Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199525 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: 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

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?

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61967 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.
All evidence of Gods justice I believe I have said before I do not always agree with what God does but I don't have to he doesn't ask my opinion. David sinned and was punished. The child went to God and David repented.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#61968 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.
"Inspired." I always thought that to be a very loose undirected term in this case.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61969 Nov 30, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Science has nothing to do with any gods, goddess or deities.
GREAT!! Now answer the question.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61970 Nov 30, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>Why if God can create everything in 6 days does it take nine months to develop a new baby?
I don't know how could I
Know that?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61971 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.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/ ...
Here is bright spark that thinks he has found the answer to save you blokes.
Listen to this...
"Before they became specialized sex chromosomes, the X and Y were once an ordinary, identical pair of autosomes like the other 22 pairs of chromosomes humans carry. To maintain genetic diversity and eliminate potentially harmful mutations, autosome pairs swap genes with each other in a process referred to as "crossing over."
Roughly 300 million years ago, a segment of the X stopped crossing over with the Y, causing rapid genetic decay on the Y. Over the next hundreds of millions of years, four more segments, or strata, of the X ceased crossing over with the Y. The resulting gene loss on the Y was so extensive that today, the human Y retains only 19 of the more than 600 genes it once shared with its ancestral autosomal partner."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/ ...
None of the above sites are creationist in case some fool can't tell the difference.
Above is an example of an evo scratching around, ad nauseum, trying his darndest to keep his grant money by inventing some ridiculous scenario, he could not possibly know. He has saved you with twoddle about what he reckons happened 300 million years ago. He suggests that twoddle falsifies the many research articles that say the Y chromosome will one day disappear.
What do you lot reckon? Let me guess, you have to look your opinion up!
All the research suggests the genome is deteriorating. This again supports Sanford and creationism by suggesting life could not have been evolving for billions of years. Then evos have to run off with this data and rescussitate their theory by basically refuting their own initial data with any ridiculous bed time story any imaginative researcher can think up.
You evos handed us evidence in a silver platter to validate our predictions after all your quacking about junk dna and vestigial organs. You still like to quack about how great you all are. You're still wiping the egg off your faces from over 150 years of human knuckle walking ancestry, and now negative epistasis and genome deterioration.
I love it.
If this is what you evos are so proud of, you are welcome to it.
The fact is that these silly evo researchers keep on supporting creationism with their initial data at almost every turn and then have to scurry off and invent a silly story to offer up to save TOE from flopping.
Creationism is supported by data.
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.

Wow. What a bunch of woffle. It is rare to see someone wrote so much and yet say so little.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#61972 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>All evidence of Gods justice I believe I have said before I do not always agree with what God does but I don't have to he doesn't ask my opinion. David sinned and was punished. The child went to God and David repented.
Ever wandered why god(s), cars and ships always have gender?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61973 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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.

You don't even lie well. 100% of the data supports evolution, but you don't know that because you comprehend 0% of the data.

You have linked to good research that in absolutely no way supports the creationist superstition.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#61974 Nov 30, 2012
I just love watching evos prattle on about philosophy and hubris on an evolution/creation debating thread and avoiding any discussing science.

I'l make sure to repost those posts to remind them all how hopeless they all are.

That also adds weights, Kong, to these evos, and your cohorts actually being empty vessels of hubris.

BTW, I like earth at the centre of the universe better than the mysteries of dark matter and a universe filled with 96% of something imagined to make their physics less problematic.

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#61975 Nov 30, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't even lie well. 100% of the data supports evolution, but you don't know that because you comprehend 0% of the data.
You have linked to good research that in absolutely no way supports the creationist superstition.
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.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61976 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
I just love watching evos prattle on about philosophy and hubris on an evolution/creation debating thread and avoiding any discussing science.
I'l make sure to repost those posts to remind them all how hopeless they all are.
That also adds weights, Kong, to these evos, and your cohorts actually being empty vessels of hubris.
BTW, I like earth at the centre of the universe better than the mysteries of dark matter and a universe filled with 96% of something imagined to make their physics less problematic.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
What a maroon! That article was not about getting rid of the need of dark matter, it was about getting rid of the need of dark energy. Dark matter and dark energy only share the word "dark". That is as far as their similarities go. We still need dark matter and have observed it.

I do believe that article has already been debunked. But of course lying by reposting that story does not bother Maz. Without ignorance and lies she would have nothing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61977 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
My 6 points and posts 61745 and Post 61945-61947 have offered credible and substantial support for my views.

No, this is an outright lie as anyone who look at those links knows. They fully support evolution to the extent that is even an issue for them.

Explain how a genome that has been shown to be getting stronger is actually getting weaker.

Lets just look at the YEC myth for a second.

If the genome is getting weaker

An average bacteria goes through 65,700 generations per year. That is 394,200,000 generations in 6,000 years. Oh when are they going to start deteriorating? Evidence is that modern bacteria are more robust that ever and more resistant to more things.

If humans do the same we will still be thriving after 29,565,000,000 years. So I guess genetic entropy is not something we have to worry about for awhile. Like 29,564,994,000 years!!!!

Oh, and of course if bacteria are OLDER than 6,000 years.... well that is even worse for your case.

Oh and if you don't do numbers that big (I think anything over 10 would be a challenge for you) that is 29 BILLION, 564 MILLION, 994 THOUSAND years!

So universal entropy is a MUCH bigger worry than genetic entropy.


Elohim

Branford, CT

#61978 Nov 30, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
GREAT!! Now answer the question.
There was no question, only your opinion.

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#61979 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
As all can see I have been able to provide links to research that support my claims. I have reposted some of them. Unfortunately the opposition is quite inept at supporting TOE, and are quite content with the scientific reflection of ‘quack‘ to support their view, with an obvious lack of links to research. No links=opinionated woffle.
Let’s recap shall we and see how these evos are doing in supporting TOE over creation over 2 posts.
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely 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 are 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 plant s 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...
Come on evos, admit the best you can do is scurry off down the garden path to evasion.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#61980 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Run evos, run!
Huh? You've been running from me for months.(shrug)

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61981 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Translation, since half of the nonsense posted by creatards goes denies aspects of articles by other creatards she solves the problem by ignoring it. As long as the creatard is against evolution it is okay with Maz.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#61982 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.
Thanks for a great laugh on a shitty Friday!

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#61983 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
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.
Come on you evos put some research where those attitudes are!

Oh that's right, you can't!

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 21 min Earthling-1 60,175
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 21 min Thinking 20,192
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 22 min Dr Guru 217,062
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 36 min Jay 228,966
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 44 min Agents of Corruption 388,435
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Gunner 1,396,356
News News 28 Mins Ago 'Not the America we want': Oba... 2 hr Patriot 385
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 3 hr Memo From Turner 3,639
News Trump takes on trade deals in Pennsylvania speech 4 hr serfs up 70
More from around the web