented formation of English, I agree that it was formed in England, where it evolved into the first forms of English, but it's roots; it's prehistory point to it's origin which was that brought over by Germanic tribes in the beginning of the fifth century, four hundred years before England was formed as unified state.
I agree that English roots came from a combination of the Germanic Anglo's and Saxons. However their languages were slightly different and were combined with the Celtic languages being spoken in Brittan when they arrived. Although the Normans were also descended from Germanic tribes their language was predominately influenced by Latin that had been combined with their original Germanic language. The Normans had the largest influence on the modern English language. Hence joke about English being French's largest sub language. It was not until all of these languages where combined in more and lesser degree's did the language of English form in England. The Celts spoke Celtic Anglo's spoke Anglo. The Saxons spoke Saxon and the Normans spoke Norman. None of them spoke English because English did not exist until a cocktail of all of those language evolved. Of course the only reason the Irish started speaking English is because of their love of cocktails. It is hard to pin point when English became a language of its own but it was well after the Norman invasion. Since that cocktail was mixed in England I must insist that English was created in England and because of that it is called English.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106499 Nov 22, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that English roots came from a combination of the Germanic Anglo's and Saxons. However their languages were slightly different and were combined with the Celtic languages being spoken in Brittan when they arrived. Although the Normans were also descended from Germanic tribes their language was predominately influenced by Latin that had been combined with their original Germanic language. The Normans had the largest influence on the modern English language. Hence joke about English being French's largest sub language. It was not until all of these languages where combined in more and lesser degree's did the language of English form in England. The Celts spoke Celtic Anglo's spoke Anglo. The Saxons spoke Saxon and the Normans spoke Norman. None of them spoke English because English did not exist until a cocktail of all of those language evolved. Of course the only reason the Irish started speaking English is because of their love of cocktails. It is hard to pin point when English became a language of its own but it was well after the Norman invasion. Since that cocktail was mixed in England I must insist that English was created in England and because of that it is called English.
It is great to see evolutionists head for the hills and stay as far away from science as they possibly can. What language was grunting to indicate the first recognizable word ever spoken?

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106500 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So here above we see an evolutionist leaving the land of science hoping to justify himself by poking at philosophy.
The creation MUST have the ability to interact with its environment. eg immunity, epigentic inheritance. That is why an organism has some ability to adapt but not sufficient ability to adapt out of its familial clade.eg negative epistasis with beneficial mutaions & majority deleterious mutations.
How about you explain why any variation can be given a new species name eg ring species, yet the variation within mankind is refered to as 'race' when the variation within mankind is greater than ring species.
The terms 'race' and 'breed' is just another great example of evolutionists having no idea what they are talking about.
environmental change is a driving force of evolution and the fact that species change to adapted to an new environment is evolution. As groups of humans spread across the world they evolved different skin tones and difference physics that were better suited to their different environments. The difference between races and breeds is purely semantics. It is like tribes, herds, packs, pods, and flocks. They are simply difference words describing different animals doing the same thing,, ie grouping together. Inconsistencies in languages is not proof that evolution does not exist. However there may be some truth to the theory Creationist believe in that they have not evolved. Have you checked your knuckles for calluses lately?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#106501 Nov 22, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say your defering a point of science to reply with spam is indicating you are the spammy one as all evolutionists will demonstrate themselves to be. eg Aura and ice cream, having no clue how the genome can survive billions of years of negative epistasis, deleterious mutations, deteriorating genome, a hippo or pig being closer to a whale than a bull shark.
There is plenty of science on the table from creos but only spam and stupid questions from evos. That says it all!!! LOL!
Sez the one who keep posting the same things over and over and over again.

I've no interest in discussing bull sharks with you. You have made enough very basic errors that it is clear to me that you're more of a parrot than anything else. It's also clear that you have no interest in honest discussion but use the forum to preach so you can try to feel good about yourself and pat yourself on the ass.

Pax vobiscum.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106502 Nov 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sez the one who keep posting the same things over and over and over again.
I've no interest in discussing bull sharks with you. You have made enough very basic errors that it is clear to me that you're more of a parrot than anything else. It's also clear that you have no interest in honest discussion but use the forum to preach so you can try to feel good about yourself and pat yourself on the ass.
Pax vobiscum.
I can, or have, posted research to back each and every claim I have made. Request any, and feel free to post more than your opinion. Why should I bother to reword a substantive post or let multiple points go just because you evos are ignorant and have learned to spam and say DER!?...LOL!

You evos must think waving your hands around in denial and pointing to the blustering majority, that have proven to be consistently wrong, is some evo great escape.

Here is a major copy and paste to demonstrate just a few points you evos like to run away from...

So let's recap this 'science' you evos like to suggest you use. Certain predictions can be made from a creationist and evolutionary paradigm.

1. Adaptation is limited and organisms will remain in their familial groups. All recent genomic research runs counter clockwise to evolutionary expectations and indeed there is plenty of biased data that supports the creo paradigm that the genome is restricted and limited in its ability to adapt from microbe to dinosaur.

2. The genome will be found to be fully functional. A creator has no need to put junk in the genome as evos predicted. So far we are up to a definite 80% and well credentialled researchers eg Gingeras from ENCODE, fully expect that to rise to 100%.

3. All organs will be found to have some function. A creator as no need to make functionless organs. This has been validated with the evolutionary myth of 'NO function' being falsified.

4. Organisms will be found to appear suddenly in the fossil record and in line with a documented account of the appearance of life. This continues to be valdiated. eg Tetrapods, Cambrian explosion, animal life began in the sea.

Hence evolutionists would rather die than admit the evidence for creationism keeps mounting while evos continue to look silly with their flavours of the month and falsifications of previous claims.

Evo defaulting to the bluster of the majority is a fools talent. Evo empirical research based on algorithmic magic is only good for supporting the prevailing bias.

LOOK...

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/...

How about one of you evos actually provide some of what you call the best of your flawed and biased research that suppports any of your evolutionary claims better than it does a creationist paradigm?

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
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 6 min -TheExam- 4,626
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 6 min wichita-rick 267
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 12 min wichita-rick 159,988
Word Association (Jun '10) 14 min Mega Monster 27,036
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 22 min Princess Hey 139,812
Write cities alfabetically (tell the country/st... (Sep '11) 24 min wichita-rick 2,477
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 24 min Princess Hey 421
motorcycle traveling stories 40 min Gerbil Herder 89
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 3 hr Observer 8,168
More from around the web