Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was just wondering how many people out there believe in "Creation" and how many people believe in "Evolution."
Let's see.
This is a Scuba forum, right?
So most ought to understand Boyle's law.
Boyle's law is a not quite accurate, but useful explanation of nature's law with respect to the behavior of gasses under certain circumstances.
By "nature's law" I mean in the original sense, that is, the law of God, the Creator, the Author of whatever is made or produced. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English Language)
"Evolution" is a not quite accurate, but useful best guess at one of nature's methods, or processes, and is a part of creation along with matter and energy and time and gravity and of all else that is, seen or unseen.
So you can chalk me up as one who believes in evolution... and creation :)
Nd
 
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.

Sorry if I offended anyone by poking fun at them. FTR, I find Warthaug sticks to topic like a dog on a bone and refrains from, for the most part anyway, insulting the poster. I think for civility, attacking an idea in a post, not demeaning the source should be adhered to. I've got pretty thick skin but I realize some might not.

Cheers,
Gary
 
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.

I agree with your point Marvel. I think insults have been on both sides but I don't see requests from Theunis to not to criticise God as fair at all. I am heavily critical of a religion that is very critical of my lifestyle although I have always said people can believe what they want, just don't impose it on me. People insulting me, well I don't really care as I have a thick skin, but I do understand that others do not have such a thick skin. I would hope if I offended someone though (by an insult not my atheism :wink:), that they would contact me in private so I can apologise.

I think there is a big difference between disrespecting the beliefs of others and disrespecting them as a person. If someone came on and said they didn't believe in gravity, who here would take their belief seriously? That is what is happening when people come on here and say the Earth is 6000 years old and try to say there is evidence for that. A lot of my family members say that and I have a great deal of respect for them as people, I don't have a lot of respect for some of their beliefs. That whole idea goes against every bit of evidence you can find around the world and I cannot respect that belief. On the other hand if someone came on and said "I think the Earth is 6000 years old and all the evidence to the contrary has been placed by God to make it look 4.5 billion years old" I would think "well I don't agree but I can't prove them wrong". That is the difference to me.
 
Sorry if I offended anyone by poking fun at them. FTR, I find Warthaug sticks to topic like a dog on a bone and refrains from, for the most part anyway, insulting the poster. I think for civility, attacking an idea in a post, not demeaning the source should be adhered to. I've got pretty thick skin but I realize some might not.

Cheers,
Gary

And Warthaug's posts on genetics?
 
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.
The Lord works in strange and mysterious ways... and just when we think we know what He's up to He throws us another curve, and His Wonders astound and confuse.
There is a particular Arctic Tern that can mate successfully (produce viable eggs) with the terns on the island to the west but not with the terns on the island to the east. By classical species definition, they must be two different species.
However... continuing to the west, the terns on each island can mate successfully with each other and produce viable eggs, all the way round to a spot where suddenly they can't - the original two islands with terns who can't reproduce together.
Now, either our definition of a species is faulty, or some of those birds are "transitional forms." Doesn't much matter to me - the birds do what they do.
Now some may say this situation proves this or that or disproves this or that in the evolution/creation argument (which I find amusing at best :)).
As for me, I'm like Jerry Clower. I look at nature's wonders and say "Ain't God Good?!"
Nd
 
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.

Once again, natural selection and genetic drift are the primary drivers of evolution, not mutation. This has been explained several times.

There are countless millions of species of insects, mammals and fish and we've yet to witness the miracle of Darwinian theory.

Not at all, I just posted the results of lab work showing evolution in the lab studied, peer reviewed, and in action. At the microscopic level in simple organisms it is of course easier to observe. In macro-organisms evolution is a much longer process considering the longer lifespan. In the lab we have 30,000 generations, in your house you have maybe 9 cats in your life. You won't see your cat suddenly walk on hind legs one day, smoke a pipe, and read the New Yorker.

Since you continue to disregard all information presented that contradicts what you want to believe about evolution, I will share a story with you that isn't about evolution.

When you read the story of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac in the bible, God saves the day at the last moment with a heroic "I just wanted to see if you would do it." Henceforth, Abraham invents the Nuremberg defense "i was under orders".

The funny thing is, the ancient settlers of that region most likely practiced human sacrifice (as did many ancient tribal cultures). There is still evidence of this practice in the Bible.

Exod 22:28-29 "You shall not delay your fulfillment and your flowing.
"You shall give me the firstborn of your sons.
"You shall do this to your ox and to your sheep: Seven days it will be with its mother. On the eighth day you shall give it to me."

Exod 34:19-20 Every first issue of the womb is Mine, from all your livestock that drop a male as firstling. . . . . . . And you must redeem every first-born among your sons.

Exod 13:1-2 YHWH said to Moses, "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." [From RSV--Ed.]

However, there was a clever redaction in the Isaac story. When you crack open your copy of the Torah in the original Hebrew (you do read the real thing and not an english knockoff, right?). Now to explain this to you, I have to explain parts of the document hypothesis to you.

First we have the J and E sources. The Jawhist and Elohist sources. They have unique writing styles and use different names for God. The first creation story in Geneis is from the J source and the second is from the E source. Hence why in the first story God creates man last and in the second story he created man before the animals. They are actually two different stories. J calls God YHWH, E calls him Elohim (although the characters in J stories may refer to God as Elohim).

RJE is the term we use for the guy who combined J and E material.

Now, the Isaac story is mostly E. Right up until God saves the day. Here is a colored version of the text. The E source in green, the RJE in blue.
And it was after these things and Elohim tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!"

And he said, "Here am I."

He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."

So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and took his two boys with him and Isaac, his son. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place that Elohim had said to him. On the third day: and Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from a distance. And Abraham said to his boys, "Sit here with the ass; I and the boy will go over there, and we will bow, and we will come again to you." And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife.

So they went both of them together.

And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!"

And he said, "Here am I, my son."

He said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for a burnt offering?"

Abraham said, "Elohim will provide himself the sheep for a burnt offering, my son."

So they went both of them together.

And they came to the place of which Elohim had told him, and Abraham built an altar there, and arranged the wood, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.


And an angel of YHWH called to him from the skies and said, "Abraham, Abraham!"

And he said, "Here am I."

And he said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear Elohim, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and here was a ram behind, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place "YHWH Yir'eh," as is said to this day: "In YHWH's mountain it will be seen."

And an angel of YHWH called to Abraham a second time from the skies.
And he said, "I swear by me--word of YHWH--that because you did this thing, and did not withhold your son, your only one, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

And Abraham returned to his boys, and they got up and went together to Beer-sheba, and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba
.

I substituted the names of God used to make the differences obvious to even the uneducated. The scholarly opinion is that by the time RJE was combining the J and E texts, that human sacrifice was no longer practiced and was frowned upon. Hence the redaction and later materials where the Hebrews following Baal are criticized for it.

Without the RJE material, Abraham kills his first born as Elohim commands and then is rewarded for his loyalty with more children. This is in line with the other Exodus sources which command this practice.

The easy-to-read version of the Torah with the different sources color coded is here:
Amazon.com: The Bible with Sources Revealed: Richard E. Friedman: Books

It starts with a 34 page explanation of the methodology used to determine the different sources and the evidence for them. If a local bookstore has a copy, stand and read those 34 pages even if you don't buy the book.

In any case, this is far more interesting than repeating misconceptions about mutation and outright denying the fact that evolution has been observed. Plus, I get PMs from people thanking me for these kinds of posts since some people have never heard this information before and honestly want to hear and read the fruits of knowledge.
 
Thank God - my AVATAR is back. A dancing Hobbes is far better than a pink elephant any day.

:monkeydan :monkeydan :monkeydan

:argument:
 
have any of you ever heard the story of the ancient egyptian gods horus and set. horus has basicly the same story as jesus. set, is more or less satan. theres an internet movie zeitgeist, im no conspiracy theorist but there is alot of religious truths in it that will make you think. Zeitgeist - The Movie
 
have any of you ever heard the story of the ancient egyptian gods horus and set. horus has basicly the same story as jesus. set, is more or less satan. theres an internet movie zeitgeist, im no conspiracy theorist but there is alot of religious truths in it that will make you think. Zeitgeist - The Movie

That movie is sort of like a Dan Brown book. Because so many people have no idea about biblical or religious history, Dan Brown can take a mediocre detective story and turn it into a best seller (the davinci code).

Zeitgeist is a conspiracy movie and its riddled with errors. Its sort of like Loose Change but anti-religious too.

Where zeitgeist does present actual facts, they then draw people towards incorrect conclusions. Just google for "zeitgeist" and other nice keywords like "hoax" or "debunk".

Zeitgeist (like a Dan Brown story) preys on the average persons ability to not see where the line between fact and fiction because not everyone is a scholar of comparative religion or (or in the case of the 911 garbage) structural engineering.
 
Anyway, there is no way you can see complex life forms change by evolutionary methods in one lifetime or even several. Ok, you have to understand that these mutation things are imperceivable in a short term view of the world. Lets say a few hundred years just to give it some consideration. If you took a few breeding animals from one place to another location where they were isolated from their original breeding population. Different food, climate, and threats. A species that is adaptable would survive and one that is not is doomed. An Adaptable species would probably also have lots of fatalities in the early years of the experiment. It might die completely! Only a few may survive. Many assume that the survival of the fittest means the biggest or baddest critter around. No, this is not true. the fittest is the one that produces offspring that survive to reproduce more! The children that produce the most children are the fittest. Isn't that simple... From a genetic standpoint the chimpanzee is closer to a human genetically than an horse is to a zebra. The significance of that is not really remarkable but, simply interesting.


On the other hand if you speed up the process by looking at critters that have very fast reproduction and very short lifespans. The mutations and adaptations are almost impossible to keep up with these days. Things such as viruses. The mechanisms of reproduction are different but the theory is still the same. They evolve... our immune system tries to keep up. :shakehead:

The truth is I am not a microbiologist, I am a zoologist. My degree is in Animal Ecology. Although I went back to my original training as an EE... :11:

I sometime wish I could see the world as simply as our literalism devotees here on the thread... but, once you grab the tiger by the tail there is no going back. The spiritual journey will never end at that point - Not until that last day! or is it the first? What is an eternity if it is not a measure of time? Does it even matter?:rofl3:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom