Evolution vs. Creation

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

Bronx, NY

#60838 Nov 25, 2012
Poop

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60839 Nov 25, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no big dichotomy between humans and apes, except among Creationists. It's the "made in God's image" crowd that doesn't accept its place in nature.
You've been given tons of evidence on genetics and the fossil record.
I suppose you can take MazHere's approach and find some arcane observation that most scientists don't even take the time to reject, then claim that all Evolution is a fraud based on it, but it's a lie.
I won't suggest that you may not know its a lie. Its a lie. There's too much consensus on the subject and I'm not going to waste my time becoming enough of an authority on the subject to dismiss your rants that are clearly filled with flaws.
The bottom line is that I'm not inviting obsessive/compulsives into my house, metaphorically speaking, so they can wreck it. The only approach when dealing with your type is to systematically isolate you from where you can harm others. If you don't want to be called a liar, stop lying. That's all there is to it.
For now, you're just a liar.
Learn about Scientific Method first. Then learn about Evolution. You may find, once you've sat down and learned how to get our attention, that you didn't need your stupid Creationist crutch to begin with.
No concrete evidence to date.
Just assertions, manipulations and projections.
The gaps.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60840 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Look are you capable of addressing Sanford work or are you just up for nit picking gobble today.
Shortening, large scale duplication, what do you suppose those are fancy words for?
DIFFERENCE! Like I said evolutionists have no idea what the same means at all. You invent these term that imply an evolutionary event when really you should be saying the comparison demonstrates huge differences that we evos can address with gobble.
I'll be honest, I'm not ready to address "Stanford work" because you've only provided a single link to a Creationist site. The only possibly viable argument that I see is the claim that the number of mutations overlaying the residual telomere sections of Chromosome 2 don't match the statistical amount that should exist after the event occurred. It seems that there is still overwhelming consensus that the event DID occur so at best, there's been some inaccuracy in prediction.

Don't bother linking to a Creationist site. I won't touch them. They're probably hacker sites to begin with. Above and beyond that, I'm not wasting my time on learning about genetics based on one crackpot claim that you WANT to believe, while it seems more obvious that what you really want to do is hurt people who believe the Theory of Evolution. Whatever else is going on in your screwed up mind is not my problem.

Present proper evidence. So far, you've just been throwing a bunch of dust in the air.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60841 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on you evos you have failed miserably. I just want to see how this forum does no this ch2 thing.
A common evo strategy is to get lost in one liners and asides.
You lot cannot defend any topic I have canvassed so far.
That does not mean TOE is not true. It does mean thatyou do not have substantive and credible evidence for it.
How about one of you bright sparks use your own algorithmic magic to overturn the above algorithmic magic.
I actually don't like any of it but there is only so much we can observe so I guess this type of magic is kind of required for the sake of knowledge of some sort.
No more asides and evo pollywoffling......
Do please demonstrate why your magic that suggests a fusion did occur is more valid than the above research that suggets it did not happen.
As already stated, algorithms are just systematic decision making processes. They help process large quantities of information which is how we find evidence that is scattered throughout the genetic code. The important thing is to use algorithms based on well thought out reason, a quality of which you show NONE!

Credibility is something you must earn.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60842 Nov 25, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No concrete evidence to date.
Just assertions, manipulations and projections.
The gaps.
Gaps.... to date!

Charles, concrete evidence wouldn't phase you if it were in the form of a brick wall that just landed on you. Stop lying.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60843 Nov 25, 2012
Looking for Answers wrote:
Not looking to pick a fight with any creationist or evolutionist out there but looking for answers.
There is a swell of information on basing scientific literature(evidence based medicine for medical literature) and grading the level of evidence to support claims from weak to strong.
Any out there has information on grading evolutionary evidence that can show me where i can find such an article?
Well, I don't think there's system in place for ranking research. That would be a bit subjective. Most of us here don't require formal peer-reviewed scientific papers. We know our level of expertise.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60844 Nov 25, 2012
spidersandsnakes wrote:
<quoted text>
Their is proof, The romans spoke of Jesus as a teacher and healer.
Evolution is misleading, because evolution is possible but only on a small scale. Macro evolution is not possible.
Evolution should be called adapting.Animals only adapt they never change into a completely different species.
this is not pokemon.
I have a trantula, I've had her for a year. she knows when I open her tank, its either feeding or that want to pick her.
Did she change into another insects,No she is still a spider.
There is no first-hand record of Jesus' existence.

Evolution is not misleading. It does not just happen on a small scale.

Animals do evolve into new species. The defining of species may be considered subjective but once one variant can no longer interbreed with another variant of a parent species, they are considered separate species.

A tarantula is an arachnid, not an insect.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60845 Nov 25, 2012
Looking for Answers wrote:
Not looking to pick a fight with any creationist or evolutionist out there but looking for answers.
There is a swell of information on basing scientific literature(evidence based medicine for medical literature) and grading the level of evidence to support claims from weak to strong.
Any out there has information on grading evolutionary evidence that can show me where i can find such an article?
I guess it should be noted that there is a system in place among the science community, but it's simply about reputation. Most scientific publications are not freely available over the Internet. That eliminates the quarrelsome claims of discrimination from non-professionals. The science community generally does not think itself to be influenced by class warfare.

You can find some open sources of literature, but in all honesty, I prefer to use sources like Wikipedia and if I need more precise information, start with their sources. A large part of research literature is about source material.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60847 Nov 25, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Really?
But not in all cases.
No, but you're the one who's invoking statistics, and banking on religiosity among the young is a bad bet.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#60848 Nov 25, 2012
In other words, you're backpedaling from your claim that Germans can "understand" Old English. Yeah, we get that. You lost the debate.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No. You are the loser. Check the work of Cyril Babaev, in his book titled, Old English Grammar.
Provide a relevant quote. If not, you still lose.
Anonymous

UK

#60849 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Arguing With Idiots I'd like to add this.
The most convincing demonstration that man is not related to the other apes is out chromosome count.
This fusion myth is very important to evos because without it they are going up the creek without a paddle.
The good news is that regardless of whether not human ch2 is really a Robertsons translocation is not what is imoportant. What is important is that creos have evidence that support this fusion not being the result of the fusion of 2 other ape genes. Maybe it had something to do with the fall.
So not only are humans furrless obligate bipeds that can make meaning of the world we also have a different chromosome count to our purported closest relative, effectively falsifying evolutionary theory.
There are many falsifications of TOE that we know of. Evos redefine a falsification as "heading toward the light". Obviously the light is off at present. Oh well, it makes them feel better, I guess.
However the falsification of this fusion from ape genes is truely fantastic for creos. It does not matter if evotards do not accept the data. Who would expect them to? Well done to the researchers for their work.
If you don't believe that humans evolved from apes, then where do you think we came from, the earth is four billion years old, but thete are no bones of ancient humans, so we are a relatively new species, do you think that we just suddenly sprouted out of the ground from nothing, what is your alternative

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60850 Nov 25, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Gaps.... to date!
Charles, concrete evidence wouldn't phase you if it were in the form of a brick wall that just landed on you. Stop lying.
More lies. Send them him.
Next?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60851 Nov 25, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't believe that humans evolved from apes, then where do you think we came from, the earth is four billion years old, but thete are no bones of ancient humans, so we are a relatively new species, do you think that we just suddenly sprouted out of the ground from nothing, what is your alternative
You'll just get her started again with her belligerence and irrelevant links. She probably will claim that our origin is not relevant. She just wants to put those "evos" in their place.

Others have labelled this a "Gish Gallup" which I've just found a definition of.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

It fits.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#60852 Nov 25, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> More lies. Send them him.
Next?
I think your situation is better defined as "Fractal Wrongness".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongnes...

......You asked!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60853 Nov 25, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but you're the one who's invoking statistics, and banking on religiosity among the young is a bad bet.
Do you disagree with Einstein's view which says, " Science without Religion is lame" ?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60854 Nov 25, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
In other words, you're backpedaling from your claim that Germans can "understand" Old English. Yeah, we get that. You lost the debate.
<quoted text>
Provide a relevant quote. If not, you still lose.
Liar and loser. I gave you an authority in that field by name, Cyril Babaev, you refuse going through.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#60855 Nov 25, 2012
In other words, you're backpedaling from your claim that Germans can "understand" Old English. Yeah, we get that. You lost the debate.

Provide a relevant quote. If not, you still lose.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Liar and loser. I gave you an authority...
What part of "provide a quote" do you not understand? It's written in English. Do you not understand English?

Until you provide an actual *quote* that supports your position, your handwaving at some "authority" is meaningless.(In fact, when you can't provide a quote, it tells us that you haven't even read the material you're citing as an authority.)

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60856 Nov 25, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your situation is better defined as "Fractal Wrongness".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongnes...
......You asked!
Grow up and stop being naive.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#60857 Nov 25, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Lastly, if according to researches, history and sources( the internet), modern English is a language evolving or developing from many European languages, but the language came as a single language, to became one unique language, which is unique to England( the English people).
The German's created the English language and the English stole it.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60858 Nov 25, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
In other words, you're backpedaling from your claim that Germans can "understand" Old English. Yeah, we get that. You lost the debate.
<quoted text>
Provide a relevant quote. If not, you still lose.
The truth, you are just too ashamed and afraid to go to the works of Cyril Babaev. Every answers to your questions are there.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Not going to change': Indiana gov defends reli... 2 min woodtick57 14
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,206,784
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min freebird 320,772
News Indiana governor supports clarifying religious ... 3 min Cordwainer Trout 26
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 min litesong 52,319
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Jacques in Orleans 185,885
News Pence's struggles illustrate gay rights challen... 7 min radiofreeamerica 1
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 11 min Sunshine 175,808
News Cheney: Obama Is 'Worst President in My Lifetime' 1 hr woodtick57 463
News Ted Cruz Announces White House Bid 2 hr Lawrence Wolf 368
More from around the web