The onlt thing a mutation can produce would be a loss of information...not a gain of information.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
..and you said the code in DNA is all the same? Like making water?
It really doesn't matter if I gave you an element or a definition...
Regardless, instructions are part of DNA which means it contains information.
Now, will you admitt DNA code contains information?
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.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.
Paul's writings were private correspondence to church leaders -- it's less "the word of God" and more reading someone's mail.
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?
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.
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.
Oral Tradition, you say? Divine inspiration determined by a popularity contest, more like. God's words determined by people, not God.
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.
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.
Where did Christ specifically say that , 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?