Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
102,161 - 102,180 of 114,785 Comments Last updated 21 min ago

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107837
Jan 4, 2014
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That per review is as valid as 85 Lumber's mill certified plywood. The mill said it was good.
Either way you missed it until i had to point it out to you. Even though it is referenced in the first sentence of the article. How stupid is that?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107838
Jan 4, 2014
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Either way you missed it until i had to point it out to you. Even though it is referenced in the first sentence of the article. How stupid is that?
It isn't stupid all that you would have to tell someone that a creationist publication is peer reviewed. It is a lie.

I didn't miss anything, I merely pointed out that lie. Rubber stamping pseudoscience is not peer review.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107839
Jan 4, 2014
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Getting nasty? LOL. On the defensive? Anti science liars? When all else fails throw mud! Sort of like the ole saying, a bigot is anyone losing an argument to a liberal, mentality. Have a nice day Dan.
No, not nasty, just realistic. I am not throwing mud. I am stating my opinion of some of the sorts that you find on this forum and stating my agreement with why that person doesn't follow this forum. Though, more likely, he is completely unaware of the existence of it.

I will point out though, that you distinctly referred to being here as slumming and all that it implies. Hypocrisy is a characteristic of fundies that is almost universal. It seems you must have known you were failed before you had even gotten very far. You whole post is defensive and typical.

You have a nice day as well.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107840
Jan 4, 2014
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Getting nasty? LOL. On the defensive? Anti science liars? When all else fails throw mud! Sort of like the ole saying, a bigot is anyone losing an argument to a liberal, mentality. Have a nice day Dan.
have you been called a bigot a lot? why?

give me those arguments you gave that caused that and see what i think...as a verified conservative i will give you the control group you need.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107841
Jan 5, 2014
 

Judged:

1

lightbeamrider wrote:
Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked
http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493...
Pity that the active gene he cites as evidence is a pseudogene.

Funny how he does not mention that.

Meaning that whatever it does appears to be useless. So if a "functional" though useless gene or gene fragment got caught in the middle of the fusion event, so what?

Pseudogenes, of course, are just another facet of the genome that Design advocates have a hard time explaining.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107842
Jan 5, 2014
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The overal point of the article cited being Darwin Evolution is about as useful in a practical sense as a fifth person on a double date.
<quoted text>
And that is clearly wrong.

Multi-drug therapy relies on the fact that resistance is a result of random mutation and that therefore, if the resistance to one drug is 1/x probability and to a second drug is 1/y probability, then the simultaneous resistance probability is 1/xy. However, if we administer x first and then y later, we are massively increasing the odds that the pathogen will develop resistance.

This is only true if the engine of change is random mutation, and the natural selection part speaks for itself. So what part exactly of this fundamental mechanism of change do you think is irrelevant?

So like I said, the discovery that some molds are poisonous to some bacteria does not rely on evolution, but the discovery that bacteria develop resistance and how best to combat that IS relevant and does rely on understanding how evolution works.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107843
Jan 5, 2014
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I highlighted the top few paragraphs and you say i mine quoted? What did you just do? Mine quoted a paragraph.
Quote mining is not a question of counting words, its a question of conveying the full conclusion and intent of the original author, rather than taking part of what he said and suggesting that his conclusion was something completely different.

You are free to partially quote and use that data to draw a different conclusion, so long as you make it clear that these are your conclusions and not the author's, and where relevant point out clearly that the author drew a different conclusion from your own.

You specifically ignored Tobias' statement to the contrary of the conclusions you drew from his earlier words.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107844
Jan 5, 2014
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Chimney, very interesting. I am unfamiliar with Morton. Thanks for posting this. I can understand why the fundies would be up in arms over this. The premise of your post fits with comments I just made to another poster.
Cheers. I hope you read the article. Morton has courage.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107845
Jan 5, 2014
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The immense point that all the advocates of Evolution keep annoying you with is that nobody is interested in arguments "by that premise". They've debated too many Creationists who use stupid tricks to hijack a debate and you're an example of one of them. We're all content to let you go round and round and round and round in your little bubble and be an example of pathetic, Creationist rationalization for the others who show up here.
Move on or keep on circling! It's all good!
Tell that to yourself. Evolution to date, is a garbage.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107846
Jan 5, 2014
 
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your logic that a language "belongs to" the peoples of the land where it originated. While I understand your premise, it does not hold that the modern peoples of those land hold any rights of ownership. Your logic fails. Again.
OK, do you agree that English originated in England? if yes, it belongs to them by origin. Ok?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107847
Jan 5, 2014
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think Replaytime is a religious extremist. I think he is a person who wants to cling to religious belief and is of the view that accepting the science would negate his religious views.
All trash. Nothing can evolve without a cause or maker. Evolution is a lie.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107848
Jan 5, 2014
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> OK, do you agree that English originated in England? if yes, it belongs to them by origin. Ok?
Can you find a link to ANYONE on the entire internet that agrees with your idea that a language "belongs" to the country of origination?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107850
Jan 5, 2014
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Cheers. I hope you read the article. Morton has courage.
I did read it and found interesting and enjoyable. I agree, a very courageous fellow.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107851
Jan 6, 2014
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> All trash. Nothing can evolve without a cause or maker. Evolution is a lie.
Things do evolve through causes, but the causes are not a conscious "Maker". The causes are random mutation and non-random natural selection. We have evidence of mutation and evidence of natural selection and evidence of what these causes did over vast periods of geological time, in the form of fossils and other evidence.

Perhaps this "Maker" you refer to just put in place the principles by which evolution occurred. That is what your Catholic Church thinks, and at least this view does not try to ignore the evidence for evolution like you do.

Or perhaps there is no "Maker" at all. You have not provided any evidence for one, even though you claim to know beyond all question that this "Maker" exists. Since I doubt very much that you have any evidence to offer, I would say its you who is lying and trying to pretend to a certainty you just don't have. Shout louder, but it wont help. You have no more clue than I do whether this Maker exists, the difference is, I am honest about it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107853
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

lightbeamrider wrote:
Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked
You're lying again.

God is watching you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107854
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The overal point of the article cited being Darwin Evolution is about as useful in a practical sense as a fifth person on a double date.
<quoted text>
Fifth person pays the cab.(shrug)

The overall point being is that you're clueless and couldn't give a crud about science in the first place, which is why you're searching for any old linkys you can use to quotemine or lie because you're incapable of discussing the subject yourself. That's why when we have ALREADY pointed out that evolution is quite obviously not as useless as you pretend you are unable to address our posts.

Ever.

You never wondered why you guys always lose?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107855
Jan 6, 2014
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Scroll down. It is peer reviewed.
We did.

It wasn't.

AIG don't do scientific peer-review, plus they openly admit their position is Godmagic.

That kinda debunks all their "science" claims.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107856
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

3

2

2

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We did.
It wasn't.
AIG don't do scientific peer-review, plus they openly admit their position is Godmagic.
That kinda debunks all their "science" claims.
Peer Review.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60...

Here is a link to another site where those in Science fields are debating the issue. To contribute there has to be civility and one has to join which involves signing up.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107859
Jan 6, 2014
 
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Peer Review.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60...
Here is a link to another site where those in Science fields are debating the issue. To contribute there has to be civility and one has to join which involves signing up.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php...
"Answers in Genesis is excited to announce the launch of its online technical journal called Answers Research Journal (ARJ). Hosted at www.answersresearchjournal.org (but linked to AiG’s website), this will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Addressing the need to disseminate the vast fields of research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science, Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins. The newly expanded research effort at Answers in Genesis, with the establishment of its Research Department, will facilitate this further venue for publication and dissemination of the results of creationist research."

More at http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/call-for-...

HIGHLY biased against any "research" that does not promote the Young Earth Creationism perspective, and they come right out and state it. Any papers that fail to support the Young Earth Creationism model will not be published.

So much for your "peer-review".
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107860
Jan 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Ah yes, "peer-reviewed" by several other fundamentalist Christians who can be counted on to toe the Christian Bible Creationism line.

Not exactly what the rest of the world means by "peer-reviewed, is it?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••