Creation vs. Evolution

[ekremer]

The word "God" does not appear in the Old or New Testaments. Only in English translations. The deity of those books is referred to by personal names. I usually capitalize the term "God" when referring to Yahweh/Elohim/Jehovah but I was raised as a fundamentalist and old habits die hard.

I am pretty sure that if that deity exists, he would prefer to be called his name and not a generic name for all deities. Indeed, if God were a pepsi, I don't think he would appreciate being called "Coke" (in the southern US, coke is vernacular for any carbonated cola beverage) just because you capitalize the "C".

If you read the Old Testament, he is a very jealous god.

God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some may find this interesting on the nameing of God.
Judaism 101: The Name of G-d
It also describes why Jehovah is wrong.

 

[Rick Murchison]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

**** Attention! ****
This thread has finally broken my radar horizon. I won't bother combing thousands of posts for past TOS violations, but I will be keeping an eye on the thread for them now. Please avoid name calling, etc...​

Thanks in advance.​

---

Rick​

 

[Sas]

I totally agree with you and I must say that I am also shocked with the blasphemy going on here.



Some members here are atheists and that is their choice, but to those members I am asking to stop defaming or insulting God. For me an insult made to God is the same or even worse than an insult made to my wife, mother, father or child.

That isn't fair. Why should I have to respect something I don't believe in? Even if the Christian God was real, he is a cruel, intolerant and vengeful God and I would in no way show any respect to a deity like that.

Christianity says all other Gods are false, so that is basically insulting all the other Gods that people around the world believe in. You can't have it both ways.

 

[nereas]

... Why should I have to respect something I don't believe in? Even if the Christian God was real, he is a cruel, intolerant and vengeful God and I would in no way show any respect to a deity like that...

In the USA, the 1st Amendment grants you freedom of religion, or for that matter freedom from religion. I do not know about the Constitution of Australia, sorry. I have not been there yet. Looking forward to Cairns someday, though!

Note that in Islam, "there is no god but Allah, and Mohamet is his messenger." Therefore several religions exclude others from any validity. That is nothing new. And it is not unique to Christianity.

 

[Thalassamania]

I totally agree with you and I must say that I am also shocked with the blasphemy going on here.

The US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."

Some members here are atheists and that is their choice, but to those members I am asking to stop defaming or insulting God. For me an insult made to God is the same or even worse than an insult made to my wife, mother, father or child.

If you feel that strongly I'd suggest that you put those members and this thread on ignore. Without rational cause you show no respect my views, why should I show respect your belief in one mythology or another?

 

[gary-ramey]

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.

First off, the discussion you chose to jump into was about a link to a site debunking a book written about the Bible..not genetics. Furthermore it was clearly an atheistic site. BTW, Thas has clearly insulted me personally every time he logs on. I insult his post and you jump in to challenge me on that. So its clear to me you're not interested in justice and just wanting to argue..you can have the last word on this.

 

[Sas]

In the USA, the 1st Amendment grants you freedom of religion, or for that matter freedom from religion. I do not know about the Constitution of Australia, sorry. I have not been there yet. Looking forward to Cairns someday, though!

Section 116 of the 1900 Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Constitution) provides that:

The Commonwealth of Australia shall not make any law establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

We do not have freedom of speech protected in law though. We have idiocy like this Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Nice in theory but check out the cases it has been applied to.

Note that in Islam, "there is no god but Allah, and Mohamet is his messenger." Therefore several religions exclude others from any validity. That is nothing new. And it is not unique to Christianity.

Yea I know. But no Muslims have come on here and demanded that people respect their God (well there might have been but it has been lost in the bajillions of posts and no longer relevant). Theunis came on and asked that atheists stop defaming and insulting something I don't believe in! And one that calls me a sinner for my lifestyle How about God stop the dissing of me and perhaps I will stop dissing God

If Theunis was Muslim and asked the same thing I would have had the same response so I don't really understand what you are trying to get at?

 

[Sas]

First off, the discussion you chose to jump into was about a link to a site debunking a book written about the Bible..not genetics. Furthermore it was clearly an atheistic site. BTW, Thas has clearly insulted me personally every time he logs on. I insult his post and you jump in to challenge me on that. So its clear to me you're not interested in justice and just wanting to argue..you can have the last word on this.

You mentioned genetics, something I know about. I do not know about this site debunking a book written about the Bible. I respond and discuss what I know, I don't bother posting about things I know nothing about (something it would be nice if other people did too here!). Seeing as you posted something so unbelievably incorrect about genetics I felt I had to respond. Edit: Also I didn't think you insulted Thal, I just thought you were trying to divert the conversation to one about spelling to take away from your huge error when discussing genetics. I am sticking well away from commenting on either side's insulting (and yes, it has been both sides).

I do want to argue, argue about your definition of genetics. So how about we address that? You are still avoiding the topic.

 

[gary-ramey]

"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."

I did read it and didnt' agree with it. The only "evolution" we witness today is through breeding. Environmental conditions that favor certain traits...ie the moths in Europe and the Galapagos Finches were a process of natural selection within the species. There's nothing controversial about those items. The minute you have a jump from one species to another, you have no reference in nature nor the fossil record. You either have one or the other with no transitional forms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
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.

I evolved and clarified the first post in a later post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
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...

Your positions are sometimes divergent. First you say evolution is about small changes over millions of years. Obviously, there have been large scale changes/mutations at some point because you can't get there with small changes. Which brings me to my original point that large mutations witnessed in nature are always detrimental to the animal. Science has yet to provide an example of a large change that didn't come through breeding in a mammal that was beneficial to the animal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
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.

Denying it doesn't make it false. In the short time I've walked this Earth I've yet to see a single report on an animal that was the benefactor of a major mutation. Let's just define large mutation as on scale with the inversion of a marsupial's pouch and that should give you a reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
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.

Let's start with humans. The fossil record has apes and has humans. Any theoretical missing link has serious question revolving around it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
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.

Please humor me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
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 the wombat relative starts to dig and decides its upright pouch is not conducive for digging. Again, you still have the dilemma of a large scale mutation not caused through breeding. These supposed mutations, albeit rare, would have been witness in some form, in some species on this planet in the last 200 years. There are countless millions of species of insects, mammals and fish and we've yet to witness the miracle of Darwinian theory.

I'll finish later

 

[Marvel]

Why should I have to respect something I don't believe in?

You don't, Sas. But, there's a difference between not respecting something & making posts that deliberately show disrespect to the beliefs of others or of disrespecting those people for their beliefs. You may think that I am a <insert insult of choice here> but to call me one is against the ToS & also goes beyond the boundaries of normal civil discourse.

Since I know from experience that no one ever reads the ToS, here's a couple of pertinent sections to think about (bolding mine):

Profane, racial, insulting or mean spirited language is simply not allowed here and this includes any sort of harassment or cyber bullying. Threats of any sort are grounds for immediate permanent suspension; there is never a reason to resort to personal attacks.

Discriminatory posts: Topics targeting, exploiting, making fun of or otherwise baiting members into controversy based on race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, marital status, disability, medical condition, age, sex, pregnancy, veteran status, sexual orientation or any other class protected by workplace laws are strictly prohibited.

Harassment, threats and personal insults: Posts that contain direct or indirect threats of a physical or non-physical nature along with posts that contain personal attacks or insults are not allowed. Users are also expressly forbidden from engaging in activities that may be seen as harassment. This includes targeting other users with a personal attack, intentionally responding to all of a particular user’s thread in a negative manner in order to discredit them or otherwise seeking to intentionally anger, upset or continuously attack another member (trolling). Constructive criticism of other members and debate is encouraged as long as it does not turn into a personal attack. In the event that either party feels a debate is no longer constructive, we ask both parties to respectfully disengage before creating a disruption of the thread.

ScubaBoard expects members to maintain a high standard of ethical conduct toward each other. This means that we should treat others in the same way that we would like to be treated and in the same way that we would expect to be treated in a professional environment, while also ensuring that members respect the rights of others to use ScubaBoard's service.

Look, it's been a lively & interesting debate for quite some time. This thread has many more views than can be attributed to just the participants. It's just gotten a bit too heated. No big deal- it happens. But, as you can see from those excepts from the ToS, it's not the way that the owner & staff of SB want this board to used.

OK, 'nough said. I'm not staff any longer so I'll just hop down of my mod soapbox again & go back to the