Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

And I know we've gone over this before, but microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing; its just a matter of scale. But lets not loose track of the main point - this study yet again completely refutes your former claim that evolution cannot lead to beneficial mutations or increases in fitness.

Microevolution is evolution within a species as stated by wickedpedia. I have never refuted that and basically stated that in the beginning. As far as mutations/adaptations I was speaking specifically of those of a larger scale. The kind that would require a wombat's pouch to invert. You don't see them in nature because animals born with a visible mutation, generally become prey, or die of starvation. The kind of evolution you believe in, macro evolution, has no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. It requires a tremendous amount of faith to extrapolate between the fossils.

Probably not, given that marsipials have been around for at least 125 million years. Given that koalas also have a backwards pouch, its quite likely that the pouchless ancestor was from before koalas and wombats diverged.

So in the spirit of your post before about small changes over millions of years, how would that split occur? So you have a pouched ancestor that suddenly spawned two species with inverted pouches?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
What has that got to do with Jesus not endorsing it as you claimed?

But he did endorse it. You were the one who tried to rationalize it away by saying "it was only indentured servitude, so it doesn't count". I simply pointed out how wrong that statement is.

Thas has trouble with spelling and you obviously have issues with reading comprehension. I never said it didn't count, I stated that it was the primary reason for slavery inside of Judea in Christs day. But, I did show you how to read the verse in context and you either didn't get it, or chose to ignore it.

Clearly it is not. The bible clearly states that the earth is immobile:

From Psalm 93:1
The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty;
the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength.
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 makes the exact same statement that I underlined.

Furthermore, the bible pretty clearly states that the sun moves around the earth.

From Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

That geocentrism was a definitive belief of the church, based on their interpretation of genesis, for over 1600 years, is a matter of historical fact. It was not "colloquialism"; Galileo was persecuted for his claim that Jupiter was orbited by moons. Copernicus delayed publishing his works out of fear of the churches response, knowing full well he could be murdered for his claims.

The world cannot be moved, shaken, ie is firmly established. Taken in context in the first part of the verse it has more to do with metaphorical strength and position. Sort of like if I said you were as immovable as a mule. It doesn't mean that either you or the mule don't move, simply a met-a-phor.
BTW, I acknowledged that the early church got it wrong much to the chagrin of Galileo. But just like when you update science in light of additional knowledge, the interpretation of a passage can change as well.

1 The words of the Teacher, [a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."

3 What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?

4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.

5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.

8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Solomon was ranting on how meaningless life is. Again, he uses the colloquial usage of the sun. When he says "under" the sun its very clear he doesn't mean a literal position.

There are several thousands of homeless who live in my neighborhood who put the lie to that. Between begging, charities and dumpster diving they get buy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
However, I knew you'd cling to the letter of the law on this. Yes its not slavery, but metaphorically speaking, it can be.

LOL, I've worked some horrible jobs over the years, and yet none of them come close to the horrors of slavery. Its strange though, that a "compassionate christian" like yourself would so readily demean the true horrors of slavery by comparing it to work.

So the homeless work in the streets, your point is?

first I've never been a very compassionate christian. It is one of my weaknesses. But again, you compare the horrible acts of slavery with the form of slavery in Jesus's day and the two just don't mix. The Romans pretty much let the Jews run the house in those days. While the Jews had slaves they were more akin to indentured servants. As a matter of fact, many slaves in that day lived better lives than those of free men. But you would've acted out of character if you had not tried to spin that. You still lost the battle in the end because it very clear to any reader than Jesus was not endorsing slavery.

 

[gary-ramey]

By telling slaves how to act he was endorsing it. If he thought it was wrong he should have given a sermon to the enslavers, about how slavery was evil.

Instead, he told the slaves to obey their masters. Its pretty clearly an endorsement. Silence would have been less damning.

Sorry, this is an extreme reach. I guess because Jesus doesn't follow the morality of a confused scientist, he is condemned by the same. Sort of like any fellow scientist who believes in creation or that global warming is bunk. In any case, let me educate you. Jesus didn't come to fix the social injustices of the day. He came to die on a cross for the sins of mankind not on the street, stoned to death by a bunch of angry slave holders. But hey why stop there, go a little further and question the morality of God for allowing it to start with..right?

Name 1. I know that you're going to jump on the skin colour thing, but forget it - thats a sexually selected trait and offers no advantage.

Really so a person of color has no better protection from the sun over a fair skinned white person.... Then you say its only sexually selected....So how'd we get the first white, black, asian etc....Did they all evolve separately with different skin and then passed it through sex?

 

[gary-ramey]

ce4jesus, why don't you address all the weaknesses Warthaug has found in your arguments? You seem to just start with diversionary posts as soon as someone posts a thoughtful and well-researched post that destroys all your arguments.

How is posting a link to an obviously biased souce = thoughtful and well researched. This is funny. If I post a link to a religous site debunking an argument on here, would you then classify that as thoughtful and well researched? Please.

 

[deco_martini]

How is posting a link to an obviously biased souce = thoughtful and well researched. This is funny. If I post a link to a religous site debunking an argument on here, would you then classify that as thoughtful and well researched? Please.

Didn't you call wikipedia "wikedpedia" ?

 

[Sas]

How is posting a link to an obviously biased souce = thoughtful and well researched. This is funny. If I post a link to a religous site debunking an argument on here, would you then classify that as thoughtful and well researched? Please.

It is interesting you find Warthaug's posting of science articles 'biased'. Science articles contain reproducable results, where your religious articles on creationism have a. no proof and b. ask that you take what they say on faith alone. Some articles masquerade as 'scientific' but by definition are not as they do not have reproducable results and are not based on evidence (ie. intelligent design, there is no evidence for this concept at all).

So far I am yet to see *any* link from you that has religious arguments debunking any scientific theory. Thal has asked many times for one to be posted but none have yet.

Also, you CLEARLY know nothing about genetics and have not responded to Warthaug's critique of your notion that you can determine the race of someone by a bit of hair. You instead choose to focus on the spelling of another poster.

 

[Warthaug]

Microevolution is evolution within a species as stated by wickedpedia.

And macroevolution is evolution in separated gene pools, according to the same source. Still evolution, just a matter of scale, exactly as I stated.

And its also pretty clear you didn't bother reading past the first sentance of the wiki page on microevolution, as half way down you'd have hit this little gem:

"Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and even fallen into disfavor amongst scientists who prefer to speak of biological evolution as one process"

and

"The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science."

From: Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have never refuted that and basically stated that in the beginning. As far as mutations/adaptations I was speaking specifically of those of a larger scale.

Actually, you started off claiming all mutations were leathal, the all were detrimental, then most were detrimental. Eventually you gave up that whole line, after we provided numerous citations showing that the vast majority of mutations were neutral.

The kind that would require a wombat's pouch to invert.

And, as I've pointed out before, and will again in just one second, that is not likely how that occured. You've picked the least likely mechanism, and assumed its the only mechanism, so you can continue in your beliefs.

Clearly, denial isn't just a river in Africa...

You don't see them in nature because animals born with a visible mutation, generally become prey, or die of starvation.

Bullocks, and we've covered that in detail several times this thread. repeating the same lie doesn't magically make it true.

The kind of evolution you believe in, macro evolution, has no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Also a lie, and you know it. There are thousands of transitional and intermediary forms within the fossil record.

It requires a tremendous amount of faith to extrapolate between the fossils.

But no faith when complete series of transitionals are to be found. Horses, for example.

So in the spirit of your post before about small changes over millions of years, how would that split occur?

Divergent evolution. You have a population that becomes split (say through migration, as an example). One of those populations moves to a new environment where a rear-ward pouch is needed, while the other evolves into a forward-pouch.

So you have a pouched ancestor that suddenly spawned two species with inverted pouches?

No, as pointed out 3 times now, they most likely started off with an ancestor with no pouch, and instead had a simpler structure (skin fold, small invagination, etc). This anscestor then diverged to form both types of pouches.

Common, this isn't that hard...

Thas has trouble with spelling and you obviously have issues with reading comprehension. I never said it didn't count, I stated that it was the primary reason for slavery inside of Judea in Christs day.

And you are completely wrong in that assumption. The history of slavery in that period is well known, and your decision to try and re-write it is quite telling.

But, I did show you how to read the verse in context and you either didn't get it, or chose to ignore it.

No, you chose to interpret the bible in a way which minimizes his statement. I interpreted it literally, which suppsoidly is how you're supposed to do it too.

The world cannot be moved, shaken, ie is firmly established. Taken in context in the first part of the verse it has more to do with metaphorical strength and position.

Strange than, that the church has a millenia of records clearly showing that they interpreted it literally - that the earth did not move, and therefor could not be orbiting the sun.

Once again, this is a well recorded fact of history, supported by innumerable pieces of documentation. Your attempts to re-write the historical record do not change that.

BTW, I acknowledged that the early church got it wrong much to the chagrin of Galileo. But just like when you update science in light of additional knowledge, the interpretation of a passage can change as well.

Strange then, that you are so resistant to re-interpreting genesis to fit modern day knowledge...

So the homeless work in the streets, your point is?

That we're not slaves to our jobs, and that your idea that we are somehow slaves is an idea so idiotic I cannot believe anyone would put word to it. We have a choice - to leave, to not work, etc. Slaves don't have a choice; thats the essence of slavery.

first I've never been a very compassionate christian. It is one of my weaknesses. But again, you compare the horrible acts of slavery with the form of slavery in Jesus's day and the two just don't mix.

A huge amount of historical documentation completely disagrees with you. But I'm sure you'll ignore that inconvenient fact, just like you ignore all the other inconvenient facts...

You still lost the battle in the end because it very clear to any reader than Jesus was not endorsing slavery.

It is pretty clear he did endorse slavery. Otherwise, he wouold have said "slavery is bad, don't do it", instead of "obey your masters, cause its the godly thing to do.

Bryan

 

[Marvel]

That should be "Catholic" with a capital "C."

&, when you are referring to the God of the Old & New Testaments, that "God" with a capital "G."

You're a looser, your god's a looser.

Thal, & others. Have you forgotten that when you post things like this that you are addressing a much wider audience than the person that you are addressing? I have been totally dismayed by the singular lack of respect displayed in this thread towards fellow members of SB & the total disregard for civility & the ToS. I am not at all impressed or persuaded by arguments that include insults as part of the debate. I have to question the intelligence of people who stoop to such tactics.

When you make such a statement, Thal, you totally negate your earlier posts stating that you hold Mike & me in high regard. This is our God & our faith as it is ce4jesus's. I simply cannot understand how the "scientists" in this thread expect to be taken seriously when they cannot argue dispassionately & with reason.

 

[Warthaug]

Sorry, this is an extreme reach.

I'd call it a small step. Do you tell a rape victim to "just take it", or do you tell the rapist to stop? Jesus was faced with that kind of choice - to side with the victim or the abuser, and he sided with the abuser. You can try to twist that all you want, but its what he did. Spelled out clear as day in the bible.

I guess because Jesus doesn't follow the morality of a confused scientist, he is condemned by the same.

I don't condemn him, I condemn the likes of you - those who pick and choose the parts of the bible you take literally for the sake of expediency. At the end of the day, you demand that science fits what the bible says, and yet at every twist and turn, you try to re-write history, or "interpret" the bible, to avoid the parts of it you don't like.

Let me turn this around on you - why is it genesis is the inerrant word of god, not subject to interpretation, while the new testament is free and open to whatever interpretations you feel are justified?

Sort of like any fellow scientist who believes in creation or that global warming is bunk.

There are a few scientists who fall into both of those categories who I have great respect for. The thing is, you continually quote non-scientists as experts, when clearly they are not.

I don't disrespect fellow scientists for their beliefs, but I abhor non-scientists who put on the cloak of science to spread their lies.

In any case, let me educate you. Jesus didn't come to fix the social injustices of the day.

I was taught, many years ago, in Sunday school, that a huge portion of Jesus's teachings and meanings were on how we are to interact with each other. I guess your church prefers to ignore those teachings - you know, the ones on compassion, and whatnot.

He came to die on a cross for the sins of mankind not on the street, stoned to death by a bunch of angry slave holders. But hey why stop there, go a little further and question the morality of God for allowing it to start with..right?

I would question the morality of any deity which would allow the degree of pain and suffering we see in this world. And I know, all religions have their explanation for it, but at the end of the day if your "father" was a human, social services would have taken us all away and given us to better parents a long time ago.

But then again, I'm jaded. I had the "joy" during my PhD of watching a bunch of kids die of HIV. Not exactly something that makes one think god is an OK guy...

Really so a person of color has no better protection from the sun over a fair skinned white person....

They don't get much extra protection - skin cancer rates don't vary greatly between races. But you've got it all backwards - in the regions of the world where we have the highest degree of sun exposure, you'll find indigenous people of every imaginable skin colouration - black/brown (Africa/India), mid-range (hispanics, polynesians), and light (asians, meditranians, arabs, central american indians, etc). In fact, the darkest skinned people on earth (Khoesians) live in the least sunny part of Africa. Likewise, in regions of low sun intensity you'll find the whole range - from light (whites and asians), to mid-range (mongolians) to dark (inuit, turegs). There is simply no correlation between skin colouration and sun exposure.

Then you say its only sexually selected....So how'd we get the first white, black, asian etc....

Simple. Humans started off with black skin (which is what most hairless/low hair mammals have). In some cultures people found lighter skin more attractive, and thus people carrying light-skin mutations reproduced more. Translate that over 100,000-ish years and you get the races (who's skin colouration is a product of just 4-5 mutations, btw).

Skin colouration, hair colouration, breast size, and many other traits arose through similar mechanisms. They are sexual-selection-derived traits, as are most traits that deal with our physical appearance.

Bryan

 

[zchef99]

this is not the place for this discussion. go to essembly.com

diving only please

 

[Warthaug]

this is not the place for this discussion. go to essembly.com

diving only please

I think you're trolling, but I'll be nice and assume your a newbie. This is the "non-diving related stuff" section of SCUBABoard. Which is a pretty clear description of what we talk about here - all things not SCUBA.

Bryan