TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TXScientist, the degree to which you are defending Evolution is inversely proportional to your actual understanding of it.

---

The issue is, you think the fact of evolution is a challenge to, and calls into question your religious beliefs.

---

Evolution, defined as an unguided, natural process without God, doesn't challenge anything, as it is merely an unproven assertion and inference from the data.

This data, however, does challenge Evolution, as we've demonstrated. And it hurts you. That's why you're here lashing out, instead of refuting any point being made against it.

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Which God? The OT is a written testament of stories that shows their God doesn't always will their good. Religion is nothing more than self, group, and cultural deception created by men to account for what they don't understand, and the reality they experience.

---

Have you every disciplined your children for doing something wrong?


You truly do not understand the bible. I believe that you have read a great deal of atheistic commentaries about the bible; however, it is clear that you have never read authentic Christian commentaries that help one understand the author's culture, time, and meaning of the 46 books of the OT.

TexasScientist said:

---

Religion is a psychological crutch - If good things come your way, it is because you have the favor of a being that loves them, and if bad things come you way, it is because you must have the disfavor of that being who loves you, or at least there must be some unrevealed benefit for future comphrehension. It provides a mechanism to cope with the experiences of life, or reality

---

This might be true in the Health and Wealth gospels or the Prosperity theology, but that isn't the case for authentic Christianity.

I'm not sure if you really believe your comments or if you are trying to insult and troll the Christians on this board.

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

Each sect has their own unique theology.

---

Do you know the difference in following a religion versus following Christ?

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Which God? The OT is a written testament of stories that shows their God doesn't always will their good. Religion is nothing more than self, group, and cultural deception created by men to account for what they don't understand, and the reality they experience.

---

Have you every disciplined your children for doing something wrong?


You truly do not understand the bible. I believe that you have read a great deal of atheistic commentaries about the bible; however, it is clear that you have never read authentic Christian commentaries that help one understand the author's culture, time, and meaning of the 46 books of the OT.

TexasScientist said:

---

Religion is a psychological crutch - If good things come your way, it is because you have the favor of a being that loves them, and if bad things come you way, it is because you must have the disfavor of that being who loves you, or at least there must be some unrevealed benefit for future comphrehension. It provides a mechanism to cope with the experiences of life, or reality

---

This might be true in the Health and Wealth gospels or the Prosperity theology, but that isn't the case for authentic Christianity.

I'm not sure if you really believe your comments or if you are trying to insult and troll the Christians on this board.

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

---

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.

---

Then why do you rule out the historical records of the gospels? Why do you rule out the supernatural without investigating the supernatural?

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?

Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?

---

My apologies for just now getting back to you. Thank you for further explaining.

I do believe that love can both be a product of evolution and related to God. The genetic variations on which natural selection acts on may occur randomly (at least, that's the best way to currently model them), but natural selection/evolution itself is not random. At times, evolution can even be predictable as organisms evolve to survive what nature throws at it. Evolution in this case is God's mechanism for developing this subconscious drive. Sorry, I didn't mean to give off the idea that I believe evolution is separate from God.

For love being a high virtue, I think the answer can be pursued best through philosophy and spirituality. In Christianity, love and forgiveness is at the center of the radical message of Christ. Paul even directly calls it the greatest virtue in 1 Corinthians. I find it incredible that as humanity has grown and evolved, our ability to love has as well.

---

Do you mean God influenced DNA mutation to arrive at the end product he wanted? Meaning, that it was NOT random, but according to His will?

---

I have never said Evolution was random, but yes my best guess is that the creator of the universe has or had some control over creation including the process of evolution.

---

Non-random DNA mutation and/or selection is not scientific Evolution. You are essentially describing Creation.

Do you believe God IS love, as it says in the bible? If so, how is a defining attribute of a supernatural God something that is naturalistic, i.e. a biochemical reaction?

---

Scientific evolution being a random chance driven process is a widespread misconception and the majority (if not nearly all) of evolutionary biologist would agree with that statement.

I am certainly hopeful that God is love, and I'm also fine accepting the (in my opinion) overwhelming evidence that human attributes like love were developed through a process of evolution.

---

Evolutionary biologists will concede that Evolution, as in going from single cell organisms to the origin of new species depends on chance DNA mutation; DNA mutation and/or a selection process that is directed by a mind is Intelligent Design, i.e. Creation. That is what you described. What you described is most certainly NOT scientific Evolution.

So you don't necessarily believe God is love. You just hope. Regardless, that doesn't answer the question how a supernatural God can be defined by a naturalistic process.

---

I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.

Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.

---

Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.

New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.

---

We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.

---

Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.

---

It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.

Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.

---

Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.

With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".

In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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.

---

Very nice. Here is your supporting documentation


"Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." Gen. 2:7

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

The fossil and DNA records themselves testify that organisms have evolved over time from simple to complex.

---

Please watch this video. Gunter Bechly is a prominent German paleontologist and expert in the fossil record, and he does an excellent job explaining how the fossil record does NOT support what you are claiming here, which is Darwinian evolution:

---

Thanks for sharing the video. Dr. Bechly is clearly a smart dude. I find it interesting that he admits that there are fossils that are transitional between ancestral taxa, but moves the goalpost further back by not agreeing that evolution can have periods of punctuated equilibrium. Most Intelligent designers dismiss transitional fossils completely.

I'd need to do some more research on the speed of evolution, but I would not expect it to be some static process but instead have periods of faster change as the environment is adapted to.

Just because someone with a PhD holds your views, does not automatically make it true. There are a bunch of incredibly intelligent people who believe the stupidest **** (people who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, there was a literal global flood, etc).

Baylor, one of the top Christian schools in the world, teaches modern evolution from both a scientific and anthropological standpoint. This isn't some giant conspiracy where Scientists are hiding the truth.

---

There was no appeal to authority. I only asked others to hear the arguments from someone much more qualified to talk about the fossil record than you and I. So instead of trying to invoke an argument about fallacy, contend with the FACTS presented by Dr. Bechly. Incidentally, arguing this is called a fallacy fallacy.

Your research into the speed of evolution will have a very difficult time dealing with the facts presented in this video, such as how highly, highly complex organisms suddenly appear fully formed in the fossil record, without the slow lead up with multiple transitional forms that one must expect if it were the result of a naturalistic process of random genetic change and natural selection.

What is odd is that you seem so intent on believing that Darwinian Evolution is true, even though you admitted you believed God was involved in Evolution, which is NOT scientific, Darwinian evolution. Do you, or do you NOT, believe in Intelligent Design? You avoided this question.

Baylor is a nominally Christian school. It means nothing. No one is calling it a conspiracy, so stop with the strawmen. What you must contend with, though, is the FACT that Bechly was cancelled merely for his belief in Intelligent Design, regardless of his scientific merit, and that this is probably what goes on in academia. Which prof or student would dare do this and ruin their career? You're aware of how cancelling happens, don't you? So what you were taught might have had a definite slant, so you should take it with a heavy grain of salt.

---

My wife is also more qualified then both of us with a degree in Anthropology and researched evolution prolifically (especially regarding human common ancestry). I think I will trust her points as well as the other 99.9% of accredited scientist, instead of a scientist who has been rejected by the community for denying one of the most proven and accepted theories of modern times. If you believe the earth is flat (and continually write research papers and center your career around it), you shouldn't be accredited.

I listened to his points, gave him about 40 minutes of my life, and came away unconvinced with his apologetic-like response to the topic.

---

By all means, let's hear your or your wife's rebuttal to any of Dr. Bechly's points.

And one more time - do you or do you NOT believe in Intelligent Design? You said God was involved in Evolution. I find it highly, highly odd how you are so intent on defending naturalistic Evolution when you had already said you believed God was involved.

---

I believe that God created this universe, and am not putting him in a box in how he designed it to work. Just because something is seemingly random (genetic mutation) does not mean God is absent.

Do I believe that God randomly dropped in on Earth and supercharged species to evolve over a few billion years? I'm open to the idea if presented with any actual evidence, but haven't seen any.

---

Doesn't the sudden appearance of highly complex organisms and structures without transitional forms qualify as evidence of design? If not, what is your naturalist explanation for that, and what would you say the odds of that happening naturally are?

And if you're saying God isn't absent, and things are "seemingly" random, isn't this a mind behind the origin of life, and so isn't this against scientific, Darwinian evolution's assertions, and more in favor of Design? It's very odd how you're trying to have it both ways.

---

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

---

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

This gap is where the evolutionist's logic fails.

---

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

---

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

---

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.

---

I'm not familiar with Einstein clearing this up. Do you have a link?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

joseywales said:

---

I have realized how ignorant I was to be following a superstion that was formed thousands of years ago when we knew nothing about how we got here how big the universe is and all the amazing discoveries about our earth and mankind , dna , evolution, etc we have had in last 20 years.
All religion is a man-made cultural tradition, built by the worst form of brainwashing , doing it to children before they can think for themselves. The history of Christianity is littered with obvious man made beliefs that originally came from other forms of religion from that time.
The actions of xhristians in history made sure it stuck around by conducting wars to wipe out or attempt to wipe out competing belief systems. Persecuting men women and children with Inquistions, imprisoning folks who believed differently etc.
The nature of mankind is to be superstitions, as we can see today by the millions of folks ignoring facts that directly contradict the belief of a personal God who judges you for an eternity based on the belief that God came down in man's form. This is an idea and a practice that was around thousands of years before Christianity.
I guess the earth is flat and aliens are among us and all science is only believed when it helps you and or your family. I guess the millions who die innocently each year from starvation and disease are just not seen by the all knowing god.
It is out there in plain sight, there is no personal God that many of man's religions claim. There may be a creator or a higher power and some intelligent maker of all life, but as mankind we cannot know or begin to comprehend what that complexity means..Live in love and respect and treasure your 2 seconds on this planet because most likely that is all we have
There is nothing wrong with not living forever, there probably no such thing. Be a candle in the dark..

---

Thank you for your thoughts. I learn more into the hope of an all loving God, but agree that the tangible evidence is there that does not always make that an easy thing to believe.

Live in love - 100%.

---

What is love?

If God claims to be love then how can an atheist claim love since it's a concept that they certainly won't share on Christian terms?

A believer and non believer can't even define love the same, they occupy two different realities of humanity.

From a foundational and a presuppositional perspective there is no neutral interpretation of anything about being human that is shared between a Christian and non Christian.

One believes in a sovereign God and the other in nihilistic chance, they do not even experience basic day to day relationships the same with that chasm in perspective.

---

Not sure if you're inferring that I'm an atheist, but that is far from the truth. Regardless, Christians do not own "love". It is something that is universal and inclusive to all.

If you're seriously asking what love is, it's a subconscious drive that evolved millions of years ago that affects the biochemistry all over the brain. Philosophically, I believe it is ever growing and evolving in nature as we better understand Christ.

A believer and non-believer can certainly both experience God's love.

---

If love is merely the product of evolution, it is not and can not be universal or inclusive to all.

---

Would you be able to expand more on this? I fail to see how the evolutionary development process of love would cause it to not be inclusive. If anything, I see it the other way around.

---

If love is merely a biochemical evolutionary end product that lies in our genetic code, it would also then be subject to the same inborn errors of expression that cause humans to be born without, or with severe dysfunction of, any other human trait that arose from evolution. Not all humans were born with arms, a normally functioning heart, or the full complement of metabolic enzymes, for example, even though humans evolved to have them. Why would love be any different, then? Universality can not be asserted for inheritable biologic processes.

Moreover, if love is merely the product of evolutionary change, then it can be eradicated through change as well. There is no guarantee that this hasn't happened in any line of humans throughout human history. Or that many of them don't exist today.

---

You're right in that not all humans were born with the same capacities. Evolution by definition is progressive change. There are imperfections. The degree and ability to experience and even learn love may be linear and variable, and subject to mental disability/ability. For example, a malignant narcissist's love of self is determinant of behavior, and an inability to express empathy, i.e. Trump. Someone with a brain impairment by injury, genetically, or congenitally may not be capable of fully expressing or feeling love. Why is this not clear evidence that love is a bioligical expression? Imperfections are consistent with evolution. They are not consistent with a loving creator.

---

Biology is the means by which we experience the feelings associated with love. It isn't love itself. To define love as merely a biological reaction would be like defining a cookie only in terms of the brain activity when tasting it.

The point to the OP was that since biological expression is inconsistent, he can not claim universality of love if love is merely biological. But if love is spiritual, then anyone with a soul can experience it, therefore it is universal. That is perfectly consistent with a loving Creator. You are wrong, yet again.

---

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

---

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,

---

baa dum, tsssssssss

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

The point of doing good is three fold
1) God commands it.
2) Because of God's grace for me I try to live a life of gratitude, compassion and service.
3) If We live as Hitler we live a life of pride, power, greed, and destruction. We destroy ourselves and others.
I chose love for the sake of the world salvation like Jesus did.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If love, according to you, is merely a product of evolution, that is to say, merely a biophysical end product resulting from random DNA mutation and natural selection in humans, then how is "love" related to God? When you say "God's love" or when you describe God as "all-loving", how does God have something that randomly arose in the genetics of humans? How could God's character be composed of a purely naturalistic, chance product?

Defining love in purely naturalistic terms and then extolling it as a virtue of God that we must emulate is completely absurd; it makes no sense. Can you explain? Also, on what basis do you believe that "love" is some kind of high virtue that we must ascribe to, as opposed to say, xenophobia, which also is a product of chance human evolution just the same as love?

---

My apologies for just now getting back to you. Thank you for further explaining.

I do believe that love can both be a product of evolution and related to God. The genetic variations on which natural selection acts on may occur randomly (at least, that's the best way to currently model them), but natural selection/evolution itself is not random. At times, evolution can even be predictable as organisms evolve to survive what nature throws at it. Evolution in this case is God's mechanism for developing this subconscious drive. Sorry, I didn't mean to give off the idea that I believe evolution is separate from God.

For love being a high virtue, I think the answer can be pursued best through philosophy and spirituality. In Christianity, love and forgiveness is at the center of the radical message of Christ. Paul even directly calls it the greatest virtue in 1 Corinthians. I find it incredible that as humanity has grown and evolved, our ability to love has as well.

---

Do you mean God influenced DNA mutation to arrive at the end product he wanted? Meaning, that it was NOT random, but according to His will?

---

I have never said Evolution was random, but yes my best guess is that the creator of the universe has or had some control over creation including the process of evolution.

---

Non-random DNA mutation and/or selection is not scientific Evolution. You are essentially describing Creation.

Do you believe God IS love, as it says in the bible? If so, how is a defining attribute of a supernatural God something that is naturalistic, i.e. a biochemical reaction?

---

Scientific evolution being a random chance driven process is a widespread misconception and the majority (if not nearly all) of evolutionary biologist would agree with that statement.

I am certainly hopeful that God is love, and I'm also fine accepting the (in my opinion) overwhelming evidence that human attributes like love were developed through a process of evolution.

---

Evolutionary biologists will concede that Evolution, as in going from single cell organisms to the origin of new species depends on chance DNA mutation; DNA mutation and/or a selection process that is directed by a mind is Intelligent Design, i.e. Creation. That is what you described. What you described is most certainly NOT scientific Evolution.

So you don't necessarily believe God is love. You just hope. Regardless, that doesn't answer the question how a supernatural God can be defined by a naturalistic process.

---

I think we may be perhaps using two different definitions of evolution. My knowledge of evolution is that it is simply the change of characteristics of a species over generations. Evolution in itself is not a random process and is even predictable.

Generic Mutations are certainly one of the essential known causes of these changes in characteristics in seceding populations, but so are generic variability and recombination. Regardless, even though gene mutations are classically thought to be random, new findings suggest this is not the case.

---

Genetic variability events, like recombination, %A0occur randomly.

New findings only suggest certain areas of a genome may be more prone to mutation than others. This does not mean that the change that does occur isn't random.

---

We know that through a process of evolution over billions of years characteristics have evolved from single cell organisms to human.

---

Actually, we don't "know" that, which is why it's called a theory.

---

It is an indisputable fact that organisms have evolved during the history of life on earth. A scientific theory is not just a mere stab in the dark or hypothesis, but something that can be and has been consistently tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.

Evolution as a scientific theory has more evidence and is more proven than the theory of gravity.

---

Evolution can not be more proven than gravity, given that gravity is a LAW and Evolution is only a theory.

With regard to Evolution as the cause of organisms giving rise to newer, more complex kinds of organisms - this is something only inferred from the fossil record and morphological studies. It has never been observed. Therefore from a scientific theory standpoint it is rather weak. Some rightfully argue that because of this it doesn't even meet the definition of "theory".

In what way has Evolution (as in big "E" evolution, i.e. single cell to humans)been tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, as you claim? Do you have an example?

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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.

---

Very nice. Here is your supporting documentation


"Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." Gen. 2:7
This is a faith statement not scientific proof. What is your science? TS told you his science.

---

Prove Genesis 2:7 it using science.

BearN: Science can't even explain why cats purr. Do you really think science can comprehend the Almighty? You really are a fool.

1. "Science can't even explain why cats purr." Science does not know a lot of things but your job is to prove scientifically that God is All Powerful.
Scikence' job is not prove the Almighty Power. They do not make that claim.

You make the claim about the Almighty show no proof.
Prove your premise because the secular is not buying your doctrines of all powerful.
The secular world is who we are trying to save by faith through the love of Christ.

Stop comparing yourself to Christ, Waco.

It's not a good look for you.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

The point of doing good is three fold
1) God commands it.
2) Because of God's grace for me I try to live a life of gratitude, compassion and service.
3) If We live as Hitler we live a life of pride, power, greed, and destruction. We destroy ourselves and others.
I chose love for the sake of the world salvation like Jesus did.

---

and that's good and fine but, if you wake up tomorrow and decide to live like Hitler, according to you, grace abounds-you Hitler and Mother Teresa all end up in the same place. Therefore, is it really wrong to live like hell?

Waco1947 said:

---

BearN: Science can't even explain why cats purr. Do you really think science can comprehend the Almighty? You really are a fool.

1. "Science can't even explain why cats purr." Science does not know a lot of things but your job is to prove scientifically that God is All Powerful.
Scikence' job is not prove the Almighty Power. They do not make that claim.

You make the claim about the Almighty show no proof.
Prove your premise because the secular is not buying your doctrines of all powerful.
The secular world is who we are trying to save by faith through the love of Christ.

---

You can't prove your wife loves you. You may be able to provide evidence to support that position but, you can't prove it.

There are three opposing views
1) there is at least one other parallel universe. If there is/are, that answers nothing but just provides more universes for the same questions. There is ZERO evidence of this.
2) EVERYTHING came from nothing-inanimate, animate, logic, mathematics, reason, love/hate, free will. Everything!
3) an intelligent creator outside of time and space

Where does your logic point you? Where does the god you profess to believe in point you.

I know where my God points me.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

Because of God's grace for me I try to live a life of gratitude, compassion and service.

---

What is God? Define the entity to which your are referring.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

The point of doing good is three fold
1) God commands it.

---

How can we know God commanded ANYTHING?

Wouldn't that require God having power over physics?
For God to communicate with us, He must be able to manipulate things in the physical realm, right?
Otherwise, how would we be able to perceive it?

Golem said:

---

What is God? Define the entity to which your are referring.

---

All he will say is that "God is Love."

He has not given any further definition or attribute.

Bless his heart, he has a misguided and twisted view of theology. He cannot philosophically defend his position other than posting "prove God with Science."

He is lost, damaged and needs our prayers.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

The point of doing good is three fold
1) God commands it.
2) Because of God's grace for me I try to live a life of gratitude, compassion and service.
3) If We live as Hitler we live a life of pride, power, greed, and destruction. We destroy ourselves and others.
I chose love for the sake of the world salvation like Jesus did.

---

and that's good and fine but, if you wake up tomorrow and decide to live like Hitler, according to you, grace abounds-you Hitler and Mother Teresa all end up in the same place. Therefore, is it really wrong to live like hell?

---

Do you not wake every morning and sin? You decide each day between good and evil. What shall God do with you? Show grace or punish you?

Coke Bear said:

---

Golem said:

---

What is God? Define the entity to which your are referring.

---

All he will say is that "God is Love." You are misrepresenting me. That's not all I said. God is love as shown by Christ on the cross. That's God's power. Do not lie about me. I am tired of it.

He has not given any further definition or attribute.

Bless his heart, he has a misguided and twisted view of theology. He cannot philosophically defend his position other than posting "prove God with Science."

He is lost, damaged and needs our prayers.

---

Golem said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

Because of God's grace for me I try to live a life of gratitude, compassion and service.

---

What is God? Define the entity to which your are referring.

---

Asked and answered. Search my posts above.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

The point of doing good is three fold
1) God commands it.

---

How can we know God commanded ANYTHING?

Wouldn't that require God having power over physics?
For God to communicate with us, He must be able to manipulate things in the physical realm, right?
Otherwise, how would we be able to perceive it?

---

Dusty, I love you in Christ but I recommend a review of your basic understanding of science. There is no "commanding" but only physics, chemistry and science.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

The point of doing good is three fold
1) God commands it.
2) Because of God's grace for me I try to live a life of gratitude, compassion and service.
3) If We live as Hitler we live a life of pride, power, greed, and destruction. We destroy ourselves and others.
I chose love for the sake of the world salvation like Jesus did.

---

and that's good and fine but, if you wake up tomorrow and decide to live like Hitler, according to you, grace abounds-you Hitler and Mother Teresa all end up in the same place. Therefore, is it really wrong to live like hell?

---

Do you not wake every morning and sin? You decide each day between good and evil. What shall God do with you? Show grace or punish you?

---

You aren't answering the question. You're simply asking a different question. How about you answer mine and I'll answer yours?

Waco1947 [b said:

---

You are misrepresenting me. That's not all I said. God is love as shown by Christ on the cross. That's God's power. Do not lie about me. I am tired of it.

---

That was not my intention. I asked you the same question and that is the answer that you gave me.

So are you stating that God is love by letting His son die a horrific death? I'm lost here.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

The point of doing good is three fold
1) God commands it.

---

How can we know God commanded ANYTHING?

Wouldn't that require God having power over physics?
For God to communicate with us, He must be able to manipulate things in the physical realm, right?
Otherwise, how would we be able to perceive it?

---

Dusty, I love you in Christ but I recommend a review of your basic understanding of science. There is no "commanding" but only physics, chemistry and science.

---

Oh good lord.

"Commanding" was YOUR assertion. I'm asking you to explain how God actually did that and how we know it, if as you say, God CAN'T manipulate physical matter.

If you dont understand the question, get someone to help you.

Waco1947 said:

---

Golem said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

Because of God's grace for me I try to live a life of gratitude, compassion and service.

---

What is God? Define the entity to which your are referring.

---

Asked and answered. Search my posts above.

---

False

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 [b said:

---

You are misrepresenting me. That's not all I said. God is love as shown by Christ on the cross. That's God's power. Do not lie about me. I am tired of it.

---

That was not my intention. I asked you the same question and that is the answer that you gave me.

So are you stating that God is love by letting His son die a horrific death? I'm lost here.

---

John 15
https://www.bible.com/bible/114/JHN.15.NKJV

You take away from God, His power, because you do not understand how love would allow pain and suffering and yet you claim to worship Him.

In this passage we are given the analogy of taking away non-producing branches and of pruning with the intent of producing more fruit. Nothing sounds pleasant about having things taken away from us and certainly nothing about pruning sounds pleasant. It certainly sounds painful but it also sounds purposeful.

Later in the passage, it reads, "As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in my love." God allowed His Son to go to the cross, a horrible, suffering death but with a greater cause.

God never said you would understand everything. In fact, He said " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." If you love the one true God, the God of the Bible, all of it, you will humble yourself, admit that you do not fully understand His ways and have faith.

Humility is tough. So is hell.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

The point of doing good is three fold
1) God commands it.
2) Because of God's grace for me I try to live a life of gratitude, compassion and service.
3) If We live as Hitler we live a life of pride, power, greed, and destruction. We destroy ourselves and others.
I chose love for the sake of the world salvation like Jesus did.

---

and that's good and fine but, if you wake up tomorrow and decide to live like Hitler, according to you, grace abounds-you Hitler and Mother Teresa all end up in the same place. Therefore, is it really wrong to live like hell?

---

Do you not wake every morning and sin? You decide each day between good and evil. What shall God do with you? Show grace or punish you?

---

You aren't answering the question. You're simply asking a different question. How about you answer mine and I'll answer yours?

---

My answer is founded on your response. I am proving your sinful nature and if I am right then you depend on grace.
At what level of sinning are you not offered grace!
Lusting after women
Sleeping with a porn star
Cheating on your taxes
Cheating your wife.
Cursing at the neighborhood kids
Racism
Homophobia.
Denying true.
Murdering someone
Murdering 10 people
Murdering a child
Murdering 50 people
Murdering 6,000,000
Man's slaughter for a dwi
What's not forgiven?
You're ducking the answer because you know full welll the implications of my questions. My answer is in my questions.
It's called the Socratic method.

Waco1947 said:

---

BearN: Science can't even explain why cats purr. Do you really think science can comprehend the Almighty? You really are a fool.

1. "Science can't even explain why cats purr." Science does not know a lot of things but your job is to prove scientifically that God is All Powerful.
Scikence' job is not prove the Almighty Power. They do not make that claim.

You make the claim about the Almighty show no proof.
Prove your premise because the secular is not buying your doctrines of all powerful.
The secular world is who we are trying to save by faith through the love of Christ.

---

Please prove the following:

1) God exists;
2) God is love;
3) Jesus is physically alive today.

As you require of others, I require you to prove each of these without resorting to scripture, using both science and evidence. That means that, in addition to scripture, you cannot use either your emotions or feelings in proving any of the above.

I'll hang up and listen.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

The point of doing good is three fold
1) God commands it.
2) Because of God's grace for me I try to live a life of gratitude, compassion and service.
3) If We live as Hitler we live a life of pride, power, greed, and destruction. We destroy ourselves and others.
I chose love for the sake of the world salvation like Jesus did.

---

and that's good and fine but, if you wake up tomorrow and decide to live like Hitler, according to you, grace abounds-you Hitler and Mother Teresa all end up in the same place. Therefore, is it really wrong to live like hell?

---

Do you not wake every morning and sin? You decide each day between good and evil. What shall God do with you? Show grace or punish you?

---

You aren't answering the question. You're simply asking a different question. How about you answer mine and I'll answer yours?

---

My answer is founded on your response. I am proving your sinful nature and if I am right then you depend on grace.
At what level of sinning are you not offered grace!
Lusting after women
Sleeping with a porn star
Cheating on your taxes
Cheating your wife.
Cursing at the neighborhood kids
Racism
Homophobia.
Denying true.
Murdering someone
Murdering 10 people
Murdering a child
Murdering 50 people
Murdering 6,000,000
Man's slaughter for a dwi
What's not forgiven?
You're ducking the answer because you know full welll the implications of my questions. My answer is in my questions.
It's called the Socratic method.

1. Your method is actually Rhetoric, not the Socratic
2. Socrates is not mentioned even once in Scripture
3. You seem to be arguing that all sins are forgiven, even when the sinner is not sorry his/her actions.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

47 said "What harm shall Hitler do to me and others? God is love."

So 47, If your god is love, and Hitler can do you no harm, what is the point of doing good for anyone but ourselves? According to you and your god, we all end up in the same place.

Coincidently, your god and atheism have that in common, we all end up in the same place together. I fail to see the love in this.

---

What is the point of doing good?

---

I asked you first. See the second paragraph.

---

The point of doing good is three fold
1) God commands it.
2) Because of God's grace for me I try to live a life of gratitude, compassion and service.
3) If We live as Hitler we live a life of pride, power, greed, and destruction. We destroy ourselves and others.
I chose love for the sake of the world salvation like Jesus did.

---

and that's good and fine but, if you wake up tomorrow and decide to live like Hitler, according to you, grace abounds-you Hitler and Mother Teresa all end up in the same place. Therefore, is it really wrong to live like hell?

---

Do you not wake every morning and sin? You decide each day between good and evil. What shall God do with you? Show grace or punish you?

---

You aren't answering the question. You're simply asking a different question. How about you answer mine and I'll answer yours?

---

My answer is founded on your response. I am proving your sinful nature and if I am right then you depend on grace.
At what level of sinning are you not offered grace!
Lusting after women
Sleeping with a porn star
Cheating on your taxes
Cheating your wife.
Cursing at the neighborhood kids
Racism
Homophobia.
Denying true.
Murdering someone
Murdering 10 people
Murdering a child
Murdering 50 people
Murdering 6,000,000
Man's slaughter for a dwi
What's not forgiven?
You're ducking the answer because you know full welll the implications of my questions. My answer is in my questions.
It's called the Socratic method.

---

Well Socrates47, we are offered Grace at all of those points to the best of my knowledge but, let me play Socrates with you on a couple of points .

1)Pharaoh hardened his heart and then God hardened Pharaoh's heart. What's the difference and why?

2) I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door… What is the significance of opening the door? More to the point, what is the significance of not opening the door?

All Christians rely on the free gift of Grace. Do all PEOPLE accept the free gift?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TXScientist, the degree to which you are defending Evolution is inversely proportional to your actual understanding of it.

---

The issue is, you think the fact of evolution is a challenge to, and calls into question your religious beliefs.

---

Evolution, defined as an unguided, natural process without God, doesn't challenge anything, as it is merely an unproven assertion and inference from the data.

This data, however, does challenge Evolution, as we've demonstrated. And it hurts you. That's why you're here lashing out, instead of refuting any point being made against it.

---

Haven't seen any evidence that refutes evolution - only attempts at misrepresentation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, and so is a car, building, and computers. Your point?

---

Why would man be made from those elements if he is in "God's" image? Or is "God" made of elements forged in stars?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Mothra said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Which God? The OT is a written testament of stories that shows their God doesn't always will their good. Religion is nothing more than self, group, and cultural deception created by men to account for what they don't understand, and the reality they experience.

---

Have you every disciplined your children for doing something wrong?


You truly do not understand the bible. I believe that you have read a great deal of atheistic commentaries about the bible; however, it is clear that you have never read authentic Christian commentaries that help one understand the author's culture, time, and meaning of the 46 books of the OT.

TexasScientist said:

---

Religion is a psychological crutch - If good things come your way, it is because you have the favor of a being that loves them, and if bad things come you way, it is because you must have the disfavor of that being who loves you, or at least there must be some unrevealed benefit for future comphrehension. It provides a mechanism to cope with the experiences of life, or reality

---

This might be true in the Health and Wealth gospels or the Prosperity theology, but that isn't the case for authentic Christianity.

I'm not sure if you really believe your comments or if you are trying to insult and troll the Christians on this board.

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

Each sect has their own unique theology.

---

Do you know the difference in following a religion versus following Christ?

---

The components are essentially the same. Do you know that each Christian sect has it's own idea/version of how to follow Christ?