Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164780 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.

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61947 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. The data supports creationism and the woffley excuses hypothesised 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 creationists 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.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61948 Nov 30, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Fundies hate Harry Potter. I have seen Harry Potter book burnings in the news. Here is one:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/30/book-burning...
So perhaps it would be better for you to say that you cannot hate a being that does not exist. I know that I can't. Obviously there are people that can hate anything. And that is a sad statement of truth.
WTF !!!- What is wrong with people? book burning is a sin against humanity it can only be the devils spawn that resort to such evil games

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61949 Nov 30, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, actually the Bible makes the claims for God killing many - have you read the Old Testament? Slavery is condoned in Leviticus, Exodus, Ephesians, Timothy. For rape, try Juges, Numbers, Deuteronomy. vHere's a goody from Samuel (2nd book, chapter 12 vs 11-14 to be precise):
'Thus says the Lord:'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." '[The child dies seven days later.]
Real love shown in that one. Wives (plural), baby killing, wife swapping - all evidence of a loving God.
It seems that hes not one of these christians who actually read the babble It appears that he just accepts what hes told

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#61950 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you are gobsmacked and the best you can do is try to get me to spell woffle the way you would like. I am not refering to food. I am refering to my version of the manin gof woffle meaning unsupported rhetoric and hubris.
That was all these evos had to say to this post. How simple you all really are.
"Ignorance is not a good look Subby and Dan.
Here!!! I'll spoon feed you 2 a bed time story seeing as you can't find any evo evidence to support yourself with, Oh intelligencia!
Your evo researchers are suggesting that the Y chromosome will rot. It is deteriorating and is going to disappear. All the data suggest this.

<<snipped for brevity>>

TOE is supported by hypothetical woffle.
I rest my case!"
Subduction Zone and Dan have been shown to be the empty vessels of pretense that actually are.
Theory of the "rotting" Y chromosome dealt a fatal blow

Although the human Y chromosome (top) intially lost so much genetic material that it is dwarfed by X chromosome (bottom), Whitehead Member David Page's lab has revealed that there has been remarkable genetic stability on the rhesus macaque and human Ys in the years since their evolutionary split 25 million years ago. This indicates that the human Y chromosome has a long, healthy future ahead of it.

"We've been carefully developing this clearcut way of demystifying the evolution of the Y chromosome," says Page lab researcher Jennifer Hughes, whose earlier work comparing the human and chimpanzee Ys revealed a stable human Y for at least six million years. "Now our empirical data fly in the face of the other theories out there. With no loss of genes on the rhesus Y and one gene lost on the human Y, it's clear the Y isn't going anywhere."

"This paper simply destroys the idea of the disappearing Y chromosome," adds Page. "I challenge anyone to argue when confronted with this data."

<<more at link below>>

mit.edu/news/archive/2012/theory-rotting-y-ch...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#61951 Nov 30, 2012
....OR....from your original source ("Science Daily")....but a more recent article than yours:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/...

Men Can Rest Easy: Sex Chromosomes Are Here to Stay

ScienceDaily (May 8, 2012) Fears that sex-linked chromosomes, such as the male Y chromosome, are doomed to extinction have been refuted in a new genetic study which examines the sex chromosomes of chickens.

The study, published May 12 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), looked at how genes on sex-linked chromosomes are passed down generations and linked to fertility, using the specific example of the W chromosome in female chickens.

The results confirm that although these chromosomes have shrunk over millions of years, and have lost many of their original genes, those that remain are extremely important in predicting fertility and are, therefore, unlikely to become extinct.

Professor Judith Mank, from the UCL Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment and senior author said: "Y chromosomes are here to stay, and are not the genetic wasteland that they were once thought to be."

W chromosomes in female chickens are entirely analogous to Y chromosomes in men in that they are sex-limited and do not re-combine when males and females reproduce, as the other regions of the genome do. Recombination allows chromosomes to break up linked genes, which makes selection more effective and helps get rid of faulty mutations. Some scientists think that Y and W chromosomes are doomed because of this lack of recombination.

The study, which involved researchers at UCL, Oxford and the Swedish Agricultural University, compared DNA regions on the W chromosome in different breeds of chickens, whose fertility rates are very easy to measure simply by counting eggs.

Genetic information from two breeds, the Minorca and Leghorn, which lay more than 250 eggs per year, were compared with two breeds selected for male traits (fighting and plumage) called Yokohama and Old English Game. The researchers also looked at Red Jungle Fowl, a wild ancestor of chickens.

The researchers measured gene expression levels from the W-linked genes in all the breeds, and showed that selection for laying lots of eggs has led to elevated gene expression for almost all the W-linked genes in the layer breeds. At the same time, relaxed female selection in the fighting and plumage breeds has led to a loss of W gene expression.

This means that female-specific selection related to fertility acts to shape the W chromosome, and that the chromosome is able to respond to that selection despite all the problems with the lack of recombination.

Professor Mank said: "We have shown that Y and W chromosomes are very important in fertility -- the Y in males and the W in females. It is the ability of the W-linked genes to evolve that is the key to their survival, and which suggests that both the Y and the W chromosomes are with us for the long haul."

The research was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Research Council (BBSRC) and the European Research Council.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61952 Nov 30, 2012
Oh darn. Kong already Maz's daily load of garbage.

What is it with cretinists that think they can get support in their whacky beliefs by quoting fringe articles and articles that they do not understand?

Well, I should not overgeneralize. That seems to be Maz's target. Russ can only quote from his creatard site and cannot even understand their extremely dumbed down articles.

You gotta hand it to Maz. She gets her ass kicked here everyday and she keeps coming back for more.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61953 Nov 30, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Oh darn. Kong already Maz's daily load of garbage.
What is it with cretinists that think they can get support in their whacky beliefs by quoting fringe articles and articles that they do not understand?
Well, I should not overgeneralize. That seems to be Maz's target. Russ can only quote from his creatard site and cannot even understand their extremely dumbed down articles.
You gotta hand it to Maz. She gets her ass kicked here everyday and she keeps coming back for more.
Maybe is a sexual thing

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61954 Nov 30, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
....OR....from your original source ("Science Daily")....but a more recent article than yours:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/...
Men Can Rest Easy: Sex Chromosomes Are Here to Stay
ScienceDaily (May 8, 2012) Fears that sex-linked chromosomes, such as the male Y chromosome, are doomed to extinction have been refuted in a new genetic study which examines the sex chromosomes of chickens.
I note substantial hubris from the evotards since my last post. Good to see!..and supports all my points.

Kong..All you have done is reiterate what I said and spoke to. Big reply. Not withstanding that the contradicting results are on the Y chromosome research alone and that was one of many examples of the deteriorating genome I suplied in post #61745). There are plenty more. You are a great straw grabber. How about the rest???? hese evos arrive at data that suggests the genome is deteriorating and then need to invent a convolution to refit that data into an evolutionary mystery of an excuse. That happens all the time as in my 6 points.

I simply got bored with evos inability to challenge anything and offering woffle so I supplied one example of some lone ranger refute that suggests a flavour of the month to explain one of many examples of the deteriorating genome.

The point being of course the above is an example of an evo researcher coming up with a hypothesis he cannot possibly substantiate in any way. You lot can't even get the mutation rate right let alone anything else. He is story telling against substantial evidence that something is very amiss with the human Y chromosome.

The same goes for all my 6 points that are testimony to data that supports creationism much beter than TOE resulting in excuses and even less robust story telling to support TOE. Hence you are strawgrabbing and your cohorts are applauding in desperation and burying their head in ignorant denial. Ridicule to this lot empty heads, is science, it seems.

You choose to believe one piece of unsupported story telling over numerous research to the contrary. Hence you would be a demonstration of an evolutionist that prefers woffle over data, and giving even more weight to my claims.

Nice to see a straw grabber clutching desperately to one example of many that supports the deteriorating genome!

It's double trouble and much story telling going on in the evolutionary world. Data says NO evolution. Story telling and non plausible scenarios support TOE. Here is some more......

Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees

.Thu, 2010-01-14 00:11 -- John Hawks

Holy crap!

Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chimpanze...

Now I have supported the underpinning reasons as to why I suggest creationism is better supported than evolution.
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? 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#61955 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I note substantial hubris from the evotards since my last post. Good to see!..and supports all my points.
Kong..All you have done is reiterate what I said and spoke to. Big reply. Not withstanding that the contradicting results are on the Y chromosome research alone and that was one of many examples of the deteriorating genome I suplied in post #61745). There are plenty more. You are a great straw grabber. How about the rest???? hese evos arrive at data that suggests the genome is deteriorating and then need to invent a convolution to refit that data into an evolutionary mystery of an excuse. That happens all the time as in my 6 points.
I simply got bored with evos inability to challenge anything and offering woffle so I supplied one example of some lone ranger refute that suggests a flavour of the month to explain one of many examples of the deteriorating genome.
The point being of course the above is an example of an evo researcher coming up with a hypothesis he cannot possibly substantiate in any way. You lot can't even get the mutation rate right let alone anything else. He is story telling against substantial evidence that something is very amiss with the human Y chromosome.
The same goes for all my 6 points that are testimony to data that supports creationism much beter than TOE resulting in excuses and even less robust story telling to support TOE. Hence you are strawgrabbing and your cohorts are applauding in desperation and burying their head in ignorant denial. Ridicule to this lot empty heads, is science, it seems.
You choose to believe one piece of unsupported story telling over numerous research to the contrary. Hence you would be a demonstration of an evolutionist that prefers woffle over data, and giving even more weight to my claims.
Nice to see a straw grabber clutching desperately to one example of many that supports the deteriorating genome!
It's double trouble and much story telling going on in the evolutionary world. Data says NO evolution. Story telling and non plausible scenarios support TOE. Here is some more......
Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees
.Thu, 2010-01-14 00:11 -- John Hawks
Holy crap!
Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/chimpanze...
Now I have supported the underpinning reasons as to why I suggest creationism is better supported than evolution.
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? 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.
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?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#61956 Nov 30, 2012
....okay....TWO questions. Sue me! ;-)

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61957 Nov 30, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>There is quite a bit of difference between a 2000 year old work of written fiction and a century and a half of scientific research.
What you call fiction I call divinely inspired. You say it's old I say it is relevant. What you call science I call the blatant denial of a valid and real God.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61958 Nov 30, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>Einstein - E=MC^2 – you exist therefore no entity as descried in KJV Revelation 19:6 can exist in this galaxy. It is a matter of the meaning of the word “infinite” If energy (power) is infinite then matter cannot exist because as matter is formed then infinity is lost. BTW, I did not write the babble

However perhaps he exists for you because you are able to put your own interpretation on the meaning of words

First recorded mass murderer Genesis 6.11 – 17 / 7.11-24

God condones those violent acts in several verses in the babble for example Deuteronomy 20:13-14, Deuteronomy 21:10-13

Selfish Exodus 20:3

quote
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
endquote
Richard Dawkins.
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.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61959 Nov 30, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>The simple fact that you make a bogus claim like that implies that you and I are on different intelectual levels here. You have absolutely no grasp, whatsoever, of any natural science, correct?
What did my statement have anything to do with science? What I said is you don't believe one group of men because the bible is a religious book but you believe in evolution because its not but is still a bunch of people.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#61960 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you call fiction I call divinely inspired. You say it's old I say it is relevant. What you call science I call the blatant denial of a valid and real God.
Yet the majority of pious Christians world-wide can, and do accept the findings of Science, including the Theory of Evolution.

"Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).[79] These religious groups include the Catholic Church, as well as various denominations of Protestantism, including the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.[80][81] A figure closer to about 71% is presented by the analysis of Walter B. Murfin and David F. Beck.[82]"

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

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61961 Nov 30, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>This is true (nope, not faith but fact, learn from you experience) and that faith was stolen from me by christian hatred, christian spite, christian mocking of disability, christian, attempted murder of my children, christian terrorist bombings – you want to go into details

Because those christians who do want to go into detail eventuality compound there problems by calling me a liar and I should have you know that I do not have a god to lie for and therefore do not consider lying worth while
I believe you. I'm sorry it happend however I can tell you true Christians don't do those things. True Christians aren't supposed to hurt people.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#61962 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you call fiction I call divinely inspired. You say it's old I say it is relevant. What you call science I call the blatant denial of a valid and real God.
Science has nothing to do with any gods, goddess or deities.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61963 Nov 30, 2012
I see Maz is still lying about whale fossils.

Maz, there have never been 200 plus million year old whale fossils found.

Never.

By the way, that is not a positive statement. I cannot "prove" it since I would have to post every peer reviewed article that ever existed and show that there were no whale fossils over 200 million years old written about in that issue.

And no, the fossil record in no way supports creationism, especially "Flood Geology". Three words that show it down: Microscopic Index Fossils.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61964 Nov 30, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>Reflect on the book of Daniel.

When Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were cast into the fiery furnace they miraculously survived. This is an event that was "witnessed" by the king but isn't historically recorded by any other source other than the Bible. I find that difficult to believe that such a profound occurrence wasn't written about by many scribes.

Also, is it possible that the king, Nebuchadnezzar, lost his mind and ran wild in the forest for seven years without losing his throne to someone else. Seven years is a good amount of time. Yet again not one historical record confirms this Biblical story.

The Bible is full of what seems to be nothing more than morale boosting story telling.
Yes the American revolution was not over freedom but was because a bunch of rich whites didn't want to give up slaves or pay taxes. The civil war wasn't about slaves but hold the country together. Thanksgiving is the holiday where we get together with family and friends and celebrate the distraction theft and rape of an entire race of people. The United States bought Louisiana from a French dictator hell bent on global conquest. The winner rights the history books and the loser doesn't always want to talk about it. The shame felt by Germans over hitler the shame felt by America or Nixon and LBJ we don't like to tell our kids about slavery or how we killed the native Americans off and stuck them on reservations.

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61965 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?
I am not silly enough to suggest that there is sufficient credible and robust data to make any concrete assertions on old earth or YEC views. Evos feel the need to do this and have a history of instability to show for it. Of course evos have to support molecules to man and I do not. Hence after the genesis, it is much easier sailing for creos than evos.

I have no problem with an old earth and if the YECS win the day, then all the better. This begs off topic discussion around the validity of current dating methods and there is plenty of upheavel going on there as well that I follow.

What I see as an observer, that does not really care how God created, is that the data supports a creationist paradigm in general and opposes an evolutionary view, even suffiently to have falsified it. As hard as it is for creos to explain the Genesis suggesting that any assertion is bound by mans current scientific knowledge is arrogance. Certianly energy can produce matter so the first priori for the initial genesis has been established.

My 6 points and posts 61745 and Post 61945-61947 have offered credible and substantial support for my views. Evos are very skilled at demanding a higher level of substantiation than they have been able to provide. This is further demonstrated by evos total refusal or inability to refute the basis underlying the 6 points I made in support of creationism.

My expectation in coming to a forum is that evos can present their data to support their view eg substantial predictions validated etc, why the genome is not deteriorating as much data indicates, and offer more than ridicule and never ending questions in some attempt to justify their existence on such a thread as this.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#61966 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.
Why if God can create everything in 6 days does it take nine months to develop a new baby?

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 The inside story of how the Clintons built a $2... 7 min Magic Utah Uwear 4
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min Scrutiny 189,884
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 11 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 7,660
News Oklahoma shooting 12 min Magic Utah Uwear 3
News Hillary Clinton Takes Big Hit In The Polls 12 min Mothra 8
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 13 min HILLARY 2016 183,298
News 'They created these people': Rand Paul blames G... 14 min Synque 237
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 24 min Quirky 329,122
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 38 min Agents of Corruption 2,613
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 44 min Nuculur option 1,236,487
More from around the web