Evolutionism vs creationism

[gut]

> it is possible to be religious without being a fanatic.

I already switched from citing religion to cult.

>> 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

So, if I see danger to you, I shouldn't tell you, if I think
you would judge said danger to be evil?

> -I would have told people that slavery is absolutely immoral
> -I would have told people that they should treat each other fairly, even if they're a different gender
> -I would have told people that regular bathing

They would have killed you all the more quickly.

> -I would have turned all of the world's desert into arable farmland.

You'd screw up the earth's albedo like that? Hope none of our
eco friends are listening.

> -I would have wiped out as many diseases as I could have.
> -I would have stabilized the Earth's tectonic plates

and there would have been no downside to that, eh?
I think these 'if I were god, I would have' statements do
display why it is best to have mortals playing the role of mortals.

> an omniscient God who could see the future might have wanted to specify that exactl

you are trying to make a serious assertion that jesus failed
to advocate peace?

> makes some claim that he comes not with peace, but with the sword.

are you talking about the second visit there?

> You're not understanding it correctly.

there are only about 4 short sentences to read. it is difficult
to believe I goofed it.

> 1. Mutations do not happen for a purpose, genetic mutations happen randomly.

So you will join me in my confusion at jelly's words that
"it doesn't make sense" for plant to develope fruits before
animals were around to eat said fruits? By the logic of
mutations, it would make perfect sense for trees to develope
wings before the ability to feed off wind.

> Mutations continue, they do not stop once an "until animals happen"

You will note that I never asserted that they did.

If this continues, I may once again hit 10K character mark on regular post!

[JellySlayer]

>> 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

So, if I see danger to you, I shouldn't tell you, if I think
you would judge said danger to be evil?

I never said you shouldn't tell me. But if you pray to and worship this evil thing, then that reflects poorly on you.

> -I would have told people that slavery is absolutely immoral
> -I would have told people that they should treat each other fairly, even if they're a different gender
> -I would have told people that regular bathing

They would have killed you all the more quickly.

They can't kill me. I'm god, remember? They are of no threat to me.

> -I would have turned all of the world's desert into arable farmland.

You'd screw up the earth's albedo like that? Hope none of our
eco friends are listening.

I'm god, remember? I'm sure I can come up with some clever way to compensate. Maybe add in some more freshwater lakes or something.

> -I would have wiped out as many diseases as I could have.
> -I would have stabilized the Earth's tectonic plates

and there would have been no downside to that, eh?

We've wiped out many diseases ourselves and there hasn't been much of a downside. Tectonic plates? Within our timescale, I doubt we'd notice any effect. They move pretty slowly, most of the time. It's just now and then there's a sudden jerk.

I think these 'if I were god, I would have' statements do
display why it is best to have mortals playing the role of mortals.

If there is a God, I think he's a pretty terrible designer.

you are trying to make a serious assertion that jesus failed
to advocate peace?

Yup. Jesus never advocated for peace at all. He almost never speaks of it. At best, he says that his disciples will personally have peace within themselves. But peace on Earth? No, he never speaks for it. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, he outright denies it:

34 ?Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

??a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law?
36 a man?s enemies will be the members of his own household.?[c]

37 ?Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Note that this is all in the present tense. He isn't talking about some future coming.

[xan]

> 1. Mutations do not happen for a purpose, genetic mutations happen randomly.
So you will join me in my confusion at jelly's words that
"it doesn't make sense" for plant to develope fruits before
animals were around to eat said fruits?

Jellyslayer was comparing evolutionary theory to the words of genesis from the bible.

By the logic of
mutations, it would make perfect sense for trees to develope
wings before the ability to feed off wind.

Could you please explain what you mean by this in more detail?

[gut]

>>>>> 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

>>So, if I see danger to you, I shouldn't tell you, if I think
you would judge said danger to be evil?

> I never said you shouldn't tell me. But if you pray to and worship this evil thing, then that reflects poorly on you.

You are saying that jesus prayed to, and worshipped hell.

> They can't kill me. I'm god, remember? They are of no threat to me.

You could just fake it, come back, and let the legend of you spread forth to change people.

> We've wiped out many diseases ourselves and there hasn't been much of a downside.

MRSA is, in a way, man-made.

> If there is a God, I think he's a pretty terrible designer.

yet more bias. if evolution is responsible for life, it is to be appreciated, if it
was god, then only blame

> Yup. Jesus never advocated for peace at all.

We'll just have to disagree on that. I think telling people to treat others as they
would be treated rather rules out violence, unless you would prefer for people to be
violent to you.

>> I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

> Note that this is all in the present tense. He isn't talking about some future coming.

The version you quoted is the even-more translated version. (One does begin to wonder at
the effect of such numerous translations). By contrast, the king james version (a bit
closer to original) doesn't read: 'turn a ___ against his/her ___', it reads: set 'at
variance', which I see as being desirable if your loved ones are into slaying christians
(or others) for the crime of thinking differently. At any rate, harmony (or 'peace') with
evil is not peace, as his contemporary times attested. Better to have conflict (sword) with
evil than to go along silently.

> Jellyslayer was comparing evolutionary theory to the words of genesis from the bible.

Jellyslayer was giving his (quite logical) analysis regarding the design plan of developing
fruits before fruit eaters. I summarize his analysis thusly: "For a designer to do it
'makes no sense', but for evolution, it's fine." Which I find, rather... inconsistant.
Note, I am not saying I do or don't believe either theory, I simply (am trying to) tease.
Actually, it would make more sense for an all-powerful designer to make things in
whatever order he fancied, even if it would be logistically more difficult. He wouldn't
be constrained by logistics, so would be free to do whatever he like in whatever order.
By contrast, evolutionary theory does have to abide by physics/logistics, so would make
it even less likely for the darwinian approach to fruit making to succede.

> By the logic of mutations, it would make perfect sense for trees to develope wings

Could you please explain what you mean by this in more detail?

Happily! As it provides another chance to tease jellyslayer.
The darwinian-style, jellyslayer-approved, mutation logic, trial and error cycle of:

1. make fruit
2. no fruit eaters
3. die
4. make fruit again
5. no fruit eaters again
6. die again
7. repeat

Could just as easily apply to sprouting wings as to fruit making. Since we had already
cited rootless plants moving to land in search of food, the creative side of me couldn't
resist drawing a contrast by citing a flightless tree sprouting wings in an effort to feed
off the wind.

(stop laughing, with enough trillions of years, it COULD HAPPEN)

[Soirana]

MRSA is, in a way, man-made.

MRSA is just version of staph aureus. Actually since it wastes energy for proteins granted resistance it is slightly weaker than wild pathogen [keep in bind SA is very dangerous bacteria anyway]. Most problematic place is usually cost of treatment.

The darwinian-style, jellyslayer-approved, mutation logic, trial and error cycle of:

1. make fruit
2. no fruit eaters
3. die
4. make fruit again
5. no fruit eaters again
6. die again
7. repeat

Could just as easily apply to sprouting wings as to fruit making. Since we had already
cited rootless plants moving to land in search of food, the creative side of me couldn't
resist drawing a contrast by citing a flightless tree sprouting wings in an effort to feed
off the wind.

(stop laughing, with enough trillions of years, it COULD HAPPEN)

1. make non eatable fruit [or fruitlikish seeds]
2. Eaters adjust to source rich on good material [seeds mainly]
3. Plants adjust by making eatable fruits, which are easy to digest and hard to digest seeds. Thus protecting seeds.
4. Further relations develop - making animals as source of seed spreading and so on...


Well, i do know most americans know bible better than basics of biology, so could you please keep discussion on topic of מָשִׁיחַ worshiping הַשָׂטָן

That makes more enjoyable reading material...

[Grey]

Happily! As it provides another chance to tease jellyslayer.
The darwinian-style, jellyslayer-approved, mutation logic, trial and error cycle of:

1. make fruit
2. no fruit eaters
3. die
4. make fruit again
5. no fruit eaters again
6. die again
7. repeat

Could just as easily apply to sprouting wings as to fruit making. Since we had already
cited rootless plants moving to land in search of food, the creative side of me couldn't
resist drawing a contrast by citing a flightless tree sprouting wings in an effort to feed
off the wind.

(stop laughing, with enough trillions of years, it COULD HAPPEN)

Well, technically we do have flying seeds. These things don't just happen overnight though - you get a tree with slightly extended ridges on its seeds, these float on the wind slightly better, the seeds propogate further, process repeats until you have reasonably well-formed "wings" on the seeds that float on the wind exceptionally well, allowing much greater propogation over large areas. There are physical limits on this of course (trees have no nerve and muscle tissue genes), but it could well be that sycamore trees develop much more advanced seed-wings over the next few million years.

Similarly with fruit it would have started out very small. Animals eat nuts and seeds anyway, some plants in favourable conditions might have produced bigger than necessary seeds, animals favour those, some plants start having extra nutrients on the outside of the seeds, and so on. Remember that we currently only see a snap-shot in time - these are things that will still keep changing over millions of years. (Though humans are specifically encouraging breeding of larger and sweeter fruits at the moment, and we've even begun genetic modifications to improve fruit yields and resistance to diseases.)

There are a lot of symbiotic relationships in nature - flowers/bees, rhinos/birds, etc. The complexity of these relationships is but a testament of the length of time over which they are developing. We also don't know how many of these relationships have existed in the past but have since become obsolete (did mini-pterodactyls pick the teeth of T-rexes?)

[gut]

> MRSA is just version of staph aureus

in context, it is antibiotic resistant, made that way by humans in an effort to fight it .

> since it wastes energy for proteins granted resistance it is slightly weakerh

so you can tell these guys they got off easy:
http://middleeasy.com/index.php?opti...rticle&id=2056
^ this link provided for laughs, as it is presented humorously, but yeah, you
need a strong stomache

> 1. make non eatable fruit [or fruitlikish seeds
plants make non-edible fruit. got it.

> 2. Eaters adjust to source rich on good material [seeds mainly]
animals eat non-edible fruit. got it.

> 3. Plants adjust by making eatable fruits, which are easy to digest and hard to digest seeds. Thus protecting seeds.
despite animals happily eating non-edible fruit, the plants decide to be generous. got it.

> 4. Further relations develop - making animals as source of seed spreading and so on...
they get married and live happily ever after. got it.

^teasing

> most americans know bible better than basics of biolog

if you are implying that my citation of MRSA as being a (man made) problem is off base,
then we'll just disagree

> fruit it would have started out very small. Animals eat nuts and
seeds anyway, some plants in favourable conditions might have produced bigger than
necessary seeds, animals favour those, some plants start having extra nutrients on
the outside of the seeds, and so on

You win the prize for best explaination!

If you read my previous posts though, you can see I wasn't trying to disprove
evolutionary process (though I'm not above poking a bit of fun). As I said, I was
trying to draw a contrast between the 'it doesn't make sense' and the 'what is wrong
with that process' assertions toward the same thing.

[Soirana]

> MRSA is just version of staph aureus

in context, it is antibiotic resistant, made that way by humans in an effort to fight it .

Not antibiotic resistant. Just some major groups of them.

Per se it is not problem if the mentioned bacteria could add few genes for further resistance...

And not by "effort to fight it" but with idiotic usage of antibiotics. Can't we really go on with Jesus and Satan topic?

[gut]

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

> And not by "effort to fight it" but with idiotic usage of antibiotics.

so the idiotic usage was in an effort to help it

[grobblewobble]

> -I would have turned all of the world's desert into arable farmland.

You'd screw up the earth's albedo like that? Hope none of our
eco friends are listening.

Eco friend listening. :P

What's the name again of this movie where Jim Carrey got to play god for a while?

Anyway, if Divine Being is going to fertilize the deserts, why not make all those dead planets habitable, too? And outer space, while we're at it. That would be fun.