The Battle Between The Christian Religion and Science

[jonathan180iq]

Repeat it and observe it. If you say mutations are a mechanism for a change of species, do it and observe it.

I feel like you're thinking of mutations in the way that the X-men are mutants... Like, someone is born one day with extraordinary new physical functions. I hope you know that this is not what anyone is talking about...

Mutations happen at the genetic level, something that you should know since you're so keen to refer to the "Laws of Genetics", whatever that means to you. Most mutations cause no phenotypical change at all. They aren't positive or negative. They're just neutral changes within the genetic make up of individual organisms that produce slight differences over generations... You carry mutations in your genes today that differentiate you from your parents. It's what makes sexual reproduction so much more viable for long-term suitability of organisms.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_3.htm
http://www.biology-pages.info/M/Mutation_and_Evolution.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

This is simply how biology works. I have no idea what it is that you find confusing about this. I mean that honestly.

You do not understand scientific evidence and you are willing to accept any statement you think reinforces your belief system.

What belief system is that, exactly?

You've asked me to provide evidence for something that does not happen. You want squirrles to grow wings in a single generation and start laying eggs. It's unsettling that you don't get why that's a stupid thing to ask for. As evidence for evolution, you want us to show you something that's not an evolutionary claim. The problem is your understanding - not the science

People here are willing to help educate you on this topic, but you haven't bothered reading the first supplied link...

If you've really been doing this for years, as you say, why don't you demonstrate a better grasp of evolutionary understanding than that?

If you can't answer the question I just ask, with a scientific explanation, it is you who does not understand science. If I can't be reasoned with, then ignore me.

Call me a glutton for punishment - but if I can get you to understand even one aspect of the actual science behind Evolutionary theory, then I'll be happy.

What most creationists fail to realize is that they are doing their faith a disservice by arguing on topics to which they are openly ignorant. Think about that before you get offended.

If you think time changes the laws of genetics, you will never understand what science teaches. Written records tell us about the Revolutionary war. Now you get to determine if they are telling the truth or not. Real science doesn't work that way. Some history can be embellished or slanted to fit an personal agenda. Science can't be embellished or slanted to fit an agenda. If it does , it is no longer science.

Here comes you trying to pass off the Creationist idea of "Historical Science", am I right?
That's not a thing, man. That's something that Creationists have invented to help them mentally hoola-hoop through logical arguments.

There is nothing limiting about Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

There is absolutely no reason to assume that the natural laws were somehow different in the past. There is nothing, anywhere, that could lend credence to the idea that things happened differently 6,000 years ago from how they operate today. To argue from any of those points would show a complete disregard for intellectual honesty.

You've alluded to embellishments in science. What are they? Which things specifically do you think have been embellished to fit a personal agenda? What part of science do you think suffers from the ills that you've mentioned?

 

[omega2xx]

I feel like you're thinking of mutations in the way that the X-men are mutants... Like, someone is born one day with extraordinary new physical functions. I hope you know that this is not what anyone is talking about...

Not only do I know what mutations are and where they take place, I know what they do and they NEVER result in an a change of species.

Mutations happen at the genetic level, something that you should know since you're so keen to refer to the "Laws of Genetics", whatever that means to you. Most mutations cause no phenotypical change at all. They aren't positive or negative. They're just neutral changes within the genetic make up of individual organisms that produce slight differences over generations... You carry mutations in your genes today that differentiate you from your parents. It's what makes sexual reproduction so much more viable for long-term suitability of organisms.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_3.htm
http://www.biology-pages.info/M/Mutation_and_Evolution.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

What you said is the point---mutations change characteristics, but the SO NOT CHANGE the species in which they occur.

This is simply how biology works. I have no idea what it is that you find confusing about this. I mean that honestly.

The only thing I find confusing is why intelligent people think mutations are a mechanism for a change of species, when they can't produce one example of a mutation that changed the species in which the mutation occurred.

What belief system is that, exactly?

It is a belief system that says science proves theories and that is why the ToE is still a theory.

You've asked me to provide evidence for something that does not happen. You want squirrles to grow wings in a single generation and start laying eggs. It's unsettling that you don't get why that's a stupid thing to ask for. As evidence for evolution, you want us to show you something that's not an evolutionary claim. The problem is your understanding - not the science

Then tell me, scientifically of course, what was a squirrle before it was squirrel and what did it evolve into?

People here are willing to help educate you on this topic, but you haven't bothered reading the first supplied link...

I have been reading evo links for 20+ years. I have yet to find any real scientific evidence for what they say. Now it should be easy for you to quote the evidence from any link you want. Then I will show you why it was not evidence. If I can't, that will make you the evo hero that finally shut me up. lol

If you've really been doing this for years, as you say, why don't you demonstrate a better grasp of evolutionary understanding than that?

Evolution is a sidebar. The real subject is science. Evolution is rejected by the laws of genetics. It seems the evolutionists in this forum are willing to accept opinions as science.

Call me a glutton for punishment - but if I can get you to understand even one aspect of the actual science behind Evolutionary theory, then I'll be happy.

Wonderful, I will make your day. Provide one, just one example of something in the TOE, that has been proven scientifically.

What most creationists fail to realize is that they are doing their faith a disservice by arguing on topics to which they are openly ignorant. Think about that before you get offended.

do be offended by this d, but evolutionist like you, make the mistake that I have brought religion in to this discussion. I have not, but you have. Stick to the subject with science

Here comes you trying to pass off the Creationist idea of "Historical Science", am I right?
That's not a thing, man. That's something that Creationists have invented to help them mentally hoola-hoop through logical arguments.

Don't accuse me of something I have not done. If you want to discuss religion, start another thread.

There is nothing limiting about Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

Of course there was. Since the peas never became anything but peas, it proved "AFTER THEIR KIND."

There is absolutely no reason to assume that the natural laws were somehow different in the past. There is nothing, anywhere, that could lend credence to the idea that things happened differently 6,000 years ago from how they operate today. To argue from any of those points would show a complete disregard for intellectual honesty.

Then quit tell me that small variations over millions of years caused evolution., unless you can show me how time changed the laws of genetics.

You've alluded to embellishments in science. What are they? Which things specifically do you think have been embellished to fit a personal agenda? What part of science do you think suffers from the ills that you've mentioned?

Not embellishment is science, embellishments in evolution, trying to make it scientific.

One of the best examples is a dog-like animal being in the evolutionary line of whales. Not only is that absurd on the surface, there is absolutely no science that will cause a nose to become a blowhole.

 

[omega2xx]

But actually many of them do cover the genetics, so you might check out copies of Scientific American, for example, or check their site on-line. Even Wikipedia has links you can access.


Ever hear of the word called "mutation"? All material objects change over time, as least as far as we can tell, and this includes genes. Too much of a change all at one time probably will not lead to fertilization, but smaller changes can, and we know they sometimes do.

For example, ever see a person with two eyes that are of a different color? Probably a mutation. And we also know that some mutations are so severe that they may lead to a miscarriage or severe birth defect. Do you think God made them that way?




You are terribly misinformed as we all are "intermediates" unless our species dies out tomorrow. Evolution never stops by all indications, and common sense alone should even tell you that.


Keep telling yourself that. Again, you simply are not even using any common sense whatsoever. According to you, all these scientists must be involved in a monstrous international science conspiracy just to fool people like me. Right. And why would all these scientists do such a thing? And why would you believe that almost all of them are so absolutely dishonest and corrupt.

I've seen some crazy conspiracy theories over my lifetime, but you've just taken 1st place with yours.

It's "after its kind" but with incremental changes that add up over many generations, and we know this happens because geneticists have actually seen it! Google "speciation", although you're not likely to do that since you really don't want to know because it actually might show that you're wrong-- and it does. And if you realize that you're wrong on this, then this could necessitate a paradigm shift, and you don't want that because you then would have to think about what else might have to change. Been there, done that.

Accepting the truth is often rather scary since we can never tell what changes it may lead to, but the alternative is to just stick our heads into the sand, put our fingers into our ears while loudly saying "la la la...", and stop growing. Your choice.

Rhetoric and pontification NEVER proves anything. Why not post just one thing science has ever proved that the TOE preaches.

The truth is never scary, when you have it and understand it. If you ever find the truth about genetics and understand it, it will set you free from the religion of Darwin, who by the way was not even a scientists. I hope that truth does not scare you.

Actually I hope it does , so you will start looking to real science fo answers.

 

[metis]

Rhetoric and pontification NEVER proves anything. Why not post just one thing science has ever proved that the TOE preaches.

The truth is never scary, when you have it and understand it. If you ever find the truth about genetics and understand it, it will set you free from the religion of Darwin, who by the way was not even a scientists. I hope that truth does not scare you.

Actually I hope it does , so you will start looking to real science fo answers.

First, prove there's a God, and make sure you prove there's only one. When you can do that, then come back and ask me a serious question.

Secondly, if you were correct, then pretty much all geneticists would be on your side-- except that pretty much all of them that I have ever read ain't.

Thirdly, "Darwin" is not a religion.

And finally, do you have any clue how utterly ill-informed your church/denomination comes off by ranting on what's nothing short of sheer ignorance on this issue, especially in light of the massive evidence? It's almost as if you said that you believe in a literal interpretation of Grimm's Fairy Tales as being fully accurate. My guess is that this is probably what you'll believe in next because it's really not any different from what you believe in now.

 

[omega2xx]

First, prove there's a God, and make sure you prove there's only one. When you can do that, then come back and ask me a serious question.

First I have NEVER said I can prove there is a God. I say the FACT that matter can't create it self out of nothing and lifeless elements cant b e the source of life, a Creator is the most logical answer. To believe nothing can make something is insane and very unscientific. Do you really not know that science admits matter can't create itself and lifeless elements can't produce life? How sad. Also the FACT that you can't prove there is not God, makes it even more logical.

Secondly, if you were correct, then pretty much all geneticists would be on your side-- except that pretty much all of them that I have ever read ain't.

Wonderful. Why don't you quote one that you have ever read that says an offspring can acquire a trait that is not in The gene pool of its parents. If you knew beans about genetics, you would KNOW, like I do that that ain't gonna happen.

Secondly, "Darwin" is not a religion.

Strictly speaking you are right. I was just trying to say, you accept evolutiton by faith lone.

And finally, do you have any clue how utterly ill-informed your church/denomination comes off by ranting on what's nothing short of sheer ignorance on this issue, especially in light of the massive evidence?

Finally, you are ranting from ignorance. In 40+ years of listening to sermons, I have NEVER heard one, not one, on evolution or creationism. It is amusing but sad, that all of you evos say there is massive evidence, but when I ask for one, just one mind you, none is ever offered. They all reference some evo site and evidently they, including you, don't understand what real scientific evidence is. You are willing to accept any thIng evolutionist say is evidence. Let me give you a clue---IT AIN'T.

Why do you bring my church into the discussion of science? I haven't.

It's almost as if you said that you believe in a literal interpretation of Grimm's Fairy Tales as being fully accurate. My guess is that this is probably what you'll believe in next because it's really not any different from what you believe in now.

Now you are just being silly. If you don't know how to tell fiction from fact, just ask and I will be glad to explain it in terms even a a cave man can understrand. I guess you have to make silly remarks because you can't provide the evidence for even one thing the evangelist for Darwin preach.

 

[omega2xx]

Thank you for demonstrating you know less than my 10 year old about what evolution states.

Thanks for that you know less than your 10 year old does about real science. We don't expect a 10 year old to know much about science, but you have no excuse.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't claim that genetics changes because of need.
And this post doesn't demonstrate why there is a barrier
between species, ie, one cannot evolve into another.

A basic LAW of genetrics says the off spring cannot acquie a characteristic that is not in th gene pool of the parents. There for parents withouhg the gene for bones can NEVER hae a kid with bones.

 

[Revoltingest]

A basic LAW of genetrics says the off spring cannot acquie a characteristic that is not in th gene pool of the parents. There for parents withouhg the gene for bones can NEVER hae a kid with bones.

That isn't a law of genetics.
Example proving otherwise......
A virus can insert a new gene into another critter it infects.

 

[metis]

I say the FACT that matter can't create it self out of nothing and lifeless elements cant b e the source of life, a Creator is the most logical answer. To believe nothing can make something is insane and very unscientific.

Where did I supposedly say that something came from nothing, especially when there's an alternative that is also non-theistic?

Wonderful. Why don't you quote one that you have ever read that says an offspring can acquire a trait that is not in The gene pool of its parents. If you knew beans about genetics, you would KNOW, like I do that that ain't gonna happen.

I had to study genetics in order to get my degrees in anthropology, and what you say above simply is not in any way true. Mutations occur all the time, and mutations that affect the sex cells can be and often are passed on to offspring.

Strictly speaking you are right. I was just trying to say, you accept evolutiton by faith lone.

Absolutely false, and you just keep making up one story after another and one insult after another while proclaiming that you believe in God. However, your demeanor tells another story, which is why trying to have an serious discussion with you is pretty much impossible.

So, why do I keep on responding to posts of yours like the above? Must be a serious defect that I have, so maybe it's best I work on that.

 

[omega2xx]

That isn't a law of genetics.

Yes it is.

Example proving otherwise......
A virus can insert a new gene into another critter it infects.

No it can't. It can only infect the critter. It does not pass on genes.

 

[McBell]

Thanks for that you know less than your 10 year old does about real science. We don't expect a 10 year old to know much about science, but you have no excuse.

Except you are the one demonstrating, repeatedly I might add, that you know little to nothing about evolution.

Don't get me wrong, You know your strawmen like the back of your hand, but not evolution.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes it is.

No it can't. It can only infect the critter. It does not pass on genes.

This might prove illuminating....
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....ry-stagnation-gives-strong-support-to-darwin/

 

[omega2xx]

Where did I supposedly say that something came from nothing, especially when there's an alternative that is also non-theistic?

You haven't said it directly. It is implied if you do not accept that God created the universe. What non-theistic alternative are you referring to.

I had to study genetics in order to get my degrees in anthropology, and what you say above simply is not in any way true. Mutations occur all the time, and mutations that affect the sex cells can be and often are passed on to offspring.[/QUOTE]

You also don't understand mutations. Mutation NEVER add a Characteristic to the offspring. They only alter the characteristic it would have gotten without the mutation. The albino was going to inherit skin, the mutation only altered the skin it got.

Absolutely false, and you just keep making up one story after another and one insult after another while proclaiming that you believe in God.

Then show me, don't tell me. If you think disagreeing with you is insulting? Evidently the mutation that affected your skin made it much to thin. You disagree with me, are you insulting me? Why do you keep bring God into the discussion, I haven't?

However, your demeanor tells another story, which is why trying to have an serious discussion with you is pretty much impossible.

Have you not heard of the "ignore" option"

So, why do I keep on responding to posts of yours like the above? Must be a serious defect that I have, so maybe it's best I work on that.

Good advice.

 

[omega2xx]

Except you are the one demonstrating, repeatedly I might add, that you know little to nothing about evolution.

Don't get me wrong, You know your strawmen like the back of your hand, but not evolution.

Actually I know more than you do. However tell me one thing I don't know about evolution or are you just blowing smoke as usual?

 

[omega2xx]

This might prove illuminating....
https://www.geneticliteracyproject....ry-stagnation-gives-strong-support-to-darwin/

I have quit reading such links. I have found it is a waste of time. If they presented any evidence, cut and paste it to me.

 

[Sonofason]

That isn't a law of genetics.
Example proving otherwise......
A virus can insert a new gene into another critter it infects.

This has me very curious. Do you have any good links that might explain this process?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have quit reading such links. I have found it is a waste of time. If they presented any evidence, cut and paste it to me.

This has me very curious. Do you have any good links that might explain this process?

It was a short article which also linked the longer one.

Each year, billions of people get infected with viruses–with common ones like influenza and cold viruses, and rarer ones like polio and Ebola. The viruses don’t stay all that long inside of us. In most cases, our immune systems wipe them out, except for a few refugees that manage to escape to a new host and keep their species alive. In some cases, the viruses kill their unfortunate hosts, and end their own existence as well. But in some exquisitely rare cases, viruses meld with the genome of their hosts and become part of the genetic legacy their hosts pass down to future generations.

Scientists know this melding has happened because viruses have distinctive genes. When scientists scan the human genome, they sometimes come across a stretch of DNA that bears the hallmarks of viruses. The easiest type of virus to recognize are retroviruses, a group that includes HIV. Retroviruses make copies of themselves by infecting cells and then using an enzyme to insert their genes into their host cell’s DNA. The cell then reads the inserted DNA and makes new molecules that assemble into new viruses.

Most of the time, retroviruses behave like other viruses, jumping from host to host. But sometimes a retrovirus will end up in the genome of an egg or sperm. If it then ends up in a new embryo, the embryo will carry a copy of the virus in every single cell–including its own egg or sperm. And on and on, from parents to children to grandchildren.

If the virus DNA remains intact, it still has the capacity to multiply. It may produce new viruses that break out of a cell, and even leap into a new host. But over the generations, the virus DNA may mutate and degrade. It may no longer be able to escape its own cell. But the virus may still have a bit of life left to it: it can make new viruses that insert their genes back into the genome at a new location.

Read full, original article: Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In The Making

 

[metis]

You haven't said it directly. It is implied if you do not accept that God created the universe.

That's your conclusion, and it's wrong. Maybe try again.

What non-theistic alternative are you referring to.

Since you think you're such a scientific genius, you figure it out. If you actually understood even a bit about cosmology, the answer should be obvious. But since you make up your own "science", this is why you're clueless and can't come up with it.

Have you not heard of the "ignore" option"

I could, but I do like a good laugh now and then.

So, why don't you work on some new ways to insult others here because your old ones are really getting quite stale. And it really makes me wonder which kind of church teaches you that continually insulting others as you do simply because you disagree with them is somehow moral?

 

[McBell]

Actually I know more than you do.

Then you deserve an academy award for the acting you have done thus far on RF.

Though i suspect you are merely lying.

 

[omega2xx]

It was a short article which also linked the longer one.








Read full, original article: Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In The Making

It was a short article which also linked the longer one.

It was a short article which also linked the longer one.


Let me say this very slowly--- a virus remaining a virus is not evidence of evolution. For Evolution to be true the virus MUST become something other than a virus. Did that help?