LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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?

---

Application of objective, rational, and critical thought to observable evidence requires you to view the gospels for what they are. They are religious texts written to impart an author's specific theological message. Obviously they were written in a historical setting, but they can no more be relied upon as factual historical records than Homer's Odyssey.

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

---

Accepting man was formed from star dust is a good beginning point. How did he breath life into his nostrils? Why did he need to form man of dust? Isn't he formed in God's own image? Where did the DNA that traces back to lower life forms come from? Evolution is the scientific observation of how life developed over time from simple to complex forms of life. There is enough of a scientific record to draw the conclusion. There is no scientific record to draw a credible conclusion for any religious lore as an explanation.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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?

---

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/einstein-pantheism-baruch-spinoza/

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

---

You really lack understanding.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

---

And what do you think those components are?

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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?

---

Application of objective, rational, and critical thought to observable evidence requires you to view the gospels for what they are. They are religious texts written to impart an author's specific theological message. Obviously they were written in a historical setting, but they can no more be relied upon as factual historical records than Homer's Odyssey.

---

That is where you are wrong. Historians and anthropologist alike use the Bible quite often in their work.

The Bible's historicity has not been demonstrated to be wrong no matter how much you would like that to be true.

TexasScientist said:

---

Accepting man was formed from star dust is a good beginning point. How did he breath life into his nostrils? Why did he need to form man of dust? Isn't he formed in God's own image? Where did the DNA that traces back to lower life forms come from? Evolution is the scientific observation of how life developed over time from simple to complex forms of life. There is enough of a scientific record to draw the conclusion. There is no scientific record to draw a credible conclusion for any religious lore as an explanation.

---

Are you claiming that Christians are required to hold a literal understanding of the first 11 chapters of Genesis?

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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?

---

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/einstein-pantheism-baruch-spinoza/

---

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

Personal God[edit]
Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic god, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "nave"[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-Calaprice213-3][3][/url] and "childlike".[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-Gilmore-14][14][/url] In a 1947 letter he stated that "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-Hoffmann95-15][15][/url] In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even nave."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-16][16][/url]
Prompted by his colleague L. E. J. Brouwer, Einstein read the philosopher Eric Gutkind's book Choose Life,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-17][17][/url] a discussion of the relationship between Jewish revelation and the modern world. On January 3, 1954, Einstein sent the following reply to Gutkind: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-Frohlichletter-18][18][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-NYT-20080517-19][19][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-MSNBC-20121005-20][20][/url] In 2018 his letter to Gutkind was sold for $2.9 million.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-bbc-20181204-21][21][/url]
On 22 March 1954, Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

Quote:

---

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-22][22][/url]

---

In his book Ideas and Opinions (1954) Einstein stated, "In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-Calaprice213-3][3][/url] In December 1922 Einstein said the following on the idea of a saviour, "Denominational traditions I can only consider historically and psychologically; they have no other significance for me.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#cite_note-Jammer75-9][9][/url]

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

---

And what do you think those components are?

---

Belief in the lore of men - with intolerance for question.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

---

You really lack understanding.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

---

What is a natural man? Are you not a natural man? What is spiritual appraisal, other than a religious psychological tool or crutch for reassurance in misplaced faith?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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?

---

Application of objective, rational, and critical thought to observable evidence requires you to view the gospels for what they are. They are religious texts written to impart an author's specific theological message. Obviously they were written in a historical setting, but they can no more be relied upon as factual historical records than Homer's Odyssey.

---

That is where you are wrong. Historians and anthropologist alike use the Bible quite often in their work.

The Bible's historicity has not been demonstrated to be wrong no matter how much you would like that to be true.

---

Religious historians and anthropologists - maybe. The OT and NT are nothing more than a compilation of stories meant to chronicle a religion and its religious message that is in large part handed down in oral tradition. Is there a place for using the NT or OT as footnote to historical and anthropologic research? Maybe. Much of what is in the Bible cannot be documented historically or anthropologically, and in some instances is doubtful. Much of what is written is internally inconsistent. For instance, it is not considered true that Moses wrote the books attributed to him, and there is reason to doubt he even existed outside of religious lore.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Accepting man was formed from star dust is a good beginning point. How did he breath life into his nostrils? Why did he need to form man of dust? Isn't he formed in God's own image? Where did the DNA that traces back to lower life forms come from? Evolution is the scientific observation of how life developed over time from simple to complex forms of life. There is enough of a scientific record to draw the conclusion. There is no scientific record to draw a credible conclusion for any religious lore as an explanation.

---

Are you claiming that Christians are required to hold a literal understanding of the first 11 chapters of Genesis?

---

Isn't Christianity's foundation built upon that belief? How can you excuse one part of unproven (or even disproven) supernatural claims of primitive people as unbelievable, and accept other supernatural claims of primitive people as believable?

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

---

When you make a dumb argument and lose, the answer is not to double down with another dumb argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

---

Gods image is a creator. He creates. He isn't bound by flesh and only a fool claims He is flesh. We are in his image in exactly the same way we desire to create.

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

Of course you didn't see any. That's because when given evidence like in the video, you close your eyes and dismiss it via ad hominem.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

---

And what do you think those components are?

---

Belief in the lore of men - with intolerance for question.

---

we'll no wonder you are so far off base. Do you care to narrow it down regarding "lore" or are you content with your buffoonish answer?

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Accepting man was formed from star dust is a good beginning point. How did he breath life into his nostrils? Why did he need to form man of dust? Isn't he formed in God's own image? Where did the DNA that traces back to lower life forms come from? Evolution is the scientific observation of how life developed over time from simple to complex forms of life. There is enough of a scientific record to draw the conclusion. There is no scientific record to draw a credible conclusion for any religious lore as an explanation.

---

Are you claiming that Christians are required to hold a literal understanding of the first 11 chapters of Genesis?

---

Isn't Christianity's foundation built upon that belief? How can you excuse one part of unproven (or even disproven) supernatural claims of primitive people as unbelievable, and accept other supernatural claims of primitive people as believable?

---

The question wasn't addressed to me but, you and I have already discussed portions of Genesis that are clearly poetry.

Why do you continue to go back and claim things that have been shown to you to be false assumptions.

You aren't ignorant because you've previously been given the information. So that leaves either stupid or agenda driven. Which is it?

TexasScientist said:

---

Isn't Christianity's foundation built upon that belief? How can you excuse one part of unproven (or even disproven) supernatural claims of primitive people as unbelievable, and accept other supernatural claims of primitive people as believable?

---

NO.

Lib did a good job explaining this.

I will add a couple things from a Catholic view. The Church allows for good Catholics to believe in the literal 6-day account of creation or evolution (provided that they agree that God started it.)

Once again, you've made snarky comments about the people about that time. Do you really feel that is necessary or are you doing this just to troll the board?

So for TS, God=Wikipedia?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

Of course you didn't see any. That's because when given evidence like in the video, you close your eyes and dismiss it via ad hominem.

---

Oh, it's worse than that. It's not up to people who don't believe Evolution as TS describes it to prove it's false, or else accept Evolution as the default truth, the scientific method itself requires the proponents of a theory to produce the evidence demonstrating the theory is true. The default, of course, is doubt, to which all of us are allowed to express if we're being honest.

The spectrum is broad, with a few on either end claiming the truth is obvious and everyone must accept it, with a large majority of people between those ends who may not have a conclusive opinion but carry some notion in their heart and mind.

For myself, I believe the evidence for God is compelling but leave it for each of us to choose, indeed that God Himself has planned it so we each may choose according to faith. The various theories of Evolution to not alter my beliefs, certainly I feel no need to force people who think Evolution is true to be mocked or attacked the way some think people of faith should be harassed and demeaned,

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

---

Man being made "in the image of God" means that man, like God, is a triune being - we consist of body, mind, and spirit (with the three being one - you or me) and God consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, once again with the three being one. It doesn't mean that man and God are made of the same components.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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?

---

No they do not but now you're simply circling back to "Why do good?" which has been asked answered. Yet you failed to answer my questions. The Socratic method only works if you actually deal with critical thinking. So answer my questions
I find conservative Christians do not want to deal critically with theological issues.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Isn't Christianity's foundation built upon that belief? How can you excuse one part of unproven (or even disproven) supernatural claims of primitive people as unbelievable, and accept other supernatural claims of primitive people as believable?

---

NO.

Lib did a good job explaining this.

I will add a couple things from a Catholic view. The Church allows for good Catholics to believe in the literal 6-day account of creation or evolution (provided that they agree that God started it.)

Once again, you've made snarky comments about the people about that time. Do you really feel that is necessary or are you doing this just to troll the board?

---

"God started it" begs the question "Did God start it?" You simply have no proof in the realm of science.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

Of course you didn't see any. That's because when given evidence like in the video, you close your eyes and dismiss it via ad hominem.

---

The video is not "proof." He is a quack scientist. He gave up scientific inquiry when he traded ancient myth for reality. He's a pseudo scientist. His video is panned universally by scientists.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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.

---

Of course you didn't see any. That's because when given evidence like in the video, you close your eyes and dismiss it via ad hominem.

---

The video is not "proof." He is a quack scientist. He gave up scientific inquiry when he traded ancient myth for reality. He's a pseudo scientist. His video is panned universally by scientists.

---

All that means is that you don't like him, Waco. You have zero credentials to speak for what qualifies someone as a Scientist. Come to think of it, your posts disqualify you to speak for what Christ taught, as well.

As for Socrates, the only thing you have in common with him, is that neither of you has ever made a good point in an online forum.

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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?

---

No they do not but now you're simply circling back to "Why do good?" which has been asked answered. Yet you failed to answer my questions. The Socratic method only works if you actually deal with critical thinking. So answer my questions
I find conservative Christians do not want to deal critically with theological issues.

---

how the heck do you get to decide to answer a question with a question but when I do the same , I'm dodging. Answer or move along.

I asked you three questions above. You answered the third one. You failed to answer two pertinent questions, one regarding Pharaoh's heart and the other regarding the significance of opening the door when Christ knocks. Answer those and we can proceed.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

---

When you make a dumb argument and lose, the answer is not to double down with another dumb argument. You're embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

---

And you think the idea of a man being made in the image of an imaginary god on the lore of primitive people is not dumb?

Mothra 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.

---

I realize that's what you believe.

---

Where do you believe elements carbon and oxygen?

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.

---

Make a valid point to refute. Every branch of science supports evolution. It's observed on many levels. All you have is contrived religious arguments in attempt to refute evolution because it is a threat to what you want to believe. Even Francis Collins believes in the process of evolution.

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.

---

What data?

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?

---

My point is where elements that make up carbon based life aren't spoken into existence, by an imagined supernatural deity as an explanation by primitive people attempting to satisfy themselves about their origin.

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?

---

Despite attempts of Christians to imagine otherwise, there is no real difference in the underlying social and psychological construct of following any religion. Christianity is a religion, albeit with different ideas and beliefs, than any other religion. It is an offshoot of Judaism, which in tern is an offshoot of early Canaanite beliefs. However, the basics of any religion, whether Greek mythology, Norse mythology, Jewish mythology, or Christian mythology. I know that Christians try to rationalize and convince themselves that their version of religion is unique and different in order to foster their continued belief in something that the evidence of reality indicates is no more real than any other religious belief.

TexasScientist said:

---

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?

---

Despite attempts of Christians to imagine otherwise, there is no real difference in the underlying social and psychological construct of following any religion. Christianity is a religion, albeit with different ideas and beliefs, than any other religion. It is an offshoot of Judaism, which in tern is an offshoot of early Canaanite beliefs. However, the basics of any religion, whether Greek mythology, Norse mythology, Jewish mythology, or Christian mythology. I know that Christians try to rationalize and convince themselves that their version of religion is unique and different in order to foster their continued belief in something that the evidence of reality indicates is no more real than any other religious belief.

---

You addressed religion. Now address Christ.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

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?

---

The gospels are nothing more than religious texts written to convey a religious message. They may reference something from a geographic or contemporaneous occurrence, but that doesn't make them reliable textbooks of history. There are historic errors found in the gospels, those that made it through political haggling into canon and those that didn't. Show me the evidence of anything supernatural to investigate. Primitive people want to believe something that is unexplained, or not yet fully explained must be supernatural and have developed supernatural lore to support their beliefs. In the same vein, they want to believe in supernatural events that set them apart and make them racially or culturally unique. It gives them psychological comfort and resolution when facing their mortality and the struggles of life. Religion is a mental or psychological trick in order to cope.

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

---

Ok. What is the dust composed of? What is the breath of life made of? How did he do this? Why would he need to force himself (like Zeus) on an "alleged virgin by Matthew" or young woman to conceive a demigod, when he could simply form it out of dust and the breath of life. How is this in his image? Where is the objective physical evidence, historical evidence, or scientific explanation and evidence for this lore?