1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Discourse on Creation and Evolution

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by iris89, Dec 27, 2004.

  1. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,675
    Ratings:
    +2,658
    Hi Iris,

    Quote [Hi Everyone:

    FIRST, I wish to establish a thread for discussion of creation vs. evolution and to discuss the wonderful things God (YHWH) has provided for us such as the many plants and animals for our enjoyment and use]

    I believe in God, he CREATED the universe (for me, that is my own belief and it is a truism); EVOLUTION is the adaptation of his creations to suit an ever-evolving world(Again, my belief)

    So, why creation vs evolution? they are both valid and true and one cannot replace the other
    :jam:
     
  2. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Everyone

    This thread has drifted all over the place including dealing with dumb questions by those who do not realize what a standard is; to wit, it is simply a standard to judge anything falling within its provience by. And in the case of the Bible, it is a unique standard set by the highest sovereign power in the universe. God (YHWH) as a rule or measure by which all things are to be judged. Since he created all things, it is his absolute right to set the standard as he is responsible for the existence of all things in the universe.

    I write most of my articles as I have previously said in strictly 'Sola Scriptura' writing style which is by use of over 50% scripture from the Bible as a Standard. Any questions about a standard are usually referenced to the standard itself as pointed out by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in Paris and I shall stick with that norm.

    Now let's return to the intent of this thread and stop drifting away from it. The intent of this thread was stated at the very begining of this thread as follows:
    Not to deal with who wrote 1 Timothy, the Tanach, or what is a Standard which all should already know.

    Now let's get back on track.

    Commentary on Bountiful Trees and Vegetables God (YHWH) has provided for mankind, specifically the MULBERRY, Morus genus:

    In Genesis 1:11-13, "And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (American Standard Version, ASV)

    The Mulberry is a most interesting fruit of tremendous variable varieties. The two main branches are the black mulberry and the white mulberry. Varieties that belong to the black mulberry division of this genus, regardless of actual color, have a rather bad reputation for the stains they cause on clothing, rugs, and other items that are difficult and/or impossible to remove; whereas, the white mulberry division of this genus regardless of the actual color does NOT make durable stains.

    The fruit looks like blackberries growing on a tree, but with more sweetness than the average blackberry. The fruit varies from fair to excellent in taste and is excellent for eating fresh, as juice, at jams and jellies, in pies and cobblers, etc. I like the flavor of the Pakistani giant mulberry the best, it is a member of the white mulberry division, very large in size and a redish black when fully ripe and of most excellent flavor. It is great with breakfast cerials.

    Some mulberry varieties can only grow in warm areas such as the Pakistani, the Oscar's, the Silk Hope [all are members of the Morus alba or white mulberry division]; and others are better for colder areas. The varieties best for colder areas are Illinois Everbearing Mulberry - a cross between the Morus alba and the Morus ruba, Weeping [a Morus alba], Contorted Mulberry {Morus alba], common Black Mulberry [Morus nigra], etc.
    [a good source for mulberry trees is Burnt Ridge Nursery in Onalaska, Washington]

    Mulberry trees and bushes with their bid leaves made a very decorative addition to the landscape and if you have some spare space you should consider one. If near the house make sure it belongs to the white mulberry division - Morus alba.

    Mulberries are very soft and perishable so they are usually picked as they are to be used or consumed. Trees spread rapidly after one to two have been planted, because the birds love them and drop seeds far and wide. But do not worry they are very prolific and there will usually be plenty of fruit left for you to consume.

    Your Friend Iris89
     
  3. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Commentary on Bountiful Trees and Vegetables God (YHWH) has provided for mankind, specifically the CARAMBOLA, Averrhoa Carambola:

    In Genesis 1:11-13, "And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (American Standard Version, ASV)

    This is an interesting fruit as its fruit is star shapped. Some Carambolas are quite sweet and almost like candy to the taste and others are quite sour. The ones you are likely to find in the store are rather tart as the real sweet type I so much enjoy do NOT ship well.

    The leaves of this tree are compound and sensitive to both light and to touch; they will fold-up when they are touched or shaded. The fruit is golden yellow when ripe, translucent, ribbed and star-shaped in cross-section.

    There are many named varieties, over 40, of both sweet and sour types. The only three varieties , that in my opinion are truly sweet are the Cary, the Orkin, and the Sherimberka (probably spelt wrong). I am growing the Cary and the Sherimberka, but the Cary has done the best for me. It is very prolific with respect fruit production and its fruit are just wonderful in flavor.

    It can either be eaten fresh, made into pulp and frozen, made into jellies and jams, and into juices. The juice is a drink very rich in vitamin C and of excellent flavor if made from sweet carambolas or if the sour one's juice is mixed with either orange juice or pineapple juice. Also, a candy is made from this fruit. This fruit is one of my favorites.

    Your Friend Iris89
     
  4. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Micael

    Your statement,
    Depends on how you define evolution. If one defines evolution as how life originated this is NOT CORRECT and in direct conflict with Creation by God (YHWH); whereas, if you are referring to it as changes over time there is no conflict. I am constantly trying to change characteristics of various trees. I have had some limited success with the white suporte in that I have changed its yield characteristics slightly.

    But, as you have undoubtedly noticed, many have drifted so far off thread that what they are bringing up is totally unrelated to the thread such as who wrote 1 Timothy which if they were sincerely interested in they could easily find out that the Apostle Paul did in most large dictionaries and encyclopedias by simply looking up 1 Timothy; the Tanach which is a Jewish commentary or devotion book on the Torah, etc. These items have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the thread as you well know as shown by your comment.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  5. michel

    michel Administrator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,675
    Ratings:
    +2,658
    Hi Iris,


    Quote[God (YHWH) Always Existed]

    Thanks for your reply; to help you understand my reply better, I must tell you that I suffer from CDS (concentration Deficit Syndrome).

    Usually, when I see a long worded article, I go into a panic, and quickly go onto the next ones; just a thought - do you write reams to put off people like me from answering?
    :jiggy:

    From your friend in Christ, Michel
     
  6. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi michel

    I definately do NOT write reams to put people like you off. I write comprehensive coverage of a subject to assist all with respect gaining a better comprehension of the ultimate standard, the Bible.

    Some of my items are short as no more need to be said, and some are very long to give due credence or comprehension to a subject as it requires. As you noticed my last reply to you was short, but comprehensive.

    Write again.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  7. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    It's not in conflict with scientific findings, however. How do you view science in relation to your faith?
     
  8. linwood

    linwood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,049
    Ratings:
    +860
    Oh I already have looked it up.
    So I know .

    I also now know that you don`t.

    All these incredibly well written people brandishing these odd beliefs, can`t ever answer a simple question.

    Odd that.

    I do however appreciate the discourse on Carambola.
     
  9. t3gah

    t3gah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,125
    Ratings:
    +48
    I had a conversation with someone pertaining to their disbelief in God the other day. The question came up about Sodom and Gomorrah. I know this might be off topic but it defines belief to a degree.

    Why does God through all of the trouble to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah in bible times but let's it, the immorality, run rampant nowadays?

    I myself was speechless for a change. Please continue iris89.

    I just hope no one asks me about evolution and the existence of God.
     
  10. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Linwood

    I never claimed to know everything, but I do know what I have researched. I have NOT researched who wrote Tanach as I have no reason to. If you researched who wrote it, then you know who wrote it and if so you should share this information with all as I do with what I have researched.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  11. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Ceridwen018

    FIRST, I am a Bible and Biblical researcher and not a scientific researcher.

    SECOND, your statement,
    Is not correct, it is an unproved theory just as was many theories that have since been proven wrong just like the theory that the sun revolved around the earth. In my original post, I provided a link that should supply you with more information on the subject.

    THIRD, Science has no elxplnation, only many conflicting theories, about where matter and energy came from as the formula E = mC(sq) only explains their change from one form to another, but gives no clue to their origin.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  12. lilithu

    lilithu The Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    12,031
    Ratings:
    +1,864
    Your biologist friend doesn't seem to understand systems biology, which is odd. Individual mutations/changes cannot be considered in isolation but only in the context of the system as a whole. For one thing, the number of changes in base-pairs is not nearly as important as the number of changes in genes. For example, if a mutation in one base-pair causes the truncation of that gene, then any other mutations in the following base-pairs are functionally insignificant. Being functionally insignificant, there is no selective pressure to maintain them and thus one could potentially have dozens of additional mutations in that gene very quickly, none of which need to be profitable, and it wouldn't matter one bit. That by itself drops the nuber of required "profitable" mutations by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    There really need not be a large number of mutations to cause speciation. Your biologist friend should remember that genes encode for many different types of proteins, some of which are more important than others. It's not like if you had a 10% difference in mutations you'd have a 10% difference in morphology. Rather, a single mutation in a single regulatory gene can result in dramatic changes in development and morphology. All one needs is a few of those to create two animals that one wouldn't even recognize as related upon first glance. Your friend's argument does not hold up.



    I normally steer clear of the evolution/creation debate - it is so endless and tiresome. But this caused me to respond. It is perfectly fine for you, your biolgist friend or anyone to believe in creationism. But please do not try to use the authority of science to promote your religious beliefs. It cheapens both science and religion. By definition, God cannot be a scientific hypothesis. As a believer, you ought to find that idea as offensive as a scientist would find it ludicrous.
     
  13. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi lilithu

    FIRST, He is not my friend, but just someone who sent me an email which I posted.


    SECOND, I am a Bible researcher not a biologist.

    THIRD, I see mutations as just another so what!

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  14. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    This is a gross mischaracterization. The rejection of the heliocentric model was a triumph--not a defeat--of the scientific method. See: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2518
     
  15. lilithu

    lilithu The Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    12,031
    Ratings:
    +1,864
    My apologies. I thought that everyone was your friend in Christ.


    :confused:

    Friend or not, you posted his argument while stating that he was a biologist, clearly trying to lend the authority of that label to the argument at hand. He is the one who introduced mutation rate to the argument against evolution and I was pointing out the flaws in his argument.

    So mutations are interesting to you when you think they prove your point and "just another so what" when they don't?

    Your Aquaintance in internal inconsistency, lilithu
     
  16. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Mr_Sprinkles

    You see as you state,
    But there are two facts that you failed to cover with respect the Ptolemaic System theory that was replaced with the Copernican Model, or as you call it the heliocentric model which is not the correct name.

    FIRST, the Ptolemaic System model (theory) before it was accepted as fact when it was only a theory just like evolution theory of today, and had its radical believers.

    SECOND, the believers of the Ptolemaic System were intolerant of others,


    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  17. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi lilithu

    Your statement,

    So, that is what is expected of any good writer of which I am one. However, just because a writer quotes another does in no way infer that he/she is in agreement with all they say and/or their life style.

    I quote, refer to, research articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia often; however, that does NOT mean that I agree with the tares they insert within their research article to mislead others into their wrong doctrines. This in keeping with Matthew 13:24-30, "Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field: 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares? 28 And he said unto them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he saith, Nay; lest haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn." (American Standard Version; ASV).

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  18. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    36,697
    Ratings:
    +10,015
    Religion:
    Judaism
    Few have proven themselves so capable of balancing arrogance with ignorance.
     
  19. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Deut. 32.8

    You should not be insulting me with implied false accusations that definately do not apply,

    What I said was completely correct, go check any encyclopedia.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  20. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,985
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    D'oh! :bonk::biglaugh:

    You are absolutely right, iris89. I meant to say the geocentric model was rejected, not the heliocentric model. Thanks for correcting me. (How embarassing!) :biglaugh:

    I still disagree with you that Darwinian evolution can be compared to the Ptolemaic (or geocentric) model of the solar system, but perhaps that's a topic for a different thread.
     
Loading...