Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221445 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.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#106785 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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'.
Creation would be making something out of nothing, not converting energy to matter or matter to energy. That is conversion, not creation. Again you try to poke holes in the evolution theory while never offering one shred of evidence of your magic wand theory. According to creationist's the world is only 6000 years old. There is plenty of evidence you are about six digits off. If you want to point out inconsistencies the Bible is pretty much wall to wall. Do you really believe the heaven is some place up in the sky. When Jesus rose up unto heaven did he into warp drive once he cleared the atmosphere. Is heaven in the milky way or is it in another galaxy like you are.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106786 Nov 24, 2013
DavidQuinn wrote:
This is a joke, we should be educating more in notions of science and reason rather than superstition and religion. Just read a book that's creating a buzz in the UK (it's been retweeted by Dawkins), worth checking out, called The Chronicles Of Hope 2082. Features a politician who advocates a society like that
Oh yeah, this line of yours must be it. I don't believe evo researchers because they likely lie on their tax return. Bullocks to anyone that has to resort to philosophy, asides and what Jack said at dinner, to bolster their fall from credibility.

Dawkins, your hero, supports Lucy being a chimp and no doubt supported the myth of human knuckle walking ancestry, a claim subsequently falsified by one single fossil find.

Viva la majority, that are consistently wrong and rarely agree on anything except "it all evolved".

Do reckon you are more like a chimp than an orang or gorilla is? If a gorilla scores 98% similar to mankind, then what do you reckon a plausible chimp/gorilla chimp/orang should come up as?

Do you know I can't even find one straight out chimp/gorilla chimp/orang comparison reflected in percentage similarity as they do chimp/human? All research is spammed with rubbish about genetic distances.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106787 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
The point that escapes you is the paper you are presenting does not support anything you say.
So your presenting it is only a distraction away from what you are saying. So why are you presenting the paper at all?
I'm not here to play 20 questions with you, but would like to hear the answer to that one.

What is the reason you are presenting this paper?
It does not support anything you say.
Scientists do not make predictions about unknown functions, but papers like this one uncover previously unknown functions, that way in the future scientist maybe able to make predictions of functions about the ability of the genome that were unknown.
This doesn't have anything to do with what you're saying, but what you are doing is trying to hijack the research and use it in a pseudoscientific creationist agenda. Which is both dishonest and extremely laughable, you're a riot. That's why I can't think you're for real, you have to be a poe, because no one can be this goofy.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106788 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>Creation would be making something out of nothing, not converting energy to matter or matter to energy. That is conversion, not creation. Again you try to poke holes in the evolution theory while never offering one shred of evidence of your magic wand theory. According to creationist's the world is only 6000 years old. There is plenty of evidence you are about six digits off. If you want to point out inconsistencies the Bible is pretty much wall to wall. Do you really believe the heaven is some place up in the sky. When Jesus rose up unto heaven did he into warp drive once he cleared the atmosphere. Is heaven in the milky way or is it in another galaxy like you are.
Actually God is light and energy. Try again and after that explain why abiogenesis is any better supported than creation. You are just another evo quacker reduced to spam trolling because your 'science' has left your for dead.

As expected another useless evolutionist out to poke at philosophy when evos themselves have faith deeper than the ocean. eg evolution from microbe to dinosaur against all odds, factories assembling themselves, the Copernican principle/philosophy that 'science' is based on.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#106789 Nov 24, 2013
DavidQuinn wrote:
This is a joke, we should be educating more in notions of science and reason rather than superstition and religion. Just read a book that's creating a buzz in the UK (it's been retweeted by Dawkins), worth checking out, called The Chronicles Of Hope 2082. Features a politician who advocates a society like that
Check out some of Immanuel Velikovsky's writings. He was a contemporary of Einstein. He theorized that evolution was not slow and steady but was bumped along with occasional leaps caused by sudden and radical changes in the environment as a result of natural catastrophes' such as a meteor ending to age of dinosaurs making way for the rise of mammals. In "Worlds in collision" he compares ancient writings and mythologies (including the old testament) and finds common occurrences in roughly the same time periods across the world. He presents evidence that human history has been influences by cosmic occurrences that were misunderstood by those witnessing them.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106790 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Does anyone know what this old man is saying? Sounds like blah, blah, blah, blah, blahdity blah.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106791 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>Check out some of Immanuel Velikovsky's writings. He was a contemporary of Einstein. He theorized that evolution was not slow and steady but was bumped along with occasional leaps caused by sudden and radical changes in the environment as a result of natural catastrophes' such as a meteor ending to age of dinosaurs making way for the rise of mammals. In "Worlds in collision" he compares ancient writings and mythologies (including the old testament) and finds common occurrences in roughly the same time periods across the world. He presents evidence that human history has been influences by cosmic occurrences that were misunderstood by those witnessing them.
....and so does this above demonstrate a human is more of a chimp than an orang is by the use of comparative genomic?

Does it demonstrate why a whale is closer to a hippo than a bull shark?

Does it demonstrate why something like a seal or deer can't be a seal or deer but must be a tetrapod whale?(This one is a hoot every time)

When are you evos going to admit you have nothing but biased rubbish to offer that only demonstrates evolutionists are good demonstrating the prevailing bias, not truth in science? Answer: Never, but I have taken the points as made, anyway.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#106792 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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'.
Awwww Geeee. I thought I was the guy with the twisted humor.:[

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#106793 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The comments I posted came from one of the researchers.

Not only that, but they have made it clear they use the word "function" to mean any activity at all, without assigning utility. And when they DO assign utility, they so far have a figure of 8% with a prediction that it might go as high as 20% eventually.

Of course when they say things like "80% is functional, even though most of the "function" is useless activity that we would expect from shards of old viruses and useless pseudogenes" they are not expecting crazed creatards to race in and quote mine the first bit while deliberately ignoring the second part.

Nobody expects honesty from you guys and nobody cares what you think.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106794 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.
Your judgement of an intelligent reply is wanting and weak. Even when you have your hands wrapped around the shaft of an intelligent answer you don't know what you have or what to do with it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106795 Nov 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Does anyone know what this old man is saying? Sounds like blah, blah, blah, blah, blahdity blah.
Spam above again. Evos are plastered and reduced to gibberish and spam to save face on forum because their so called 'science' won't.

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

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

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 ridicule as your claim to credibility, like the rest. Keep spamming because that says it all about you evos and your 'science'. Well done Dan!

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106796 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually God is light and energy. Try again and after that explain why abiogenesis is any better supported than creation. You are just another evo quacker reduced to spam trolling because your 'science' has left your for dead.
As expected another useless evolutionist out to poke at philosophy when evos themselves have faith deeper than the ocean. eg evolution from microbe to dinosaur against all odds, factories assembling themselves, the Copernican principle/philosophy that 'science' is based on.
If god was light and energy you would have no problem spotting it.
So go ahead and point to where gods light and energy is.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106797 Nov 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Your judgement of an intelligent reply is wanting and weak. Even when you have your hands wrapped around the shaft of an intelligent answer you don't know what you have or what to do with it.
Well this above, for sure, is not an intelligent answer. When you can dig up some research that actually makes some sense, feel free to present it. Don't be shy!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106798 Nov 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The comments I posted came from one of the researchers.
Not only that, but they have made it clear they use the word "function" to mean any activity at all, without assigning utility. And when they DO assign utility, they so far have a figure of 8% with a prediction that it might go as high as 20% eventually.
Of course when they say things like "80% is functional, even though most of the "function" is useless activity that we would expect from shards of old viruses and useless pseudogenes" they are not expecting crazed creatards to race in and quote mine the first bit while deliberately ignoring the second part.
Nobody expects honesty from you guys and nobody cares what you think.
So you have reposted what I posted than called me a liar. Which bit is a lie you stupid evolutionist.

No they are not expecting creos to use their work and that would be too bad for them. They should have a secret publishing crap house.

The words useless psudogenes DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE VERY PLAIN WORDS IT PRESENTED..... 80% OF THE GENOME FOUND TO BE FUNCTIONAL...AND as stated by other researchers expected to be 100% functional when looked at in connection with other genes and prcesses.

Get the heck off your saop box you idiot and stop misrepresenting the research yourself, you quacking spam artist.

You stupid evos can contest and scramble your own research as much as you like. Unfortunatley creos can read also. DER to you!

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#106799 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually God is light and energy. Try again and after that explain why abiogenesis is any better supported than creation. You are just another evo quacker reduced to spam trolling because your 'science' has left your for dead.
As expected another useless evolutionist out to poke at philosophy when evos themselves have faith deeper than the ocean. eg evolution from microbe to dinosaur against all odds, factories assembling themselves, the Copernican principle/philosophy that 'science' is based on.
I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where God is light and energy. He usually seems to be depicted as a bearded dude riding a cloud. Of course he did a[[ear to Moses as a flaming bush. lots of times he was just a voice nobody else could hear, hummmmmm. I am glad you are amongst huge portion of the population who believe they can tell us they know what God is. My only problem is there is so many of you I can not figure out which you of you is right. However your contention that God is energy and light at least steps you away from the age old notion of God that man created in his own image. Just do me a favor and don't go looking for any space ships behind the comet.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106800 Nov 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
If god was light and energy you would have no problem spotting it.
So go ahead and point to where gods light and energy is.
Pull your head in you stupid woman. You can't call on your science to respond to exposure of evolutionary stupidity so asking stupid questions must be next best thing to spam.

Now you're expecting science to not only explain how to boil a jug but that I simply put the jug on to make a cup of coffee as well. That being the metaphysical realm to which science is unqualified to explain at present.

Go back to bed Aura, and take you fake credentials with you.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106801 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where God is light and energy. He usually seems to be depicted as a bearded dude riding a cloud. Of course he did a[[ear to Moses as a flaming bush. lots of times he was just a voice nobody else could hear, hummmmmm. I am glad you are amongst huge portion of the population who believe they can tell us they know what God is. My only problem is there is so many of you I can not figure out which you of you is right. However your contention that God is energy and light at least steps you away from the age old notion of God that man created in his own image. Just do me a favor and don't go looking for any space ships behind the comet.
1 John 1:5..."God is light"

So now you're pretending to be a bible expert.

Go back to bed and wake up when you have some real science to put on the table.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106802 Nov 24, 2013
Come on you know alls lurking here, where is your amazing empirical research that will quickly clear up any conundrum presented?

You are free to be specific and identify my blah blah. Until then you are groping in the dark while quacking furiously.

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

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 ridicule as your claim to credibility, like the rest. Keep spamming because that says it all about you evos and your 'science'. Well done evos!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106803 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Spam above again. Evos are plastered and reduced to gibberish and spam to save face on forum because their so called 'science' won't.
You are free to be specific and identify my blah blah. Until then you are the one swimming in your own excrement and thinking you're looking good flapping about in there.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n74 ...
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 ridicule as your claim to credibility, like the rest. Keep spamming because that says it all about you evos and your 'science'. Well done Dan!
Maz, you need to get out and enjoy yourself instead of setting in front of the monitor hitting the refresh button until a post comes up for you to answer.

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#106804 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Pull your head in you stupid woman. You can't call on your science to respond to exposure of evolutionary stupidity so asking stupid questions must be next best thing to spam.
Now you're expecting science to not only explain how to boil a jug but that I simply put the jug on to make a cup of coffee as well. That being the metaphysical realm to which science is unqualified to explain at present.
Go back to bed Aura, and take you fake credentials with you.
What does boiling a jug do,,, warm the milk? Isn't that a little painful? Once you know the properties of water there are lots of things you can do with it including making coffee, and I suppose if you must, boil your jugs.

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
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 4 min Princess Hey 150,034
News Rat cafe opens in San Francisco 11 min The Wheeze of Trump 3
News Pet blood donors help other dogs, cats 14 min The Wheeze of Trump 2
News Double Murder Investigation Takes Bizarre Turn 19 min The Wheeze of Trump 1
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 23 min The Finny 75,224
News Bizarre Elk Poaching Case In Nevada Nets 3 Conv... 25 min The Wheeze of Trump 2
True False Game (Jun '11) 1 hr Sublime1 14,792
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr T Bone 217,049
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 4 hr Boink face 4,053
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 4 hr Boink face 2,539
More from around the web