Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221446 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

davy

Albuquerque, NM

#106762 Nov 23, 2013
Sometimes a snake is just a snake.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think you are going to get these guys to talk about this talking snake. Too Freudian for them.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#106764 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have had enough of your sick and demented evos fluffing on forum. You are the one quote mining to detract from the substance of the article. You lying piece of excrement.
I can read as well as you can and the article states 80% functionality. A function is any function, be in regulatory or encoding.
You evos used to shove this rubbish about non functional junk down creos throats. Now you can suck eggs about it.
"The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions."
So you would care to take your foot out of your mouth and tell us what prediction TOE makes around non coding DNA? Ha ha! The answer is you lot thought TOE predicted left over useless junk, but now you are back tracking into buffoonery. Can TOE make a predition or not??????
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%.
Here is what the researcher said...
And what’s in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project’s Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described “cat-herder-in-chief”. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion.“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,” says Birney.“We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
Just keep sucking eggs Chimney, and holding onto your faith, because all your struggling, accusations and tantrums are not going to change anything just because you know how to lie.
You can throw excrement out of you cage all you like.

The FACTS remain that:

Most of the "function" carried out be the DNA is useless coding of RNA and only 8% has been identified as having any necessary function.

Junk DNA is neither a core or necessary prediction of evolution. It is compatible with evolution though not with design, and that is what gets your knickers in a twist. If there was no junk DNA it would not be falsification though. You want falsification, start digging in real lfossil sites instead of quote mining the work of real scientists.

Maybe you will get lucky and find a mammal in the Permian.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106765 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Another page about to be spammed by evos that want to keep as far away from science as they can until they can when their rhetoric is exposed.
Every time evos look deeper into the genome they find restrictions to an orgaisms ability to adapt. Your wish list was to find beneficial mutations helping others along and more beneficial mutations than deleterious ones. Evos did not want to find a deteriorating genome. Evos did want to find evolutionary refuse. Where is your good news?
Despite all your biased and flawed research your data does nothing to bolster your claims but does bolster mine. Boo Hoo for you, like it or not. Your spamming won't change anything.
If humans and gorillas are 98% similar by some comparison, how can a credible chimp and gorilla comparison score less than this?
Comparative genomics is rubbish and based on false algorithmic magic that is only evidence of a prevailing bias, not reality.
So lets' get this straight, Dan & Swamp, the above claims are made, that has been backed by empirical research and the best you clowns can do is say BS.

I have news for you, pretenders extraordinaire, what you are now offering is a reflection of the scientific credibility behind TOE.

You have zilch to offer that actually reflects your evolutionary expectations and claims the genomes mirculous ability to servive billions of years of mutations that are deleterious, present negative epistasis and result in a deteriorating genome. What you can do is quack like a duck, flugg your feathers like a duck and make about as much scientific sense as a duck quacking on forum.

You have zilch to offer to make your comparative genomics worth any more than a comic book.

Gob smacked are you all? Good to see that smart butt replies are the best you sad and sorry evos have to offer.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#106766 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
BS, is not an appropriate reply.
In this case, it is.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#106767 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>DaaaAAaaamn!!!! And you accuse others of spamming
Funny that, huh?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#106769 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually that article is written by evolutionists as is the one relating to different molecular machinery. If you want to call evolutionary researchers work and claims spam, you are more than welcome to do so, oh bright one! LOL!
Not at all. It is your repeated posting of the same information over and over that is spam. Sorry that went over your pointy little head.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106770 Nov 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can throw excrement out of you cage all you like.
The FACTS remain that:
Most of the "function" carried out be the DNA is useless coding of RNA and only 8% has been identified as having any necessary function.
Junk DNA is neither a core or necessary prediction of evolution. It is compatible with evolution though not with design, and that is what gets your knickers in a twist. If there was no junk DNA it would not be falsification though. You want falsification, start digging in real lfossil sites instead of quote mining the work of real scientists.
Maybe you will get lucky and find a mammal in the Permian.
It appears that you are the excrement, pal, and unable to read as well.

So despite my presenting published research that claim function for 80% of the genome and quoting a researcher stating his expectation is that 100% of the genome will likely prove to have some function, you just want to quote your neanderthal science and keep blustering on. Good for you! However, I don't take morons like you seriously.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74...

Despite your smart butt comments what you are saying is that TOE can make no prediction around non coding DNA and its functionality but creationists have made a prediction that is being validated as we speak. BOO HOO for you!

How does negative epistasis, majority deleterious mutations and a degenerating genome support TOE, you simpleton?.

How can a chimp have more percentage dna in common with man than a gorilla or orang in comparative genomics?

Why is a whale genetically closer to a hippo than a bull shark, that is warm blooded, displays hair proteins and is fully aquatic?

No answers? Go pull your head in.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106771 Nov 24, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. It is your repeated posting of the same information over and over that is spam. Sorry that went over your pointy little head.
..and I will keep posting it until you handwavers and denialists come up with some reply more intelligent than spam.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#106772 Nov 24, 2013
I thought that Homo erectus was a gay man in a bath house

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#106773 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
..and I will keep posting it until you handwavers and denialists come up with some reply more intelligent than spam.
So you agree that you're a spammer. We already knew that.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106774 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
I thought that Homo erectus was a gay man in a bath house
More spam from these great evolutionary intellectuals..LOL!

Erectus/Turkana Boy are in the midst of a make over and may go to the bath house after that for some self soothing. You seem to be doing a good job of self soothing right where you are.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/erectus/g...

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#106775 Nov 24, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
<quoted text>
Homo erectus is a species.
I want a complete scientific classification of java man with links to support it.
Kingdom:
Phylum:
Class:
Order:
Family:
Tribe:
Genus:
Species
The only reason creation magicians are focusing on Java Man is because Dubois himself had doubts whether his discovery was of human lineage or in fact merely a large gibbon. Of course they over look the fact that if two species are that hard to tell apart they are probably closely related hence having a common distant heritage.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#106776 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
More spam from these great evolutionary intellectuals..LOL!
Erectus/Turkana Boy are in the midst of a make over and may go to the bath house after that for some self soothing. You seem to be doing a good job of self soothing right where you are.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/erectus/g...
You are like the defense attorney who with no evidence of his clients innocence can only hope to focus on distorting and confusing the over whelming evidence against him. Maybe you should offer some proof of your magic wand theory other than some people several thousand years ago with almost no scientific knowledge believed it to be true

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106777 Nov 24, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree that you're a spammer. We already knew that.
This twisted humour is a great reflection of your inability to rise to the occasion!

Despite my presenting published research that claims function for 80% of the genome and quoting a researcher stating his expectation is that 100% of the genome will likely prove to have some function, evos just want to keep blustering on and spamming. Good for you all!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74...

Despite your ability to hit the keyboard what evos are saying is that TOE is unable to make a prediction around non coding DNA and its functionality. All evo rubbish about 'junk dna' being proof of TOE was just that, rubbish. Creationists can and have made a prediction around non coding dna, that is being validated as we speak. BOO HOO for you!

How does negative epistasis, majority deleterious mutations and a degenerating genome support TOE, you spam artist?. This data does support the creo prediction of limits to adapatability.

How can a chimp have more percentage dna or morphology in common with man than a gorilla or orang in side by side comparisons?

Why is a whale genetically or morphologically closer to a hippo than a bull shark, that is warm blooded, displays hair proteins and is fully aquatic?

No answers? Keep spamming because that says it all about you evos and your flawed 'science'.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106778 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>The only reason creation magicians are focusing on Java Man is because Dubois himself had doubts whether his discovery was of human lineage or in fact merely a large gibbon. Of course they over look the fact that if two species are that hard to tell apart they are probably closely related hence having a common distant heritage.
After 150 years of you lot chasing your tail, it's a hoot seeing any of you demand a higher level of substantiation or clarity in classification than any of you evos can provide yourselves.

The evo flavour that does last longer than a month is hypocrisy.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#106779 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
More spam from these great evolutionary intellectuals..LOL!
Erectus/Turkana Boy are in the midst of a make over and may go to the bath house after that for some self soothing. You seem to be doing a good job of self soothing right where you are.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/erectus/g...
The joker accuses others of spamming again. You are so full of spam I bet your head has a pull back tab on it. Your dress label says Hormel. You have wet dreams about being sandwiched. Your favorite color is mustard. You are covered with a layer of jellied fat. Most men would rather throw you in the garbage than eat you.
&li st=RD1XSvsFgvWr0

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106780 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>You are like the defense attorney who with no evidence of his clients innocence can only hope to focus on distorting and confusing the over whelming evidence against him. Maybe you should offer some proof of your magic wand theory other than some people several thousand years ago with almost no scientific knowledge believed it to be true
You keep talking about this evidence and all you really have is 150 years of blustering majority that are consistently wrong.

Actually I have physics that states a great source of energy can be turned into matter eg instant creation. That would be more than you have with your magic wand that gets elements organizing themselves into complex factories of reproduction and entropy. LOL!

Given neither of us have a time machine and you lot throw tantrums when creo research is presented, the best we can do is use your own flawed evo research to slap you with.

Would you like me to repost my material about how evos never find this limitless adaptability they are looking for? That's done, and I have taken the point, regardless of your denial and ability to keep spamming.

Despite my presenting published research that claims function for 80% of the genome and quoting a researcher stating his expectation is that 100% of the genome will likely prove to have some function, evos just want to keep blustering on and spamming. Good for you all!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74...

Despite your ability to hit the keyboard what evos are saying is that TOE is unable to make a prediction around non coding DNA and its functionality. All evo rubbish about 'junk dna' being proof of TOE was just that, rubbish. Creationists can and have made a prediction around non coding dna, that is being validated as we speak. BOO HOO for you!

How does negative epistasis, majority deleterious mutations and a degenerating genome support TOE, you spam artist?. This data does support the creo prediction of limits to adapatability.

How can a chimp have more percentage dna or morphology in common with man than a gorilla or orang in side by side comparisons?

Why is a whale genetically or morphologically closer to a hippo than a bull shark, that is warm blooded, displays hair proteins and is fully aquatic?

Why does presenting biased reconstructions based on a few bones mean something like a deer or seal must be a whale ancestor, instead of a deer or seal?

No answers? Keep spamming because that says it all about you evos and your 'science'.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106781 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>The joker accuses others of spamming again. You are so full of spam I bet your head has a pull back tab on it. Your dress label says Hormel. You have wet dreams about being sandwiched. Your favorite color is mustard. You are covered with a layer of jellied fat. Most men would rather throw you in the garbage than eat you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =1XSvsFgvWr0XX&list=RD1XSv sFgvWr0
Then get your foot out of your mouth and understand that coming up with the big hero response of "BS" and ridiculing me, is not an acceptable scientific reply, not even for a lay person.

If you want to play spam bots, go ahead. You keep talking about all this science but point by point you lot are reduced to gibbering trolls.

Despite my presenting published research that claims function for 80% of the genome and quoting a researcher stating his expectation is that 100% of the genome will likely prove to have some function, evos just want to keep blustering on and spamming. Good for you all!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74...

Despite your ability to hit the keyboard what evos are saying is that TOE is unable to make a prediction around non coding DNA and its functionality. All evo rubbish about 'junk dna' being proof of TOE was just that, rubbish. Creationists can and have made a prediction around non coding dna, that is being validated as we speak. BOO HOO for you!

How does negative epistasis, majority deleterious mutations and a degenerating genome support TOE, you spam artist?. This data does support the creo prediction of limits to adapatability.

How can a chimp have more percentage dna or morphology in common with man than a gorilla or orang in side by side comparisons?

Why is a whale genetically or morphologically closer to a hippo than a bull shark, that is warm blooded, displays hair proteins and is fully aquatic?

Why does presenting biased reconstructions based on a few bones mean something like a deer or seal must be a whale ancestor, instead of a deer or seal?

No answers? Keep spamming because that says it all about you evos and your 'science'.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106782 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Then get your foot out of your mouth and understand that coming up with the big hero response of "BS" and ridiculing me, is not an acceptable scientific reply, not even for a lay person.
If you want to play spam bots, go ahead. You keep talking about all this science but point by point you lot are reduced to gibbering trolls.
Despite my presenting published research that claims function for 80% of the genome and quoting a researcher stating his expectation is that 100% of the genome will likely prove to have some function, evos just want to keep blustering on and spamming. Good for you all!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74...
Despite your ability to hit the keyboard what evos are saying is that TOE is unable to make a prediction around non coding DNA and its functionality. All evo rubbish about 'junk dna' being proof of TOE was just that, rubbish. Creationists can and have made a prediction around non coding dna, that is being validated as we speak. BOO HOO for you!
How does negative epistasis, majority deleterious mutations and a degenerating genome support TOE, you spam artist?. This data does support the creo prediction of limits to adapatability.
How can a chimp have more percentage dna or morphology in common with man than a gorilla or orang in side by side comparisons?
Why is a whale genetically or morphologically closer to a hippo than a bull shark, that is warm blooded, displays hair proteins and is fully aquatic?
Why does presenting biased reconstructions based on a few bones mean something like a deer or seal must be a whale ancestor, instead of a deer or seal?
No answers? Keep spamming because that says it all about you evos and your 'science'.

The only thing you prove here is that we have researched the human genome quite extensively. It makes none of your claims at all, it doesn't even hint at anything you've said. Nice try but you're just 100% pure bullshit.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106783 Nov 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing you prove here is that we have researched the human genome quite extensively. It makes none of your claims at all, it doesn't even hint at anything you've said. Nice try but you're just 100% pure bullshit.
Here above we have another simpleton that thinks a big hero reply saying "BS" is what evos have been waiting for. Sorry Aura, that grunting has already been offered to no avail.

You are free to be specific and identify my BS. Until then you are the one swimming in your own excrement and thinking you're looking good in there.

Despite my presenting published research that claims function for 80% of the genome and quoting a researcher stating his expectation is that 100% of the genome will likely prove to have some function, evos just want to keep blustering on and spamming. Good for you all!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74...

Despite your ability to hit the keyboard what evos are saying is that TOE is unable to make any prediction around non coding DNA and its functionality. Creationists can and have made a prediction around non coding dna, that is being validated as we speak. BOO HOO for you!

How does negative epistasis, majority deleterious mutations and a degenerating genome support TOE?. This data does support the creo prediction of limits to adapatability.

How can a chimp have more percentage dna or morphology in common with man than a gorilla or orang in side by side comparisons? You lot are being ridiculous and desperate.

Why is a whale genetically or morphologically closer to a hippo than a bull shark, that is warm blooded, uses placental birth, displays hair proteins and is fully aquatic? Is it just because a bull shark doesn't fit well into your great cladistic mess.

Why does presenting biased reconstructions based on a few bones mean something like a deer or seal must be a whale ancestor, instead of a deer or seal?

No answers? Just "BS' as your claim to credibility, like the rest. Keep spamming because that says it all about you evos and your 'science'. Well done Aura!

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
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 8 min xxxooxxx 17,212
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 13 min Fish_sticks 21,941
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 22 min KellyP in Jersey 46,730
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 24 min Rose_NoHo 37,864
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 29 min -TheExam- 3,748
Sexual Word Association Game...! (Nov '12) 30 min KellyP in Jersey 289
if there were no consequences ? 32 min Queen Doggy Sam 11
A to Z songs by title or group! 35 min xxxooxxx 1,831
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 50 min Sharlene45 217,268
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr contemplater 4,098
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr Fish_sticks 75,317
More from around the web