Evolution vs. Creation

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

Wallasey, UK

#117515 Jul 10, 2014
continued (again)
messianic114 wrote:
While one mutation (which I don't think will happen) is forming a new system another one of the many genes needed to make the system work could be mutating to a detrimental position and the chances of getting them all to line up is statistically what?
Of course you're again arguing against a caricature of evolution where all functions must be in place simultaneously, while not taking things into account such as genetic scaffolding, or the fact that biological development during an individual's lifetime doesn't require this. Remember what you think does not matter.
messianic114 wrote:
Then tell me why orthology of human and chimp genomes are consistent with mutation rates, genetic drift and nested hierarchies, just as evolution predicted.
Done. Tell me why you didn't bother to look at it the first two times.

Sorry, three.
messianic114 wrote:
I would like to see the numbers predicted on mutation rates and what evolution predicted specifically
No you wouldn't. Every time evidence is requested then given you ignore it, only to repeat fallacious arguments based on your misunderstandings of the concept. Ultimately you will not be satisfied even if you were provided with a step by step, organism by organism, mutation by mutation account of the entire history of life on Earth for the whole 3.5 billion years. Therefore we do not have to adhere to your absurd demands, until you first start demonstrating an understanding of evolutionary biology without creationist caricatures, and then provide us with the function of each and every base in the human genome along with evidence that it performs such. And while you're at it, do the same for nylonase and Podarcus sicula, that way you will help backed up your assertion that the genomes switched on new functions just right for unforseable events which may never have even occurred. This is not an unreasonable request since we would still have more work to do than you would.
messianic114 wrote:
otherwise they could be shooting an arrow into the woods and then painting the bulleye around the arrow.
No, that's your job. Note again that you still have yet to provide your alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#117516 Jul 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The land of migrant, I donít know, Charies tells us that itís somewhere in northern Europe. But EU rules (much hated by bigots in the EU) allows all members to migrate between EU countries so perhaps the entire EU has become the land of migrant.
Nope Iím not starving, just had second breakfast of coffee and an alpen cereal bar. Elevenses at 10:00, such a wonderful institution, first breakfast at 6:30 and lunch at 12:30 and then starve until dinner time at 18:00
So Northern to migrate where would that place be in the US?

Is it in view from the up stairs really like a an anthill and people scatter every day...

Hard to keep track of them especially when they come inside we snuff them...

Maybe that is an attitude love thy visiting bugs what to ants really like to fest on?

In Europa with in to travel was always alright driving through the east never was a problem...

Where are you locked up at? Where do they have you ponder on life? Or is your mommy feeding you at special times maybe you are speaking for someone I know...

SOunds to me like you are a SENIOR?:)

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#117517 Jul 10, 2014
Are you Spanish? LOL

A world at Large so what would the % be of Americans never having ventured outside let alone outside of a box...

Mind set on possessions and the power to hold on to everything and more...

Yikes really old people can be freaking mean outright ugly...
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117518 Jul 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Previously addressed. Stop lying and repeating arguments based on your ignorance when we've ALREADY addressed them.
<quoted text>
First of all, "kind" is bullshite. It's a meaningless and far too generic term. What we DO see is new species.
Of course I already showed it to you.(shrug)
<quoted text>
And what we see in the Cambrian explosion is hard bodied organisms, AFTER we had soft-bodied organisms in the pre-Cambrian. Sure sounds like evolution to me.
<quoted text>
And you would say none because you're a liar. I've already provided you with a whole bunch just for the hominid line. There's plenty more if you're interested - all predicted by evolution, and fall in line with nested hierarchies as expected.
But that's the key, isn't it? You're not interested in the evidence so you claim it doesn't exist. Simple fact of the matter is you're wrong.
And you're wrong because you're a liar. Feel free to actually address our previous posts which provided you with evidence you STILL haven't refuted. Until then your objections are worth diddly.(shrug)
.
<quoted text>
Previously addressed. Stop lying and repeating arguments based on your ignorance when we've ALREADY addressed them.
.
Firstly I don't see any rules stopping me from asking a question previously answered.
Secondly if there is to be no discussion, what are you doing here?
.
<quoted text>
And what we see in the Cambrian explosion is hard bodied organisms, AFTER we had soft-bodied organisms in the pre-Cambrian. Sure sounds like evolution to me.
.
Even if one were to agree on the fossil evidence that one layer is considerably older than another, we still have the problem of soft bodied organisms evolving into thousands if not millions of other kinds in a relatively short time span geologically speaking. This also does not match the expected results of the evolutionary paradigm.
.
<quoted text>
And you would say none because you're a liar. I've already provided you with a whole bunch just for the hominid line.
.
What you did was make an assertion providing no evidence that this is a chain.
Next you will be citing Haeckelís drawings as proof of evolution.
.
One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#117519 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
First you have to define "kind". What tests would you do to tell if two different groups were of the same "kind" or not? Creationist definitions of "kind" tend to fail. They do not have a working definition. If you can't make a working definition of kind it becomes a nonsense term and is of no value in a debate.
.
I agree and this is the most intelligent thing someone has replied to me yet.
.
So if we can agree on what constitutes a kind, then we can move forward. I will let you have the first crack at defining when a chance has occurred making it a new kind.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#117520 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Previously addressed. Stop lying and repeating arguments based on your ignorance when we've ALREADY addressed them.
.
Firstly I don't see any rules stopping me from asking a question previously answered.
Secondly if there is to be no discussion, what are you doing here?
.
<quoted text>
And what we see in the Cambrian explosion is hard bodied organisms, AFTER we had soft-bodied organisms in the pre-Cambrian. Sure sounds like evolution to me.
.
Even if one were to agree on the fossil evidence that one layer is considerably older than another, we still have the problem of soft bodied organisms evolving into thousands if not millions of other kinds in a relatively short time span geologically speaking. This also does not match the expected results of the evolutionary paradigm.
.
<quoted text>
And you would say none because you're a liar. I've already provided you with a whole bunch just for the hominid line.
.
What you did was make an assertion providing no evidence that this is a chain.
Next you will be citing Haeckelís drawings as proof of evolution.
.
One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change.
"One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change."

That sounds real good, except the fact that we know every animal is slightly genetically different, and over time this means change is inevitable.
As matter of fact it is a criteria in the definition of life, the ability to adapt, simply meaning life evolves, and no amount of horse puckey such as your above statement will change the fact life evolves, has evolved and will evolve. So you see no intelligent design is necessary .
One major falsification of ID is that if it were true, animals would not go extinct, and bloodlines would not perish. Unless you have a bigoted designer and equality is not a prerequisite to it's nature. So Heil Hitler to your intelligent designer Mr. messianic114.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117521 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I agree and this is the most intelligent thing someone has replied to me yet.
.
So if we can agree on what constitutes a kind, then we can move forward. I will let you have the first crack at defining when a chance has occurred making it a new kind.
You won't like my definition of "kind". My definition supports the theory of evolution. But my definition works. You are the one that wants to use "kind" while trying to refute evolution. It is up to you to define it in a self consistent manner.

It is always the person that makes the positive statement that must provide evidence for that belief. For example I can say that I do not believe in your God. That is a statement on my part that is relatively easy to support. Please note, I did not say "Your God does not exist". Now if you want to claim your God exists it is up to you to provide evidence for that God.

So do you want my definition of kind? A slight spoiler, in my definition of kind there is no change of kind in evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117522 Jul 10, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
"One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change."
That sounds real good, except the fact that we know every animal is slightly genetically different, and over time this means change is inevitable.
As matter of fact it is a criteria in the definition of life, the ability to adapt, simply meaning life evolves, and no amount of horse puckey such as your above statement will change the fact life evolves, has evolved and will evolve. So you see no intelligent design is necessary .
One major falsification of ID is that if it were true, animals would not go extinct, and bloodlines would not perish. Unless you have a bigoted designer and equality is not a prerequisite to it's nature. So Heil Hitler to your intelligent designer Mr. messianic114.
Not to forget that the analogy fails terribly because cars do not reproduce.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117523 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Firstly I don't see any rules stopping me from asking a question previously answered.[QUOTE]

Hey, no worries. I have no problem at all with you making yourself look daft or dishonest. Or both.

[QUOTE who="messianic114"]S econdly if there is to be no discussion, what are you doing here?
What an ironic question considering it is you who avoids whatever you find to be theologically inconvenient.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
Even if one were to agree on the fossil evidence that one layer is considerably older than another, we still have the problem of soft bodied organisms evolving into thousands if not millions of other kinds in a relatively short time span geologically speaking. This also does not match the expected results of the evolutionary paradigm.
You have already demonstrated that you have no idea what is to be expected of evolution. First of all the development of hard shells helps with survival. Survival helps with propagation. Propagation helps diversity. Diversity leads to evolution. Second of all, fossilisation, already a rare process, is even more so when applied to soft-bodied organisms. Hence we see an apparent "explosion" when we see the appearance of hard-bodied lifeforms.
messianic114 wrote:
What you did was make an assertion providing no evidence that this is a chain.
Wrong. The fossil record indicates common ancestry between humans and chimps approximately 7 million years ago. So just point out which of those fossils I gave you DON'T match nested hierarchies. Or just point to ONE genome that also doesn't fit with nested hierarchies. Just point to ONE of those fossils which doesn't match comparative anatomy. Then do the calculations on the mutation rates yourself and tell us that they don't line up to roughly 6 to 8 million years ago.
messianic114 wrote:
Next you will be citing Haeckelís drawings as proof of evolution.
And next you will be asking "Why are there still monkeys???"
.
messianic114 wrote:
One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change.
However cars do not self-replicate like life-forms do. Plus we have evidence of their "intelligent design". The only evidence of intelligent design on Earth are of lifeforms native to that planet. Zero evidence of anything else. You're also ignoring the fact of evolutionary progression observed in the fossil record, something else which I explained to you in the linky. This is WHY Darwin got famous - for making SUCCESSFUL predictions. He didn't get famous for coming up with a tentative hypothesis which he found to be utterly wrong the next day. Of course Darwin's original theory has since evolved into what is now known as the modern evolutionary synthesis, and is currently understood to be the cornerstone of modern biology. So far no-one on the entire PLANET has been able to falsify it yet.

Note again that the more you continue posting, the more and more points you leave unaddressed. Of course you could make up for that by providing your own alternative explanation that passes the scientific method and does a better job of explaining the evidence. So far this has not been forthcoming.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117524 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I agree and this is the most intelligent thing someone has replied to me yet.
.
So if we can agree on what constitutes a kind, then we can move forward. I will let you have the first crack at defining when a chance has occurred making it a new kind.
Of course. Fundies love to try to get everyone else to do their own homework.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#117525 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You won't like my definition of "kind". My definition supports the theory of evolution. But my definition works. You are the one that wants to use "kind" while trying to refute evolution. It is up to you to define it in a self consistent manner.
It is always the person that makes the positive statement that must provide evidence for that belief. For example I can say that I do not believe in your God. That is a statement on my part that is relatively easy to support. Please note, I did not say "Your God does not exist". Now if you want to claim your God exists it is up to you to provide evidence for that God.
So do you want my definition of kind? A slight spoiler, in my definition of kind there is no change of kind in evolution.
Indeed. We are all still carbon-based lifeforms.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#117526 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I agree and this is the most intelligent thing someone has replied to me yet.
.
So if we can agree on what constitutes a kind, then we can move forward. I will let you have the first crack at defining when a chance has occurred making it a new kind.

That's exactly the problem defining a biblical "kind".
There are at least two distinct kinds.
The created kinds, and the clean/unclean kinds.
But there is also where "kind" maybe defined as Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Fam ily/Tribe/Subtribe/Genius or species/clade.

So biblically "kind" is a very loose term.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#117527 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to forget that the analogy fails terribly because cars do not reproduce.

Exactly, though auto-erotic sex may exist auto sex is hard to contemplate outside the living.
Even transformers haven't made a sex scene yet. Prolly best that Optimus Prime hasn't tried boinging Firestar yet. lol

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#117528 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Previously addressed. Stop lying and repeating arguments based on your ignorance when we've ALREADY addressed them.
.
Firstly I don't see any rules stopping me from asking a question previously answered.
Secondly if there is to be no discussion, what are you doing here?
.
<quoted text>
And what we see in the Cambrian explosion is hard bodied organisms, AFTER we had soft-bodied organisms in the pre-Cambrian. Sure sounds like evolution to me.
.
Even if one were to agree on the fossil evidence that one layer is considerably older than another, we still have the problem of soft bodied organisms evolving into thousands if not millions of other kinds in a relatively short time span geologically speaking. This also does not match the expected results of the evolutionary paradigm.
.
<quoted text>
And you would say none because you're a liar. I've already provided you with a whole bunch just for the hominid line.
.
What you did was make an assertion providing no evidence that this is a chain.
Next you will be citing Haeckelís drawings as proof of evolution.
.
One could as easily provide a list of cars over the years and claim that these cars evolved, when we know it was intelligent design that brought about the change.
Oh like the remote for a tele yeah real intelligence there ....

Cars that drive themselves really????

Who the freak would set foot in a vehicle like that?

Don't ask some things really should be left un-answered...

Forget I mentioned it...

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#117529 Jul 10, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly the problem defining a biblical "kind".
There are at least two distinct kinds.
The created kinds, and the clean/unclean kinds.
But there is also where "kind" maybe defined as Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Fam ily/Tribe/Subtribe/Genius or species/clade.
So biblically "kind" is a very loose term.
A kindred Spirit to date in America prolly homeless un adjusted and prolly never going to be all that intergarted as some would hope it or think it ought to ...

Filth to a member dear GAY boy or lesbian girl or homeless poor person...

Don't worry it's not right who you are but we do care and but not really well Jesus he still loves you though...

He would prolly hammer that people's head to pieces if he could talking like that to someone as a Christian too...

SHAME??????????

Anyway subjects ...

What a freak of a JOKE??

Lust and LUST also two different things...

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#117530 Jul 10, 2014
How long has it been for some since they have been walking side by side with *A* savior?

One to the first of was it in an accident? Most likely so...

Did mother hold your head under the water too long?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117531 Jul 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. Fundies love to try to get everyone else to do their own homework.
I have a feeling that if they could do their own homework that they would not be creationists. Now granted there are a very few that believe that nonsense in spite of themselves, but it is a very very small number. Look at how few biologists or geologists are creationists. It is well below 1% of the population.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117532 Jul 10, 2014
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
A kindred Spirit to date in America prolly homeless un adjusted and prolly never going to be all that intergarted as some would hope it or think it ought to ...
Filth to a member dear GAY boy or lesbian girl or homeless poor person...
Don't worry it's not right who you are but we do care and but not really well Jesus he still loves you though...
He would prolly hammer that people's head to pieces if he could talking like that to someone as a Christian too...
SHAME??????????
Anyway subjects ...
What a freak of a JOKE??
Lust and LUST also two different things...
Wait a second. We now know that people do not choose to be gay or lesbian. They are born that way. So even though your god "made" them gay and lesbian it is not right for them to act upon their natural urges.

It seems that you believe in a very evil god.

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#117533 Jul 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. We are all still carbon-based lifeforms.
Let's hope the Ozone was just a test...

Oh did you guys know that ODEN really is Italian?

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#117534 Jul 10, 2014
Can you please explain what a real creationist is?

Oh and then also for the young Earth creationist and the Older generation how does it all differ...

To date they are all in the same bracket yippy for that now ain't that special...So moderate equally so?

Dams a one like well how some are they just do not get a break do they?

Thought of something you didn't think of...to thought all of a life...Tragedy and tragic measure and how important is destruction to construct? I have seen some pretty outrageous work done here, I mean as far as anything goes to occupy or occupation? Does it take too much of the all knowing to the field to take some time and then in time more shit talk more than there is work there is none more than not really but..

How about creationists of America for a while become a supplier to all the people to all the needs not just a feeding a hunger that really can't exist for if you had dinner last night you can't really be starving...Take from them take and sure to give back...and that for a plate of fuel that was a donation a write of I am sure ..

At least that is how it is here..

Still something to learn here a system to our Solar power use a sun...how it and dams the moon and Pluto already vanished no just shifted a bit..

Uuh and the bright light to sun was there not something middle middle something in the middle?

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) 5 min Laura french 147,740
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 27 min Trouser Cough 29,550
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 30 min Trouser Cough 40,330
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 31 min Trouser Cough 54,695
A six word game (Dec '08) 33 min Trouser Cough 17,626
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 48 min Heres lookin at y... 6,419
What ?? are you thinking about NOW? 2014 1 hr Michael 458
Missing posters.. (Jan '14) 1 hr SLY WEST 33
Ebola in America 2 hr Just TLC 38
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 hr ---Word Woman--- 21,395

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE