Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[-57]

Perhaps you didn't understand the question.

Which DNA base differences between the chimp and human genomes can mutations not produce?

The onlt thing a mutation can produce would be a loss of information...not a gain of information.

 

[Loudmouth]

The onlt thing a mutation can produce would be a loss of information...not a gain of information.

Let me see if I have this straight.

God creates the following human and chimp sequences, and it is considered a gain in information.

ATTATAGGGCTC --Human
ATTATCGGGCTC --Chimp

The process of mutation produces the exact same differences, and it is considered a loss in information:

ATTATAGGGCTC --Human
ATTATCGGGCTC --Chimp

Care to explain how the same exact outcome is considered a gain in information in one instance, but a loss of information in the other instance?

 

[Loudmouth]

You've got to be kidding? The information in the DNA instructs on how to take a molecule and combine them to make amino acids.

Hydrogen and oxygen carry instructions on how to combine atoms to make water. Same thing.

..and you said the code in DNA is all the same? Like making water?

There is no qualitative difference between what DNA, proteins, and RNA do than what any other molecule does.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It really doesn't matter if I gave you an element or a definition...

It matters quite a lot -- it also matters that you can't give a definition.

Regardless, instructions are part of DNA which means it contains information.
Now, will you admitt DNA code contains information?

What's "information"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You posted"there are no "instructions" in DNA."

Wiki disagrees.
DNA) is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.

another.....The language used by DNA is called the genetic code, which lets organisms read the information in the genes. This information is the instructions for constructing and operating a living organism.
DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, like a recipe or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules.

....I could probably do this all night long.

Yes, you could probably keep making these kinds of errors all night long. The error you just made was an equivocation error. They are not using those terms in the same sense you are since the good folks at Wiki know that evolution does allow for "new information" and "new instructions" using the definitions that they use. The problem is that you are using some strange definitions of these words that you cannot pass on and cannot defend.

This seems to be part of your reading comprehension problem. You do not seem to understand context. Lifting words and phrases out of context is actually a dishonest technique called quote mining.


So, have you defined your terms yet? If you haven't then you still are on the losing side here.

 

[Reasoning]

Yes, you could probably keep making these kinds of errors all night long. The error you just made was an equivocation error. They are not using those terms in the same sense you are since the good folks at Wiki know that evolution does allow for "new information" and "new instructions" using the definitions that they use. The problem is that you are using some strange definitions of these words that you cannot pass on and cannot defend.

This seems to be part of your reading comprehension problem. You do not seem to understand context. Lifting words and phrases out of context is actually a dishonest technique called quote mining.


So, have you defined your terms yet? If you haven't then you still are on the losing side here.

I always find it interesting that creationist go arms length to try and debunk theories that are well proven, coming up with wrong interpretations, wrong evidence and they especially prefer to go into the smallest details, usually way beyond their own understanding. They demand the biggest, fullest, most of evidences, being super-skeptic to it. They keep bringing up mistakes and frauds that might have occurred during the long history of proof for a theory, picking and choosing specifically that what seems like a nice catch for an (always failing) debunk attempt. Wow, I would almost admire their enormously high objective standards, no no, these people are not to be fooled into thinking a theory is true without perfect proof!

Unless...... God says it! The earth is created by God of course, scripture says so, so it is true. Now I know that it is true, so I have looked and found some 'evidence' that supports it. I rest my case! Let's go tell the scientists how unscientific and wrong their data is, especially on the details that I don't know much about!

Oh the hypocrisy.

 

[Hoghead1]

Exactly who have the Ph.D. taught evolution and then became a creation scientist? And how dos this necessarily lend support to creation science? True, there is more than one Ph.D. scientist into creation science. However, check their publication record. They published absolutely not one scientific paper in creation science. Also, they seem to have little, if any, advanced education in biblical studies, theology, etc. We are not impressed.

 

[redleghunter]

Paul's writings were private correspondence to church leaders -- it's less "the word of God" and more reading someone's mail.

Not according to the apostle Peter.

2 Peter 3:


15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[redleghunter]

Is God required for electricity to work?
How about gravity?
How about antibiotics?

The internal combustion engine...

At which step does God intervene? A, B, C, or D?

You gave very good examples of things we can clearly observe and reproduce.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is a requirement , in any serious theological discussion, to be respectful in what is said. "Evo babblers" is not an appropriate term to use here.

 

[redleghunter]

To an extent that's true. But the more general question is Where in Scripture does Scripture say what Scripture is?

And the answer to that question is: nowhere.

Scripture speaks highly of Scripture, but it doesn't give a list of what counts as Scripture.

If we remember that in the ancient world, not much was written, and the farther one goes back, the more true that is, the fact that the word "scripture" simply means "writing" in Latin is indicative of the importance that ancients in a mostly-illiterate society placed on writing.

We attribute supernatural power to Scripture, as did ancients such as Paul. Scripture is very important, according to Scripture. But Scripture doesn't spell out what IS Scripture, and the different Christian churches disagree as to what is actually IN the Bible. In the end, the answer is that "Scripture" is whatever your church says Scripture is.

And that means that Enoch, Jubilees, 1,2,3 and 4 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, two different versions of Esther, about a third of Daniel, the Didache and some other books I can't think of right now either are or are not Scripture depending on the denomination of the believer.

And then, among the books that everybody agrees on, the question of what is TRUE scripture comes down to certain manuscripts, with some recognizing certain ones as the authentic Scriptures, while others reject those manuscripts in favor of others.

Never mind translations thereof, which adds a whole level to complexity.

So before anybody talks about the authority of "Scripture", it can be useful to know exactly what is and isn't Scripture to that person, and why they think that. It gives a good insight into his or her thought processes on the subject.

As Christians Christ made it quite easy what Scriptures have authority. He told the disciples to "look for Him" in the Law, Prophets and Writings/Psalms.

So He focused them like a beam that what is important is about Him. And that is exactly what the apostles did from what we have in the NT.

 

[redleghunter]

If we evolved from monkeys, does God look like a monkey? First, we didn't evolve from monkeys or apes, but from a common ancestor. If you are going to criticize evolution, please get your facts straight. The question may or may not be valid, depending on how you vie the Imago. The historical question here went something like this: If God created man in his own image, does God look like a man? The church fathers answered emphatically no, not at all. They did not take the Imago to mean God looks like us at all. But let us move on.
Much of how you would answer the question depends on your metaphysics, how you see God as structurally related to the universe. For example, I am a panentheist. I believe the universe is the body God. As such, everything in the universe looks like God, and ten absolutely nothing in the universe looks like God. A human or a monkey looks like Good, became those creatures are part of the being of God. Hence, looking at them is analogous to looking at particular part of my body. he who has seen my big toe has seen at least a part of me. On the other hand, no creature can look like God, as the whole always transcends the parts. If all you se of me is by big tow, you have no idea what the rest of me looks like, which is quite different from how my big toe looks.

Dude you spammed the thread again. Please take the tutorial.

 

[redleghunter]

Oral Tradition, you say? Divine inspiration determined by a popularity contest, more like. God's words determined by people, not God.

The apostles spread the Gospel orally and also wrote books and letters.

This is not difficult as Christ focused the apostles on what Scriptures from TaNaKh mattered to the Gospel message. First everything He taught them which was substantiated in TaNaKh and by His Power (miracles) and the following:

Luke 24:

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

...

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.(KJV)

Then we see in the remainder of the NT the apostles doing exactly what Christ Jesus commanded. They preached the Gospel using His Words and TaNaKh.

One only has to leaf through the Acts of the Apostles to see the TaNaKh used to proclaim Jesus as Messiah.

People like to say "what did Jesus say?" Now we know.

 

[redleghunter]

It is a requirement , in any serious theological discussion, to be respectful in what is said. "Evo babblers" is not an appropriate term to use here.

Evolution is a theological discussion?

You might be right. Many have such a religious zeal for evolution.

 

[Hoghead1]

Where did Christ specifically say that , Redleghunter? Also, remember, Christ contrasts himself with the OT, with his "you have heard it said, but I say unto you." What he is doing is ripping out a the whole of the OT laws, except maybe for the Ten Commandments. And it is questionable whether or not he is attacking latter. Remember, the Commandments states you are to honor your parents. In sharp contrast , Christ does says he has came to set father against son, etc. "If anyone comes to me who does not hate his father, mother, wife, and children, he cannot be my disciple" (LK. 14).

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, evolution is a theological discussion. And you are using "religion" her in the pejorative sense of the term, which is inappropriate.

 

[Hoghead1]

There is nothing there, Redleghunter, to show that Christ went down a list of books and sais these are the canon. And there is nothing here to indicate that Christ considered anything in the OT to be inerrant. Citing passage in no may means the source you are taking it form is inerrant.

 

[Vicomte13]

As Christians Christ made it quite easy what Scriptures have authority. He told the disciples to "look for Him" in the Law, Prophets and Writings/Psalms.

So He focused them like a beam that what is important is about Him. And that is exactly what the apostles did from what we have in the NT.

Certainly. Which is why my own hermeneutic is to start with the very words of Christ, which are at their most authoritative in Revelation (post-resurrection, post-ascension, post-founding of Churches, enthroned in Heaven), then Acts (post resurrection), then in the Gospels.

And then in what YHWH and Elohiym said in the OT. Most of the disputed books of the OT contain little to no direct speaking of God or angels, but Tobit does, and Enoch is almost entirely full of divine speaking, so those two disputed books are important Scriptures.

The rest of the material is historical - which is important for context - or interpretive.

Where I find things the most problematic is when I hear Christians finding a lot of doctrine that doesn't sound like Christ by cobbling things together at the marginalia of letters by Apostles. This concerns me greatly, because I notice that the trend of all such interpretations is a subtle, or markedly less than subtle, attempt to evade all of the hard things Jesus said, and to make harder the easier things he said.

 

[redleghunter]

Where did Christ specifically say that , Redleghunter?

Luke 24.

 

[redleghunter]

Certainly. Which is why my own hermeneutic is to start with the very words of Christ, which are at their most authoritative in Revelation (post-resurrection, post-ascension, post-founding of Churches, enthroned in Heaven), then Acts (post resurrection), then in the Gospels.

And then in what YHWH and Elohiym said in the OT. Most of the disputed books of the OT contain little to no direct speaking of God or angels, but Tobit does, and Enoch is almost entirely full of divine speaking, so those two disputed books are important Scriptures.

The rest of the material is historical - which is important for context - or interpretive.

Where I find things the most problematic is when I hear Christians finding a lot of doctrine that doesn't sound like Christ by cobbling things together at the marginalia of letters by Apostles. This concerns me greatly, because I notice that the trend of all such interpretations is a subtle, or markedly less than subtle, attempt to evade all of the hard things Jesus said, and to make harder the easier things he said.

Understand your position and views.

I was addressing the comments mostly of "we don't know what is Scripure."

If we go by what Christ commanded his disciples then we accept the TaNaKh which points to Him and the teachings of the apostles who taught and preached about Him.

Seems the early church fathers used the same formula and got it about right.