Evolution vs. Creation

There are 162190 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65362 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen one here who's a theist evolutionist.
Katydid. She's a biologist too. Tends not to get involved in the threads too much as she finds the petty bickering to be well, petty bickering. She's also had her fill of dishonest creationist BS. Dogen's another. Well more of a deist really.
Cybele wrote:
Even if I didn't follow Christian beliefs, I won't be too adamant to say that God does not exist as what most hostile evos here do.
I've never said that. There are also a few agnostic evo's around. It's just we can tell the difference between philosophical speculation and scientific evidence, hence you will probably tend to mistake them to be the typical stereotype "atheist evolutionists".

There is always Skippy the 'Skeptic', our resident fundamentalist atheist. He's daft. And I slaughter him too.

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#65363 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then in that case you should have no problem in forming a rebuttal.
<quoted text>
Except we made the successful prediction that mimicking the protein makeup of an ERV marker would result in a retrovirus. You didn't. You still can't even tell us what an ERV IS.
Also if you WERE correct about us merely disagreeing over different philosophies then you coming here to argue is UTTERLY pointless. As the best you could reach would be a stalemate. You may as well go home.
<quoted text>
You just keep telling yourself that.
<quoted text>
Except that you misrepresented the evidence. Again. Here, lemme give you a clue:
"Had you entered any village on Earth in around 3,000 B.C., the first person you would have met would probably be your ancestor," Hein marveled.
In other words there were still large populations and the genetics does NOT support going back to two people and two people only with no other contemporaries at all, period.
Otherwise we would not be here.
Cue JEWMAGIC.
Listen Dude will you please stop quacking.

I have presented peer reviewed research that suggests the MRHCA is 5-7k ya. That is it. So Sush!. Anything more than that is speculation. That was in response to some goose going on about support for creation. I don't really care because I already know nothing I can present in support of creation could possibly be worse than the falsifications and instability you have to offer.

All the gobble you have just ranted about is just that, gobble. The fact that I can take your own gobble and smack you with it is just a plus.

The fact that your great fantastic gobble about ervs is based on concocted hierarchies of extinct retrovirus you have not observed is also a very convenient plus.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65364 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen buddy, will you get over yourself? If I took off an ivented my own anything to show how that supports creation, I would never hear the end of it, and neither will you.
Phoenix is a fraud. It is a computer reconstructed demonstration.
You are just goosing off. These evos have exchanged HOX genes between species. Is that a new form of life? Silly!
Phoenix is made up according to how they think it should be and what they presume it should look like.
You cannot refute that. That is a fact.
What you can do is choose to believe that this is a recon that has merit in some way. That is a belief based on faith no different to mine.
What you can't do is say that, Phoenix is not a reconstruction according to a preceived priori.
SO THERE!!!

>:-(
MazHere wrote:
The other thing you can't do is answer what old erv's are more mutated away from?... given they are meant to show similarity to an extinct retrovirus evos have never seen and can only possibly speculate on according to computer modelling and an existing priori. That is a fact. You can have faith, but faith is all your beliefs are based on.
Mutated away from orthologous ERV's in other species. Have you not been paying attention?

No, of course you haven't. We've only repeated it MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65365 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
But these old mutations are scrambled and are not homologous with any retovirus evos can observe today. FACT.
So an ERV marker led us to a retrovirus EXACTLY as predicted but since that old virus doesn't exist anymore we can't prove fer sure it DEFINITELY was produced by that virus.

Thanks for demonstrating that even tests successfully demonstrating evolution are not enough for creationists because they are intellectually dishonest.

So all you need do then is do better. Perform your own test on ERV's instead. Except you can't even tell us what the heck they are in the first place.

Why are they called ERV's again?
MazHere wrote:
Therefore anything you say can only be based on deduction that is the same as priori based speculation tied to TOE, and you have now admitted to that innocently. That is...Logical deductive reasoning.THANK'S..FINALLY.
Except we tested it. Oops. What's an ERV Maz? What's the "scientific theory" of creationism, Maz?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65366 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
The term is reconstructed, not resurrected.
They would not have to reconstruct Phoenix from anything if a HERV could be lifted from a human genome alive and infectious.
Regardless, HERV-K is a 'recent' so called ERV, that has already aquired function in under 6my. You are focussing on this to detract from the substance of my point.
The point being
... that you have no substance.
MazHere wrote:
That any deduction or speculation an evolutionist makes on 'ancient' ervs, as they relate to common ancestry, is based on mutations away from an extinct retrovirus that evos have never observed, the existence and construction of which evos can only speculate about.
So you have already given me what I wanted, which is that all this hype about ervs is based on priori deductions and speculations of extinct retrovirus evos have never observed.
Thanks Subby!
Except that there is no reason why an ERV marker should reproduce a retrovirus. That is, unless ERV's are in fact ERV's.
MazHere wrote:
Hence, data re junk dna is supporting creationist predictions and falsifying evos initial claims; ervs are proving to be functional as part of the evo junk dna myth; ervs are an example of falacious speculative claims made by evos that are based purely on speculation no more robust than anything I can come with.
Next......How about my point 2.
Um, evolution data or Young Earth data? Is evolution falsifiable or non-falsifiable? TEH FALL giving us junk or 100% function? Science or Godmagic?

Keep on contradicting yourself Maz.

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#65367 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, what for? You can't provide peer-reviewed research to support Godmagic so you resort to cherry-picking from peer-reviewed biology papers using science you REJECT and claiming they say the complete opposite.
But no problem.
Since AIDS is a retrovirus and studied quite a lot in recent years:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed... .
<quoted text>
Now demonstrated. Time for you to move goalposts again.
<quoted text>
Yes I saw that. They speculated that it was viral. And ended up with a retrovirus based on that speculation. It's called coming up with a hypothesis and testing it. And they were successful. That's how science works. Not that you'd know anything about that since you're a hypocritical liar for Jesus who doesn't know anything about science except how to copy-paste from real science that creationists were not even involved in and pretend it says something completely different than what it actually does say. Because after all your biological knowledge is far greater than any scientist. Especially with all those appeals to Godmagic.
Unlucky, bub.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Translation - boo hoo.
They were not successful at all and there still is no cure for aids. In fact some treatments have made the situation worse.

http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00011128

You can quack and quack and quack and quack some more. Still you cannot hide from your evolutionary quackery when it comes to junk dna. My point 1 is established and there is absolutlely nothing of substance you can offer to refute it.

After all Aides deniers are evolutionists that are truley concerned that research is on the wrong track.

http://www.rethinkingaids.com/

Indeed on my point 1, that creos made predictions and claims that are being validated as opposed to evos claims being falsified, is an undeniable fact you evos will need to suck up as much as you struggle with your pride.

That is it. You can go on and on and on and still the above claim will remain factual, and that does not depend on you liking it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65368 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function.
100% function or TEH FALL?

What's the "scientific mechanism of design", Maz?
MazHere wrote:
And now, and over 10 years later, data has gone from 98% non functional well prior to 2003, to 80% functional in 2012. I'd say on the creos have the upper hand in relation to claims around 'junk dna' over evos in relation to stable predictions and claims that are being validated in time.
100% function or TEH FALL?

What's the "scientific mechanism of design", Maz?

How is genetics going back millions of years proving Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago, Maz?
MazHere wrote:
"What creo predictions are supported by this research?".
Now you can come back with the same ignorant, tail chasing evasion Subby went on with for days.
Irony meter go booooooooommmmm.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65369 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
But these old mutations are scrambled and are not homologous with any retovirus evos can observe today. FACT.
Therefore anything you say can only be based on deduction that is the same as priori based speculation tied to TOE, and you have now admitted to that innocently. That is...Logical deductive reasoning.
THANK'S..FINALLY.....
And in the millions of years since they were attached do you think that the original ERV would have evolved, if they still survive after many millions of years. They are still recognizable as ERV's and that is a FACT.

And the fact that the virus came to life, where creatard "science" would have predicted the opposite shows that there assumption was correct.

You still lose Mav. You will always lose Mav.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65370 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Our reality have changed over the course of time as civilizations started inventing math and language. What kind of reality would we have today if not for the great architects and engineers that built the cities and the invention of language as means of communication? Imagine a world without it. We'd be stuck in the caves and we would still be hunting for our own food. You see it differently than I do. But then again, reality is subjective. We are creating our own reality.
We are affecting our own environment, sure. I'm not disputing math's ability as a tool. But like I said, gravity would still exist if we weren't around to throw math at it.

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#65371 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
... that you have no substance.
<quoted text>
Except that there is no reason why an ERV marker should reproduce a retrovirus. That is, unless ERV's are in fact ERV's.
<quoted text>
Um, evolution data or Young Earth data? Is evolution falsifiable or non-falsifiable? TEH FALL giving us junk or 100% function? Science or Godmagic?
Keep on contradicting yourself Maz.
How simplistic ....and I am not a YEC. If they win the day, that is just a bonus.

Listen. Are you disputing the fact that 'ancient ervs' that link to common ancestry are based on extinct retrovirus that you cannot observe?

That is it. You don't have to gobble on about anything more.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65372 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Again, I will clearly state, that your nested hierarchies can only be concocted on speculations and assumptions of what any extinct retrovirus looked like.
You cannot refute that because that is a fact.
And you cannot refute the fact that there is no reason that ERV protein makeup should result in a retrovirus if biologists were wrong.

You still can't tell us what an ERV is.
MazHere wrote:
Now don't you go off into philosophical evasion and your quackery about God.
I leave that to you fundies.
MazHere wrote:
If you think lifeless non intelligent elements can poof themselves into complex factories of reproduction you should have no problem believing a non organic intelligent life form could poof elements into a complex factory of reproduction on a larger scale.
I note you're not addressing me in favour of this caricature.
MazHere wrote:
After all, all the waffle around universal creation is based on coalescence theory.
Universal creation is irrelevant to biological evolution. Doesn't matter how life got here, you can magically poof it if you like. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Should be easy, your Bible said it happened twice.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
ERV nested hierarchies and those for anything are concocted fabrication based on many insertion values evos can only speculate about. Evos must speculate on what any ancestors genomic make up was. All you have to go on is what is here now and a few examples of older deteriorated dna.
I'm sorry, deteriorated DNA or 100% functional DNA? I have no idea anymore. YOU have no idea anymore. WON'T SOMEONE SAVE THIS POOR CREATIONISM THEORY?!?

:-(
MazHere wrote:
This really is not rocket science. It is just that evos present their findings as if they actually know what they are talking about. Evos make up their sand castles of speculative support and then call that evidence that only an idiot would not accept until it is blown away, just like they did with junk dna over 10 years ago.
Junk DNA is wrong? Or TEH FALL happened? How many times have we addressed the junk DNA thing now?
MazHere wrote:
That is why I call all your ancestry gobble 'algorithmic magic' and algorithmic magic is just what it is.
So there! Ya know you're still using a lot of words to admit that you're unable to present a coherent rebuttal or address all of your numerous problems that have been pointed out which destroy all of your concerns before you even get off the ground.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65373 Dec 14, 2012
TheDude, Phoenix is not from an old ERV, it is from a very recent one, as far as ERV's go.

The fact that we were able to reconstruct an ERV as a working virus shows that we are correct in calling them ERV's where V stands for virus. Mav has no real answer for this and never will.

Old ancestral ERV's, say once that we share with mice. which have been separated from us for who knows how many millions of years, 50 millions at least. have evolved so much that we can only tell they are ERV's buy their shape. Of course evolution predicts a whole range of ERV's from very fresh recent ones like Phoenix which can be reactivated to ones that we have no idea of what they originally were.

This difference is a problem for creationism. Why would there be any difference in ERV's with that paradigm? But none for the TOE. It is what is expected.

I pointed this out to Mav a couple of days ago at least and she kept missing it. Now she tries to bring up this positive point for evolution as if it were a negative. Of course that is her mental disability rising to the surface.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65374 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Dude...The fall does not require junk dna. It requires a change in the function of dna on as small a scale as that of, say for example, radiation.
Evos need junk, or at least you lot thought you did once upon a time. Now I guess you have no idea and will just make it up as you go along.
It's not the function that's relevant to common ancestry, it's the pattern of inheritance. Do you know what happens with radiation poisoning? It mutates the DNA. And no, it's NOT a SMALL scale. It's a LARGE scale. We're all born with around 125-175 mutations as per normal as you know (in fact your figure was slightly higher). But we can handle that. We CAN'T handle radiation poisoning because it's mutation at a MUCH HIGHER RATE. Hence it causes us damage.

And sorry, if TEH FALL is resulting in a GENETIC LOSS (which is what your buddy Sanford thinks by the way) then you are gonna end up with what was once "100% functional" genes and stretches of DNA and end up with something that has been CHANGED BY DELETEROUS MUTATIONS. Ergo NOT 100% function.

You have no way out of this. Except for more Godmagic that is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65375 Dec 14, 2012
Pete wrote:
<quoted text>The Big Bang is nonsense.......Its funny, the limits humans are born with...sensory limits, comprehension limits..Gods or Aliens? They have reached their space limit...Now, its all designed to save the rich when this rock starts to crumble.
We still don't care about your goddamm space aliens.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65376 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
How simplistic ....and I am not a YEC. If they win the day, that is just a bonus.
Listen. Are you disputing the fact that 'ancient ervs' that link to common ancestry are based on extinct retrovirus that you cannot observe?
That is it. You don't have to gobble on about anything more.
Actually this post shows for all practical purposes you are a YEC.

You have such a low level of science education that you think that they can make a case for themselves. The YEC age of the Earth was debunked at least 50 years before Darwin. And like evolution, the science supporting modern geology has only gotten stronger over time, never weaker.

Again, who knows what the ancient ERV's are. Right now we cannot identify them. That does not mean we will always be unable to find them. The fact that they are "scrambled" is predicted by evolution, not by creationism.

All you can do is to reinforce the fact that you are wrong when you argue Mav. I would suggest that you give up while you are behind.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65377 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Listen Dude will you please stop quacking.
I have presented peer reviewed research that suggests the MRHCA is 5-7k ya. That is it. So Sush!.
Gee, lemme think about that for a min...

.

NO.

Suck it up, Mazzy.

First of all genetics that goes back millions of years does NOT support common ancestry going back to two humans and two humans ONLY at that period. Plus the research pointed out that contemporaries existed. Once again you are cherry-picking only the data you find theologically convenient. Look pal. If you're gonna do that then remember that Adam and Eve's kids reproduced with other people from dodgy lands who apparently came from nowhere, no real good explanation is given. This would have given you as much (purely hypothetical speculation of course) extra DNA that you need, without having to destroy humanity just a few hundred years after Adam and Eve. Okay, so you'd run into the same problem again with Noah and have to invoke more Jewmagic then, but...
MazHere wrote:
Anything more than that is speculation. That was in response to some goose going on about support for creation.
Except it's not speculation. The genetic evidence doesn't support it. The population records don't support it.
MazHere wrote:
I don't really care because I already know nothing I can present in support of creation could possibly be worse than the falsifications and instability you have to offer.
Ah, then you agree that your position is baseless BS. It's just that you personally think that your baseless BS is just as good as our baseless BS. Like I said, if that were true you may as well go home. You can't ever win. You have to invoke magic and we could do the same. Then it's a game of kids saying "Nyah nyah, my daddy could whup your daddy!" over and over.

Instead though I prefer to simply point to the evidence which demonstrates you are quite simply and irrevocably WRONG.

And have done.

That's why you've had to be as dishonest and hypocritical as you have been, and left so much unaddressed. And now you're at the point where you're just sticking your fingers in your ears.

I don't care, not my problem.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
All the gobble you have just ranted about is just that, gobble. The fact that I can take your own gobble and smack you with it is just a plus.
The fact that your great fantastic gobble about ervs is based on concocted hierarchies of extinct retrovirus you have not observed is also a very convenient plus.
Blah blah, yeah we know you can't deal.(yawn)

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#65378 Dec 14, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We still don't care about your goddamm space aliens.
Do you care that people (most likely the hippies) in Europe are climbing the upside down mountain (I believe it's the Bugarach)on doomsday? Does your pal here Subduction Zone have an explanation to its mystery? Does the TOE have an explanation?

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65379 Dec 14, 2012
MazHere wrote:
They were not successful at all and there still is no cure for aids. In fact some treatments have made the situation worse.
Who said I found a cure? I certainly didn't. That has nothing to do with it.
MazHere wrote:
You can quack and quack and quack and quack some more. Still you cannot hide from your evolutionary quackery when it comes to junk dna. My point 1 is established
How can it be established when we made a successful test that you have no alternative explanation for? All you can do is say that "It might not have been a retrovirus and you can't prove it!!!"

But you can't prove us wrong either. And we HAVE the advantage of demonstrating a successful hypothesis - the reconstruction of a retrovirus by using an ERV protein makeup - which you cannot explain and we can.

You still can't even tell us what an ERV is.
MazHere wrote:
and there is absolutlely nothing of substance you can offer to refute it.
So you keep claiming, but the evidence demonstrates otherwise.
MazHere wrote:
After all Aides deniers are evolutionists that are truley concerned that research is on the wrong track.
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/
Some AIDS deniers are evolutionists. Some are creationists. Both are still cranks. It's just that creationist AIDS deniers are doubly so.
MazHere wrote:
Indeed on my point 1, that creos made predictions and claims that are being validated as opposed to evos claims being falsified, is an undeniable fact you evos will need to suck up as much as you struggle with your pride.
What predictions are those? We've demonstrated ours. That an ERV makeup would lead to a retrovirus. You still can't tell us what an ERV is.
MazHere wrote:
That is it. You can go on and on and on and still the above claim will remain factual, and that does not depend on you liking it.
My liking it has nothing to do with it, it's what you can demonstrate that counts. We've demonstrated our claims. You haven't. In fact you've just even admitted that you can't demonstrate creationism and now you don't even care anyway. So all we're left with is evolution.

Something you haven't been able to deal with for weeks now.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65380 Dec 14, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you care that people (most likely the hippies) in Europe are climbing the upside down mountain (I believe it's the Bugarach)on doomsday? Does your pal here Subduction Zone have an explanation to its mystery? Does the TOE have an explanation?
Links to this please.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#65381 Dec 14, 2012
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
.
Evolutionary Theory is nonsense;and,those who support it, know this for a fact.

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 Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 min Truth is might 309,766
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 6 min serfs up 716
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 25 min My Bong 326,638
Who do you side with in Ferguson? (Aug '14) 33 min R12 Freon 12,192
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 48 min OzRitz 53,079
Thoughts shared on Facebook 1 hr Justthinking 1
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Thinking 6,728
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr swedenforever 1,225,064
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr Limbertwig 180,553
News 5 Reasons The American Dream Is Eluding Black P... 3 hr SadButTrue 1,259
More from around the web