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
61,101 - 61,120 of 114,747 Comments Last updated 24 min ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65268
Dec 14, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters. Each one busts and invalidates "ape to human evolution."
Unfortunately we busted each one of those summaries.

So uh...

(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65269
Dec 14, 2012
 
ItsObvious wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry man I'm new here lol by the way just pitching ideas of possibilities, however improbable they are
Well if you're into ancient alien theories with no evidence, Cybele's your gal!

:-)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65270
Dec 14, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just the fact of reality.
We learned language after everything else developed. You don't expect babies to talk right after birth. But that doesn't mean reality doesn't exist. We interpret things through language. Math is a universal language.
But it does not *create* reality.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65271
Dec 14, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just the fact of reality.
We learned language after everything else developed. You don't expect babies to talk right after birth. But that doesn't mean reality doesn't exist. We interpret things through language. Math is a universal language.
Right, a language. And as such, languages are arbitrary. They are not physical (other than existing as brain states within our craniums). They CAN be used to describe real phenomena. Or they can be used to describe Star Wars.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65272
Dec 14, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<<Ahem>>
Disclaimer
"All material published on Avant News, with the possible exception of information provided by external sites, is fictitious, satirical, and intended for entertainment purposes only. While many of the individuals and entities appearing in articles on Avant News are real, all events, quotations and anything else having to do with those individuals and entities are entirely fictitious. As far as we know."
http://www.avantnews.com/news/content/about-a...
OOPS!

{snicker}
ItsObvious

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65273
Dec 14, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<<Ahem>>
Disclaimer
"All material published on Avant News, with the possible exception of information provided by external sites, is fictitious, satirical, and intended for entertainment purposes only. While many of the individuals and entities appearing in articles on Avant News are real, all events, quotations and anything else having to do with those individuals and entities are entirely fictitious. As far as we know."
http://www.avantnews.com/news/content/about-a...
Man that sucks I was actually so hyped to meet talking chimps in my lifetime... Back to ancient alien theories for me!!! I gotta start reading disclaimers

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65274
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Logistics suggests that space-aliens is unlikely. That's not to say aliens, even advanced civilisations don't exist. It's just the sheer scale of the universe makes it problematic to be able to contact each other.
So I guess those people in UK are engaged in crop circle conspiracies too? LOL!
ItsObvious

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65275
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Logistics suggests that space-aliens is unlikely. That's not to say aliens, even advanced civilisations don't exist. It's just the sheer scale of the universe makes it problematic to be able to contact each other.
"Problematic" to quote the great Lloyd Christmas "so your saying there's a chance!" ;) lol haha
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65276
Dec 14, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<<Ahem>>
Disclaimer
"All material published on Avant News, with the possible exception of information provided by external sites, is fictitious, satirical, and intended for entertainment purposes only. While many of the individuals and entities appearing in articles on Avant News are real, all events, quotations and anything else having to do with those individuals and entities are entirely fictitious. As far as we know."
http://www.avantnews.com/news/content/about-a...
Ah, so it's another onion. Have to admit I just assumed it was just another popular "news" sight that would have a habit of exaggerating claims or making awful scientific errors.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65277
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL



BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN



Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.



One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.



During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome. For example:



In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)



The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."



Nonetheless, they found that:



•The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.


•The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.


Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.



Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:



http://darwinconspiracy.com/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65278
Dec 14, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I understand that, it is clear that you didn't.
The evolution of an ERV does not stop simply because it is an ERV. By picking the most common base they got around the problem of evolution since each lineage of ERV's would have evolved independently of the others. It was not fraudulent in any way.
One more time Maz, how is that fraudulent in any way at all? They knew that the ERV would have evolved. They took steps to correct for that evolution. Are you truly this dense that you cannot look at this from an evolutionary paradigm? ERV's do not make sense from a creationist paradigm at all, perhaps that is your problem. ERV's fit the evolutionary paradigm, they do not fit the creationist one.
Oh, but EVERYTHING fits a creationist one!

Just add magic.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65279
Dec 14, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I understand that, it is clear that you didn't.
The evolution of an ERV does not stop simply because it is an ERV. By picking the most common base they got around the problem of evolution since each lineage of ERV's would have evolved independently of the others. It was not fraudulent in any way.
One more time Maz, how is that fraudulent in any way at all? They knew that the ERV would have evolved. They took steps to correct for that evolution. Are you truly this dense that you cannot look at this from an evolutionary paradigm? ERV's do not make sense from a creationist paradigm at all, perhaps that is your problem. ERV's fit the evolutionary paradigm, they do not fit the creationist one.
what the hell is ERV? Earth Re-Visited? LMAO!

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65280
Dec 14, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
I see you have zilch to say about your 'old' and 'new/recent' ervs.
Yes, I have more than once. Old ERV's would have more mutations than a new one. Species close to us would have very similar ERV's to us. In that I mean that any one specific ERV at that shared the same site in each species would be similar to each other, where a species that we had a more distant relation to would have a greatly changed ERV. I don't think anyone has done the research of comparing actual ERV's from species to species yet, I cannot find an example of it at any rate. It IS predicted by the TOE. What they did to resurrect Phoenix fit the idea that even a new ERV would have evolved and corrections would have to be made for that evolution.
Poor Maz, forever without a clue and all she can do is to flap her waffle.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65281
Dec 14, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, a language. And as such, languages are arbitrary. They are not physical (other than existing as brain states within our craniums). They CAN be used to describe real phenomena. Or they can be used to describe Star Wars.
What's wrong with Star Wars? I thought we all once looked like Chewbacas in a distant past?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65282
Dec 14, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
what the hell is ERV? Earth Re-Visited? LMAO!
Seriously??? Endogenous retroviruses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retro...

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65283
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
No, they used this as reasoning that your "control clusters" or whatever the heck you wanna call them just so happen to act EXACTLY like retroviruses when the same proteins were put together artificially, thus supporting the hypothesis that ERV markers ARE in fact ERV markers.
Evidence please.'ARTIFICIALLY' is the operative word here. IOW they put together according to their speculation and use that as evidence. It is actually gibberish based on maths that cannot possibly take the entire complexity of the genome into account.
It is the fact of it all being gibberish that leads to the ever changing evo flavours of the month.
Well fatality IS possible, which is what makes these things rare. But consider those who contract AIDS. Do they die straight away before they have time to have kids?
That is not an appropriate reply. Mutations across the germ line are majorly deleterious. You evos now rely on some computer model to speculate that an entire viral sequence crossed the germ line and fixed over time, got scrambled further by mutation and then is supposed to look like some retrovirus that is extinct and unknown. That is the basis of your pseudo science. It is not rare if evos are also trying to suggest it happended 200,000 times, or is that also a misrepresentation?

“happy to be horny”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65284
Dec 14, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care what kind of English you want to read. If you prefer the scientific, that's your choice. But I guess you flunked out of American Lit because you took it literally?
I'm quite aware of what a metaphor is, of course many of the books I read have metaphors in them, but none of those books, no matter how much I like them, no matter how much I'd like others to read them warrants me starting a cult around them and foisting it upon others as christians and others have done, as the dude pointed out you seem to feel atheism must be at the heart of evolution and that is just not so,I was simply pointing out to someone like Knightmare who takes the bible literally that he can't have his cake and eat it too when it comes to debunking science (that was a metaphor btw)if it's academic ability that you're so concerned about then please learn to differentiate between facts and fiction, many of the links you post are.....I'll be nice here......dubious at best...

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65285
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude said
How is it "more likely" when Adam and Eve weren't even around when much of the genetics you're talking about didn't even exist back then? Especially when an Adam and Eve scenario not only destroys humanity before it gets started but also REQUIRES EVOLUTION TO OCCUR?
Oh wait - forgot you were a hypocrite by invoking GODMAGIC.
But thanks for admitting you have no evidence.
<quoted text>
TEH FALL?!? Jolly good!
Then you admit that creationism CAN'T predict "100% function" because we have (allegedly) been LOSING genetic information due to TEH FALL (which has no mechanisms or evidence yet by the way), and hence creationism can't make valid predictions on functionality either way. That's why evolution is still predicting protein function with an accuracy of 96% and creationism has an accuracy of 0%.
And that's why evolution is SUCCESSFULLY predicting that ERV markers put together artificially would end up with a retrovirus. Thank you for pointing that out.
<quoted text>
Uh, so you're saying that they AREN'T 100% functional? Haven't you been saying that creationism predicts ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FUNCTION???
HELLOOOOOOOOOO??!!?!???
Or are you saying that some DNA is...
... wait for it...
.
...
.
... JUNK?!?
.
We accept your resignation and admission of defeat.
The rest of your post is gibberish and you are an ignorant evo.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

The point being that evos are having their initial claims, 98% junk, falsified whilst creos are having their claims, 100% functional, validiated in time as any predcition that has any merit should.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65286
Dec 14, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
But it does not *create* reality.
Language is the interpretation of reality. If you think something can exist without math, please explain. Almost all sciences rely on math.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Tenerife

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65287
Dec 14, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
We have just provided you with a summary of four Darwin Busters. Each one busts and invalidates "ape to human evolution."
But of course almost all atheist scientists refuse to admit any of them because they worship Darwin And almost all scientists are atheists because people of faith no longer seek careers in science.
Also, you probably have not even read any news about any of this because there is a very powerful worldwide atheist Darwin Conspiracy that actively suppresses the truth about evolution and instead spreads lies.
This is why we created this website. We are here to combat the Darwin Conspiracy and bring you the scientific information you need to make your own judgment about "ape to human evolution" theory.
To help you to begin to understand the truth about "ape to human evolution" theory, we prepared the following short summary of the theory, and we provide you with some details about the first Darwin Buster we listed above. In the future, about every five weeks, we will add details about the other three Darwin Busters.
SUMMARY OF "APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION" THEORY
Darwinians have asserted that humans evolved from the African ape, and they have proposed the following theory as to how "ape to human evolution" is supposed to have occurred:
Ape to Human Evolution Theory In a Nutshell
Darwinians tell us that the biological differences between humans and apes can be entirely accounted for in the differences in their genes (DNA).
They have claimed for decades that the "genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical."
They insist that apes evolved into humans because of gradual changes to their genome. The biological instrument for "ape to human evolution" is changes in the genome, especially the genes.
Darwinians further theorize that each such change in the apes' genes was minor but over the course of over six million years, the accumulation of such small changes in the genes of apes resulted in "ape to human evolution."
Darwin's supporters boast that there are "genes that make us human" and that soon they will find and identify all such genes.
In summary - Darwinians claim the ape genome evolved into the human genome through changes in apes' genes and very few changes were necessary because the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.
But since 2001, scientific researchers in genetics and embryology have discovered proof that virtually every detail of "ape to human evolution" is contradicted by scientific facts.
Below are some of the recent discoveries that prove "ape to human evolution" is impossible.
http://darwinconspiracy.com/
Gee, in spite of all that....we now know that it DID happen. You creationists just need to stop. You are ALWAYS wrong.

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.

•••