Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Apostasy from Christ' true teachings
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 172 (68007)
11-20-2003 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Quiz
11-19-2003 10:02 PM


Re: Quiz, you avoided much of my post
Quiz, Jeeeesh! The point I was trying to make was that the Bible contains truths as well as falsehoods.
The Bible records Jesus in two places as saying that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds: Matthew 13:31-32 & Mark 4:30-32. Read it, it sticks out like an embarassing pimple on somebody's face. The fact is, it's not the smallest of all seeds. Go to the library and get an illustrated book on plant seeds for crying out loud and compare seed sizes. That's why I mentioned that the Poppy seed is smaller. For Pete's sake, if we really want to get picky, then we can compare size of the mustard seed which we can see, with what the Bible calls a male reproductive 'seed', and we need a microscope to see that!! So it is blaringly obvious that the Bible conatins factual errors regardless of what we think Jesus meant by what he said.
PS: Babble Babble!
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 11-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Quiz, posted 11-19-2003 10:02 PM Quiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 167 of 172 (68431)
11-21-2003 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Quiz
11-18-2003 8:04 PM


Re: Apostasy - post 15 - Rie
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Quiz, posted 11-18-2003 8:04 PM Quiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Sonic, posted 11-22-2003 1:15 AM nator has not replied
 Message 169 by Quiz, posted 11-22-2003 1:18 AM nator has replied

  
Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 172 (68515)
11-22-2003 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by nator
11-21-2003 6:36 PM


...
...
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 11-21-2003 6:36 PM nator has not replied

  
Quiz
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 172 (68516)
11-22-2003 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by nator
11-21-2003 6:36 PM


Re: Apostasy - post 15 - Rie
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by nator, posted 11-21-2003 6:36 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-22-2003 8:27 AM Quiz has not replied
 Message 171 by Asgara, posted 11-22-2003 12:53 PM Quiz has not replied
 Message 172 by nator, posted 11-23-2003 7:46 AM Quiz has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 170 of 172 (68524)
11-22-2003 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Quiz
11-22-2003 1:18 AM


Re: Apostasy - post 15 - Rie
The same kind of faith is required to have faith in god that is required to have faith in Macroevolution.
Absolute rubbish. Faith (belief sans evidence) in God(s) is baseless and wholly reliant upon revelation, while belief in macroevolution is driven by evidence. 'God(s)' is not a theory, but a placeholder for the absence of one. The very best one might say is ...
quote:
In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:
  • You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.
This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.
- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler
[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Quiz, posted 11-22-2003 1:18 AM Quiz has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 171 of 172 (68538)
11-22-2003 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Quiz
11-22-2003 1:18 AM


Re: Apostasy - post 15 - Rie
Quiz writes:
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.
This is the wrong forum to call you on the above paragraph, but so much is wrong with it that I believe it has to be addressed. I have copied this statement to the Micro and Macro Evolution thread on the Evolution forum. Maybe Quiz could join the discussion over there and have the problems with his statement addressed.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
edited to add link
[This message has been edited by Asgara, 11-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Quiz, posted 11-22-2003 1:18 AM Quiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 172 of 172 (68720)
11-23-2003 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Quiz
11-22-2003 1:18 AM


Re: Apostasy - post 15 - Rie
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/2002101101
Tell 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Quiz, posted 11-22-2003 1:18 AM Quiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024