Evolutionism vs creationism

[Orbic]

a brave choice for a rootless plant, moving to land...

Not brave, greedy
Fighting for best location in order to get light and oxygen can lead you to do stupid things like this...

[JellySlayer]

> Yes, people are annoying. Is this a surprise?

Never indicated I would be surprised at the existance of annoying people.
Was rather clearly, and in context of topic, providing pictoral evidence
of athiestic preaching. There are numerous appologies/excuses that can
be made for this. The fist was that it doesn't happen at all, hence:

Let me spell this out for you then.

ADVOCATING SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT A RELIGION.

If I try to convince people of the importance or merits of democracy, that does not mean democracy is a religion.
If I try to convince people of the importance or merits of sanitation, that does not mean sanitation is a religion.
If I try to convince people of the importance or merits of education, that does not mean education is a religion.
If I try to convince people of the importance or merits of atheism, that does not mean atheism is a religion.

Furthermore, I might add that, not all religions preach. Judaism, for example, generally makes no attempt to gain converts. Neither does Hinduism. Nor Buddhism.

> Well, let's see. He's not advocating mass murder ("Death to fags"),
The fact remains though, that athiesm may not be worshipped by some, but it is by others.
When it gets to the point where one's internet ADOM forum sig contains insults toward
the idea of god, or those who respect god, that is when you know you are a worshipper
of the athiestic religion. Have fun spreading the word, my brothers

Ridiculing something does not say anything about your beliefs. If my sig makes fun of psychics, that does not mean that I am actively involved in an anti-psychic religion. It might just mean that I think the idea of psychics is a stupid superstitition.

> it wasn't Caesar, it was Constantine

The practical distinction escapes me.

They're different people, separated by 400 years in time. That's like saying there is no practical difference between George Washington and George Bush.

> He then converted the empire to Christianity by force

Which I find sub-optimal, yet preferable. The old religions accepted murdering
christians for the crime of being christian. There can not now, and never could
have been a law based on the teachings of Jesus that provided the same acceptance
of murdering other religious folk.

Except for that part where he says everyone who doesn't believe in him is going to be tortured for all eternity?

> (with some lovely perversion of the original faith

if it wasn't the teachings of christ, was it really christianity at that point?

Yes, Christianity is more than just the teachings of Christ.

Then please explain this previous code snippet to me:

as you seem to be indicating that it is perfectly natural for exactly that to happen.

If a plant evolved fruit where no animals were present, it would probably eventually die. I agree with that. If it happened again, that other plant would probably die. Or even if it evolved a fruit that no animals wanted to eat, then it would probably die too. Some evolutionary strategies fail. As I've said, however, animals and plant evolved in tandem, not in sequence (or, if anything, animals made it to land before plants did), so the series of events probably didn't unfold in exactly this fashion. But so what if it did? Evolution isn't an intelligent process, so things like this could happen now and then.

[Dudley]

Furthermore, I might add that, not all religions preach. Neither does Hinduism. Nor Buddhism.

The fact that those are religions is aguarble

(or, if anything, animals made it to land before plants did)

Reverse. You need much O2, produced by plants, to make an animal survive out of water.

[JellySlayer]

Reverse. You need much O2, produced by plants, to make an animal survive out of water.

Water based plants produce oxygen. Water-based phytoplankton alone are estimated to be responsible for half of the world's oxygen supply.

The oldest evidence for life found on land is animals, dating to about 530 Ma ago. The first evidence for plants isn't till around 430 Ma ago. Doesn't mean that plants weren't there first. We just haven't found anything to show that they were.

[edit]On a lighter note, the Catholic church is apparently in desperate need of qualified exorcists.

[fazisi]

Plants and animals would have evolved in tandem. I don't have any clue which steps took place at which times but I would guess they were very well timed since evolutionary advocates keep telling me my beliefs are wrong.

[gut]

> Let me spell this out for you then.
> ADVOCATING SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT A RELIGION.
> Ridiculing something does not say anything about your beliefs.

So if I join a society of anti-psychics, regularly attend anti-psychic meetings, wear
anti-psychic shirts, spread the word of anti-psychic-ness to the general populace (to
their sometimes great annoyance), fundraise for various anti-psychic organizations, lobby
to have anti-psychic laws passed, have anti-psychic slogans attactched to every message
I post to the world, teach my children in the anti-psychic beliefs, in general just
devote my life to serving the anti-psychic caus- wait, you're right, that is not a
religion... it's a cult.

> They're different people, separated by 400 years in time. That's like saying there is no practical difference between George Washington and George Bush.

In context, I was refering to their power/authority levels with respect to the populace.
From the perspective of a person 1000 years from now, there wouldn't be much distiction
between washington's and bush's power/authority levels with respect to the populace.

>> There can not now, and never could have been a law based on the teachings of
>> Jesus that provided the same acceptance of murdering other religious folk.

> Except for that part where he says everyone who doesn't believe in him is going to be tortured for all eternity?

He mentions it being OK to outlaw non-christianity? You'll have to point that one out to me.

> Yes, Christianity is more than just the teachings of Christ.

Then I'll say it would be polite of them to chose a different name.

Would be about as fair as people using the word 'gutism' to justify cruelty to animals,
under the logic that 'gutism is more than just the teachings of gut'.

> As I've said, however, animals and plant evolved in tandem, not in sequence

You speak with forked tongue. Your response to dorten's post:

>> Originally Posted by Dorten
>> The plants are before animals. But who says, that fruit bearing plants are before animals?

> The text says that trees that bear fruit come before animals. This doesn't make sense

Then, with reverenc- I mean, reference to evolution doing the same thing:

> If a plant evolved fruit where no animals were present, it would probably eventually die
and:
> If it happened again, that other plant would probably die
and:
> if it evolved a fruit that no animals wanted to eat, then it would probably die
and:
> Some evolutionary strategies fail.
and:
> Evolution isn't an intelligent process, so things like this could happen now and then

The generous appologies that my appalachian brethren make for seeming contradictions
such as this are " god can just make it happen". It seems to me to be precisely echoed
in your belief, which I would summarize "it prolly didn't happen that way, but if it
did, it's OK. Evolution could just make it happen." One might even refer to such
appologetic tolerence as 'faith'.

[JellySlayer]

> Let me spell this out for you then.
> ADVOCATING SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT A RELIGION.
> Ridiculing something does not say anything about your beliefs.

So if I join a society of anti-psychics, regularly attend anti-psychic meetings, wear
anti-psychic shirts, spread the word of anti-psychic-ness to the general populace (to
their sometimes great annoyance), fundraise for various anti-psychic organizations, lobby
to have anti-psychic laws passed, have anti-psychic slogans attactched to every message
I post to the world, teach my children in the anti-psychic beliefs, in general just
devote my life to serving the anti-psychic caus- wait, you're right, that is not a
religion... it's a cult.

Or a sports team. Or a political party. Or a lobby group. Or the Boy Scouts. Or people who just happen to care about something. Your definition of religion is so broad it borders on pointless.

>> There can not now, and never could have been a law based on the teachings of
>> Jesus that provided the same acceptance of murdering other religious folk.

> Except for that part where he says everyone who doesn't believe in him is going to be tortured for all eternity?

He mentions it being OK to outlaw non-christianity? You'll have to point that one out to me.

He says that non-believers will be tortured for all eternity in hell. I would consider that to be a bit more severe than merely outlawing what they believe. Anyway, who ever said anything about outlawing Christianity? Or atheism, for that matter?

> Yes, Christianity is more than just the teachings of Christ.

Then I'll say it would be polite of them to chose a different name.

You'd have to take that up with the founders of the early church. That said, given that all of the accounts of what Christ supposedly taught and said are from, at best, second-hand sources anyway, it's difficult to infer that he actually taught what we believe he taught. [edit]Out of curiousity, though, do you follow all of his teachings? Or just the ones that you agree with anyway?

> As I've said, however, animals and plant evolved in tandem, not in sequence

You speak with forked tongue. Your response to dorten's post:

>> Originally Posted by Dorten
>> The plants are before animals. But who says, that fruit bearing plants are before animals?

> The text says that trees that bear fruit come before animals. This doesn't make sense

Then, with reverenc- I mean, reference to evolution doing the same thing:

> If a plant evolved fruit where no animals were present, it would probably eventually die
and:
> If it happened again, that other plant would probably die
and:
> if it evolved a fruit that no animals wanted to eat, then it would probably die
and:
> Some evolutionary strategies fail.
and:
> Evolution isn't an intelligent process, so things like this could happen now and then

The generous appologies that my appalachian brethren make for seeming contradictions
such as this are " god can just make it happen". It seems to me to be precisely echoed
in your belief, which I would summarize "it prolly didn't happen that way, but if it
did, it's OK. Evolution could just make it happen." One might even refer to such
appologetic tolerence as 'faith'.

I don't see a contradiction. I said that animals came before fruit bearing plants. This is what the evidence suggests. Is it possible that there existed a fruit-bearing plant came before animals? Well, hypothetically, yes. Do I believe it did? No, of course not. And I've explained why: Those plants would have died out very quickly because, at that time, fruit would be at a disadvantage compared to non-fruity plants, and therefore would not have survived any sufficiently long period of time. As a consequence, we don't see any evidence of fruit-bearing plants before the existence of animals on land. Occasionally a member of a species will gain a mutation that is entirely unproductive and useless to them. But that mutation will normally be bred out of the group, either immediately as the mutated member simply dies before it reproduces, or over some generations because the disadvantage will ultimately mean that the mutated species is unable to compete.

What specifically do you feel that I have no adequately explained here?

[edit]Some confusion may have resulted from the fact that I was completely misusing the word "tandem", I suppose.

[gut]

> Or people who just happen to care about something. Your definition of religion is
so broad it borders on pointless

There is a thick line between caring about something and being obsessed. When followers
believe so deeply in something it begins to define their existence, then it borders on/
mimics/gives all perception to a rational mind of, religion.

> He says that non-believers will be tortured for all eternity in hell.

If it turns out to be true, would you have prefered that he didn't?
He was murdered for it, if it makes you feel as though justice was served. I'd say
it was further proof that times needed changing back then. I think he did a rather
admirable job. You could have done better?

> who ever said anything about outlawing Christianity? Or atheism

grey and yerself mentioned the spread of christianity by force (which includes law). I
mentioned that christs teachings didn't support that method, as opposed to the other
religion/laws of the time that did. I would have assumed that would have been clear, as
I gave proper attributions in my posts.

> Out of curiousity, though, do you follow all of his teachings? Or just
the ones that you agree with anyway?

I don't recall saying I follow anyone's teachings. I have mentioned that I weight more
credibility to jesus's words as opposed to leviticus's. If I were going to follow anyone's
advise, I could do a lot worse than jesus.

> I don't see a contradictio

If you didn't see the contradiction, after I literally drew (posted) a picture, then
I'm at a loss.

> What specifically do you feel that I have no adequately explained here?

On the one hand you say it 'makes no sense' and on the other you say it is reasonable.
More than that, I can't clarify. Apparantly.

[JellySlayer]

> Or people who just happen to care about something. Your definition of religion is
so broad it borders on pointless

There is a thick line between caring about something and being obsessed. When followers
believe so deeply in something it begins to define their existence, then it borders on/
mimics/gives all perception to a rational mind of, religion.

The problem that I see with this definition is that it is possible to be religious without being a fanatic. Most Christians, for example, aren't fanatics. They're just regular people who go about life, except that maybe they pray now and then, go to church on Sundays, and happen to believe that there's a God who is going to reward them after they die. Even if they aren't bat-shit crazy, that is still, as far as I'm concerned, a religious person.

> He says that non-believers will be tortured for all eternity in hell.

If it turns out to be true, would you have prefered that he didn't?

YES. I believe that the idea of torturing anyone, for any reason, for all eternity is evil and immoral. If that's what Jesus thinks, then he's evil and immoral. If that's what God does, then he's evil and immoral. I don't care if you're Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler: There is no crime that I can imagine that would be bad enough to justify that kind of treatment.

He was murdered for it, if it makes you feel as though justice was served. I'd say
it was further proof that times needed changing back then. I think he did a rather
admirable job. You could have done better?

If I was the all-knowing, all-powerful God of the universe, with unlimited powers at my disposal, yes, I think I could have done better. Among other things:
-I would have told people that slavery is absolutely immoral and the practice should be ended immediately.
-I would have told people that it doesn't matter what you believe; the most important thing is how you treat other people.
-I would have told people that they should treat each other fairly, even if they're a different gender, sexual orientation, or skin colour.
-I would have told people that regular bathing and washing your hands will help prevent you from getting sick.
-I would have told people that they should use their minds to figure out what is true and what is false.
-I would have told people that blood sacrifices of any sort are pointless and barbaric.
-I would have told people that murdering, raping, and sexually assaulting children is abhorrent.
-I would have told people to value knowledge and discovery over belief and superstition.
-I would have told people that it's really okay if people don't believe in me or believe in other gods.
-I would have told people that they only have one life here on Earth, so it is extremely important that they make the most of it.
-I would have told them a bunch of information on science, hygiene, mathematics, engineering, medicine, and philosophy to jump-start them out of the bronze age and to establish my own credibility as an authority.

Probably some others that I've missed.

And for miracles...
-I would have turned all of the world's desert into arable farmland.
-I would have stabilized the Earth's tectonic plates to prevent earthquakes and tsunamis.
-I would have wiped out as many diseases as I could have. Smallpox, bubonic plague, polio, leprosy, cholera, etc.

Lots of things to fix here.

[edit]Oh, and if there were a God who cared about sin and planned to send people to Heaven or Hell, I would instantaneously forgive everyone's sins, unconditionally, without a need for faith either in that God or in me.

[edit2]I would have also written all of this information down in every language that ever will be devised by men, and made numerous perfect copies of the text so that it would not be lost in translation, confused, or lost.

> who ever said anything about outlawing Christianity? Or atheism

grey and yerself mentioned the spread of christianity by force (which includes law). I
mentioned that christs teachings didn't support that method, as opposed to the other
religion/laws of the time that did. I would have assumed that would have been clear, as
I gave proper attributions in my posts.

Christ something to the effect of "Go forth and make disciples of all nations". He doesn't specify a method. If using force or violence was not the method he wanted to use, then an omniscient God who could see the future might have wanted to specify that exactly. He also makes some claim that he comes not with peace, but with the sword. I'll dig up the references tomorrow when I have a bit more time.

[xan]

Then please explain this previous code snippet to me:

You're not understanding it correctly.

1. Mutations do not happen for a purpose, genetic mutations happen randomly.
2. When a mutation gives an organism an advantage in increasing it's ability to reproduce it's genes (most mutations do not), those mutated genes will be (on average) perpetuated to a greater extent.
3. Mutations continue, they do not stop once an "until animals happen" criterion has been met

Fruit like mutations may have occurred before the presence of animals, but only once animals appeared on land did that mutation offer an advantage.