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.
Isn't a sect to one, a theology to the other?
A child who pretends he is doing the same work as his father is cute but incorrect.
Same with your question.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Thousands Of Religious Zealots Gather For Sunday Worship AMERICA Across the nation, thousands of religious fanatics have once again gathered to worship teams of unusually large men trying to move a piece of leather. "Never miss a Sunday," said Brad Larsen, taking his usual seat. "I've done my daily ESPN readings every morning this week and took time to iron my jersey so I'm at my Sunday best. I've even asked a couple neighbors to come join us, let them hear the good news of what Josh Allen has done for the Buffalo Bills." Scholars say the zealotry of this particular religion is nearly unmatched in modern times. "It is so rare, looking throughout human history, to see congregants so consistently worshipping on Sundays, Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays," said Religious Studies professor Lisa Miller. "These people are also known to undertake several unusual rituals, such as painting their bodies in preparation for worship and copying the clothing of their favorite deity. And their constant study of the faith, with the depth of knowledge they possess about the multitude of deities they believe in, is simply unmatched." The rabid fundamentalist sect has become dominant in size and power, displaying remarkable levels of self-sacrifice for the cause. "These religious nuts give weekly offerings to the tune of billions of dollars," said anthropologist Dr. Gavin McDermott. "They have bred a legion of televangelists with 24/7 preaching, and their outreach is second to none. In addition to putting up places of worship across every town in the country, these extremists also suck people in with frequent informal worship gatherings in their own homes. Oh, they also really like beer." According to sources, today's Sunday service is expected to be incredibly raucous and last about seven hours. https://babylonbee.com/news/thousands-of-religious-zealots-gather-for-sunday-worship
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?
DING DING DING!
Punctuated equilibrium is such a cop out argument. Since they can't explain how extraordinarily complex organisms suddenly appear without transitional forms, their argument must essentially become "well.....it just happened....real quick".
Of course, by arguing this, they are refuting the essential Darwinian concept of gradualism, thus invalidating the whole theory itself.
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.
Then you certainly should have a problem with the biggest gap of all - a supernatural being, with supernatural powers, whose only evidence of origin is in the minds of men as an explanation for everything.
Like Einstein, the creation to me presents evidence of an intelligent designer. There is still no evidence life came from inanimate matter without it.
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?
DING DING DING!
Punctuated equilibrium is such a cop out argument. Since they can't explain how extraordinarily complex organisms suddenly appear without transitional forms, their argument must essentially become "well.....it just happened....real quick".
Of course, by arguing this, they are refuting the essential Darwinian concept of gradualism, thus invalidating the whole theory itself.
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?
Great question! Since the feeling that we call love can be measured/observed whether it's the chemicals released or neurological activity, that would make a great candidate for scientific research.
is the chemical release the cause of love or the result of love?
Does this release happen before the grandparent walks into delivery or after they've held the grandchild for the first time?
Does the chemical release lessen when mom steps on a Lego? Steps on a Lego for the third time.
Is there a chemical release when a Christian hears about a stranger becoming a Christian?
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?
Great question! Since the feeling that we call love can be measured/observed whether it's the chemicals released or neurological activity, that would make a great candidate for scientific research.
is the chemical release the cause of love or the result of love?
Does this release happen before the grandparent walks into delivery or after they've held the grandchild for the first time?
Does the chemical release lessen when mom steps on a Lego? Steps on a Lego for the third time.
Is there a chemical release when a Christian hears about a stranger becoming a Christian?
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?
Great question! Since the feeling that we call love can be measured/observed whether it's the chemicals released or neurological activity, that would make a great candidate for scientific research.
is the chemical release the cause of love or the result of love?
Does this release happen before the grandparent walks into delivery or after they've held the grandchild for the first time?
Does the chemical release lessen when mom steps on a Lego? Steps on a Lego for the third time.
Is there a chemical release when a Christian hears about a stranger becoming a Christian?
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?
The fossil record includes well documented examples of both phyletic gradualism and punctuational evolution. Don't read more into what Gould and Eldredge actually said.
Well documented examples, you say?
The Most Popular Textbook Example of Punctuated Evolution Has Been Debunked by Researchers Seven Species of Bryozoans The picture shows the seven species of bryozoans that were used in the debunking.The white line is only 500 micrometers in lenght. Copyright: JoAnn Sanner, The University of Chicago The most popular textbook example of Researchers at the University of Oslo have debunked a textbook example about how evolution proceeds during speciation. Renowned paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould fronted the old theory.
Evolutionary biologists have for a long time disagreed on the rate of evolution when new species emerge. Are new species the result of gradual changes as Charles Darwin suggested or is evolution speeding up for short periods of time when new species evolve?
World renowned paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) formulated the theory of punctuated equilibrium together with Niles Eldredge (1943-) in 1972. The theory states that species remain more or less unaltered during their existence, with major evolutionary change happening during rapid events of speciation. As evidence for this view, Gould pointed to the fossil record.
Marine Fossils New Zealand Fossils can tell scientists about what life on Earth looked like in the past. The picture shows two million year old fossils of marine organisms found on an expedition to New Zealand. Credit: Kjetil Lysne Voje/UiO According to Gould, the fossil record typically show that species do not change significantly after they emerge, and that major changes occurred when new species appeared.
Stephen Jay Gould was one of the twentieth century's most famous evolutionary biologists and a bestselling popular science writer. Some even claimed that Gould was the foremost biologist of his time perhaps the greatest since Charles Darwin himself so his words have carried a lot of weight to this day.
In a new paper from researchers at the University of Oslo, the authors claim to have found several methodological problems in the most famous and well-trusted example supporting the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
"We find no evidence for punctuated evolution in our reanalysis of the most recognized dataset that Gould used to support his theory," says Kjetil Lysne Voje at UiO's Center for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES) at the Department of Biosciences.
Textbook example is rejected
Fossils of the bryozoan genus Metrarabdotos a group of aquatic invertebrates thoroughly investigated by the excellent paleobiologist Alan Cheetham have been the prime example of punctuated evolution.
Gould called Metrarabdotos "the most brilliantly persuasive, and most meticulously documented, example ever presented for predominant (in this case, exclusive) punctuated equilibrium in a full lineage" (Gould 2002, page 827).
"We detected some critical methodological issues in the original work on Metrarabdotos. When we take the methodological issues into account, we do not find any evidence of punctuated evolution in our reanalysis of the Metrarabdotos data," says Kjetil Lysne Voje.
Bryozoans are so small that scientists have to use an electron microscope to study them in detail, but they form colonies that can be quite large (up to 1 meter). Most bryozoans live in the sea, but there are also many species in fresh water. The bryozoan genus Metrarabdotos has been used as a textbook example in evolutionary biology and paleontology, showing how evolution speeds up when new species form compared to a much slower evolution of already established species.
"But our new results show nothing else than a gradual evolution of the bryozoan species both before, during and after the formation of new species," emphasizes Voje.
Why is this important?
The idea of fast-track evolution during speciation has been controversial. Critics of the theory of punctuated equilibrium found it difficult to believe that the evolutionary processes leading to new species should be markedly different from the processes that cause already existing species to change.
"Species are continuously evolving and our results support the hypothesis that evolution does not "behave" differently when new species emerge," says Voje.
The paper with the new results was published in the May issue of The American Naturalist. The authors of the study are Kjetil Lysne Voje, Emanuela Di Martino and Arthur Porto.
Reference: "Revisiting a Landmark Study System: No Evidence for a Punctuated Mode of Evolution in Metrarabdotos" by Kjetil Lysne Voje, Emanuela Di Martino and Arthur Porto, 17 March 2020, The American Naturalist. DOI: 10.1086/707664
The new testament is not a historical document it meets exactly zero of the requirements historians have to claim it is historical. 95 percent of the population at the time of Jesus were illiterate. The new testament is a collection of oral stories handed down from 40 to 200 years after the so called events happen. It is a man made religious collection of stories to.propagate a certain belief. The Vikings , the Buddhist, the Muslims etc all had the same types of traditions, one that propagates their belief system and none of which is orginal thinking. A God if there is one, who put into the motion the creation of over 300 billion galaxies and all the life that exist in them, cannot be comprehended by any human. All religion is culturally created period.
The new testament is not a historical document it meets exactly zero of the requirements historians have to claim it is historical. 95 percent of the population at the time of Jesus were illiterate. The new testament is a collection of oral stories handed down from 40 to 200 years after the so called events happen. It is a man made religious collection of stories to.propagate a certain belief. The Vikings , the Buddhist, the Muslims etc all had the same types of traditions, one that propagates their belief system and none of which is orginal thinking. A God if there is one, who put into the motion the creation of over 300 billion galaxies and all the life that exist in them, cannot be comprehended by any human. All religion is culturally created period.
What textual criticism review have you done on the NT?
There is so much wrong with your statement.
All of the NT was written by AD 90 - 100 (at the latest.) Having said that, the earliest fragments date to early 2nd century.
How did the "man made religious collection of stories" get distributed around the world and be virtually identical?
Please note that the Muslims are the ones that stole from the OT and NT. It was written about 600 years after Jesus.
God can be comprehended. Sometimes man refuses to understand.
The new testament is not a historical document it meets exactly zero of the requirements historians have to claim it is historical. 95 percent of the population at the time of Jesus were illiterate. The new testament is a collection of oral stories handed down from 40 to 200 years after the so called events happen. It is a man made religious collection of stories to.propagate a certain belief. The Vikings , the Buddhist, the Muslims etc all had the same types of traditions, one that propagates their belief system and none of which is orginal thinking. A God if there is one, who put into the motion the creation of over 300 billion galaxies and all the life that exist in them, cannot be comprehended by any human. All religion is culturally created period.
you've really no clue how far off base you are, do you?
The new testament is not a historical document it meets exactly zero of the requirements historians have to claim it is historical. 95 percent of the population at the time of Jesus were illiterate. The new testament is a collection of oral stories handed down from 40 to 200 years after the so called events happen. It is a man made religious collection of stories to.propagate a certain belief. The Vikings , the Buddhist, the Muslims etc all had the same types of traditions, one that propagates their belief system and none of which is orginal thinking. A God if there is one, who put into the motion the creation of over 300 billion galaxies and all the life that exist in them, cannot be comprehended by any human. All religion is culturally created period.
A God if there is one, who put into the motion the creation of over 300 billion galaxies and all the life that exist in them, cannot be comprehended by any human. All religion is culturally created period.
Other folks are responding to your other points. But what I am most curious about is your last 2 sentences above.
1. What is more likely that 300 billion galaxies were created by random chance or that there was intelligent design behind them? 2. If God created life, why do you assume he would not want to have a relationship with that life where he would not want them to come to understand God on some level? 3. You say "all religion is culturally created" but how would you know this? Just because a number of religions are culturally created does not mean there isn't a true faith. This would be like saying because some so called cures don't actually cure an illness that it means no cure can't exist. But the existence of other false cures doesn't have any bearing on whether a true cure exists. The question would still remain does the one cure actually cure or by analogy, or is the one faith actually true?
The new testament is not a historical document it meets exactly zero of the requirements historians have to claim it is historical. 95 percent of the population at the time of Jesus were illiterate. The new testament is a collection of oral stories handed down from 40 to 200 years after the so called events happen. It is a man made religious collection of stories to.propagate a certain belief. The Vikings , the Buddhist, the Muslims etc all had the same types of traditions, one that propagates their belief system and none of which is orginal thinking. A God if there is one, who put into the motion the creation of over 300 billion galaxies and all the life that exist in them, cannot be comprehended by any human. All religion is culturally created period.
2. The number of people who were illiterate at the time a particular historical document was written has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsity of that document.
3. You might reconsider your position that the Gospels were later writings by unknown persons. Here is a little light reading for the next rainy Sunday afternoon;
4. It's a "man-made collection of stories" that people gave their lives to record and preserve, when it would have been easy to repudiate and walk away.
The new testament is not a historical document it meets exactly zero of the requirements historians have to claim it is historical.
Here is what Sir William Ramsay, an eminent scholar of history, archaeology, and the New Testament, who initially doubted the historical accuracy of the Gospel of Luke and Acts, said after he extensively researched the gospel's historical elements by traveling the world, intensively studying the history and archaeology of those areas in an attempt to disprove Luke and Acts:
"Further study ... showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgement, skill, art and perception of the truth as to be a model of historical statement."
"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense ... in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians."
Sir William Ramsay was appointed the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, and the Regius Professor of Humanity at Aberdeen. He was granted three honorary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honorary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities, and became an honorary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research. He was one of the original members of the British Academy and was awarded the Gold Medal of Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and the Victorian Medal of the Royal Geographic Society in 1906. He was knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship - from Wikipedia ***************************************************************************
So should we go by what you, a God-hating keyboard warrior in his momma's basement says, or by what one of the greatest scholars in the world said?
1906, says it all...we know.so much more now, please the gospels were not even written by the apostles etc. Can you imagine the inaccuracy of oral history from 40 to 90 years. From one day to the next the story would chamge...it is simply a religious document and it cannot be denied...
1906, says it all...we know.so much more now, please the gospels were not even written by the apostles etc. Can you imagine the inaccuracy of oral history from 40 to 90 years. From one day to the next the story would chamge...it is simply a religious document and it cannot be denied...
Please, by all means, tell us what we know now that debunks Sir William Ramsay.
You simply have no understanding of the history of the gospels and the New Testament. You are just regurgitating what you read on the popular science level.
If it was merely oral history passed on, how do you explain the epistles of Paul, which affirm the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and corroborates the central claim of the Gospels? Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and his disciples, who talked with Jesus' disciples first hand and worked with them.
Sorry, you need to study and think independently more.
1906, says it all...we know.so much more now, please the gospels were not even written by the apostles etc. Can you imagine the inaccuracy of oral history from 40 to 90 years. From one day to the next the story would chamge...it is simply a religious document and it cannot be denied...
Is there any evidence that the Gospels were not written by the disciples? The earliest sources - Papias and Irenaeus - say that they were, so what evidence is there to the contrary?
Besides, if the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, why would the early Church ascribe their most sacred writing to them of all people? They were a hated tax collector, an obscure scribe, a Gentile, and a young teenager. Why wouldn't the early Church ascribe the Gospels to famous disciples like Peter, or to Jesus Himself?
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?
Since he doesn't have a credible message, you have to turn to motive.
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.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.
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.
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.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.
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.
and yet, these failings make up the largest portion of your arguments…. always.
No, just a portion. Application of objective, rational and critical thought to observable evidence is what I find to be conclusive.
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.
You are confusing Infatuation with Love.
90% of real Love comes from commitment.
Commitment is the result of a neurological/biological process.
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.
Ah yes the peptides and fatty acids argument. A theory not proven fact or course and certainly no evidence that complex life evolved from matter.
You do realize that you're made up of matter that was forged in a star.
I realize that's what you believe.
How can you just not decide to believe this? What is the alternative? What is the evidence?
There have been thousands of studies that trace the elements in our bodies to stars, supernovas, and the big bang itself.
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.
Then you certainly should have a problem with the biggest gap of all - a supernatural being, with supernatural powers, whose only evidence of origin is in the minds of men as an explanation for everything.
Like Einstein, the creation to me presents evidence of an intelligent designer. There is still no evidence life came from inanimate matter without it.
Before he died, Einstein cleared up the statement that creationists insist on misinterpreting.
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?
The fossil record includes well documented examples of both phyletic gradualism and punctuational evolution. Don't read more into what Gould and Eldredge actually said.
Well documented examples, you say?
The Most Popular Textbook Example of Punctuated Evolution Has Been Debunked by Researchers Seven Species of Bryozoans The picture shows the seven species of bryozoans that were used in the debunking.The white line is only 500 micrometers in lenght. Copyright: JoAnn Sanner, The University of Chicago The most popular textbook example of Researchers at the University of Oslo have debunked a textbook example about how evolution proceeds during speciation. Renowned paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould fronted the old theory.
Evolutionary biologists have for a long time disagreed on the rate of evolution when new species emerge. Are new species the result of gradual changes as Charles Darwin suggested or is evolution speeding up for short periods of time when new species evolve?
World renowned paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) formulated the theory of punctuated equilibrium together with Niles Eldredge (1943-) in 1972. The theory states that species remain more or less unaltered during their existence, with major evolutionary change happening during rapid events of speciation. As evidence for this view, Gould pointed to the fossil record.
Marine Fossils New Zealand Fossils can tell scientists about what life on Earth looked like in the past. The picture shows two million year old fossils of marine organisms found on an expedition to New Zealand. Credit: Kjetil Lysne Voje/UiO According to Gould, the fossil record typically show that species do not change significantly after they emerge, and that major changes occurred when new species appeared.
Stephen Jay Gould was one of the twentieth century's most famous evolutionary biologists and a bestselling popular science writer. Some even claimed that Gould was the foremost biologist of his time perhaps the greatest since Charles Darwin himself so his words have carried a lot of weight to this day.
In a new paper from researchers at the University of Oslo, the authors claim to have found several methodological problems in the most famous and well-trusted example supporting the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
"We find no evidence for punctuated evolution in our reanalysis of the most recognized dataset that Gould used to support his theory," says Kjetil Lysne Voje at UiO's Center for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES) at the Department of Biosciences.
Textbook example is rejected
Fossils of the bryozoan genus Metrarabdotos a group of aquatic invertebrates thoroughly investigated by the excellent paleobiologist Alan Cheetham have been the prime example of punctuated evolution.
Gould called Metrarabdotos "the most brilliantly persuasive, and most meticulously documented, example ever presented for predominant (in this case, exclusive) punctuated equilibrium in a full lineage" (Gould 2002, page 827).
"We detected some critical methodological issues in the original work on Metrarabdotos. When we take the methodological issues into account, we do not find any evidence of punctuated evolution in our reanalysis of the Metrarabdotos data," says Kjetil Lysne Voje.
Bryozoans are so small that scientists have to use an electron microscope to study them in detail, but they form colonies that can be quite large (up to 1 meter). Most bryozoans live in the sea, but there are also many species in fresh water. The bryozoan genus Metrarabdotos has been used as a textbook example in evolutionary biology and paleontology, showing how evolution speeds up when new species form compared to a much slower evolution of already established species.
"But our new results show nothing else than a gradual evolution of the bryozoan species both before, during and after the formation of new species," emphasizes Voje.
Why is this important?
The idea of fast-track evolution during speciation has been controversial. Critics of the theory of punctuated equilibrium found it difficult to believe that the evolutionary processes leading to new species should be markedly different from the processes that cause already existing species to change.
"Species are continuously evolving and our results support the hypothesis that evolution does not "behave" differently when new species emerge," says Voje.
The paper with the new results was published in the May issue of The American Naturalist. The authors of the study are Kjetil Lysne Voje, Emanuela Di Martino and Arthur Porto.
Reference: "Revisiting a Landmark Study System: No Evidence for a Punctuated Mode of Evolution in Metrarabdotos" by Kjetil Lysne Voje, Emanuela Di Martino and Arthur Porto, 17 March 2020, The American Naturalist. DOI: 10.1086/707664
And?? Gould documents his views. I don't see where either has to be in conflict or mutually exclusive. We may have enough information to reconcile those, if they need to be reconciled, in time. Bryozoans are not the only evidence for gradual change in species. The fossil record is full of them. Exogyra are an excellent example. What you're failing to recognize is that the reason hypotheses are proposed is because it is obvious from the fossil record that evolution occurs, and that observation is borne out from other branches of science.
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.
You are confusing Infatuation with Love.
90% of real Love comes from commitment.
Commitment is the result of a neurological/biological process.
No, in my experience that would be Divorce,
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
