quote:
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.
I understand that the TOE still allows room for a divine creation and that it represents change from that point.
quote:
Well, then, I have no idea what you mean by "mathematical error." Are you saying that all chemical bonds are essentially mathematical error?
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.
quote:
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.
You said your self that radiation caused mutation (this is a outside source). 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. Random would be a natural cause, 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.
quote:
Just because a sperm can swim well doesn't mean it does not contain mutations.
I understand "genetic drift" this is a mechinism of micro-evolution though not of macro-evolution.
quote:
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?
Acquired characteristics, are not limited to just body building. Good example though. 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? 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. I would also think that natural selection would remove mutations because generally mutations never have been beneficial.
quote:
atmosphere claims?
Forget I ever said anything about atmosphere please I have corrected my self.
quote:
Their is some scientific evidence for bibilical claims
Sodom & Gomorrah
This is one that I found their are more. Just type sodom and gommorah into google search.
quote:
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.
I understand the differences.
quote:
Then why do you make statements as if you think you know what you are talking about?
Because I do have a basic understanding of genes. I am not going into anything which requires a deep understanding of genes.
quote:
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.
I dont see corrections, I just see justifactions, and all have been guesses (i.e. theoretical). Let me see if I can explain what I understand about evolution. Evolution: a word that means "change" and that is why evolution is a fact, because change happends everyday. Now the TOE on the other hand is not factual it is theoretical and according to you, even though their are many theories, all of these theories regarding evolution and how it occured are firmly represented with little to no gaps. The TOE is represented better when explaining a theory which has many mechinisms. There are so far 2 theories which have many mechinisms that I know of: Macroevoltion and Microevolution. Macroevolution has Biogenisis, Acquired Characteristics, Mutation and Recombinations, as the mechinisms, and might I say that all mechinisms of macroevolution are still in a theoretical state and none of them are factual. Remember that I understand theory is not just a guess. Now their is also Microevolution which has, Natural Selection, Large Scale Phenotypic Changes, Sexual Selection, Genetic Drift, and a few others mechinisms that I didn't mention or may not know of. The entire set of mechinisms for micro-evolution have moved from theory to factual were as all the mechinisms of macroevoltion have not become factual, which means their is gaps. What I am saying is, regardless of the proof, or what way you change words around, you still have those gaps and those gaps represent the reason why the theory is a theory. Alot macroevolutionists claim certain reasons why this or that occured, which make the understanding easier to understand to the point were people will accept it blindly, this blind act is what I like to call faith, this blind act is = to that "faith" in God.
quote:
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?
It is the same kind of faith, your example is not a comparible example, read above I explained already.
quote:
...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.
You make it sound like science is 100% correct in its predictions, you fail to mention the corrections made because of the errors. I wont get into them as their are alot. 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.
quote:
Sure you have some facts supporting that faith, but so do Christians.
At-last, we arrive at the end of my reponse and I repeat, The same kind of faith is required to have faith in god that is required to have faith in Macroevolution.
Quiz
[This message has been edited by Quiz, 11-22-2003]
™ Version 4.2