LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

When did your wife tell you the soul evolved?

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

When did your wife tell you the soul evolved?

---

Given that the concept of a soul has drastically evolved throughout the books of the Bible, I guess it would depend on your interpretation of what it is. A soul is something best left to Philosophical and Spiritual discussion and out of science until evidence or a testable hypothesis arises.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

When did your wife tell you the soul evolved?

---

Given that the concept of a soul has drastically evolved throughout the books of the Bible, I guess it would depend on your interpretation of what it is. A soul is something best left to Philosophical and Spiritual discussion and out of science until evidence or a testable hypothesis arises.

---

same for love?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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:

---

This guy, along with some others, has found it to be lucrative to pander to the creationists. He's one of the lone voices out there profiting off of creationism.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

joseywales said:

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

Highly complex organisms don't suddenly appear, and the scientific record is full of transitions. Sadly, there are people who insist the earth is flat and that science is wrong about that.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.

---

Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ. A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.

You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

Highly complex organisms don't suddenly appear, and the scientific record is full of transitions. Sadly, there are people who insist the earth is flat and that science is wrong about that.

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.

---

And yet science has not proven that humanity came from green slime. Sure there is evidence of mutations in living organisms, but complex life forms coming from inanimate matter? Sorry, but nope.

You can cling to your belief in the supernatural and I'll cling to mine.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

You can deny it all you want, because it doesn't conform your version of a religious narrative. The facts are evolution is observed in the fossil record, and it is actively observed in some living orgnanisms. Evolution is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis. Genetics prove it. Even Francis Collins, who believes in a god, acknowledges evolution. I'm sure if you lived in the 15th century you would have insisted the world is flat.

---

And yet science has not proven that humanity came from green slime. Sure there is evidence of mutations in living organisms, but complex life forms coming from inanimate matter? Sorry, but nope.

You can cling to your belief in the supernatural and I'll cling to mine.

---

Complex life forms came later. There have been advances in early formation of peptides, faty acids polymers, and proteins. You can't say the same for your version of spontaneous life.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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:

---

This guy, along with some others, has found it to be lucrative to pander to the creationists. He's one of the lone voices out there profiting off of creationism.

---

Why are you tearing down the messenger rather than the message?

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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:

---

This guy, along with some others, has found it to be lucrative to pander to the creationists. He's one of the lone voices out there profiting off of creationism.

---

Why are you tearing down the messenger rather than the message?

---

His message is discredited by the scientific community. I'm not tearing him down. I'm just pointing out his motive to those who want to use his vita as a justification to substitute science with mysticism.

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

Highly complex organisms don't suddenly appear, and the scientific record is full of transitions. Sadly, there are people who insist the earth is flat and that science is wrong about that.

---

This is a lie. Sorry but there is ZERO evidence of highly complex organisms evolving from single cell organisms, much less inanimate matter.

This gap is where the evolutionist's logic fails.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.

---

Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ.

A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.

You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.

---

Don't have a problem with a proselytizing athiest such as yourself. The universal problem with you guys is that you likewise refuse to address the huge gaps and holes in your own logic - gaps that require "faith" for lack of a better word.

It's interesting in that regard how similar you are to the religious zealots you decry.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

Highly complex organisms don't suddenly appear, and the scientific record is full of transitions. Sadly, there are people who insist the earth is flat and that science is wrong about that.

---

This is a lie. Sorry but there is ZERO evidence of highly complex organisms evolving from single cell organisms, much less inanimate matter.

This gap is where the evolutionist's logic fails.

---

You don't understand evolution. You don't jump from single cell organisms to complex organisms. You're made up of inanimate matter, that orginated in stars. Microbes and bacteria are the oldest life forms preserved in the fossil record. It's difficult, if not impossible, for anything less to be preserved in the record. God of the gaps is not the answer.

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.

---

Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ. A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.

You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.

---

Astute observation. Those who judge Christianity on reflections of the light instead of the light itself always develop a skewed version of Christianity.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.

---

Don't have a problem with a proselytizing athiest such as yourself. The universal problem with you guys is that you likewise refuse to address the huge gaps and holes in your own logic - gaps that require "faith" for lack of a better word.

It's interesting in that regard how similar you are to the religious zealots you decry.

---

The difference is that in any perceived "gaps" in science, there is the potential for scientific resolution and understanding. Those "gaps" have become increasingly fewer and smaller. You can't say the same about the "gaps" in Christianity/or religion. Those remain until closed by science.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.

---

Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ. A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.

You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.

---

Astute observation. Those who judge Christianity on reflections of the light instead of the light itself always develop a skewed version of Christianity.

---

Isn't every sect considered a skewed version by the others?

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

Highly complex organisms don't suddenly appear, and the scientific record is full of transitions. Sadly, there are people who insist the earth is flat and that science is wrong about that.

---

Isn't the lack of evidence of transitional forms the reason why Stephen Jay Gould came up with the convenient theory of punctuated equilibrium?

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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.

---

Highly complex organisms don't suddenly appear, and the scientific record is full of transitions. Sadly, there are people who insist the earth is flat and that science is wrong about that.

---

This is a lie. Sorry but there is ZERO evidence of highly complex organisms evolving from single cell organisms, much less inanimate matter.

This gap is where the evolutionist's logic fails.

---

You don't understand evolution. You don't jump from single cell organisms to complex organisms. You're made up of inanimate matter, that orginated in stars. Microbes and bacteria are the oldest life forms preserved in the fossil record. It's difficult, if not impossible, for anything less to be preserved in the record. God of the gaps is not the answer.

---

Was a biology major. I understand the theory of evolution probably better than you do, most likely. And I understand the massive gaps in evidence that exist in the theory that complex life came from inanimate matter.

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.

---

Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ. A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.

You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.

---

Astute observation. Those who judge Christianity on reflections of the light instead of the light itself always develop a skewed version of Christianity.

---

Isn't every sect considered a skewed version by the others?

---

You're talking about sects. I'm talking about theology.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

I have read the Bible. I once was an evangelical fundamentalist Baptist. I even went through a period where I tried to rationalize faith with reality. Believe me, it was difficult to face up to, recognize, and accept the evidence of reality. What defines authentic Christianity? There hasn't been any one defined version of Christianity. From its inception, there have been competing versions and sects of Christianity. There still are. Christianity is loosely defined. It may seem I'm trolling, but I'm wanting people engage in critical thinking, and come to terms with the evidence of reality. Making life decisions based upon mystical beliefs is dangerous.

---

Maybe you put more stock in the crooked attorney that called himself a Christian than you put in Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the cheating golfer/deacon than you did Christ. Maybe you put more faith in the witch trials of Salem or the sins of the Church than you did Christ.

A very large portion of your arguments against any religion seems to be about those that fail the object of their faith rather than the object itself.

You should try some humility and surrender to Christ and not the alcohol abusing drummer on the praise team.

---

Those are all the failings of human beings. Rather, it is the summation of the historocity of Christianity, and religion, human nature, and scientific evidence that draws the conclusion for you. The evidence of reality.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

joseywales said:

---

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.

---

We experience love through biologic reactions, analogous to the way we enjoy eating that cookie. The only difference is love is a description and term for a biological process.

---