Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223384 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

Macclesfield, UK

#62014 Nov 30, 2012
Corrected quote tags:
MazHere wrote:
Now I have supported the underpinning reasons as to why I suggest creationism is better supported than evolution.
Except:

1 - The writer offers solutions, which are in fact supported by scientific papers (as we did this exact dance about 6 weeks ago). Ergo it has not falsified evolution.

2 - The writer being an evolutionary biologist does not support YECism, ergo it does not support YECism.

3 - There is no claim that a pure base-by-base comparison shows chickens and chimps to be more similar than chimps to humans. Ergo chimps are still our closest genomic match, as explained by evolution.

4 - YECism offers no alternative hypothesis or predictions. In fact it has no way of telling us which genomes should be similar to which organisms at all. There is no reason for any kind of similarity, for nested hierarchies, or in fact no reason for DNA at all. Anything is possible when your alternative is magic.

5 - This genetic evidence allegedly appeared before the universe was even here, meaning you can't even use it as evidence. Yet every time data conflicts with your suppositions you claim the complete opposite and claim it supports creationism.
MazHere wrote:
Instead of chasing ones tail I would suggest that evos offer their substantiated predictions, if you actually have any, that are as robust as the creationist predictions validated that I have spoken to.
Why do you believe the genome in general is not deteriorating?
Because the data presented over the past 14 pages or so demonstrates diversification, not genomic deterioration. Numerous times I've pointed out problems with Sanford's claims only to be left unaddressed. I have no problem with that.
MazHere wrote:
Even I can answer some evo thoughts around that. Did you know most of TOE is misrepresented?
Yet regardless of what you say the fact will always remain that there is substantial data that supports a creationist paradigm and evos are left to come up with convolutions as to why such data does not falsify TOE and are left with unsupported rhetoric in the end as an evolutionary support.
Projection.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62015 Nov 30, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, one quick question: As a Creationist, are you an 'old world creationist', or a 'young world creationist'?
How old is the earth & the universe?
Doesn't matter. Goddidit with magic. Hence evidence is irrelevant. He's fond of Sanford though, who is a YEC. But that doesn't stop Maz from referencing old Earth data.

So in short he's a scientifically inconsistent dishonest hypocrite with nothing to support his case.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62016 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you call fiction I call divinely inspired.
Some people claimed to be divinely inspired back in the sixties when they wrote great music.

Turns out they were just high.
Bat Foy wrote:
You say it's old I say it is relevant.
Subjective religious opinions are only relevant to the subject.
Bat Foy wrote:
What you call science I call the blatant denial of a valid and real God.
Reality doesn't care what you think. Reality just IS. If it happens to disagree with your baseless religious opinions then that's your problem.(shrug)

Since: Sep 12

United States

#62017 Nov 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>No-one. It's a non-falsifiable concept.

That's not a good thing if one wants their concepts to be taken seriously.

Bat Foy wrote, "Where does God claim to be the first mass murder?"

Global flood.

Don't worry though, it never really happened.

Bat Foy wrote, "Man commits rape man started slavery."

And God endorsed it.

Unless the Bible is wrong.

Bat Foy wrote, "As for selfish sending your son to die so that a bunch of ungrateful people can spit in his face and turn away from him all for the chance some might choose him and make heaven. Yeah that sounds selfish. "

Nah, just stupid. Sending a piece of yourself down in the form of your son as a human and letting its biological form bleed to death over a period of 3-7 days for no reason whatsoever since nothing can really harm him what being immortal and all and what was it for anyway? Well, nothing really. Just an excuse for a blood sacrifice. A throwback to the early days.(shrug)
You're right the life and death of Christ means nothing as long as you're blind to the importance of it.
You say God commits mass murder but conveniently ignore the reasons for it. If as you claim it's just a myth than what's wrong with it?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62018 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well my bully of a God can sink your physics. Why if God can create everything in 6 days while you say billions of years can the same God beat mr Einsteins THEORY? All powerful God trumps super smart guy. I believe it was you who told me it isn't science fact until it can be tested as it is impossible for man to test infinite power it is just a very educated guess by a very smart man. Who by the way also believed in God.
God can't do anything if it doesn't exist. As of right now the existence of such an entity cannot be demonstrated. Ergo either your god doesn't exist or it did it exactly the way you didn't want it to. Because apparently your baseless religious opinions don't mean all that much to Him either.
1 post removed

“Merry Christmas”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#62020 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Are any evotards going to present some evidence of their own or are they going to continue to prove they are loosers with nothing more than attitudes to defend their sorry selves with?
I am just going to repost my posts every day until one of you loosers actually provides some data and links to support your big mouths.
I was wondering if you were ever going to provide anything substantial. By that I don't count the links to research articles that you misrepresent.

You have already claimed to have refuted evolution. When will we see that in publication? I believe the Journal of the Society of Fundamentalist Whack Jobs might be a good venue.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62021 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
BTW, I like earth at the centre of the universe
Yup. And you at the very centre of that Earth. It all revolves around you, you see.

Yeah, I can see you're one of those big ego types. God DEFINITELY gave you a free pass to be an ahole. It's a dirty job but somebody's gotta do it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62022 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No links and only opinionated woffle as opposed to a substatial post. You're reply demonstrates what a pitiful goose you and your cohorts are.
You loose. I win.
End of discussion with you.
Really? You just admitted that no links are ever relevant to whatever you post.

You lose, we win. End of discussion with you. But then, it ended weeks ago when you starting skipping everything inconvenient. Which was only days, perhaps even hours after you started posting.(shrug)

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#62023 Nov 30, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Evidence has been presented time and time again. You, as a radical anti-science, anti-thinking creationismist, dismiss it all. Keep posting your creatard rubbish. It amuses me.
All the dim wits have to do is compare your simplistic replies to mine.

I dare any one of you to repost any evidence of a substantive reply to me,let alone one that has been maintained.

By 'Dismiss', you mean like the twoddle you lot shoved down creos throats in junk dna being proof of evolution then scuttlebutting off to cover your behinds with what? Suck eggs with plenty left over on your faces.

In sucking eggs you lot have substantiated, even with biased woffle, a creationst prediction. Well done you evos!

The same goes for all your 'empirical evidence' for human knucklewalking ancestry. This was overturned on the back of one single fossil and not a scrap of evidence for one entire half of the human/chimp split.

The same goes for every example of my six points that you continue to say I have misrepresented but are unable to suggest why.

I can see another idiot that is requesting evidnece for creation again and hence I will repost all my posts.

That would be because I am having a discussion with a gaggle of geese that can do not more than quack as demonstrated.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62024 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have observed nothing of the kind and neither have your researchers.
Intergalactic shadows are missing and the singularity breaks down at the moment of the big bang. That is what you know.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...
You may notice I actually provide data to support my view.
No links= opinionated woffle.That would refer to YOU.
Actually you don't provide data to support your view since it all contradicts you. 94% of our galaxy is in direct contradiction to your position. Unless you claim (again) that the difference between 6,000 years and 13.71 billion years doesn't matter a dime, but then that would only contradict at least half of all your posts, undercutting every single one of your arguments in the process.

Fantastic work!

But then we both know that all you'll do is carry on being a dishonest lying hypocrite.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62025 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No more like evolutionists inability to offer any credible and stable data on the how, when, where or why of evolutionary theory.
..and poofing avian feet onto mythical theropods and dead elements organising themselves into complex factories of reproduction.
Nice work on that straw-man! Got anything substantial? Maybe when you start having some scientific consistency.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62026 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Are any evotards going to present some evidence of their own or are they going to continue to prove they are loosers with nothing more than attitudes to defend their sorry selves with?
I am just going to repost my posts every day until one of you loosers actually provides some data and links to support your big mouths.
Been waiting for you for many weeks now. You ignored it the first time, you've ignored everything since. So why ask for evidence you have no interest in and will reject on theological grounds anyway?

Don't worry, we already know. And so does God.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#62027 Nov 30, 2012
Let’s recap shall we.

1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome is likely to be found to be functional.

This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

2. Creationists predictions around vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu...

3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plants to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment.

Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62028 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
All of the bad stuff is certainly not because of my religion
I'm wondering if your sarcasm detector is working. But theologically speaking, if your theology was correct, then ultimately yes. All the bad stuff is because of your deity. It's responsible for everything.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#62029 Nov 30, 2012
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationist can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work.

Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, woffle, rhetoric and pure speculation.

And evos can do no more than woffle on in their defence.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#62030 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Woops forgot the link
For instance, the slowest proposed mutation rate puts the common ancestor of humans and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he says: more than 20 million years before dates derived from abundant fossil evidence. This very slow clock has the common ancestor of monkeys and humans co-existing with the last dinosaurs.“It gets very complicated,” deadpans Reich
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
So now you lot can just picj whastever rate you want and call that empirical evidence. Great work, you lot!

This is called "quote-mining".

It is a common practice among weak minded individuals.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#62031 Nov 30, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Been waiting for you for many weeks now. You ignored it the first time, you've ignored everything since. So why ask for evidence you have no interest in and will reject on theological grounds anyway?
Don't worry, we already know. And so does God.
No links, no evidence, only evotard banter and self ego stroking in an evo orgy of denial, yet again.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#62032 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right the life and death of Christ means nothing as long as you're blind to the importance of it.
Not blind. It really was pointless. I understand sending Christ down to spread the Lord's Word and all that, but the sacrifice was utterly irrelevant.
Bat Foy wrote:
You say God commits mass murder but conveniently ignore the reasons for it.
The reason is that the god of the OT is an ahole. Much like most other gods of the day really.
Bat Foy wrote:
If as you claim it's just a myth than what's wrong with it?
Depends. Are we talking about its contradictory illogical nature? Or are we talking about its historical and scientific inaccuracies? Or are we talking about the habit of fundies like Maz using it as justification to be aholes?

At least Jefferson had the right idea - take the good bits and throw out the bad.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#62033 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have observed nothing of the kind and neither have your researchers.
Intergalactic shadows are missing and the singularity breaks down at the moment of the big bang. That is what you know.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...
You may notice I actually provide data to support my view.
No links= opinionated woffle.That would refer to YOU.

Interesting. Your last contention was based the big bang being TRUE and now you are suggesting the big bang may NOT be true.

Please pick a lane.

And you did not refute the gravity probe B data which I have linked to half a dozen times. Try googling "Gravity Probe B".

It's so easy even a creotard can do it.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#62034 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No more like evolutionists inability to offer any credible and stable data on the how, when, where or why of evolutionary theory.
..and poofing avian feet onto mythical theropods and dead elements organising themselves into complex factories of reproduction.

Explain to us the credible and stable data evidencing creation, again. I must have missed it.

Oh, and please give the theory of creationism as well as the litany of predictions creationism makes THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN VERIFIED.

Not ones that you pray will be verified. That is just wishful thinking crap.

Or will you ignore this challenge again?

How sad, 150 years and creationism does not even have a working hypothesis. Sad indeed.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mike Huckabee criticized for 'bigotry' over Nan... 3 min reportinthefaxfromdc 61
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Waxman Incorrecto 1,785,363
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 6 min siberianmousefunt... 88,598
News Trump calls for depriving immigrants who illega... 8 min Hail Trump 2
News Sarah Huckabee Sanders kicked out of Virginia r... 8 min Lawrence Wolf 12
News Melania Trump says US should govern - with hear... 14 min NICK 624
News News 4 mins ago 7:17 p.m.Maryland high school t... (Mar '17) 18 min BARN 9
News Nearly 70 children being taken from families at... 41 min NastyBillyFarty 335
News Trump's land of delusion 42 min fish and poi 997