Genetics and evolution

[Bamalaw92]

that's how your post starts.


that's how it ends.

circular post structure ...

It's called sticking to a point with a beginning and a conclusion. I can see you are affirming that an honest apology is not within your nature. That's all I need to know about your character. Despite your offensive insult dressed up as an apology below.

also, i don't believe in treating anything as sacrosanct, and like to have fun when i get on tidefans. but since my mawmaw told me not to play in church and since i missed your old curmudgeony a$$, i apologize for treating the subject with levity.

It matters not what you believe regarding how certain things should be treated. The rules of this board prohibit offensive slurs against Christ and or Christianity. You do not have to believe it but do not voice slurs on this topic here. I am sure you would feel the same if someone had the belief that racial slurs should be permissible because nothing is sacrosanct.

 

[blackumbrella]

It's called sticking to a point with a beginning and a conclusion. I can see you are affirming that an honest apology is not within your nature. That's all I need to know about your character. Despite your offensive insult dressed up as an apology below.


It matters not what you believe regarding how certain things should be treated. The rules of this board prohibit offensive slurs against Christ and or Christianity. You do not have to believe it but do not voice slurs on this topic here. I am sure you would feel the same if someone had the belief that racial slurs should be permissible because nothing is sacrosanct.

since you really want to talk about it, we might as well. i said nothing at all critical of jesus, all i did was talk about him the way i'd talk about any other literary character, which is how i see him. there's a difference between not treating something as sacrosanct and slurring it. i'm guilty of the former. as for offending christianity or any other religion--now that's an interesting idea. many religions inhere offensiveness in their very doctrines. certain brands of islam inhere offense to other races. certain brands of christianity inhere offense to homosexuals. i don't believe in being hateful toward anyone.

 

[ValuJet]

...

 

[Bamalaw92]

since you really want to talk about it, we might as well. i said nothing at all critical of jesus, all i did was talk about him the way i'd talk about any other literary character, which is how i see him. there's a difference between not treating something as sacrosanct and slurring it. i'm guilty of the former. as for offending christianity or any other religion--now that's an interesting idea. many religions inhere offensiveness in their very doctrines. certain brands of islam inhere offense to other races. certain brands of christianity inhere offense to homosexuals. i don't believe in being hateful toward anyone.

You said very critical and offensive things about Christ. It did not seem either offensive or critical to you because you personally do not believe Christ to be divine. It matters not, however, whether YOU find it to be offensive and a slur, it matters to the people you are addressing. As a Christian, I found it to be highly offensive, critical, and slurring. Others did as well. I have had people look me in the eye and say there is nothing offensive about black face or little black Sambo. I would hazzard a guess that you would disagree. Rather than be a man, simply swallow your pride and honestly apologize for actually causing offense (whether you truly perceive it to be offensive or not) you chose to continue to try and rationalize and explain away your ridicule of my and many other's personal saviour, and somehow explain to me and others why we have no valid reason to be offended. Your latest rationalization is along the lines of "well they do it too, so......." Sorry if it is not very convincing. It never has been.

 

[Bamalaw92]

I have gotten a couple of notes about the tone of this thread, and specifically where it's questioned that a post was a slur against Christianity. As you know from signing up for TideFans, racial or religious slur are not tolerated.

IMO, and I'll drop the vaguenesss here because blackumbrella's post is the one called into question, I do not necessarily agree with what he posted, but I do not see his words as a slur. Was he sarcastic in his choice of words making silly comparisons? Yes, he was. But we haven't outlawed sarcasm.

I do not want to lock this thread and do not want to run anyone off. blackumbrella said he isn't hateful towards anyone and I believe him and that includes Christians.

Respectfully, I disagree. If BU had written:
and is there a perceivable difference in regular Martin Luther King, Jr. and mythical MLK, Jr.. from the renderings i've seen, MLK doesn't look like he coulf put two sentences together that we could understand (but then agian most of those render him fat too) so does MLK have a race limit that he can surpass if he flips the speech switch, like when Rerun went into super dance mode in What's Happening, or when Amos and Andy procured the fried chicken and Watermelon, or when Little Black Sambo fooled the Tigers to the glee of Black Jumbo, or is the speech ability more myth?

How many african americans would find that to be offensive and full of racial slurs? Again, it is the perspective of the hearer or reader of the words that matters. That is my disagreement. Your's for purposes of this forum however is the final word. Just as it was when there was nothing found wrong with referring to MARTA as Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta.

 

[bamabake]

I have gotten a couple of notes about the tone of this thread, and specifically where it's questioned that a post was a slur against Christianity. As you know from signing up for TideFans, racial or religious slur are not tolerated.

IMO, and I'll drop the vaguenesss here because blackumbrella's post is the one called into question, I do not necessarily agree with what he posted, but I do not see his words as a slur. Was he sarcastic in his choice of words making silly comparisons? Yes, he was. But we haven't outlawed sarcasm.

I do not want to lock this thread and do not want to run anyone off. blackumbrella said he isn't hateful towards anyone and I believe him and that includes Christians.

No one generally likes to see threads locked. I appreciate this attitude. The challenge in many threads, as I see it, is when someone gets personal and frankly off topic. BU does this regularly although not always intentionally. BL is just offended, as were many others including me. On this particuar issue I dont think BL said that BU was being hateful but rather terribly insensitive at the least and in violation of the forum rules at the worst. Since you have settled that issue and I of course am not anyones spokesPERSON, lets get back to the topic. RTR!!

 

[bayoutider]

I have gotten a couple of notes about the tone of this thread, and specifically where it's questioned that a post was a slur against Christianity. As you know from signing up for TideFans, racial or religious slur are not tolerated.

IMO, and I'll drop the vaguenesss here because blackumbrella's post is the one called into question, I do not necessarily agree with what he posted, but I do not see his words as a slur. Was he sarcastic in his choice of words making silly comparisons? Yes, he was. But we haven't outlawed sarcasm.

I do not want to lock this thread and do not want to run anyone off. blackumbrella said he isn't hateful towards anyone and I believe him and that includes Christians.

I am going to add this to what VJ has already said. I have been reminded more than once by the Site Owner, the non-sports forum is "Enter at your own risk". There are some items that are more loosely moderated on this board than on the other tidefans boards simply by the nature of the topics.

I probably received some of the same emails VJ did on this topic. The thing that is most correct in this thread is we will have the final word. We do appreciate those who bring threads or posts to our attention. Without that some would slip through the cracks. VJ has been the moderator of this forum since I can remember. Most all of the admin have moderated since before the birth of tidefans.com. My point is we can, without help, interpret the policy of this forum. Any variations of what we understand, we go directly to the Site Owner for his clarification.

I agree with VJ completely.

 

[Rainbow Tider]

um, all this jesus talk is making me randy. you guys and your big intellects. i just wnat to make one point about how its funny how cretion people say evolution hasnt been proven then go on about a man who was supposed to be born of a virgin and the son of god. is that irony? i think maybe so.

 

[NYBamaFan]

Rainbow,

Creationists know that their beliefs are based solely on faith. There is no irony unless you agree that the theory of evolution must also be taken on faith, which is exactly the argument presented in this thread.

 

[ValuJet]

...

 

[jthomas666]

Maybe I'll go rent "Contact" at Blockbuster. I sort of got the best of both worlds the first time I watched it.

Good plan, good movie. :smile:

 

[blackumbrella]

um, all this jesus talk is making me randy. you guys and your big intellects. i just wnat to make one point about how its funny how cretion people say evolution hasnt been proven then go on about a man who was supposed to be born of a virgin and the son of god. is that irony? i think maybe so.

good point bowTi, show evidence of within species evolution, some demand evidence of between species evolution. show evidence of between species evolution, they want evidence of between genus evolution. it's the ever-so-movable line (drawn at arbitrary points as we've seen (species concept link back on page 17)) in the sand COB spoke of. and yet, the same people so concerned with evidence require none of virgin birth, resurrection, global floods, dividing seas, etc. both require a degree of faith, only one requires a degree of evidence.

 

[bamabake]

good point bowTi, show evidence of within species evolution, some demand evidence of between species evolution. show evidence of between species evolution, they want evidence of between genus evolution. it's the ever-so-movable line (drawn at arbitrary points as we've seen (species concept link back on page 17)) in the sand COB spoke of. and yet, the same people so concerned with evidence require none of virgin birth, resurrection, global floods, dividing seas, etc. both require a degree of faith, only one requires a degree of evidence.

AS ususal you have slept through this entire thread. Both require faith as you have fianly admitted. When your side has scoffed at that then you are left to prove you theory at any level.
BTW there is ample evidence of the flood. It is all part of this "fossil record" biz as well.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

AS ususal you have slept through this entire thread. Both require faith as you have fianly admitted. When your side has scoffed at that then you are left to prove you theory at any level.
BTW there is ample evidence of the flood. It is all part of this "fossil record" biz as well.

Yes, there is evidence of a great flood in ancient times. However, the evidence is not paleontological (the fossil record). The evidence is geological, with additional archeological evidence as well.

The best evidence points to the loss of a land mass separating the Mediterranean Sea and what is now the Black Sea. This probably occurred near the end of the last ice age, some 10,000 years ago. As the ice caps melted back towards the poles, sea level rose and the 'plug' at the mouth of the Black Sea was either undermined or overtopped (or both).

As we saw in the Tsunami disaster last year, huge amounts of water rushing over a land mass causes catastrophic damage. Imagine the December 2004 tsunami, raised to the power of 100. The geologic and hydraulic evidence suggests that the water may have rushed as far inland as Kazakhstan.

There is additional evidence of land mass loss at Gibraltar, caused by the rapid draining of the Mediterranean and a subsequent change in hydraulic pressure. This would have resulted in a second, even more catastrophic Tsunami, as water from the Atlantic rushed through the Mediterranean Basin. It would have certainly flooded most of the ancient world.

It would certainly also have changed regional weather patterns, and it's entirely likely that heavy rainfall would have occurred over the region.

However, there is no evidence that China, Japan, South America, North America or sub-Saharan Africa were flooded. All of these continents were inhabited by the end of the last Ice Age, and civilization had been well under way in most of them.

Did the whole world flood? Well, if you lived in the middle east, it would have seemed like it.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

So that the edit bug doesn't get me...

The question becomes, did someone really make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights? Well, someone probably didn't. But something may have.

That 'something' was most assuredly a natural occurrence, and the processes that caused that natural disaster are very well understood today. Ten thousand years ago, those processes would have seemed supernatural.

Can we relate this to the debate over creation vs. evolution? I think so, because the ability to understand the process by which life has developed on the planet exists in far greater capacity today than it did some 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, when the glaciers receded and weather patterns became more hospitable for the development of human civilization.

We now have great understanding of the concepts of hydraulic head differential. If you demonstrated a siphon to a high priest of ancient Israel, you would have been stoned as a witch.

We also now have a much greater understanding of the actual age of the planet, and the geologic forces that have shaped its land masses over the last five billion years. If the same high priest had walked up to a volcanic fissure and observed a lava flow, he would have declared it the flames of perdition.

How did eclipses affect the ancient world? Storms? Earthquakes? The occasional brush with a meteor? We understand the natural processes behind those phenomena. Our ancient ancestors did not, but the human mind has to find a reason for everything.

 

[Bamalaw92]

My point is we can, without help, interpret the policy of this forum. Any variations of what we understand, we go directly to the Site Owner for his clarification.

I agree with VJ completely.

And my point is that we can, without help, freely disagree with your interpretation. Ours, As I said earlier however, is not the last word. I, and others here, including site owners, administrators and moderators often disagree with a judge's interpretation of the law, and often offer help to those judges when given the opportunity to assist in the interpretation. Judges that have been on the bench for far longer than any of us were even aware of the laws. That neither makes them infallible, their interpretation correct, nor vanquish our right to dissent. It does, however give them the last word. I disagree completely with the interpretation.

 

[ValuJet]

...

 

[Bamalaw92]

BL92 - your points are noted. If you feel the need to further discuss, please send me a PM or e-mail.

will do

 

[blackumbrella]

AS ususal you have slept through this entire thread. Both require faith as you have fianly admitted. When your side has scoffed at that then you are left to prove you theory at any level.
BTW there is ample evidence of the flood. It is all part of this "fossil record" biz as well.

evidence for the flood huh? (and why where you conspicuously silent about evidence for virgin birth or resurrection?) where? i'm sure there's evidence for a flood or even many floods, floods whose legends perhaps influenced biblical writers, but not for (and my understanding of the flood as dramatized in the bible could be mistaken ) a flood that covered the surface of the earth and from which only the animal and plant species that could fit in a boat survived. please do present the scientific evidence for such an event taking place. i'd also enjoy you showing me where i ever said evolution is proven beyond doubt's shadow. you on the other hand, have said on numerous occassions that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation as presented in the bible, a patently false claim, a ridiculous claim. so ridiculous in fact that i just want to be sure i'm not misunderstanding it. are you saying?: 1) biblical creationism and evolution are not compatible ideas, 2) biblical creationism demands less blind faith than evolution because it better accounts for the totality of scientific evidence to date.

 

[blackumbrella]

Yes, there is evidence of a great flood in ancient times. However, the evidence is not paleontological (the fossil record). The evidence is geological, with additional archeological evidence as well.

The best evidence points to the loss of a land mass separating the Mediterranean Sea and what is now the Black Sea. This probably occurred near the end of the last ice age, some 10,000 years ago. As the ice caps melted back towards the poles, sea level rose and the 'plug' at the mouth of the Black Sea was either undermined or overtopped (or both).

As we saw in the Tsunami disaster last year, huge amounts of water rushing over a land mass causes catastrophic damage. Imagine the December 2004 tsunami, raised to the power of 100. The geologic and hydraulic evidence suggests that the water may have rushed as far inland as Kazakhstan.

There is additional evidence of land mass loss at Gibraltar, caused by the rapid draining of the Mediterranean and a subsequent change in hydraulic pressure. This would have resulted in a second, even more catastrophic Tsunami, as water from the Atlantic rushed through the Mediterranean Basin. It would have certainly flooded most of the ancient world.

It would certainly also have changed regional weather patterns, and it's entirely likely that heavy rainfall would have occurred over the region.

However, there is no evidence that China, Japan, South America, North America or sub-Saharan Africa were flooded. All of these continents were inhabited by the end of the last Ice Age, and civilization had been well under way in most of them.

Did the whole world flood? Well, if you lived in the middle east, it would have seemed like it.

oops. nice post. i should've read further.