Apostasy from Christ' true teachings

quote:

---

That depends on the interpretation. I would say that God of the bible did create life on earth, at which point Natural Selection and Sexual Selection took over, allowing mutation to occur.

---

OK, sure, except that there's no evidence that God did anything.However, the ToE is not affected by how life got here.

quote:

---

I think mutation is not a math err,

---

Neither do I.Mutation is either a replication error which has to do with chemical bonds, or it is caused by damage from radiation. There are any number of substances which can damage DNA.

quote:

---

but a problem with food intake instead. I am saying that mutation occurs because of drugs/bad food intake which can cause when preg. with child/mammel/animal whatever a mutation to occur.

---

However, please do not confuse fetal developmental problems with genetic problems.

quote:

---

When the baby is born it appears mutated this is to blame the mother on, not the father.

---

Actually, if the sperm is damaged, mutations can occur in the fetus.There is an equal chance that a mutation will come from the father than from the mother.

quote:

---

If the mutated baby is of the sexual selection then sure, change occurs in natural selection eventually. Yes, natural selection also happends to the atmosphere and this is also allowed from a biblical standpoint.

---

What the heck are you talking about?The atmosphere does not reproduce with variation, so natural selection does not happen to the atmosphere.

quote:

---

So is the bible in religon.

---

No, the Bible being a divine book is completely UNSUPPORTED by any evidence at all!Religion is not evidence-based. It is faith-based.Science is evidence-based.

quote:

---

In science macro-evolution and the mechinisms of it, are not fully supported and as such we cannot accept it factually.

---

No, it is quite well-supported and it is simply YOU who cannot accept it.What makes you, who above shows a painful ignorance of even the bare basics of genetics and evolution, think you know so much better than the hundreds of thousands of professional scientists who have studied these things in great detail for 150 years?

quote:

---

I would say the confusion in science is the same as the confusion in religon.

---

You could say that, but you would be speaking from an uninformed position.

Do you think that accepting the evidence that germs cause disease is the same as having faith in God, or that accepting that the Sun is the center of our solar system and all the planets orbit around it is based in the same kind of faith that allows people to belive in Allah?If credible, falsifiable, well-tested evidence came forth which disproved some or all of the Theory of Evolution, I would definitely accept it. How is this the same as having faith in God?

quote:

---

The TOE is effected becase you have to explain how from no matter came matter.

---

Incorrect.Let's imagine that God created all the matter in the universe.Theory of Evolution deals with what happened (and continues to happen) to life once it got here.So, there is no requirement that the ToE explain where life comes from, just like there is no requirement for theories about aerodynamics are not required to explain where wind comes from.

quote:

---

replication error would suggest a mathmatical error, all though I do agree with damage from radiation but it is also damage from other substances too.

---

Well, then, I have no idea what you mean by "mathematical error." Are you saying that all chemical bonds are essentially mathematical error?

quote:

---

My understanding is that mutation won't occur unless a "outside" source comes into the picture and adds something, which causes a inbalance then eventually a mutation,

---

Incorrect.Mutations happen randomly with nearly every reproductive event. I suggest you do some self-education about mutations. The following site would be a great place to start.http://www.talkorigins.org/...intro-to-biology.html#mutation

quote:

---

but this is not transferable from the father (a bad sperm wont duplicate it is discarded)

---

Just because a sperm can swim well doesn't mean it does not contain mutations.See the following article to read about genetic diseases passed on by sperm.Tell me, where are you getting your information on genetics?Page Not Found

quote:

---

as that would be acquired characteristics, the inbalance has to happen to the mother and only the mother while she is preg.

---

No, "acquired characteristcs" means that if you are a body builder, your children would have bigger muscles without working out.What "imbalance" are you talking about, exactly? Can you cite a source to explain, in scientific terms, what genetic "imbalance" means?

quote:

---

your right, the claims are all theoretical.

---

What claims about the evolution in the atmosphere?

quote:

---

Their is some scientific evidence for bibilical claims,

---

No, there really isn't....at least, I've never seen any.Can you provide some?

quote:

---

but yeah it is mostly theoretical as that is were the faith comes in(i.e. confusion also).

---

I do hope you aren't confusing the layman use of the term "theory" with way scientists use the term.There is no greater level of confidence than "theory" in science. It is as strong a statement we can make, and it is as far away from a "guess" or "hunch" as we can get in science.The point is, the point you are avoiding, is that the belief in the Bible is faith and revelatory in nature. It is not based in fact. It is based on faith.Science begins with evidence only. That's how anyone of any faith, or no faith, can do science.

quote:

---

You're right, I dont have much knowledge in genes.

---

Then why do you make statements as if you think you know what you are talking about?

quote:

---

But evolution I understand preatty well for that does not take much to understand.

---

Quiz, I am sorry, but I do not think that you understand evolution very well, based upon what you have written here.We wouldn't have to correct you so much if you weren't wrong about evolution so often.

quote:

---

The point I am trying to get across is: The reason why the TOE is called the TOE is because it is a theory(i.e. theory of evolution). Sure evolution is factual but the TOE is not.

---

Correct.Just like the Atomic Theory of MAtter, the Germ Theory of Disease, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System are also "theories".In science, theories are the framework within which we organize facts and explain natural phenomena.

quote:

---

That's were the faith plays a role in evolution(i.e. the toe).

---

It's not the same kind of faith as faith in God.Not even close.Do you think that belief in that germs cause disease or the belief that the Sun is the center of the solar system is exactly the same as faith in God?

quote:

---

The bible being supported in religon world? Sure alot of people support the bible in religon and alot of people support the TOE in science, they are both theoretical,

---

No, they are not both theoretical.Remember what I explained earlier about the difference between the layman's use of the word "theory" (guess) and the way scientists use the term (as well-supported as science ever gets)?Religion is not theoretical in a scientific sense.

quote:

---

and as such they require faith. You can come up with all kinds of explanations with evidence or without as to why a certain scripture means something, that is why their is so much confusion in Christianity because nobody really knows what exactly Christ tought.

---

Different kind of faith.

quote:

---

The same for science, no body really knows factually what happend, and as such we cannot just come up with ideas because something points(i.e. evidence) in that direction, that is were false prophets come into play, people who see certain things and think this is what happened or is going to happen, same idea.

---

...except that successful scientific theories are based upon FACTS.They also make predictions which are borne out by future discoveries of more facts.As these theories are repeatedly tested in this way and continue to survive these tests, scientists become more and more confident in the theory.

quote:

---

The point is, TOE is theoretical and as such it requires faith.

---

Do you think that having faith that germs cause disease, or having faith that the Sun is the center of the solar system is the same faith as faith in God?

quote:

---

Sure you have some facts supporting that faith, but so do Christians.

---

Not at all the same kind of faith.

quote:

---

I understand that the TOE still allows room for a divine creation and that it represents change from that point.

---

Good.So, you will stop using the "Evolution is false because it doesn't explain where matter comes from" argument, yes?

quote:

---

I believe that is the idea. Any creation of a "gene" req. math, and when a math error happends the gene is mutated. What caused that error is the outside substance or gas, like radiation, etc.

---

...or simply a random, spontaneous mutation.Please show me a citation from some scientific source which provides some evidence that spontaneous mutation does not occur.

quote:

---

You said your self that radiation caused mutation (this is a outside source).

---

Yes, so?Outside sources can be the cause of mutation, and mutations can occur with no outside influence.

quote:

---

I am saying that for a mutation too occur, something has to change which would not change naturally, such as someone dumping radiation into an area of humans.

---

You do realize that radiation is a naturally-occuring thing and that radiation levels vary around the world, don't you?See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about in my last post.You don't know what you are talking about with regards to mutations, have not made any effort to do any research, yet you make these definitive statements about the causes of mutation.Aren't you starting to get embarrassed or feel foolish?

quote:

---

Random would be a natural cause,

---

...such as naturally-occurring radiation, or spontaneous mutations which are not caused by any outside agent.

quote:

---

that is a theoretical ground and as such it has gaps, the fact is it takes a act to cause a mutation, a act would not be random as a random occurance is natural and a act is not natural.

---

So, the radiation in the monazite-rich black sands of Kerala, India was put there on purpose? What is your evidence for this claim?http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2002101101Tell me, what did you learn at the website on mutations I provided for you?

quote:

---

I understand "genetic drift" this is a mechinism of micro-evolution though not of macro-evolution.

---

What on Earth does genetic drift have to do with your claim that mutations cannot come from males because, as you wrote, "defective sperm are discarded."?Did you read the website I provided which gave an example of mutations coming from sperm?Do you now accept that mutations can come from the father?

quote:

---

Acquired characteristics, are not limited to just body building. Good example though.

---

Quiz, the point is that there is no such thing as the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and your attempt to show that the ToE was violating this was incorrect.

quote:

---

what do I mean by Genetic imbalance? if I understand this concept correctly, here is a example: humans dont live in a enviorment which radiation naturally regenerates correct?

---

How does radiation "regenerate"?If you mean that humans do not live where there is naturally-high levels of radiation, you would be incorrect.

quote:

---

well a imbalance would be to put radiation into our enviorment and that would cause a imbalance in our enviorment and give reason to believe that many pregnant wemon might be effected, and perhaps a mutation would occur. That is what I am talking about and I am saying that this imbalance is not limited to JUST radiation. Their is other harmful gases and substances which cause these mutations, but it is not natural, which is what macro-evolution tries to explain.

---

OK, did you read my last post?I asked for a scientific explanation or definition of the term "genetic imbalance". Instead, you give me a lot of vague rambling.Why don't you just admit that you are making this stuff up as you go along?

quote:

---

I would also think that natural selection would remove mutations because generally mutations never have been beneficial.

---

Incorrect.Generally, mutations which result in phenotypic changes are detrimental and are not selected for.Most mutations, however, are neutral with regards to the fitness of the organism.See, this is another example of your non-understanding of even the basics of evolutionary theory.Here are a couple of sites which will be helpful to your education:http://www.talkorigins.org/...intro-to-biology.html#mutation
Are Mutations Harmful?Also, I went to the site you posted about sodom and gomorrah.The problem with it is that it isn't scientific evidence. It's just a bunch of pictures with a bunch of claims with absolutely no references to any supporting research, professional journal articles, nothing.Have these claims been verified by any independent sources, such as any professional Geologists or Archaeologists?Sorry, this is no better than the sites put up by the alien abduction people. Like I said, I have never seen any scientific evidence for many of the claims in the Bible.

quote:

---

Because I do have a basic understanding of genes. I am not going into anything which requires a deep understanding of genes.

---

But you don't understand, Quiz. You are very, very wrong. Please do some reading and learn so you can correct yourself.

quote:

---

I dont see corrections, I just see justifactions, and all have been guesses (i.e. theoretical).

---

That is a bunch of bullshit.I have gone to a lot of trouble to find links to actual research and sites which are heavily referenced to real scientific research.You have done neither, and you simply have been ignoring everything you don't want to accept.I will address the rest in the thread created for it.

quote:

---

You make it sound like science is 100% correct in its predictions,

---

No, I do not.That is why I say "more and more confident", not "completely sure".

quote:

---

you fail to mention the corrections made because of the errors. I wont get into them as their are alot.

---

Of course there are a lot of errors. The fact that we correct these errors when we find new evidence is the greatest strength of science.This is how we get closer and closer to knowing the truth, although we can never hold any theory as true 100%, such that we can never refine or correct it.If we did do that, it would become dogmatic and would requre blind belief, kind of like religion.

quote:

---

Remember that all the errors began with evidence also, and as such, that is Proof that the process of science is not the best way to get a conclusion.

---

OK, what other method do you suggest that we should have used to get to the Moon, or perhaps to practive medicine?Should we go back to using faith healers instead of antibiotics?