Creation vs. Evolution II

[Greg Jennings]

"you buddy"

Right.

Good post Musty! You showed him to never have another typo again! Good job!

 

[Greg Jennings]

Evolution did not produce homosexuals.

Actually, there are some pretty solid hypotheses on WHY evolution did produce homosexual individuals here and there, but I'm not wasting my words on explaining them to someone who doesn't care

 

[Greg Jennings]

The problem with the 'satan created' argument is there are plenty who might argue that satan created equal opportunities legislation and the civil rights movement, lunatic though all that is.

I far prefer the scientific arguments against racism. When you are trying to describe humans accurately, the word race doesn't help. Really, race is a nonsense term. We are all the same species. If you want to consider genetic differences between humans, skin colour and other 'racial' features are quite trivial: actually it would be possible for me, a white European, to be genetically more similar to a black African than to my neighbour who is also white European.

I think there is a kind of inbuilt xenophobia in us that comes from our tribal existence as African hominids (we are all Africans, after all), so racist tendencies could be understandable up to a point. However, I think actually racism is mostly a learned response, and children who have not been brought up to interpret skin colour are generally shocked to learn that others would judge on that basis. Racism is shocking when you think about how illogical it is, not to mention the lack of justice in it.

Stuart

Let me preface this by saying that this is in NO WAY a defense of racism or racists.


But we'd be incorrect to say that different races do not physically differ (sometimes even internally). This is all due to the different adaptive conditions our ancestors went through of course. In Africa and Australia, very dark skin helped to lessen the odds of contracting skin cancer throughout an individual's life. In Asia, eyes and nasal passages narrowed to adapt to the cold winters. In whites, moving into the cloudy European climate meant less sunlight to be absorbed via the skin, and thus their skin adapted to become significantly lighter.

Sickle cell disease is probably the best example of a genetic racial difference. As I'm sure you personally know, it's an adaptation to the malaria parasite. Though it can be debilitating to live with if you don't have malaria, in a place like pre-medicine Africa where malaria killed at will, it was a life saver.


But you are 100% correct that the entire population of the Earth outside of a small pocket in Eastern Africa is descended from about 2000 individuals. Neighbors that look just like each other in Kenya or Ethiopia are sometimes less related than a white American man is to a Vietnanese woman. Kind of crazy

 

[musterion]

There is no conceivable model by which the odds of survival of an organism were improved by that organism foregoing its normal reproductive process in favor of sticking things up its rectum. Only wicked perverts could believe anything like that is true, Jennings, you stupid deviate.

 

[Greg Jennings]

There is no conceivable model by which the odds of survival of an organism were improved by that organism foregoing its normal reproductive process in favor of sticking things up its rectum. Only wicked perverts could believe anything like that is true, Jennings, you stupid deviate.

You seem perfectly unable to have a normal adult conversation

 

[6days]

But you are 100% correct that the entire population of the Earth outside of a small pocket in Eastern Africa is descended from about 2000 individuals.

Drop the three zeros, and you have it!

 

[Stuu]

There is no conceivable model by which the odds of survival of an organism were improved by that organism foregoing its normal reproductive process in favor of sticking things up its rectum. Only wicked perverts could believe anything like that is true, Jennings, you stupid deviate.

Do you mean the survival of that species, or specifically the survival of that organism?

Setting aside STIs for a minute (which are a risk for most types of sexual contact), an individual inserting things into a rectum doesn't necessarily endanger that organism's chances of survival. It may be that such activity is part of an expression of love for another, say in gay humans, although I understand it's not compulsory. In that case, mutual expression of love is certainly a positive factor in survival.

There are ways in which the presence of non-breeding organisms within a population helps the survival of the species. Uncles and drones spring to mind.

Or were you just wanting to express outrage?

Take care not to overdo that. Other men might find your forwardness attractive.

Stuart

 

[6days]

The inclusive “we” you refer to is a small minority of religious extremists who resort to illogical backflips to avoid accepting what secular science accepted many decades ago

We can have a discussion if you wish about how often secular science has been wrong. (And how God's Word stands forever)

I’m not the one that decreed that science would limit itself to natural things, that far predated me. But I do concur in it.

You might want to consider if this approach to science isn't the reason secularists are so often wrong.

A divine foot? A few thousand divine feet, unless you are advocating that other religions not be given equal rights to view their collection of miracles as valid.

Science isn't aboyt religion...neither yours nor mine. However when evidence seems to lead to a supernatural creator, you should be willing to follow that evidence where it leads.

As you have often pointed out, science in its infancy was largely nurtured under a Christian mindset. Does it bother you that science, in its secular approach, found that some of the claims made by hard-line Christians were simply false?

Modern science was largely founded by scientists taking a new approach...believing in the Biblical account of an orderly creation. Science is still possible because God created in a way that makes discovery possible. God's Word was inerrant both then and now.

Science many decades ago concluded that the earth is billions of years old, the diversity of life is due to common descent, and there was no global flood a few thousand years ago.

Science concluded no such thing. Evolutionists believe that... which is the reason they are so often wrong. They start with the wrong conclusion then come up with faulty explanations for the data. (The usual list... junk DNA...useless organs...vestigial organs....psuedogenes....Neandertals...fused chromosome...many shoddy 'interpretations' over 'monkey skeletons'...Miller Urey.....distant stars...ETC)

 

[6days]

Evolution did not produce homosexuals.

Not so sure about that. I suppose it depends on definitions. But I do believe homosexuality is often a result of mutations... not so different from other genetic conditions. We live in a sin cursed world...no longer a perfect creation.
We look forward to the time when God will wipe every tear...there will be no more sickness, sadness or death. The old will have become new.

 

[6days]

Why do you all gang up on 6days?

You have it backwards Michael. :devil:

 

[6days]

Is there any verse in the Bible hinting that the stars (excluding the sun, of course) were created on the 4th day?

Can anyone who knows of such a verse volunteer to show me? Thank you very much.

Gen. 1:16 He also made the stars. 17*God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18*to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19*And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

 

[6days]

When you are trying to describe humans accurately, the word race doesn't help. Really, race is a nonsense term. We are all the same species. If you want to consider genetic differences between humans, skin colour and other 'racial' features are quite trivial: actually it would be possible for me, a white European, to be genetically more similar to a black African than to my neighbour who is also white European.[

Good post Stuu!! Excellent

 

[6days]

I'm afraid no supernatural explanation is necessary here. The Dead Sea is the saltiest body of water on Earth because at an elevation of 1410 feet below sea level, it is the lowest point on Earth. It is not an ocean, but a giant salt lake. The water from the surrounding area has no outlet to the ocean, so all of the dissolved salts in the rivers/runoff get dumped into the Dead Sea.

That is why it is so salty. The Caspian Sea (also not a sea) in Eastern Europe is getting progressively saltier due to very similar circumstances

If the sea is getting saltier every year, this is another possible evidence confirming God's Word and its truth.
"Many processes (see below) bring salts into the sea, while they don’t leave the sea easily. So the saltiness is increasing steadily. Since we can work out how much salt there is in the sea, as well as the rates that salts go into and out of the sea, we should be able to calculate a maximum age for the sea.
In fact, this method was first proposed by Sir Isaac Newton’s colleague, Sir Edmond Halley (1656–1742), of comet fame.2*More recently, the geologist, physicist, and pioneer of radiation therapy, John Joly, (1857–1933) estimated that the oceans were 80–90 million years old at the most.3*But this was far too young for evolutionists, who believed that life evolved in the ocean billions of years ago." http://creation.com/salty-seas-evidence-for-a-young-earth

 

[Stuu]

If the sea is getting saltier every year, this is another possible evidence confirming God's Word and its truth.
"Many processes (see below) bring salts into the sea, while they don’t leave the sea easily. So the saltiness is increasing steadily. Since we can work out how much salt there is in the sea, as well as the rates that salts go into and out of the sea, we should be able to calculate a maximum age for the sea.
In fact, this method was first proposed by Sir Isaac Newton’s colleague, Sir Edmond Halley (1656–1742), of comet fame.2*More recently, the geologist, physicist, and pioneer of radiation therapy, John Joly, (1857–1933) estimated that the oceans were 80–90 million years old at the most.3*But this was far too young for evolutionists, who believed that life evolved in the ocean billions of years ago." http://creation.com/salty-seas-evidence-for-a-young-earth

Glenn Morton included corrected figures for basalt alteration and inclusion of sodium in diatoms and calculated that during the Miocene the oceans became up to 4% LESS saline. That takes the age of the oceans back to possibly 80 million years old. And at that stage, there was far less salt being added from the land because more of the earth was covered in water, so you can then take it back even further.

Ocean salinity is an a kind of long-term equilibrium, depending on variables with values that have changed throughout the billions of years long history of the planet.

Stuart

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Not so sure about that. I suppose it depends on definitions. But I do believe homosexuality is often a result of mutations... not so different from other genetic conditions. We live in a sin cursed world...no longer a perfect creation.
We look forward to the time when God will wipe every tear...there will be no more sickness, sadness or death. The old will have become new.

Still wouldn't be evolution.:nono:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Not so sure about that. I suppose it depends on definitions. But I do believe homosexuality is often a result of mutations... not so different from other genetic conditions. We live in a sin cursed world...no longer a perfect creation.
We look forward to the time when God will wipe every tear...there will be no more sickness, sadness or death. The old will have become new.

Still wouldn't be evolution.:nono:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You seem perfectly unable to have a normal adult conversation

Being a rebellious child, you of course know all about maturity.:hammer:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Just wondering why Simeon was able to carry Him in his arms (Luke 2:25-28).

Being led of the Spirit, he asked and received.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Being led of the Spirit, he asked and received.

Nor does it say he carried him anywhere.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Make a rock so big He can’t pick it up?

Dear redfern,

What do you mean? A mountain or two?

Yeah, I think that was a tad before I was born. You were there?

Try to be serious for a bit. I don't need to be there at the time to know that it happened.

Did you confirm that with 6? He seems to hold out hope that Lisle has the right answer.

Nope, I just don’t believe in Him. If He exists and thumps me for being honest, then that’s what will happen.

I think that He will do more than thump you.

Nah, I use “we” to refer to the scientific community in general. How do you think I should word it?

How about 'my colleagues and I?'

Along with a few million others.

Good, then feel free to make sure any math we post is correct.

I also did quite well in Biology/Human Physiology and Chemistry.

So He is a God who wants me to lie, and is now an adversary because I won’t lie?

You're a real piece of work and will reap what you sow, to keep it less scary. Most of your words are just that -- not worth answering.

Michael