Into new species that make it a different kind? No, not if without intelligent design.
Do you believe single-celled organisms ultimately led to humans by way of non-directed, non-designed genetic change and natural selection, i.e. spontaneously without intelligent design?
Do I believe Intelligent Design is required to produce the evidence that we see today of macro-evolution? No. However, I do personally believe God is involved in this process.
Saying it isn't required is like saying winning a million straight hands at poker doesn't require cheating because its mathematically possible.
Since you believe God was involved in the process, you don't believe in scientific evolution. You believe in Intelligent Design, i.e. creation.
At the end of the day, we just have quite different views on Evolution.
What is your view on Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy?
What are your views on evolution of The A5S?
A5 Steak? I believe that is actually de-evolution as it is too fatty. No man or cow can do better than USDA Prime.
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity %A0is littered with obvious man made %A0beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting %A0wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe %A0out competing belief systems. Persecuting %A0men women and children with Inquistions, %A0imprisoning folks who believed %A0differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by %A0the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, %A0there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent %A0maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love %A0and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Thank you for your thoughts. I learn more into the hope of an all loving God, but agree that the tangible evidence is there that does not always make that an easy thing to believe.
Live in love - 100%.
What is love?
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
From a foundational and a presuppositional perspective there is no neutral interpretation of anything about being human that is shared between a Christian and non Christian.
One believes in a sovereign God and the other in nihilistic chance, they do not even experience basic day to day relationships the same with that chasm in perspective.
Not sure if you're inferring that I'm an atheist, but that is far from the truth. Regardless, Christians do not own "love". It is something that is universal and inclusive to all.
If you're seriously asking what love is, it's a subconscious drive that evolved millions of years ago that affects the biochemistry all over the brain. Philosophically, I believe it is ever growing and evolving in nature as we better understand Christ.
A believer and non-believer can certainly both experience God's love.
If love is merely the product of evolution, it is not and can not be universal or inclusive to all.
Would you be able to expand more on this? I fail to see how the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive. If anything, I see it the other way around.
I take it that my answer was satisfactory. Now I would like you to expand more on something:
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
My apologies for just now getting back to you. Thank you for further explaining.
I do believe that love can both be a product of evolution and related to God. The genetic variations on which natural selection acts on may occur randomly (at least, that's the best way to currently model them), but natural selection/evolution itself is not random. At times, evolution can even be predictable as organisms evolve to survive what nature throws at it. Evolution in this case is God's mechanism for developing this subconscious drive. Sorry, I didn't mean to give off the idea that I believe evolution is separate from God.
For love being a high virtue, I think the answer can be pursued best through philosophy and spirituality. In Christianity, love and forgiveness is at the center of the radical message of Christ. Paul even directly calls it the greatest virtue in 1 Corinthians. I find it incredible that as humanity has grown and evolved, our ability to love has as well.
Do you mean God influenced DNA mutation to arrive at the end product he wanted? Meaning, that it was NOT random, but according to His will?
I have never said Evolution was random, but yes my best guess is that the creator of the universe has or had some control over creation including the process of evolution.
Non-random DNA mutation and/or selection is not scientific Evolution. You are essentially describing Creation.
Do you believe God IS love, as it says in the bible? If so, how is a defining attribute of a supernatural God something that is naturalistic, i.e. a biochemical reaction?
Scientific evolution being a random chance driven process is a widespread misconception and the majority (if not nearly all) of evolutionary biologist would agree with that statement.
I am certainly hopeful that God is love, and I'm also fine accepting the (in my opinion) overwhelming evidence that human attributes like love were developed through a process of evolution.
Evolutionary biologists will concede that Evolution, as in going from single cell organisms to the origin of new species depends on chance DNA mutation; DNA mutation and/or a selection process that is directed by a mind is Intelligent Design, i.e. Creation. That is what you described. What you described is most certainly NOT scientific Evolution.
So you don't necessarily believe God is love. You just hope. Regardless, that doesn't answer the question how a supernatural God can be defined by a naturalistic process.
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.
Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
I don't disagree that there is evidence that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. You stated we know that humans evolved from single cell organisms. That is not an indisputable fact, nor something we know. In fact, there is very little evidence of that theory.
P.S. I was a biology major for 2.5 years at Baylor, and likewise know the lingo.
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Thank you for your thoughts. I learn more into the hope of an all loving God, but agree that the tangible evidence is there that does not always make that an easy thing to believe.
Live in love - 100%.
What is love?
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
From a foundational and a presuppositional perspective there is no neutral interpretation of anything about being human that is shared between a Christian and non Christian.
One believes in a sovereign God and the other in nihilistic chance, they do not even experience basic day to day relationships the same with that chasm in perspective.
Not sure if you're inferring that I'm an atheist, but that is far from the truth. Regardless, Christians do not own "love". It is something that is universal and inclusive to all.
If you're seriously asking what love is, it's a subconscious drive that evolved millions of years ago that affects the biochemistry all over the brain. Philosophically, I believe it is ever growing and evolving in nature as we better understand Christ.
A believer and non-believer can certainly both experience God's love.
If love is merely the product of evolution, it is not and can not be universal or inclusive to all.
Would you be able to expand more on this? I fail to see how the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive. If anything, I see it the other way around.
I take it that my answer was satisfactory. Now I would like you to expand more on something:
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
Jacket asked you to consider this statement. "the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive." In other words God's love is inclusive which is the overwhelming witness of the scriptures.. Point out a scripture that says God is exclusive.
Malachi
1 This is a divine revelation. The Lord spoke his word to Israel through Malachi. 2 "I loved you," says the Lord. "But you ask, 'How did you love us?' "Wasn't Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "I loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I hated. I turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals in the desert. 4 "The descendants of Esau may say, 'We have been beaten down, but we will rebuild the ruins.' "Yet, this is what the Lord of Armies says: They may rebuild, but I will tear it down. They will be called 'the Wicked Land' and 'the people with whom the Lord is always angry.' 5 You will see these things with your own eyes and say, 'Even outside the borders of Israel the Lord is great.'
Matthew
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Some people need to ponder that there is coming a time when some parents will be saved and their children will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Even the parents will see G-d's justice in this judgment and they will sing as their children are being separated from those who were saved. They will shout that G-d's judgments are just and true as their children are taken toward torment. They will be grateful that even their children are separated from those who are counted among the righteous.
This is the Gospel too. That the law convicts of sin for those whose hearts have not hardened beyond that point. Those who repent and follow Christ's commands will see salvation. The others will have chosen an eternity of torment and even their friends and relatives will rejoice that they have been removed from Creation.
"Lake of Fire". No threats please. God is grace and love.
What if someone doesn't want God's grace and love? Will God force that person to love Him against that person's will?
Of course not. The overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love and grace. The witness of "Throwing in a lake of fire" is much less so. At the end there is only grace. Prove me wrong.
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Thank you for your thoughts. I learn more into the hope of an all loving God, but agree that the tangible evidence is there that does not always make that an easy thing to believe.
Live in love - 100%.
What is love?
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
From a foundational and a presuppositional perspective there is no neutral interpretation of anything about being human that is shared between a Christian and non Christian.
One believes in a sovereign God and the other in nihilistic chance, they do not even experience basic day to day relationships the same with that chasm in perspective.
Not sure if you're inferring that I'm an atheist, but that is far from the truth. Regardless, Christians do not own "love". It is something that is universal and inclusive to all.
If you're seriously asking what love is, it's a subconscious drive that evolved millions of years ago that affects the biochemistry all over the brain. Philosophically, I believe it is ever growing and evolving in nature as we better understand Christ.
A believer and non-believer can certainly both experience God's love.
If love is merely the product of evolution, it is not and can not be universal or inclusive to all.
Would you be able to expand more on this? I fail to see how the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive. If anything, I see it the other way around.
I take it that my answer was satisfactory. Now I would like you to expand more on something:
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
Jacket asked you to consider this statement. "the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive." In other words God's love is inclusive which is the overwhelming witness of the scriptures.. Point out a scripture that says God is exclusive.
Malachi
1 This is a divine revelation. The Lord spoke his word to Israel through Malachi. 2 "I loved you," says the Lord. "But you ask, 'How did you love us?' "Wasn't Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "I loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I hated. I turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals in the desert. 4 "The descendants of Esau may say, 'We have been beaten down, but we will rebuild the ruins.' "Yet, this is what the Lord of Armies says: They may rebuild, but I will tear it down. They will be called 'the Wicked Land' and 'the people with whom the Lord is always angry.' 5 You will see these things with your own eyes and say, 'Even outside the borders of Israel the Lord is great.'
Matthew
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Some people need to ponder that there is coming a time when some parents will be saved and their children will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Even the parents will see G-d's justice in this judgment and they will sing as their children are being separated from those who were saved. They will shout that G-d's judgments are just and true as their children are taken toward torment. They will be grateful that even their children are separated from those who are counted among the righteous.
This is the Gospel too. That the law convicts of sin for those whose hearts have not hardened beyond that point. Those who repent and follow Christ's commands will see salvation. The others will have chosen an eternity of torment and even their friends and relatives will rejoice that they have been removed from Creation.
"Lake of Fire". No threats please. God is grace and love.
What if someone doesn't want God's grace and love? Will God force that person to love Him against that person's will?
Of course not. The overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love and grace. The witness of "Throwing in a lake of fire" is much less so. At the end there is only grace. Prove me wrong.
So, you look forward to an eternity with an unrepentant Adolf Hitler who will be endowed everlasting life to reek all sorts of evil forever going forward? Is that your version of "love and grace?"
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
My apologies for just now getting back to you. Thank you for further explaining.
I do believe that love can both be a product of evolution and related to God. The genetic variations on which natural selection acts on may occur randomly (at least, that's the best way to currently model them), but natural selection/evolution itself is not random. At times, evolution can even be predictable as organisms evolve to survive what nature throws at it. Evolution in this case is God's mechanism for developing this subconscious drive. Sorry, I didn't mean to give off the idea that I believe evolution is separate from God.
For love being a high virtue, I think the answer can be pursued best through philosophy and spirituality. In Christianity, love and forgiveness is at the center of the radical message of Christ. Paul even directly calls it the greatest virtue in 1 Corinthians. I find it incredible that as humanity has grown and evolved, our ability to love has as well.
Do you mean God influenced DNA mutation to arrive at the end product he wanted? Meaning, that it was NOT random, but according to His will?
I have never said Evolution was random, but yes my best guess is that the creator of the universe has or had some control over creation including the process of evolution.
Non-random DNA mutation and/or selection is not scientific Evolution. You are essentially describing Creation.
Do you believe God IS love, as it says in the bible? If so, how is a defining attribute of a supernatural God something that is naturalistic, i.e. a biochemical reaction?
Scientific evolution being a random chance driven process is a widespread misconception and the majority (if not nearly all) of evolutionary biologist would agree with that statement.
I am certainly hopeful that God is love, and I'm also fine accepting the (in my opinion) overwhelming evidence that human attributes like love were developed through a process of evolution.
Evolutionary biologists will concede that Evolution, as in going from single cell organisms to the origin of new species depends on chance DNA mutation; DNA mutation and/or a selection process that is directed by a mind is Intelligent Design, i.e. Creation. That is what you described. What you described is most certainly NOT scientific Evolution.
So you don't necessarily believe God is love. You just hope. Regardless, that doesn't answer the question how a supernatural God can be defined by a naturalistic process.
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.
Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Thank you for your thoughts. I learn more into the hope of an all loving God, but agree that the tangible evidence is there that does not always make that an easy thing to believe.
Live in love - 100%.
What is love?
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
From a foundational and a presuppositional perspective there is no neutral interpretation of anything about being human that is shared between a Christian and non Christian.
One believes in a sovereign God and the other in nihilistic chance, they do not even experience basic day to day relationships the same with that chasm in perspective.
Not sure if you're inferring that I'm an atheist, but that is far from the truth. Regardless, Christians do not own "love". It is something that is universal and inclusive to all.
If you're seriously asking what love is, it's a subconscious drive that evolved millions of years ago that affects the biochemistry all over the brain. Philosophically, I believe it is ever growing and evolving in nature as we better understand Christ.
A believer and non-believer can certainly both experience God's love.
If love is merely the product of evolution, it is not and can not be universal or inclusive to all.
Would you be able to expand more on this? I fail to see how the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive. If anything, I see it the other way around.
I take it that my answer was satisfactory. Now I would like you to expand more on something:
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
Jacket asked you to consider this statement. "the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive." In other words God's love is inclusive which is the overwhelming witness of the scriptures.. Point out a scripture that says God is exclusive.
Malachi
1 This is a divine revelation. The Lord spoke his word to Israel through Malachi. 2 "I loved you," says the Lord. "But you ask, 'How did you love us?' "Wasn't Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "I loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I hated. I turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals in the desert. 4 "The descendants of Esau may say, 'We have been beaten down, but we will rebuild the ruins.' "Yet, this is what the Lord of Armies says: They may rebuild, but I will tear it down. They will be called 'the Wicked Land' and 'the people with whom the Lord is always angry.' 5 You will see these things with your own eyes and say, 'Even outside the borders of Israel the Lord is great.'
Matthew
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Some people need to ponder that there is coming a time when some parents will be saved and their children will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Even the parents will see G-d's justice in this judgment and they will sing as their children are being separated from those who were saved. They will shout that G-d's judgments are just and true as their children are taken toward torment. They will be grateful that even their children are separated from those who are counted among the righteous.
This is the Gospel too. That the law convicts of sin for those whose hearts have not hardened beyond that point. Those who repent and follow Christ's commands will see salvation. The others will have chosen an eternity of torment and even their friends and relatives will rejoice that they have been removed from Creation.
"Lake of Fire". No threats please. God is grace and love.
What if someone doesn't want God's grace and love? Will God force that person to love Him against that person's will?
Of course not. The overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love and grace. The witness of "Throwing in a lake of fire" is much less so. At the end there is only grace. Prove me wrong.
Aren't you the one who's always preaching Matthew 25 on here? Where Jesus separates people and says to the ones on his left, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
So where's the grace here? These are Jesus' words, and they're pretty much saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. Isn't Jesus proving you wrong?
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Thank you for your thoughts. I learn more into the hope of an all loving God, but agree that the tangible evidence is there that does not always make that an easy thing to believe.
Live in love - 100%.
What is love?
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
From a foundational and a presuppositional perspective there is no neutral interpretation of anything about being human that is shared between a Christian and non Christian.
One believes in a sovereign God and the other in nihilistic chance, they do not even experience basic day to day relationships the same with that chasm in perspective.
Not sure if you're inferring that I'm an atheist, but that is far from the truth. Regardless, Christians do not own "love". It is something that is universal and inclusive to all.
If you're seriously asking what love is, it's a subconscious drive that evolved millions of years ago that affects the biochemistry all over the brain. Philosophically, I believe it is ever growing and evolving in nature as we better understand Christ.
A believer and non-believer can certainly both experience God's love.
If love is merely the product of evolution, it is not and can not be universal or inclusive to all.
Would you be able to expand more on this? I fail to see how the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive. If anything, I see it the other way around.
I take it that my answer was satisfactory. Now I would like you to expand more on something:
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
Jacket asked you to consider this statement. "the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive." In other words God's love is inclusive which is the overwhelming witness of the scriptures.. Point out a scripture that says God is exclusive.
Malachi
1 This is a divine revelation. The Lord spoke his word to Israel through Malachi. 2 "I loved you," says the Lord. "But you ask, 'How did you love us?' "Wasn't Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "I loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I hated. I turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals in the desert. 4 "The descendants of Esau may say, 'We have been beaten down, but we will rebuild the ruins.' "Yet, this is what the Lord of Armies says: They may rebuild, but I will tear it down. They will be called 'the Wicked Land' and 'the people with whom the Lord is always angry.' 5 You will see these things with your own eyes and say, 'Even outside the borders of Israel the Lord is great.'
Matthew
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Some people need to ponder that there is coming a time when some parents will be saved and their children will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Even the parents will see G-d's justice in this judgment and they will sing as their children are being separated from those who were saved. They will shout that G-d's judgments are just and true as their children are taken toward torment. They will be grateful that even their children are separated from those who are counted among the righteous.
This is the Gospel too. That the law convicts of sin for those whose hearts have not hardened beyond that point. Those who repent and follow Christ's commands will see salvation. The others will have chosen an eternity of torment and even their friends and relatives will rejoice that they have been removed from Creation.
"Lake of Fire". No threats please. God is grace and love.
What if someone doesn't want God's grace and love? Will God force that person to love Him against that person's will?
Of course not. The overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love and grace. The witness of "Throwing in a lake of fire" is much less so. At the end there is only grace. Prove me wrong.
Be patient.
Actually I'd prefer you come back to Christ of the Bible (the entire Bible) but, if you choose not to, just be patient.
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
My apologies for just now getting back to you. Thank you for further explaining.
I do believe that love can both be a product of evolution and related to God. The genetic variations on which natural selection acts on may occur randomly (at least, that's the best way to currently model them), but natural selection/evolution itself is not random. At times, evolution can even be predictable as organisms evolve to survive what nature throws at it. Evolution in this case is God's mechanism for developing this subconscious drive. Sorry, I didn't mean to give off the idea that I believe evolution is separate from God.
For love being a high virtue, I think the answer can be pursued best through philosophy and spirituality. In Christianity, love and forgiveness is at the center of the radical message of Christ. Paul even directly calls it the greatest virtue in 1 Corinthians. I find it incredible that as humanity has grown and evolved, our ability to love has as well.
Do you mean God influenced DNA mutation to arrive at the end product he wanted? Meaning, that it was NOT random, but according to His will?
I have never said Evolution was random, but yes my best guess is that the creator of the universe has or had some control over creation including the process of evolution.
Non-random DNA mutation and/or selection is not scientific Evolution. You are essentially describing Creation.
Do you believe God IS love, as it says in the bible? If so, how is a defining attribute of a supernatural God something that is naturalistic, i.e. a biochemical reaction?
Scientific evolution being a random chance driven process is a widespread misconception and the majority (if not nearly all) of evolutionary biologist would agree with that statement.
I am certainly hopeful that God is love, and I'm also fine accepting the (in my opinion) overwhelming evidence that human attributes like love were developed through a process of evolution.
Evolutionary biologists will concede that Evolution, as in going from single cell organisms to the origin of new species depends on chance DNA mutation; DNA mutation and/or a selection process that is directed by a mind is Intelligent Design, i.e. Creation. That is what you described. What you described is most certainly NOT scientific Evolution.
So you don't necessarily believe God is love. You just hope. Regardless, that doesn't answer the question how a supernatural God can be defined by a naturalistic process.
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.
Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
Not sure if you're trolling, but we have the law of universal gravitation (the constant that is so handy in Force equations) and then there is the theory of Gravity: the theory of why objects attract one another.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex. Scientists consistently predict and confirm where organisms will be embedded in strata, as well as their genetic makeup.
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
My apologies for just now getting back to you. Thank you for further explaining.
I do believe that love can both be a product of evolution and related to God. The genetic variations on which natural selection acts on may occur randomly (at least, that's the best way to currently model them), but natural selection/evolution itself is not random. At times, evolution can even be predictable as organisms evolve to survive what nature throws at it. Evolution in this case is God's mechanism for developing this subconscious drive. Sorry, I didn't mean to give off the idea that I believe evolution is separate from God.
For love being a high virtue, I think the answer can be pursued best through philosophy and spirituality. In Christianity, love and forgiveness is at the center of the radical message of Christ. Paul even directly calls it the greatest virtue in 1 Corinthians. I find it incredible that as humanity has grown and evolved, our ability to love has as well.
Do you mean God influenced DNA mutation to arrive at the end product he wanted? Meaning, that it was NOT random, but according to His will?
I have never said Evolution was random, but yes my best guess is that the creator of the universe has or had some control over creation including the process of evolution.
Non-random DNA mutation and/or selection is not scientific Evolution. You are essentially describing Creation.
Do you believe God IS love, as it says in the bible? If so, how is a defining attribute of a supernatural God something that is naturalistic, i.e. a biochemical reaction?
Scientific evolution being a random chance driven process is a widespread misconception and the majority (if not nearly all) of evolutionary biologist would agree with that statement.
I am certainly hopeful that God is love, and I'm also fine accepting the (in my opinion) overwhelming evidence that human attributes like love were developed through a process of evolution.
Evolutionary biologists will concede that Evolution, as in going from single cell organisms to the origin of new species depends on chance DNA mutation; DNA mutation and/or a selection process that is directed by a mind is Intelligent Design, i.e. Creation. That is what you described. What you described is most certainly NOT scientific Evolution.
So you don't necessarily believe God is love. You just hope. Regardless, that doesn't answer the question how a supernatural God can be defined by a naturalistic process.
I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.
Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.
Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.
New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.
We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.
Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.
It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.
Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.
With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".
In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?
Not sure if you're trolling, but we have the law of universal gravitation (the constant that is so handy in Force equations) and then there is the theory of Gravity: the theory of why objects attract one another.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex. Scientists consistently predict and confirm where organisms will be embedded in strata, as well as their genetic makeup.
That is an inference from the fossil and DNA records. Predicting and confirming where organisms will be found, even their genetic makeup, does not necessarily confirm that they emerged from preexisting organisms through the process of genetic change and natural selection (without God). That is also an inference. Predicting where organisms are embedded is only confirming the pattern that is observed in the fossil record, it doesn't confirm cause.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.
Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:
If Bechly's article was originally introduced due to his scientific work, it was deleted due to his having become a poster child for the creationist movement. Gnter Bechly, a devout Catholic from Germany, had a promising academic career as a paleontologist. He had published numerous papers in prestigious, peer-review journals including groundbreaking studies he conducted into the evolution of dragonfly wings and was even a curator at Stuttgart's State Museum of Natural History. At least until 2016. That's when he first came out against evolution and in favor of intelligent design. He found himself embraced by the religious right in the United States, becoming a pawn in their political struggle over the world's origin story Omer Benjakob
Please read carefully the above quote from Omer Benjakob, provided by our forum's favorite false teacher, Waco47.
Notice how it does absolutely nothing to refute the science and logic of Bechly's assertions. Read the first sentence. Notice how Bechly was cancelled merely because they didn't like the conclusions he came to as he was following where the science leads, and not for his science itself. This should tell you everything about the state of science, especially evolutionary biology. Bechly describes the backlash he experienced when he made public his arguments at the end of the video. This might explain why you were taught what you were taught in the university, and why you read what you read in scientific literature.
Our forum's favorite false teacher has taken great interest in you not believing eminent, heavily credentialed scientists like Bechly. (that in itself should tell you volumes) by using a quote that he somehow thinks refutes Bechly by resorting to what seems like ad hominem, instead of refuting his science. Please be better than Waco47 by actually watching the video and considering Bechly's arguments. Would be interested to hear your thoughts about them.
You know, adherents to Islam share your same types of views. Have you ever considered the effects of being raised and living in a particualr culture on one's psyche and views of reality?
You do love the sound go your own voice, this is true. But it doesn't change the fact you're an apostate eugenicist that mistakes an asinine arrogance for intelligence and curiosity and consider yourself a "sage" for it.
And it is you who share much in common with Islam, since you think you can redefine Christ on your own terms as they do and be comfortable with that.
You're a really insipid cliche.
At least be a compelling troll and heretic, right now you're just a bore.
Have you considered that you're not a compelling and thoughtful scholar or anthropologist as you posture on the internet to be?
First of all, you are misrepresenting what I believe and are bearing false witness against me. Something a real Christian is admonished not to do. I'm not a eugenicist, never have I endorsed the concept, and I don't believe in its merits. Maybe you should consider if Satan is directing your thoughts.
I haven't redefined Christ on any terms. Christians regularly do that. Ergo all of the various Christian sects and beliefs now and in the past, and the historic evolution of Christianity and various Christian beliefs.
I don't think there is a reliably consistent definition of who he was, or what he taught, outside of broad general statements. I just point out the obvious flaws and antilogy. Those are more than objectively compelling on their own.
Unquestionably following a cultural belief, or cult should be a concern for any society.
First of all you're a disingenuous hack, no amount of repeating yourself redeems the fact you're not just incorrect, but arrogantly stupid.
Second of all, I do not care what you have to say about much of anything as your presuppositional understanding of the world is eugenicist and satanic.
The fact you think you're an authority about any of the topics at hand proves you're anything but scientific, just a mindless ideologue with an internet connection.
Your vitriol confirms my point.
Having contempt for your arrogance and stupidity is simply a byproduct directed at how contemptible you are, not a confirmation of anything else.
You could get a bullet in your face and it wouldn't lessen your brain power at this juncture.
Words inspired by the Holy Spirit through you know doubt.
Again, I'm not interested in the snark of a satanist, you're an ******* in general, but your insufferable arrogance needs no audience.
^^^ more fruits of the Spirit I guess? By definition, you have to believe in Satan to be a Satanist. Curious, do you believe your witness is more Christlike or Satanistic?
What you don't really seem to comprehend is that you're a detestable light weight. There are compelling atheists and non Christians in the world full of wit and charm and stimulating inquisitive conversation, you're not among them.
You're just a run of the mill arrogant ******* with Wi-Fi.
More of the love of Christ, huh? You'll know them by their fruit as I recall.
Tend to your own fruit. Seems to be rotten.
Your coments directed at me and your temperament is your fruit, isn't it?
1. You seemed to be in such a hurry that your spelling is messed up 2. My observation of our behavior is separate from any opinion of you personally 3. Your "fruit" is evident in your posts. Your fruit is your problem. 4. Even your insults lack gravitas.
More evidence of your Christian witness.
You are accidentally correct, TS. You seem to think Christians are not allowed to criticize bad behavior, while in fact we are charged to do so.
Criticizing is one thing, although how/where do you think you were charged to do that? Attacking someone ad hominem is not the same as criticism. I'd consider ad hominem attacks bad behavior, wouldn't you?
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Well said. Except, I would say there is no credible evidence to support any creator or maker of all life, and the probablility of such is extremely low. If you want to consider the as yet unknown aspects of quantum mechanics that account for the univese as a higher power, I can agree.
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Next time you edit your posts, go all the way so that they're readable.
Maybe you should focus more on comprehension, then you would find it more readable.
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
your last statement is pretty bold coming from someone that wants to be a wet blanket on a primordial human trait. Sad sad man you can be. I wouldn't bash you so much if you knew how to argue without treating every believer as a lower knowledge clown like you do. Just makes you look like the clown.
How has he treated you as a clown? All he has done is challenged your beliefs, and asked you to reflect on those beliefs.
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Thank you for your thoughts. I learn more into the hope of an all loving God, but agree that the tangible evidence is there that does not always make that an easy thing to believe.
Live in love - 100%.
What is love?
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
From a foundational and a presuppositional perspective there is no neutral interpretation of anything about being human that is shared between a Christian and non Christian.
One believes in a sovereign God and the other in nihilistic chance, they do not even experience basic day to day relationships the same with that chasm in perspective.
Not sure if you're inferring that I'm an atheist, but that is far from the truth. Regardless, Christians do not own "love". It is something that is universal and inclusive to all.
If you're seriously asking what love is, it's a subconscious drive that evolved millions of years ago that affects the biochemistry all over the brain. Philosophically, I believe it is ever growing and evolving in nature as we better understand Christ.
A believer and non-believer can certainly both experience God's love.
If love is merely the product of evolution, it is not and can not be universal or inclusive to all.
Would you be able to expand more on this? I fail to see how the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive. If anything, I see it the other way around.
I take it that my answer was satisfactory. Now I would like you to expand more on something:
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
Jacket asked you to consider this statement. "the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive." In other words God's love is inclusive which is the overwhelming witness of the scriptures.. Point out a scripture that says God is exclusive.
Malachi
1 This is a divine revelation. The Lord spoke his word to Israel through Malachi. 2 "I loved you," says the Lord. "But you ask, 'How did you love us?' "Wasn't Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "I loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I hated. I turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals in the desert. 4 "The descendants of Esau may say, 'We have been beaten down, but we will rebuild the ruins.' "Yet, this is what the Lord of Armies says: They may rebuild, but I will tear it down. They will be called 'the Wicked Land' and 'the people with whom the Lord is always angry.' 5 You will see these things with your own eyes and say, 'Even outside the borders of Israel the Lord is great.'
Matthew
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Some people need to ponder that there is coming a time when some parents will be saved and their children will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Even the parents will see G-d's justice in this judgment and they will sing as their children are being separated from those who were saved. They will shout that G-d's judgments are just and true as their children are taken toward torment. They will be grateful that even their children are separated from those who are counted among the righteous.
This is the Gospel too. That the law convicts of sin for those whose hearts have not hardened beyond that point. Those who repent and follow Christ's commands will see salvation. The others will have chosen an eternity of torment and even their friends and relatives will rejoice that they have been removed from Creation.
"Lake of Fire". No threats please. God is grace and love.
What if someone doesn't want God's grace and love? Will God force that person to love Him against that person's will?
Of course not. The overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love and grace. The witness of "Throwing in a lake of fire" is much less so. At the end there is only grace. Prove me wrong.
So, you look forward to an eternity with an unrepentant Adolf Hitler who will be endowed everlasting life to reek all sorts of evil forever going forward? Is that your version of "love and grace?"
What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love.
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
Love is defined as willing the good of another.
Quite simple, God always wills our good.
He is Love.
Then by this definition it can't be known to an atheist, or at best will be known in spite of themselves.
I don't think you don't understand atheism. I'm sure you're an atheist when it comes to all of the other 1000's of religious views out there, including some views held by those who profess to be Christians. Are you saying they do not possess the ability to understand love, or feel love toward others?
47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."
So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.
Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Thank you for your thoughts. I learn more into the hope of an all loving God, but agree that the tangible evidence is there that does not always make that an easy thing to believe.
Live in love - 100%.
What is love?
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
From a foundational and a presuppositional perspective there is no neutral interpretation of anything about being human that is shared between a Christian and non Christian.
One believes in a sovereign God and the other in nihilistic chance, they do not even experience basic day to day relationships the same with that chasm in perspective.
Not sure if you're inferring that I'm an atheist, but that is far from the truth. Regardless, Christians do not own "love". It is something that is universal and inclusive to all.
If you're seriously asking what love is, it's a subconscious drive that evolved millions of years ago that affects the biochemistry all over the brain. Philosophically, I believe it is ever growing and evolving in nature as we better understand Christ.
A believer and non-believer can certainly both experience God's love.
If love is merely the product of evolution, it is not and can not be universal or inclusive to all.
Would you be able to expand more on this? I fail to see how the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive. If anything, I see it the other way around.
I take it that my answer was satisfactory. Now I would like you to expand more on something:
If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?
Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?
Jacket asked you to consider this statement. "the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive." In other words God's love is inclusive which is the overwhelming witness of the scriptures.. Point out a scripture that says God is exclusive.
Malachi
1 This is a divine revelation. The Lord spoke his word to Israel through Malachi. 2 "I loved you," says the Lord. "But you ask, 'How did you love us?' "Wasn't Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the Lord. "I loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I hated. I turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the jackals in the desert. 4 "The descendants of Esau may say, 'We have been beaten down, but we will rebuild the ruins.' "Yet, this is what the Lord of Armies says: They may rebuild, but I will tear it down. They will be called 'the Wicked Land' and 'the people with whom the Lord is always angry.' 5 You will see these things with your own eyes and say, 'Even outside the borders of Israel the Lord is great.'
Matthew
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Some people need to ponder that there is coming a time when some parents will be saved and their children will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Even the parents will see G-d's justice in this judgment and they will sing as their children are being separated from those who were saved. They will shout that G-d's judgments are just and true as their children are taken toward torment. They will be grateful that even their children are separated from those who are counted among the righteous.
This is the Gospel too. That the law convicts of sin for those whose hearts have not hardened beyond that point. Those who repent and follow Christ's commands will see salvation. The others will have chosen an eternity of torment and even their friends and relatives will rejoice that they have been removed from Creation.
"Lake of Fire". No threats please. God is grace and love.
What if someone doesn't want God's grace and love? Will God force that person to love Him against that person's will?
Of course not. The overwhelming witness of scripture is God is love and grace. The witness of "Throwing in a lake of fire" is much less so. At the end there is only grace. Prove me wrong.
So, you look forward to an eternity with an unrepentant Adolf Hitler who will be endowed everlasting life to reek all sorts of evil forever going forward? Is that your version of "love and grace?"
What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love.
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
Love is defined as willing the good of another.
Quite simple, God always wills our good.
He is Love.
Which God? The OT is a written testament of stories that shows their God doesn't always will their good. Religion is nothing more than self, group, and cultural deception created by men to account for what they don't understand, and the reality they experience.
Religion is a psychological crutch - If good things come your way, it is because you have the favor of a being that loves you, and if bad things come you way, it is because you must have the disfavor of that being who loves you, or at least there must be some unrevealed benefit for future comphrehension. It provides a mechanism to cope with the experiences of life, or reality
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Thank you for your thoughts. I learn more into the hope of an all loving God, but agree that the tangible evidence is there that does not always make that an easy thing to believe.
Live in love - 100%.
What is love?
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
From a foundational and a presuppositional perspective there is no neutral interpretation of anything about being human that is shared between a Christian and non Christian.
One believes in a sovereign God and the other in nihilistic chance, they do not even experience basic day to day relationships the same with that chasm in perspective.
Not sure if you're inferring that I'm an atheist, but that is far from the truth. Regardless, Christians do not own "love". It is something that is universal and inclusive to all.
If you're seriously asking what love is, it's a subconscious drive that evolved millions of years ago that affects the biochemistry all over the brain. Philosophically, I believe it is ever growing and evolving in nature as we better understand Christ.
A believer and non-believer can certainly both experience God's love.
If love is merely the product of evolution, it is not and can not be universal or inclusive to all.
Would you be able to expand more on this? I fail to see how the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive. If anything, I see it the other way around.
If love is merely a biochemical evolutionary end product that lies in our genetic code, it would also then be subject to the same inborn errors of expression that cause humans to be born without, or with severe dysfunction of, any other human trait that arose from evolution. Not all humans were born with arms, a normally functioning heart, or the full complement of metabolic enzymes, for example, even though humans evolved to have them. Why would love be any different, then? Universality can not be asserted for inheritable biologic processes.
Moreover, if love is merely the product of evolutionary change, then it can be eradicated through change as well. There is no guarantee that this hasn't happened in any line of humans throughout human history. Or that many of them don't exist today.
You're right in that not all humans were born with the same capacities. Evolution by definition is progressive change. There are imperfections. The degree and ability to experience and even learn love may be linear and variable, and subject to mental disability/ability. For example, a malignant narcissist's love of self is determinant of behavior, and an inability to express empathy, i.e. Trump. Someone with a brain impairment by injury, genetically, or congenitally may not be capable of fully expressing or feeling love. Why is this not clear evidence that love is a bioligical expression? Imperfections are consistent with evolution. They are not consistent with a loving creator.
47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."
So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.
Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.
Where is the love in sending people to hell for an eternity, when you have the power not to, or the power not to create the circumstances that would compel it? Think of all the chickens, goats, and lambs that were needlessly sacrificially tortured trying to earn conditional love.
I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years. All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time. The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc. The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity. I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god. It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..
Thank you for your thoughts. I learn more into the hope of an all loving God, but agree that the tangible evidence is there that does not always make that an easy thing to believe.
Live in love - 100%.
What is love?
If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?
A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.
From a foundational and a presuppositional perspective there is no neutral interpretation of anything about being human that is shared between a Christian and non Christian.
One believes in a sovereign God and the other in nihilistic chance, they do not even experience basic day to day relationships the same with that chasm in perspective.
Not sure if you're inferring that I'm an atheist, but that is far from the truth. Regardless, Christians do not own "love". It is something that is universal and inclusive to all.
If you're seriously asking what love is, it's a subconscious drive that evolved millions of years ago that affects the biochemistry all over the brain. Philosophically, I believe it is ever growing and evolving in nature as we better understand Christ.
A believer and non-believer can certainly both experience God's love.
If love is merely the product of evolution, it is not and can not be universal or inclusive to all.
Would you be able to expand more on this? I fail to see how the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive. If anything, I see it the other way around.
If love is merely a biochemical evolutionary end product that lies in our genetic code, it would also then be subject to the same inborn errors of expression that cause humans to be born without, or with severe dysfunction of, any other human trait that arose from evolution. Not all humans were born with arms, a normally functioning heart, or the full complement of metabolic enzymes, for example, even though humans evolved to have them. Why would love be any different, then? Universality can not be asserted for inheritable biologic processes.
Moreover, if love is merely the product of evolutionary change, then it can be eradicated through change as well. There is no guarantee that this hasn't happened in any line of humans throughout human history. Or that many of them don't exist today.
You're right in that not all humans were born with the same capacities. Evolution by definition is progressive change. There are imperfections. The degree and ability to experience and even learn love may be linear and variable, and subject to mental disability/ability. For example, a malignant narcissist's love of self is determinant of behavior, and an inability to express empathy, i.e. Trump. Someone with a brain impairment by injury, genetically, or congenitally may not be capable of fully expressing or feeling love. Why is this not clear evidence that love is a bioligical expression? Imperfections are consistent with evolution. They are not consistent with a loving creator.
Biology is the means by which we experience the feelings associated with love. It isn't love itself. To define love as merely a biological reaction would be like defining a cookie only in terms of the brain activity when tasting it.
The point to the OP was that since biological expression is inconsistent, he can not claim universality of love if love is merely biological. But if love is spiritual, then anyone with a soul can experience it, therefore it is universal. That is perfectly consistent with a loving Creator. You are wrong, yet again.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.
Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:
Thanks for sharing the video. Dr. Bechly is clearly a smart dude. I find it interesting that he admits that there are fossils that are transitional between ancestral taxa, but moves the goalpost further back by not agreeing that evolution can have periods of punctuated equilibrium. Most Intelligent designers dismiss transitional fossils completely.
I'd need to do some more research on the speed of evolution, but I would not expect it to be some static process but instead have periods of faster change as the environment is adapted to.
Just because someone with a PhD holds your views, does not automatically make it true. There are a bunch of incredibly intelligent people who believe the stupidest **** (people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a literal global flood, etc).
Baylor, one of the top Christian schools in the world, teaches modern evolution from both a scientific and anthropological standpoint. This isn't some giant conspiracy where Scientists are hiding the truth.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.
Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:
Thanks for sharing the video. Dr. Bechly is clearly a smart dude. I find it interesting that he admits that there are fossils that are transitional between ancestral taxa, but moves the goalpost further back by not agreeing that evolution can have periods of punctuated equilibrium. Most Intelligent designers dismiss transitional fossils completely.
I'd need to do some more research on the speed of evolution, but I would not expect it to be some static process but instead have periods of faster change as the environment is adapted to.
Just because someone with a PhD holds your views, does not automatically make it true. There are a bunch of incredibly intelligent people who believe the stupidest **** (people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a literal global flood, etc).
Baylor, one of the top Christian schools in the world, teaches modern evolution from both a scientific and anthropological standpoint. This isn't some giant conspiracy where Scientists are hiding the truth.
There was no appeal to authority. I only asked others to hear the arguments from someone much more qualified to talk about the fossil record than you and I. So instead of trying to invoke an argument about fallacy, contend with the FACTS presented by Dr. Bechly. Incidentally, arguing this is called a fallacy fallacy.
Your research into the speed of evolution will have a very difficult time dealing with the facts presented in this video, such as how highly, highly complex organisms suddenly appear fully formed in the fossil record, without the slow lead up with multiple transitional forms that one must expect if it were the result of a naturalistic process of random genetic change and natural selection.
What is odd is that you seem so intent on believing that Darwinian Evolution is true, even though you admitted you believed God was involved in Evolution, which is NOT scientific, Darwinian evolution. Do you, or do you NOT, believe in Intelligent Design? You avoided this question.
Baylor is a nominally Christian school. It means nothing. No one is calling it a conspiracy, so stop with the strawmen. What you must contend with, though, is the FACT that Bechly was cancelled merely for his belief in Intelligent Design, regardless of his scientific merit, and that this is probably what goes on in academia. Which prof or student would dare do this and ruin their career? You're aware of how cancelling happens, don't you? So what you were taught might have had a definite slant, so you should take it with a heavy grain of salt.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.
Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:
Thanks for sharing the video. Dr. Bechly is clearly a smart dude. I find it interesting that he admits that there are fossils that are transitional between ancestral taxa, but moves the goalpost further back by not agreeing that evolution can have periods of punctuated equilibrium. Most Intelligent designers dismiss transitional fossils completely.
I'd need to do some more research on the speed of evolution, but I would not expect it to be some static process but instead have periods of faster change as the environment is adapted to.
Just because someone with a PhD holds your views, does not automatically make it true. There are a bunch of incredibly intelligent people who believe the stupidest **** (people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a literal global flood, etc).
Baylor, one of the top Christian schools in the world, teaches modern evolution from both a scientific and anthropological standpoint. This isn't some giant conspiracy where Scientists are hiding the truth.
There was no appeal to authority. I only asked others to hear the arguments from someone much more qualified to talk about the fossil record than you and I. So instead of trying to invoke an argument about fallacy, contend with the FACTS presented by Dr. Bechly. Incidentally, arguing this is called a fallacy fallacy.
Your research into the speed of evolution will have a very difficult time dealing with the facts presented in this video, such as how highly, highly complex organisms suddenly appear fully formed in the fossil record, without the slow lead up with multiple transitional forms that one must expect if it were the result of a naturalistic process of random genetic change and natural selection.
What is odd is that you seem so intent on believing that Darwinian Evolution is true, even though you admitted you believed God was involved in Evolution, which is NOT scientific, Darwinian evolution. Do you, or do you NOT, believe in Intelligent Design? You avoided this question.
Baylor is a nominally Christian school. It means nothing. No one is calling it a conspiracy, so stop with the strawmen. What you must contend with, though, is the FACT that Bechly was cancelled merely for his belief in Intelligent Design, regardless of his scientific merit, and that this is probably what goes on in academia. Which prof or student would dare do this and ruin their career? You're aware of how cancelling happens, don't you? So what you were taught might have had a definite slant, so you should take it with a heavy grain of salt.
My wife is also more qualified then both of us with a degree in Anthropology and researched evolution prolifically (especially regarding human common ancestry). I think I will trust her points as well as the other 99.9% of accredited scientist, instead of a scientist who has been rejected by the community for denying one of the most proven and accepted theories of modern times. If you believe the earth is flat (and continually write research papers and center your career around it), you shouldn't be accredited.
I listened to his points, gave him about 40 minutes of my life, and came away unconvinced with his apologetic-like response to the topic.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.
Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:
Thanks for sharing the video. Dr. Bechly is clearly a smart dude. I find it interesting that he admits that there are fossils that are transitional between ancestral taxa, but moves the goalpost further back by not agreeing that evolution can have periods of punctuated equilibrium. Most Intelligent designers dismiss transitional fossils completely.
I'd need to do some more research on the speed of evolution, but I would not expect it to be some static process but instead have periods of faster change as the environment is adapted to.
Just because someone with a PhD holds your views, does not automatically make it true. There are a bunch of incredibly intelligent people who believe the stupidest **** (people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a literal global flood, etc).
Baylor, one of the top Christian schools in the world, teaches modern evolution from both a scientific and anthropological standpoint. This isn't some giant conspiracy where Scientists are hiding the truth.
There was no appeal to authority. I only asked others to hear the arguments from someone much more qualified to talk about the fossil record than you and I. So instead of trying to invoke an argument about fallacy, contend with the FACTS presented by Dr. Bechly. Incidentally, arguing this is called a fallacy fallacy.
Your research into the speed of evolution will have a very difficult time dealing with the facts presented in this video, such as how highly, highly complex organisms suddenly appear fully formed in the fossil record, without the slow lead up with multiple transitional forms that one must expect if it were the result of a naturalistic process of random genetic change and natural selection.
What is odd is that you seem so intent on believing that Darwinian Evolution is true, even though you admitted you believed God was involved in Evolution, which is NOT scientific, Darwinian evolution. Do you, or do you NOT, believe in Intelligent Design? You avoided this question.
Baylor is a nominally Christian school. It means nothing. No one is calling it a conspiracy, so stop with the strawmen. What you must contend with, though, is the FACT that Bechly was cancelled merely for his belief in Intelligent Design, regardless of his scientific merit, and that this is probably what goes on in academia. Which prof or student would dare do this and ruin their career? You're aware of how cancelling happens, don't you? So what you were taught might have had a definite slant, so you should take it with a heavy grain of salt.
My wife is also more qualified then both of us with a degree in Anthropology and researched evolution prolifically (especially regarding human common ancestry). I think I will trust her points as well as the other 99.9% of accredited scientist, instead of a scientist who has been rejected by the community for denying one of the most proven and accepted theories of modern times. If you believe the earth is flat (and continually write research papers and center your career around it), you shouldn't be accredited.
I listened to his points, gave him about 40 minutes of my life, and came away unconvinced with his apologetic-like response to the topic.
By all means, let's hear your or your wife's rebuttal to any of Dr. Bechly's points.
And one more time - do you or do you NOT believe in Intelligent Design? You said God was involved in Evolution. I find it highly, highly odd how you are so intent on defending naturalistic Evolution when you had already said you believed God was involved.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.
Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:
Thanks for sharing the video. Dr. Bechly is clearly a smart dude. I find it interesting that he admits that there are fossils that are transitional between ancestral taxa, but moves the goalpost further back by not agreeing that evolution can have periods of punctuated equilibrium. Most Intelligent designers dismiss transitional fossils completely.
I'd need to do some more research on the speed of evolution, but I would not expect it to be some static process but instead have periods of faster change as the environment is adapted to.
Just because someone with a PhD holds your views, does not automatically make it true. There are a bunch of incredibly intelligent people who believe the stupidest **** (people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a literal global flood, etc).
Baylor, one of the top Christian schools in the world, teaches modern evolution from both a scientific and anthropological standpoint. This isn't some giant conspiracy where Scientists are hiding the truth.
There was no appeal to authority. I only asked others to hear the arguments from someone much more qualified to talk about the fossil record than you and I. So instead of trying to invoke an argument about fallacy, contend with the FACTS presented by Dr. Bechly. Incidentally, arguing this is called a fallacy fallacy.
Your research into the speed of evolution will have a very difficult time dealing with the facts presented in this video, such as how highly, highly complex organisms suddenly appear fully formed in the fossil record, without the slow lead up with multiple transitional forms that one must expect if it were the result of a naturalistic process of random genetic change and natural selection.
What is odd is that you seem so intent on believing that Darwinian Evolution is true, even though you admitted you believed God was involved in Evolution, which is NOT scientific, Darwinian evolution. Do you, or do you NOT, believe in Intelligent Design? You avoided this question.
Baylor is a nominally Christian school. It means nothing. No one is calling it a conspiracy, so stop with the strawmen. What you must contend with, though, is the FACT that Bechly was cancelled merely for his belief in Intelligent Design, regardless of his scientific merit, and that this is probably what goes on in academia. Which prof or student would dare do this and ruin their career? You're aware of how cancelling happens, don't you? So what you were taught might have had a definite slant, so you should take it with a heavy grain of salt.
My wife is also more qualified then both of us with a degree in Anthropology and researched evolution prolifically (especially regarding human common ancestry). I think I will trust her points as well as the other 99.9% of accredited scientist, instead of a scientist who has been rejected by the community for denying one of the most proven and accepted theories of modern times. If you believe the earth is flat (and continually write research papers and center your career around it), you shouldn't be accredited.
I listened to his points, gave him about 40 minutes of my life, and came away unconvinced with his apologetic-like response to the topic.
By all means, let's hear your or your wife's rebuttal to any of Dr. Bechly's points.
And one more time - do you or do you NOT believe in Intelligent Design? You said God was involved in Evolution. I find it highly, highly odd how you are so intent on defending naturalistic Evolution when you had already said you believed God was involved.
I believe that God created this universe, and am not putting him in a box in how he designed it to work. Just because something is seemingly random (genetic mutation) does not mean God is absent.
Do I believe that God randomly dropped in on Earth and supercharged species to evolve over a few billion years? I'm open to the idea if presented with any actual evidence, but haven't seen any.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.
Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:
Thanks for sharing the video. Dr. Bechly is clearly a smart dude. I find it interesting that he admits that there are fossils that are transitional between ancestral taxa, but moves the goalpost further back by not agreeing that evolution can have periods of punctuated equilibrium. Most Intelligent designers dismiss transitional fossils completely.
I'd need to do some more research on the speed of evolution, but I would not expect it to be some static process but instead have periods of faster change as the environment is adapted to.
Just because someone with a PhD holds your views, does not automatically make it true. There are a bunch of incredibly intelligent people who believe the stupidest **** (people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a literal global flood, etc).
Baylor, one of the top Christian schools in the world, teaches modern evolution from both a scientific and anthropological standpoint. This isn't some giant conspiracy where Scientists are hiding the truth.
There was no appeal to authority. I only asked others to hear the arguments from someone much more qualified to talk about the fossil record than you and I. So instead of trying to invoke an argument about fallacy, contend with the FACTS presented by Dr. Bechly. Incidentally, arguing this is called a fallacy fallacy.
Your research into the speed of evolution will have a very difficult time dealing with the facts presented in this video, such as how highly, highly complex organisms suddenly appear fully formed in the fossil record, without the slow lead up with multiple transitional forms that one must expect if it were the result of a naturalistic process of random genetic change and natural selection.
What is odd is that you seem so intent on believing that Darwinian Evolution is true, even though you admitted you believed God was involved in Evolution, which is NOT scientific, Darwinian evolution. Do you, or do you NOT, believe in Intelligent Design? You avoided this question.
Baylor is a nominally Christian school. It means nothing. No one is calling it a conspiracy, so stop with the strawmen. What you must contend with, though, is the FACT that Bechly was cancelled merely for his belief in Intelligent Design, regardless of his scientific merit, and that this is probably what goes on in academia. Which prof or student would dare do this and ruin their career? You're aware of how cancelling happens, don't you? So what you were taught might have had a definite slant, so you should take it with a heavy grain of salt.
My wife is also more qualified then both of us with a degree in Anthropology and researched evolution prolifically (especially regarding human common ancestry). I think I will trust her points as well as the other 99.9% of accredited scientist, instead of a scientist who has been rejected by the community for denying one of the most proven and accepted theories of modern times. If you believe the earth is flat (and continually write research papers and center your career around it), you shouldn't be accredited.
I listened to his points, gave him about 40 minutes of my life, and came away unconvinced with his apologetic-like response to the topic.
By all means, let's hear your or your wife's rebuttal to any of Dr. Bechly's points.
And one more time - do you or do you NOT believe in Intelligent Design? You said God was involved in Evolution. I find it highly, highly odd how you are so intent on defending naturalistic Evolution when you had already said you believed God was involved.
I believe that God created this universe, and am not putting him in a box in how he designed it to work. Just because something is seemingly random (genetic mutation) does not mean God is absent.
Do I believe that God randomly dropped in on Earth and supercharged species to evolve over a few billion years? I'm open to the idea if presented with any actual evidence, but haven't seen any.
Doesn't the sudden appearance of highly complex organisms and structures without transitional forms qualify as evidence of design? If not, what is your naturalist explanation for that, and what would you say the odds of that happening naturally are?
And if you're saying God isn't absent, and things are "seemingly" random, isn't this a mind behind the origin of life, and so isn't this against scientific, Darwinian evolution's assertions, and more in favor of Design? It's very odd how you're trying to have it both ways.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.
Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:
Thanks for sharing the video. Dr. Bechly is clearly a smart dude. I find it interesting that he admits that there are fossils that are transitional between ancestral taxa, but moves the goalpost further back by not agreeing that evolution can have periods of punctuated equilibrium. Most Intelligent designers dismiss transitional fossils completely.
I'd need to do some more research on the speed of evolution, but I would not expect it to be some static process but instead have periods of faster change as the environment is adapted to.
Just because someone with a PhD holds your views, does not automatically make it true. There are a bunch of incredibly intelligent people who believe the stupidest **** (people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a literal global flood, etc).
Baylor, one of the top Christian schools in the world, teaches modern evolution from both a scientific and anthropological standpoint. This isn't some giant conspiracy where Scientists are hiding the truth.
There was no appeal to authority. I only asked others to hear the arguments from someone much more qualified to talk about the fossil record than you and I. So instead of trying to invoke an argument about fallacy, contend with the FACTS presented by Dr. Bechly. Incidentally, arguing this is called a fallacy fallacy.
Your research into the speed of evolution will have a very difficult time dealing with the facts presented in this video, such as how highly, highly complex organisms suddenly appear fully formed in the fossil record, without the slow lead up with multiple transitional forms that one must expect if it were the result of a naturalistic process of random genetic change and natural selection.
What is odd is that you seem so intent on believing that Darwinian Evolution is true, even though you admitted you believed God was involved in Evolution, which is NOT scientific, Darwinian evolution. Do you, or do you NOT, believe in Intelligent Design? You avoided this question.
Baylor is a nominally Christian school. It means nothing. No one is calling it a conspiracy, so stop with the strawmen. What you must contend with, though, is the FACT that Bechly was cancelled merely for his belief in Intelligent Design, regardless of his scientific merit, and that this is probably what goes on in academia. Which prof or student would dare do this and ruin their career? You're aware of how cancelling happens, don't you? So what you were taught might have had a definite slant, so you should take it with a heavy grain of salt.
My wife is also more qualified then both of us with a degree in Anthropology and researched evolution prolifically (especially regarding human common ancestry). I think I will trust her points as well as the other 99.9% of accredited scientist, instead of a scientist who has been rejected by the community for denying one of the most proven and accepted theories of modern times. If you believe the earth is flat (and continually write research papers and center your career around it), you shouldn't be accredited.
I listened to his points, gave him about 40 minutes of my life, and came away unconvinced with his apologetic-like response to tscientist
"99.9% of accredited scientists" - I dont doubt it, given what they did to Bechly for disagreeing.
"denying one of the most proven and accepted theories of modern times" - Accepted, perhaps. Proven? Not at all. Are you processing anything that's being told to you?
Which God? The OT is a written testament of stories that shows their God doesn't always will their good. Religion is nothing more than self, group, and cultural deception created by men to account for what they don't understand, and the reality they experience.
Have you every disciplined your children for doing something wrong?
You truly do not understand the bible. I believe that you have read a great deal of atheistic commentaries about the bible; however, it is clear that you have never read authentic Christian commentaries that help one understand the author's culture, time, and meaning of the 46 books of the OT.
TexasScientist said:
Religion is a psychological crutch - If good things come your way, it is because you have the favor of a being that loves them, and if bad things come you way, it is because you must have the disfavor of that being who loves you, or at least there must be some unrevealed benefit for future comphrehension. It provides a mechanism to cope with the experiences of life, or reality
This might be true in the Health and Wealth gospels or the Prosperity theology, but that isn't the case for authentic Christianity.
I'm not sure if you really believe your comments or if you are trying to insult and troll the Christians on this board.
The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.
Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:
Thanks for sharing the video. Dr. Bechly is clearly a smart dude. I find it interesting that he admits that there are fossils that are transitional between ancestral taxa, but moves the goalpost further back by not agreeing that evolution can have periods of punctuated equilibrium. Most Intelligent designers dismiss transitional fossils completely.
I'd need to do some more research on the speed of evolution, but I would not expect it to be some static process but instead have periods of faster change as the environment is adapted to.
Just because someone with a PhD holds your views, does not automatically make it true. There are a bunch of incredibly intelligent people who believe the stupidest **** (people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a literal global flood, etc).
Baylor, one of the top Christian schools in the world, teaches modern evolution from both a scientific and anthropological standpoint. This isn't some giant conspiracy where Scientists are hiding the truth.
There was no appeal to authority. I only asked others to hear the arguments from someone much more qualified to talk about the fossil record than you and I. So instead of trying to invoke an argument about fallacy, contend with the FACTS presented by Dr. Bechly. Incidentally, arguing this is called a fallacy fallacy.
Your research into the speed of evolution will have a very difficult time dealing with the facts presented in this video, such as how highly, highly complex organisms suddenly appear fully formed in the fossil record, without the slow lead up with multiple transitional forms that one must expect if it were the result of a naturalistic process of random genetic change and natural selection.
What is odd is that you seem so intent on believing that Darwinian Evolution is true, even though you admitted you believed God was involved in Evolution, which is NOT scientific, Darwinian evolution. Do you, or do you NOT, believe in Intelligent Design? You avoided this question.
Baylor is a nominally Christian school. It means nothing. No one is calling it a conspiracy, so stop with the strawmen. What you must contend with, though, is the FACT that Bechly was cancelled merely for his belief in Intelligent Design, regardless of his scientific merit, and that this is probably what goes on in academia. Which prof or student would dare do this and ruin their career? You're aware of how cancelling happens, don't you? So what you were taught might have had a definite slant, so you should take it with a heavy grain of salt.
My wife is also more qualified then both of us with a degree in Anthropology and researched evolution prolifically (especially regarding human common ancestry). I think I will trust her points as well as the other 99.9% of accredited scientist, instead of a scientist who has been rejected by the community for denying one of the most proven and accepted theories of modern times. If you believe the earth is flat (and continually write research papers and center your career around it), you shouldn't be accredited.
I listened to his points, gave him about 40 minutes of my life, and came away unconvinced with his apologetic-like response to the topic.
VS. 
