Human Nature According to Darwin – A Christian Response

By Ken Mann

The following is was delivered as a plenary session at a Biola on the Road conference in April 2017 at Faith Bible Church in Houston Texas.

Human Nature According to Darwin – A Christian Response

Introduction

Charles Darwin. Evolution. Perhaps no other man and no other idea have had a wider influence on western culture. Since On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was first published in 1859, how we perceive our world and ourselves has been transformed. For those who have embraced Darwinism, humanity and every other living thing are the end products of a natural process. There is no Creator. There is no purpose. There is just survival. Humanity is a cosmic accident.

Since as early as 1888, scientists and academics have asserted that Darwinian evolution is a fact as certain as gravity. The momentum behind Darwin’s theory strengthened in the 20th century to the point that nearly every aspect of human behavior and culture has been subjected to an evolutionary explanation. Today, scientists who are merely skeptical about evolution risk losing their jobs if their views become known.

In the face of such an onslaught, what should a Christian think? In my own experience, I was always convinced that evolution was false. Not because I knew anything about it. Rather, I was certain of the existence of God and the reliability of the New Testament. I believed I had adequate justification to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, in the Fall, and in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

But for many years I was plagued by an internal conflict. Setting aside evolution, I have always loved science. Since studying physics in college, I have adhered to the adage that science is “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Despite the myriad of apparent conflicts between science and religion, I suspected that Psalm 19:1, the heavens declare the glory of God, meant that the study of creation was compatible with the Christian worldview.

Then in 2010, I enrolled in the Science and Religion program at Biola. During my first year, I took a class that focused on Darwin. At the time, Darwin seemed like the Mt. Everest of a “Science and Religion” program. Looking back on it now, this subject embodied everything that made the program so valuable. The tools I learned and the confidence I gained have transformed my Faith.

I always rejected evolution not because I understood the science, philosophy or history that surrounds it, but because I trusted God more. Today, I know the reasons why Darwinian evolution is not fact, and I should emphasize, none of them are based on Christian doctrine.

That might alarm some of you so let me explain. There are many myths and distortions about the relationship between science and Christianity. Perhaps the worst is that science and Christianity are in hopeless conflict, that the Christian church has been an impediment to science since Galileo. In reality, the foundations of modern science, the assumptions that made science possible, come from the Christian worldview. The pioneers of modern science were all committed Christians, most of whom saw science, in the words of Kepler as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

In other words, science and Scripture are merely two sources of revelation. There is the “book of nature” and the “book of Scripture.” These two “books” cannot contradict each other because they have the same author, God. When they seem to contradict, something has gone wrong with our understanding of Scripture, nature or both.

Since Galileo’s confrontation with the Catholic Church in the 17th century, there have been conflicts between doctrines promoted by the Church and the conclusions of science. In Galileo’s time, almost everyone accepted an earth-centered view of the cosmos that originated with the Greeks and had later become sanctified using certain passages from the Old Testament. Galileo questioned the conventional wisdom of his time and advocated an idea that would not be widely accepted for another century.

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin also challenged widely accepted ideas about God’s role in creating the world. Since then Christianity has been challenged by variety conclusions based on his writings.

How should we deal with these challenges? The first and more important step is to understand them. We shouldn’t run away from something that attacks our Christian worldview. We should run toward it. Engage, learn, and trust that God is sovereign.

As we engage with Evolution today, I want to reassure you that we are not going to wander off into the tall grass of the biological sciences. We are not going to talk about the Prevalence of Functionally Significant Glutathione S-Transferase Genetic Polymorphisms in Dogs. (That is the subject of a research project my daughter, a biochemistry, cell, and molecular biology major, has been working on since last summer.) Not because the science isn’t important, but because it takes a lot more time than we have available today. Further, there are far more obvious problems with Darwinian evolution.

It is assumed that Darwin’s theory was the triumph of science over the myths of religion. It is claimed Darwin was not influenced by religion; he studied nature and “discovered” how it really worked. Based on his empirical observations he proposed an idea that explained how life developed via natural processes without the direct intervention of a creator. In reality, Darwin had certain assumptions about God and how He would create that was inconsistent with what he found in the natural world. In short, Darwin was convinced his theory was true because his God would not have created the world as we find it.

My highest priority this morning is to be understood; therefore I want to be clear what I am talking about. I also want to inform, which means some of what I share might be challenging and new to some of you. I would ask for your patience as we go along. I will be around to answer questions and the substance of this talk, along with a list of some relevant books, can be found on my website under “resources.”

I am going to cover two things this morning. First, I am going to discuss some terminology that is foundational to this subject. Next, we will consider the theological ideas that were at work in the 19th century and still influence public perception of the relationship between science and Christianity.

Terminology

Whether you are engaging with someone with a different worldview or simply trying to learn more about a subject, navigating terminology is a crucial task. You have to be aware of words you haven’t heard or seen before. Whether I am reading or in conversation, I am always alert to such words. If I am reading, I will stop and look up the word. In conversation, it is difficult but still just as important to interrupt and ask the other person what a word means. If they can define the term for you, your conversation has been enhanced. If they can’t, you may or may not be able to continue. Regardless, it is important to prevent either side of a conversation from assuming what certain words mean.

Evolution

So what does the word evolution mean? That depends on the context and the intention of the author. Just on this subject, there are actually six different definitions that are routinely used. Only one definition is in view this morning, but if you read articles or blogs on evolution, you may encounter one or more of these definitions. You may even find authors who use the word in one sense, then later switch to a different meaning later in the same article.

  • Change over time. To quote the Screwtape letters, “…to be in time means to change.” The study of nature frequently entails discerning what has happened in the past from the evidence we can examine today. Clearly, no one is going to disagree with this definition.
  • Change in the distribution of different physical traits within a population. This refers to a field within biology known as population genetics. It studies the genetic composition of biological populations, and the changes in genetic composition that result from the operation of various factors, including natural selection.
  • Limited Common Descent. “The idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.” The best-known example of this is the finches encountered on the Galapagos Islands. Today there are many examples of different species that probably have a common ancestor.
  • The mechanism of limited common descent, natural selection acting on genetic mutations. Darwin’s theory had three premises: organisms varied, variations could be inherited, and all organisms were under pressure to survive. Those variations that enhanced survival were passed on to other generations. Again, in a limited sense, such variation is observed, and it is plausible that survival could select certain traits over others.

None of the definitions so far are controversial. However, the next two are where most of the disagreements occur.

  • Universal Common Descent. This definition of evolution asserts that every organism is descended from a single original organism. As controversial as this may sound, it is not the final word on what most scientists believe is meant by evolution.
  • “Blind Watchmaker” thesis.
    The term “blind watchmaker” was coined by Richard Dawkins in the title of his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. Dawkins was ridiculing an argument made by William Paley published in 1802. Paley argued that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker. Whereas a rock merely implies the processes of geology over time.
    This definition of evolution is that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material process. This process is completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
    Or more succinctly, “Molecules to men by way of chemistry and physics.”

This final definition is what really drives the conflict of worldviews between materialism and Christianity. It goes by a couple of other names: “Darwinism” or “neo-Darwinism.” (The later term is a more technical and specific in that it refers to the integration of Darwinism and the science of population genetics in the middle of the 20th century.)

While you should always press for definitions, when you hear Darwin’s name or evolution invoked in a discussion about human origins or the development of life, you can be confident that the “molecules to men” idea is usually what is meant.

Science

The term science needs not so much a definition as a lot of warning labels. Being that it is in the title of my major, it will come as no surprise that I have developed some opinions on the subject. I am going to limit myself to two ideas.

First, science cannot be constrained by a specific detailed definition. There is no definitive list of criteria that says, “that is science, but this other field is not!” In other words, specific examples of science (e.g., physics, biology, and paleoanthropology) seem obvious, however, coming up with a list of criteria that separates astrology from astronomy, for example, is harder to do. Most everyone is going to agree that simply studying the movement of the stars and planets does not make astrology a science.

Second, beware of an inflated view of science as a source of knowledge. The view known as “scientism” asserts that the only things that can be known are from the natural sciences. It is a tactic designed to give the guy in a lab coat, as opposed to a theologian or a philosopher, a privileged status that ends the discussion. It is also a self-refuting concept because there is nothing we can learn from science. However you define science, that demonstrates scientism.

Theology

Theology is the study of the nature of God. I believe that the Bible is the best source for theology. But we can also learn something about the nature of God from other disciplines, such as science and philosophy.

Human Nature

Now that I’ve defined Darwinism, I should also touch on the term human nature.  Obviously, this is a subject as vast human experience. An entire conference could be devoted to addressing this subject. How you define, human nature is determined by your worldview. One may approach this question from a scientific, philosophical, or theological perspective. For my purposes this morning I simply want to address the crucial differences between human nature according to Darwinism and human nature according to Christian theism.

From the perspective of Darwinism, human beings and every living thing is simply the end result of a blind, unguided physical process. In other words, we are merely animals. The process of natural selection has been invoked to explain nearly every aspect of human culture and behavior. Many of these explanations are simply unsubstantiated stories, but they have captured the imagination of many. From religion to sexual infidelity, to altruism there is an evolutionary story for everything about human nature.

Darwinism denies the possibility of the soul; it makes no room for the existence of the immaterial. As a consequence, one must come to grips with the idea that everything we do, everything we think, everything we feel is not evidence of our soul, but is merely the output of a physical process.

According to Darwinism, the difference between human beings and every other animal is a matter of degree, not kind. Let me illustrate what I mean by these two words with an example.

Steph Curry and Russell Westbrook are reputed to be among the best point guards playing in the NBA right now. The difference between them is a matter of degree.  However, if we were to compare Curry or Westbrook to a basketball, we would have to say the basketball is a different kind of thing.

Since we are just animals, it shouldn’t surprise you that ethical decisions about humans and animals are a bit different for the Darwinist. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, popularized the term speciesism, which refers to privileging members of a particular species over others. In other words, it is not always wrong to kill human beings under circumstances such as severe mental or physical handicaps. Some environmentalists have seized upon this idea to argue that the death of a logger or the economic destruction of a community are acceptable when weighed against the safety of a type of animal.

The Christian view of human nature is radically different. In addition to being grounded in Scripture, it is also consistent with our experience and deepest intuitions.

According to Christianity, human beings are unique in creation, a completely different kind of creature from every other animal. We are physical creatures. We are similar to other animals in many ways. Yet we also have an immaterial nature, a soul if you will. I have always been fond of this passage from the Screwtape Letters:

Humans are amphibians— half spirit and half animal… As spirits, they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time. This means that while their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are in continual change, for to be in time means to change. (p. 37).

I would quibble with Screwtape to the extent that we are not “half spirit and half animal” rather we are embodied souls. Our soul completely occupies and animates our bodies. Our soul can also exist apart from our bodies, but a human body cannot continue without a soul.

The most essential aspect of human nature, what makes us unique, is found in the phrase the “image of God” first mentioned in Genesis 1:26-27.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

To briefly unpack this phrase, if we consider the Hebrew words used here for “image” and “likeness” and Greek word (eikōn), it would seem that God created us to be similar but not identical to Himself.

Consider just three ways we are similar to God.

  • We are spiritual. Part of our nature is an immaterial soul or spirit united with a physical body.
  • We are personal, that is to say, we are self-conscious and rational beings. We have a mind, will, and emotions.
  • We have the power to choose. Sometimes referred to as free agency, we have the capacity to deliberate and make choices.

Finally, no discussion of the Christian view of human nature would be complete without considering the Fall. As unique as we are, as much as we were created to be in fellowship with God and with each other, the most certain and painful fact is that something is horribly wrong.

Darwinism and the materialist worldview it supports must deny our daily awareness of evil. In ourselves, in our culture, even to some extent in creation itself, we are constantly confronted with the results of human rebellion.

Christianity explains the existence of evil, our embrace of and revulsion from it; and it offers a solution in the person and work Jesus Christ.

Theological Foundations of Darwinism

In Matthew 16, Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” This is the most important question anyone will ever answer. Understanding who Jesus is and what He did is an essential step to trusting Him as your personal savior.

That question is just as relevant if God the Father asked it. What you believe about God has a profound effect on every aspect of your life. Our perception of reality, how we choose to live, how we choose to solve our problems, everything about us is ultimately effected by our view of God.

This is no less true in science. For as long as people have tried to understand nature, their beliefs about what or who created the world has impacted how they comprehend nature.

In the 19th century, there were several trends in theology that set the stage for Darwinism. Consider one example. It was argued that it would demean God to believe every animal species was a unique act of creation. Rather, God would be a wiser and more capable creator if the capacity to create species by some natural process was built into creation. This view also downplayed or dismissed other things God did like miracles in the New Testament. This was sometimes referred to as “Greater God Theology.” Ideas like this and others we will now consider motivated Darwin to reconcile what was observed in nature with the theology of his day.

Natural theology and the ‘theory of creation’

The idea that God created is not really controversial in Christianity. It’s right there in the first verse, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now a tremendous amount of words have been written about this verse and all that it means, however, no one doubts that central phrase, “God created.”

In the 18th and 19th century the perspective of creation was that from the motion of the heavens down to the myriad of animals and plants that occupy the earth, all of creation was a perfect, harmonious system that reflected God’s wisdom and benevolence. Starting in the 17th century a variety of theologians and scientists advanced the idea that evidence for God could be found in the study of nature. Known as “Natural Theology,” this field reached its peak in the works of William Paley at the beginning of 19th century. Natural theology argued, some would say brilliantly, that evidence for design could be found in nature.

However, there was a significant flaw in Paley’s perspective. Paley believed that God’s purpose in creation was the happiness of His creatures. Creation was idealized in such a way that God’s benevolence, wisdom were seen everywhere. Allow me to read a quote from Paley’s book Natural Theology:

It is a happy world after all. The air, the earth, the water, teem with delighted existence. In a Spring noon or a summer evening, on whichever side I turn my eyes, myriads of happy beings crowd upon my view. The insect youth are on the wing. Swarms of new-born flies are trying their pinions in the air. Their sportive motions, their wanton mazes, their gratuitous activity, their continual change of place without use or purpose, testify their joy, and the exultation which they feel in their lately discovered faculties. A bee amongst the flowers in spring is one of the most cheerful objects that can be looked upon. lts life appears to be all enjoyment, so busy, and so pleased: yet it is only a specimen of insect life.

In short, the Natural theologians claimed nature demonstrated God’s wisdom and goodness but they ignored His providence, judgment or use of evil.

The problem of Natural Evil

The problem of evil is something that has harassed Christian belief for a long time. If you haven’t heard that phrase before, it refers to the tension that exists between the obvious instances of evil we find in the world and the characteristics typically attributed to God. It is sometimes put as a question: “How can God be benevolent and omnipotent and yet allow the evil we experience in the world?”

Most discussions of this topic make a distinction between moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is simply what people have been doing since Adam and Eve rebelled in the Garden. Natural evil, broadly speaking, is anything in nature that causes death or suffering. This could include everything from earthquakes, to disease, to all the horrible things animals do to each other.

Darwin, like other naturalists, did not see happiness and joy in creation. He saw death, suffering, and waste that he could not reconcile with Paley’s “happy” creation. He was particularly bothered by the suffering and death found in the animal kingdom. One particular example was a type of wasp that lays its eggs into the body of a caterpillar. After hatching, the larva starts consuming the host while it is still alive.

Darwin’s solution, consistent with greater God theology, was that God did not create the parasitic wasp or any of the other natural evil in the world. Rather, God created a system of natural laws which resulted in the world he studied. In a letter to Asa Gray (an American botanist) Darwin summarized his view this way. “I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.”

To put it another way, God directly acting in creation was rejected in order to make the existence of natural evil comprehensible to human beings. If God did not directly create each individual species but merely created the natural system that resulted in the species we have today, then God is not directly responsible for natural evil.

“Nature is not perfect.”

A second aspect of natural theology to which Darwin objected is that all of the creation reflected God’s perfection. Of course, what is meant by perfection was apparently open to a wide variety of interpretations. For Darwin and many others since it has been the claim that many things found in nature are poorly designed.

Perhaps the most popular example of bad design in nature is the vestigial organ. When an organ or structures are no longer needed, it is “vestige” of the evolutionary process. It was needed in an ancestor species, but evolution has yet to remove it. In 1895 a German anatomist published a list of 86 vestigial organs in the human body. I am not aware of a single credible example today. Vestigial organs are not evidence of evolution. They are a combination of assuming evolution is true and ignorance of a particular organ’s function.

A more modern example of a claim of bad design is known as “Junk DNA.” This term was originally coined in 1972. When research first began into how DNA worked, the first thing discovered was the correlation between certain sequences of DNA bases (“rungs” on the DNA ladder) and the production of certain amino acids (20 different organic molecules that make up proteins). The function of vast regions of DNA outside of these “protein coding,” upwards of 98% of the human genome was dismissed as “junk” until about five years ago. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project began publishing results demonstrating that vast regions of the “junk DNA” in the human genome are being used.

Similar to vestigial organs, ignorance combined with an acceptance of evolution, resulted in the conclusion that subsequent research has proven wrong. In short, the existence of “Junk DNA” something that was once dogma is now becoming another failed prediction of Darwinism.

Theological Naturalism

A third theological idea that motivated Darwin and many others in the 19th century has to do with how God acts in creation. In order to make this clear I have to make a distinction between primary causes and secondary causes. An event which is caused by God and impossible by any other means, a miracle, is an example of primary causation. Something that occurs in accordance with natural law is an example of secondary causation. For example, the parting of the Red Sea as the Jews fled from Egypt was primary causation, the deaths of the Egyptian army caught when the water was released was secondary causation.

For many theologians and scientists since before Darwin down to the present day, science is not possible if God acts in the world. If primary causation is possible, then it is impossible to know the difference between an event caused by natural law and an event caused by God. In order to study nature, to understand the structure of “laws” that govern it, we must assume that God never acts in creation.

The net effect of this view does not deny that God was the creator of the universe, it simply means there is no evidence that He did. Of course, that is not the worst of it. If God has not done anything since the moment of creation, the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus could not have happened.

Perhaps the simplest way to sum up this view is that God cannot be trusted. If He is capable of acting in creation, He is capable of tricking us. Science would become the “study” of the whims and unpredictable behavior of an omnipotent being.

Naturalism asserts that everything arises from natural properties and causes; supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. For theologians in the 19th century, this meant that God acted in creation through the laws he created. They argued God was greater, glorified more if He did not intervene in creation. Dr. Cornelius Hunter refers to this as theological naturalism because theological reasoning motivated it.

Today the default position of science is a view known as methodological naturalism. This is the idea that when you are doing science, you can only consider natural causes. The actions of an intelligent agent cannot be considered. God does not act in creation. From there, it is a short trip to atheism, where God does not exist.

But let me emphasize this point–the origins of naturalism that motivated Darwin and have become dogma within science today were philosophical. Naturalism was not a conclusion of science; it was a starting point.

Conclusion

Human nature according to Darwin, how should the Christian respond? First and foremost, when confronting an opposing worldview, you must understand what it believes and why. By exploring some terminology and its theological foundations, I’ve given you an introduction into the worldview of Darwinism.

I provided a summary of some of the ideas about God and his role in creation that motivated Darwin. Since On the Origin of Species was published down to the present day, Darwinism has relied on a perception of God that cannot be found in Scripture. Either God is absent from creation and cannot intervene, or He is incompetent because nature is full of “bad design.” Evolution is accepted as true because a distorted view of God and creation seems to be false.

This is not merely about science. It is not merely about religion. It is an example of how assumptions about God, religion if you will drive the process of science. Darwinism is not fact. Darwinism is less of a science than it is a theological viewpoint that claims empirical support from science.

Human nature according to Darwinism, including its denial of the soul and denial of human uniqueness, is not learned from various scientific disciplines. It is implied by the science and therefore it is accepted because Darwinism is accepted. However, if Darwinism is false, then whatever it claims about human nature is also false.

Time did not permit addressing the evidence used to support and critique Darwinism. What I can say in terms of a summary is that the evidence for Darwinism is only compelling if you are already convinced it is true. On the resources page on my website, today’s talk is available along with a list several books that cover today’s material in more depth. I would also encourage you to check out the books that focus on the scientific critiques of Darwinism.

I would like to leave you with some questions to ask someone who believes “molecules to men by way of physics and chemistry” is the best explanation for the vast diversity of life we find.

  1. What is the evidence for evolution?
  2. What is the Christian view of creation?
  3. How did life originate?

Each of these questions, depending on the responses you get, could be followed up with two questions. (1) What do you mean by that? (2) How did you come to that conclusion? These two questions from Greg Koukl’s Columbo technique seek clarification and evidence that will help you understand the other person’s perspective better.

It has been my prayer preparing for today that the summary I would offer here would encourage believers. It is also my prayer that you would leave today motivated to learn more about this subject and others that will be discussed today. As Christians, we are heirs to a tremendous heritage of thought that I fear has been abandoned. We worship a Being that created all things, sustains all things, and knows all things. Our trust in God should not be limited to our salvation. God is sovereign over everything. He is sovereign over every domain of human knowledge. He is sovereign over every lie that could deceive.

Don’t run away from a challenge. Engage, learn, and trust that God is sovereign.

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
138 replies
  1. Andy Ryan says:

    “Since On the Origin of Species was published down to the present day, Darwinism has relied on a perception of God that cannot be found in Scripture.”
    .
    No it doesn’t. Evolutionary science doesn’t rely on ANY perception of God. Get yourself a decent book on evolution and there’s no reference to God in there at all.
    .
    “Darwinism is not fact”
    .
    That biological diversity on earth is explained by evolution IS a fact. The best explanation we have for the mechanism of evolution is natural selection.

    Reply
    • TVZ says:

      A couple of questions about diversity: 1. Can evolution explain the Cambrian Explosion? It seems like diversity happened very rapidly in the fossil record. Shouldn’t evolution require more time? 2. Is it true to say most organisms have gone extinct since the Cambrian Explosion? Is life becoming more diverse or less over time? Should we expect an increase in diversity through the evolutionary process?

      Reply
      • toby says:

        TVZ, Two questions: 1) Do you consider 20,000,000-50,000,000 years a short amount of time? and 2) The Cambrian era was was 500,000,000 years ago, do you consider that a short amount of time?

        Reply
        • TVZ says:

          It sounds like a long time to me and you but to the evolutionary biologists it’s considered a very short time…. which is why they coined “explosion.”

          Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        TVZ, you admit you’ve never read a single book on evolution, but still seem to find plenty of time to troll ‘debunking evolution’ sites written by non-biologists. You’ve clearly no interest in genuinely learning about it, so it’s a waste of my time trying to explain stuff to you.

        Reply
        • TVZ says:

          Lol. All scientists say diversity of life exploded onto the scene, not trolls. There are over 30 different hypotheses and no theories on how it happened that way. Atheist scientists call it “biology’s big bang.” My questions were just to get your take on it, not try to explain it to me. What are your thoughts?

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            “Atheist scientists call it “biology’s big bang.”
            An odd thing to say – what do the scientists who happen to be Christian call it?
            .
            “My questions were just to get your take on it”
            Why do you think I’ll have a take on it? I don’t even see why you think this an issue.
            .
            “The claim that phyla appeared “all of a sudden with no viable ancestors” would also be damaging . . . if it were true. But it is not. There is sufficient evidence for animal life before the Cambrian explosion:
            .
            • Complete fossil embryos pre-dating the Cambrian “explosion” by 10 million years were discovered in 2006, and show that animal complexity was already starting to bloom. Fossil embryos are a rare enough find without them being complete.
            • There are plausible pre-Cambrian ancestors for trilobites. For example, there are the Spriggina floundersi, the so-called “Soft-bodied trilobite,” as well as Parvancorina. — Parvancorina is classified, interestingly enough in the Kingdom Animalia, and was possibly even an arthropod. — Also, to make matters worse, there are many transitions between trilobites which are extremely diverse and themselves indicate plenty of Evolution, not just during the 300 million years of their existence, but also during the Cambrian period.
            • Even if non of the examples listed in the last example above were not arthropods or ancestral to trilobites, there is still proof that arthropods did in fact exist before the Cambrian period. Arthropod trace fossils have been found in Nevada in strata dating to 30 million years before the Cambrian, proving that there were animals with legs much earlier than once thought. — Amusingly, some Creationists have attempted to use this one example to refute the Evolution timeline not realizing that this find did more harm to the Creationist argument of the Cambrian “explosion.”
            • There is new fossil evidence of bilateral animals which was recovered from the Doushantuo Formation in China dating from between 40 and 55 million years before the Cambrian. The specimen, called Vernanimalcula, had features like a mouth, a gut, an anus as well as surface pits. This would itself show the Cambrian was not the starting point for complex life.
            • Newly discovered “chemical fossils” have demonstrated evidence that Sponges, as the first Animal life, had already existed around 635 million years ago, or between 90 to 100 million years before the Cambrian “explosion.”
            • The Cambrian “explosion” just doesn’t stand up to the genetic evidence. Molecular clocks indicate a more ancient starting point from between 800 million to 1.2 billion years. This indicates that the fossil record has plenty of gaps, though genetics seems to compensate for what is lacking to a certain extent.”

          • Mark Heavlin says:

            “An odd thing to say – what do the scientists who happen to be Christian call it?”
            .
            C-R-E-A-T-I-O-N.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            I’ll take a guess you’ve not read anything by Dr Kenneth Miller. Stand by for Mark playing ‘No true Christian’ with Ken Miller.

          • TVZ says:

            “Why do you think I’ll have a take on it? I don’t even see why you think this an issue.”
            .
            If biodiversity happened as what science has termed as an “explosion” event, does that defy your claim that biodiversity evolved? Were you aware that the fossil record indicates diversity happened quickly before you made the claim?
            .
            You copied and pasted someone else’s thoughts? Nice.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            What’s the problem? I copied and pasted – which I clearly flagged up with quote marks – because it explains why the Cambrian Explosion isn’t some existential issue for evolutionary theory, and hence explains why I not only don’t have some big take on it but don’t see why I should have one. You should thank me for the info rather than complain about it!

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “does that defy your claim that biodiversity evolved?”
            No, for the reasons I copied and pasted. There’s no reason that 30 millions years or so is too quick to be explained by evolution through natural selection. It certainly doesn’t get you any closer to ‘On Tuesday God made the fish then on Wednesday he made the animals then he chilled on Sunday’.

          • toby says:

            It certainly doesn’t get you any closer to ‘On Tuesday God made the fish then on Wednesday he made the animals then he chilled on Sunday’.
            That’s . . . a hilariously good point. What do they think is the point of pointing that out? It’s a tacit admission of evolution. I’ve heard people deny evolution occurs make this point and never pieced it together. Good on ya!

          • Andy Ryan says:

            It’s also a reference to the Craig David song ‘7 Days’. And Brent told us off for not being witty enough. It’s pearls among swine, JCB, I tell you!

          • TVZ says:

            I can copy and paste a refutation if you’d like, I just don’t see that as much of a conversation. Should I make counter points of my own to the author you quoted? Will you be able to go any deeper since these are not your thoughts?

          • Andy Ryan says:

            TVZ, I don’t know how else I can explain it to you. Again, you admit you’ve never read a book on evolution. Your entire knowledge of the subject is gleaned from Christian websites written by non-biologists who are trying to attack the science in order to fit their pre-existing religious dogma. You’re asking me what my take is on a non-controversial subject. I’ve told you I don’t have one, and I’ve explained to you why. What else is there to say?
            .
            Why do you care what my take is? I’m not a biologist or even any kind of scientist. You might as well ask me how mobile phones work. I don’t know, and I don’t need to know.

          • TVZ says:

            You said, “That biological diversity on earth is explained by evolution IS a fact.” Then followed that with, “I’m not a biologist or even any kind of scientist. You might as well ask me how mobile phones work. I don’t know, and I don’t need to know.” Originally, it sounded like you were aware of something indisputable. Now, it sounds like you are just stating your belief based on what people who think like you have hypothesized. I think we would agree that change happens over time (diversity within kinds of organisms), but we will most likely disagree that that diversity of kind evolved from different kinds over a long period of time (based on the Cambrian fossil record). The evidence appears to show that kinds happened quickly and then diversity within the kinds started happening. Could you agree with that as an uneducated biologist (just like me)?

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “Now, it sounds like you are just stating your belief based on what people who think like you”
            .
            Not people who think like me, TVZ – the experts in the subject. Do I know how a mobile phone works? No. Does that mean I can’t say that it doesn’t rely on the supernatural to make it work? No, it doesn’t.
            .
            “The evidence appears to show that kinds happened quickly”
            What’s your definition of ‘kinds’?
            I’d dispute your use of ‘quickly’ if you mean ‘tens of millions of years’. Either way, what’s this got to do with me saying it’s indisputable fact, or with anything in the blog we’re replying to?

          • TVZ says:

            The experts say Earth was formed about 4 billion years ago and life was very sparse and single-celled for the first 3.5 billion years. Then 500 million years ago, in a period of just 20 million years, all kinds of multi-cellular organisms across all phyla exploded into existence (which goes against your author’s theory of organisms slowly evolving for 4 billion years). So the Earth had been non-diverse(?) for the first 87% of its existence and then filled with diversity for the last 13% of its existence. That’s why they call it an explosion of diversity. Relative to 4 billion years of virtually nothing (provable by a fossil record and not hypothesis or conjecture or plausibility or possibility) biodiversity burst onto the scene and did not slowly evolve like your author states. Do the majority of experts disagree with this? I’m not sure what “kind” means (we’ve discussed this). Science doesn’t use that word. Maybe phyla or phylum?

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Didn’t Darwin himself discuss this form of ‘punctuated equilibrium’?
            “…the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.”
            .
            I believe the late Stephen J Gould was a big proponent of Punctuated Equilibrium while Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett criticised his ideas. I don’t know who is right, but I tend to side with Dawkins and Dennett on most things.
            .
            Again, how does many species evolving over 30 million years, from forms we know existed before, get you any closer to God creating species ‘as is’ over the course of a day?

          • TVZ says:

            I read that punctuated equilibrium is controversial, implausible, and can not be observed (sounds like something people who think like you would use as proof… lol). As for the Bible account, it indicates there was immediate biodiversity (relatively speaking), which agrees with the fossil record, and there was an order to it (not random gene mutations over billions of years), which agrees with the fossil records. I admit that the time still confuses me… how we determine billions of years from hundreds of thousands of years. I assume some error in calculating time, so I just look for trends… was there a sudden burst of life on Earth (like the Bible says) or did it slowly evolve (like humans say)? Was the universe nothing (like the Bible says) or eternal (like humans used to say)? Just patterns more than specifics.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “I read that punctuated equilibrium is controversial, implausible”
            .
            Why not find a good book on it then and make your own mind up, if the subject interests you. Get a Stephen J Gould book, perhaps.
            .
            As for how time is calculated, Richard Dawkins’ book ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ has a good section on that. Gotta go, come back to me when you’ve done some serious reading (e.g. not just creationist websites that think the universe is 6,000 years old).

          • TVZ says:

            Alright, come back at me when you have your own ideas worked out. Reading non-atheist writings might give you more balance in your thinking, imo.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            As it happens, one of my favourite evolution writers is Dr Ken Miller, who is a Catholic. I don’t care what religion a writer is, to be frank, so you don’t get to pass the buck like that. Your move TVZ.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            In that time you could have read one of his books. He’s a scientist and writer, not a professional debater. If you want the latter, try Matt Dilahunty, Justin Schieber, Jeremy Beahan, Daniel Fincke, John Loftus.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            I’m sure I can, but if you’re genuinely interested you’ll seek out the videos yourself. At any rate, it’s not about summarising their views, it’s about how they defend them in debates. But seriously, do your own homework and stop looking for shortcuts!

  2. Bob says:

    The study of the properties of electricity is not Ben Franklinism or Thomas Edisonism.
    The study of the speed of light is not Einsteinism.
    The study of biological evolution is not Darwinism.
    .
    A few important tells from the author:
    “In my own experience, I was always convinced that evolution was false. Not because I knew anything about it.
    “I always rejected evolution not because I understood the science, philosophy or history that surrounds it, but because I trusted God more.”
    .
    And finally:
    Then in 2010, I enrolled in the Science and Religion program at Biola….The tools I learned and the confidence I gained have transformed my Faith.”
    In other words – I didn’t take a class to learn the science of biological evolution, I took a class that REINFORCED WHAT I ALREADY BELIEVED.
    Yep – from the Biola website:
    Overview
    Evangelical Christians who train in the sciences often feel pressured to compartmentalize their faith from their profession, or do not feel equipped to address or change the cultural stereotypes regarding science and faith. The M.A. in Science and Religion is designed to provide scientifically literate individuals with the essential background in theology, history, and philosophy that is necessary to integrate modern science with evangelical Christianity.

    Reply
  3. Mike says:

    Andy Ryan -《Evolutionary science doesn’t rely on ANY perception of God.》

    Not so. The undertaking of scientific study already implies that God exists. Atheistic scientists wont’t admit that because they’ve rejected God. For them “nature” is the creator.

    《That biological diversity on earth is explained by evolution IS a fact.The best explanation we have for the mechanism of evolution is natural selection.》

    You first beg the question that evolution explains biological diversity and then draw a false conclusion that natural selection explains it.

    Natural selection doesn’t allow for organisms to evolve from molecules to man if this is included in your definition of evolution, but it does explain variations in kinds. However, finches are still finches, and bacteria is still bacteria.

    Reply
    • jcb says:

      MIke,
      You said, “The undertaking of scientific study already implies that God exists.”
      Please define God (a perfect being?), and explain what shows your assertion here to be true.
      It looks like the existence of ourselves implies something, but not that a perfect being exists.
      As usual, the jump from “something” to “this particular thing/God” is illegitimate/fails.

      Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “Not so.”
      Yes, it is so.
      .
      “The undertaking of scientific study already implies that God exists”
      Nope.
      .
      “You first beg the question that evolution explains biological diversity ”
      No, I CLAIM that it does. You can disagree with my claim, but it’s not a logical fallacy.
      .
      “Natural selection doesn’t allow for organisms to evolve from molecules to man”
      Who says?
      .
      “It does explain variations in kinds”
      You’ll need to give us a definition of ‘kinds’ here, Mike.

      Reply
    • Mark Heavlin says:

      “Evolutionary science”
      .
      The study of past historical data by definition can NOT be science. As there is NO way to go in a lab and repeat the experiment. History is by definition a “one of” event. There is NO way to interpret the data without making certain assumptions. But at the end of the day there is NO way to prove that your assumptions are actually the way it was. Radioactive dating is such an example.
      .
      .
      Andy Ryan: “Who says?”
      .
      GOD.

      Reply
      • toby says:

        There is NO way to interpret the data without making certain assumptions. But at the end of the day there is NO way to prove that your assumptions are actually the way it was.
        Great. So now we agree that there’s no way to know that the bible is or is not accurate and that your assumptions about the bible can be entirely wrong.

        Reply
        • Mark Heavlin says:

          2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

          Reply
          • toby says:

            Wow. So, so crushing. It’s like me going:
            There is NO way to interpret the data without making certain assumptions. But at the end of the day there is NO way to prove that your assumptions are actually the way it was.

        • Susan says:

          God is the Revealer of Truth and He can choose who to reveal truth to.

          The only way to know is to follow God’s scriptural explanations.

          But you have received conflicting info and have dismissed and devalued God now and won’t seek His counsel.

          God always knows who is on His side and who isn’t.

          Go read up on the Passover. Jews marked their houses so God would pass over their children and they would keep life.

          But God didn’t need the sign. The people did to understand what took place because people are spiritually blind and can’t see spiritual truth unless God spells it out for them with physical signs and symbols.

          Jesus’ resurrection was the transcendent sign so no need for any more signs.

          Reply
      • KR says:

        “The study of past historical data by definition can NOT be science. As there is NO way to go in a lab and repeat the experiment.”
        .
        Yikes. Good thing scientists don’t need your seal of approval on what qualifies as science or forensic scientists would have to repeat every murder in order to prove who did it.

        Reply
        • Mark Heavlin says:

          “Yikes. Good thing scientists don’t need your seal of approval on what qualifies as science or forensic scientists would have to repeat every murder in order to prove who did it.”
          .
          Yikes! Attempting to equate forensic science with historical data interpretation that supposedly proves evolution.

          Reply
          • KR says:

            “Yikes! Attempting to equate forensic science with historical data interpretation that supposedly proves evolution.”
            .
            So it’s OK for forensic scientists to interpret historical data but not for evolutionary biologists? Why is that?

      • Andy Ryan says:

        “God”
        .
        Please tell me where God says “Natural selection doesn’t allow for organisms to evolve from molecules to man” and how you know it was God saying it.
        .
        You don’t understand how we know radioactive dating works.

        Reply
        • Mark Heavlin says:

          “You don’t understand how we know radioactive dating works.”
          .
          If that is the case then I am waiting for you to explain it to me. Better start at the beginning and include all of the fine details because you should assume I know nothing about it.
          .
          I’ll be waiting for the explanation.

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            Richard Dawkins’ Greatest Show On Earth explains it far better than I can your local library should stock it.

          • Mark Heavlin says:

            “your local library should stock it.”
            .
            Yeah, I would NOT bet on that but I will check.
            .
            .
            Sorry, I consider him an unreliable source. If you are going to recommend something how about something from an actual physicist or nuclear radioactive dating expert? Preferably something online perhaps?

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “Sorry, I consider him an unreliable source.”
            .
            Then do your own homework and find someone else. Good grief. What is it with people wanting to be spoonfed nowadays?

          • Mark Heavlin says:

            Andy: “You don’t understand how we know radioactive dating works.”
            .
            Mark: “If that is the case then I am waiting for you to explain it to me. Better start at the beginning and include all of the fine details because you should assume I know nothing about it.”
            .
            Andy: “Richard Dawkins’ Greatest Show On Earth explains it far better than I can….”
            .
            Mark: “Sorry, I consider him an unreliable source. If you are going to recommend something how about something from an actual physicist or nuclear radioactive dating expert? Preferably something online perhaps?”
            .
            Andy: “Then do your own homework and find someone else. Good grief. What is it with people wanting to be spoonfed nowadays?”
            .
            Well, it would appear that it is the same problem on a lesser scale than “reading comprehension” nowadays.
            .
            If you bother to read and understand my original comment from above. It says “you should assume I know nothing about it.” IT DOES NOT SAY I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT! In American English this means you go ahead and start with the smallest details of your understanding and I will correct you when you are wrong or I disagree with what you say. Since you seem incapable of this let’s just start with a simple question then. Feel free to go look up the answer if you do NOT know it. And if you bother to answer please provide a link to where you got your answer from.
            .
            .
            How do you know what the original ratio of Uranium-235 & Uranium-238 was to the daughter elements ( Lead-206 & Lead-207 ); and what the original ratio of Lead-206 & Lead-207 was to Lead-204 ?

          • KR says:

            “How do you know what the original ratio of Uranium-235 & Uranium-238 was to the daughter elements ( Lead-206 & Lead-207 ); and what the original ratio of Lead-206 & Lead-207 was to Lead-204 ?”
            .
            Isochron radiometric analysis doesn’t rely on the original ratio, just the decay rates of the isotopes involved.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “you go ahead and start with the smallest details of your understanding and I will correct you…”
            .
            Why should I waste my time doing that? Your earlier post makes it clear you don’t understand how we know what we know. The remedy for that is to read up on how we know this method of dating works. I directed you towards a great explanation of it. You dismissed it. Fine. Your choices are to find yourself a source you can trust or just accept that you’re happy to remain ignorant of the subject and thus stop pontificating on it. Either way, it’s not my job to educate you.

  4. joe says:

    Author writes: “the foundations of modern science, the assumptions that made science possible, come from the Christian worldview”
    That’s not true at all!
    The ancient Greeks certainly said to themselves “hey, I bet we can figure out how the physical world operates by observing nature and applying logic to reach tentative conclusions, and then build on them”.
    That’s the basis of science as we know it today.
    Thousands of years before Christianity was a thing.

    Author writes: “Darwinism is less of a science than it is a theological viewpoint that claims empirical support from science.”
    All science concepts by definition have to claim empirical support, because science only involves the study of observable phenomenon. There are no theological viewpoints in science. A scientist might have a theological viewpoint about the world, but that theology doesn’t “leak” into scientific theories as it would be challenged and removed before joining the body of scientific literature.
    Example: there are no scientific theories that exhibit any sort of theology.

    “the evidence for [evolution via natural selection] is only compelling if you are already convinced it is true.”
    This is silly. Any evidence wouldn’t be called compelling unless it has the power to change the minds of folks who do not already believe something.
    If Faith is the “don’t think, just trust me” explanation for how the world works, then Science is the “don’t trust me, go learn and think – and if you show that anything I said isn’t correct I probably have to change my view” approach.

    Reply
  5. KR says:

    “Since as early as 1888, scientists and academics have asserted that Darwinian evolution is a fact as certain as gravity.”
    .
    One problem with this blog post is that it gets two different things mixed up: the phenomenon of evolution and the theory of evolution. The phenomenon of evolution (i.e. changes in allelic frequencies within a population over time) is an observable fact. The theory of evolution is our best current explanation for this fact.
    .
    “Today, scientists who are merely skeptical about evolution risk losing their jobs if their views become known.”
    .
    The evidence for this seems to be rather thin on the ground. Ben Stein tried to make a case for this kind of persecution in his film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” but when his examples were scrutinized, they didn’t really hold up (see “Expelled Exposed”). The academic institutions that really force their employees to toe the line are of course the evangelical colleges that require their staff to sign a statement of faith.

    “I am not aware of a single credible example today. Vestigial organs are not evidence of evolution. They are a combination of assuming evolution is true and ignorance of a particular organ’s function.”
    .
    Vestigial organs have lost their original function. If they gain a new function, they will still be vestigial. Since evolutionary theory would predict that an organ that no longer has a survival benefit will be less conserved by natural selection, they are very much evidence in support of the theory (example: non-functional eyes in cave-dwelling fish). I’m not aware of any alternative theory which makes this prediction.
    .
    “A more modern example of a claim of bad design is known as “Junk DNA.” This term was originally coined in 1972. When research first began into how DNA worked, the first thing discovered was the correlation between certain sequences of DNA bases (“rungs” on the DNA ladder) and the production of certain amino acids (20 different organic molecules that make up proteins). The function of vast regions of DNA outside of these “protein coding,” upwards of 98% of the human genome was dismissed as “junk” until about five years ago. ”
    .
    No. Just no. The claim that scientists have dismissed non-protein coding sequences as junk is pure nonsense. Jacob and Monod, two of the pioneers in the field were able to show back in the 60’s that non-protein coding sequences could have regulatory functions. They even got the Nobel Prize for it! And of course we’ve also known for ages that there are DNA sequences that are transcribed into an RNA product, like tRNA and rRNA. No-one has ever (at least to my knowledge) claimed that 98% of the human genome is junk. The latest number I’ve seen is around 91-92%.
    .
    “The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project began publishing results demonstrating that vast regions of the “junk DNA” in the human genome are being used.”
    .
    Something tells me the author hasn’t really kept up with developments concerning the ENCODE proclamations of functionality in the human genome. I think he’ll find that the ENCODE representatives have since toned down their claims considerably and are now maintaining that they’re not very interested in any precentages when it comes to functionality and that this was not the point of their research anyway.
    .
    The problem with the ENCODE claim that 80% or more of the human genome is functional is that they used such a loose definition of “function” that they had no way of distinguishing between RNA transcripts that actually do something useful and the background noise that will always be present. If they could find just a single molecule of transcribed RNA in a specific type of cell, it was considered to be evidence of function which makes little sense.
    .
    What the ENCODE critics pointed out – and the ENCODE people seemed to have missed – is that the reason about 90% of the human genome is considered junk isn’t just an assumption based on ignorance – it’s a conclusion based on positive evidence. The number 91-92% comes from the fact that this is the portion of the human genome that isn’t conserved by natural selection. IOW, most of the human genome is completely insensitive to mutations. Anyone who wants to claim that most of the human genome is functional would have to explain what kind of function could be maintained independently of the DNA sequence.
    .
    The second piece of evidence isn’t about the human genome specifically but the general observation that the size of the genome is not correlated with the complexity of the organism (this is called the C-value paradox). E.g, there are single-cell amoebas that have genomes that are 100 times bigger than the human genome. There are also different species that are physiologically very similar but have genome sizes that differ by a factor of 10 or more. These observations are easily explained by junk DNA but remain a bit of a mystery if most of this DNA is functional.
    .
    A 3rd line of evidence is the s.c. problem of genetic load. We know that every human is born with roughly 100 new mutations that we didn’t get from our parents. This is an inevitable result of the fact that DNA is an imperfect replicator – there will always be some copying errors. Population geneticists have shown that we can get by with, on average, 1 or 2 detrimental mutations per person per generation but if 80% or more of the genome is functional this would mean that 80 or more mutations would be hitting functional sequences in our genome. Even if we assume that only 10% of these mutations are harmful, there is simply no way we would survive this – we would go extinct in a couple of generations from genetic meltdown. Of course, if most of our genome is junk, this problem evaporates.
    .
    “Similar to vestigial organs, ignorance combined with an acceptance of evolution, resulted in the conclusion that subsequent research has proven wrong. In short, the existence of “Junk DNA” something that was once dogma is now becoming another failed prediction of Darwinism.”
    .
    Not at all. Junk DNA remains our best explanation for the observed evidence. Interestingly, the old school evolutionary biologists who saw evolution as mostly the result of natural selection didn’t like the idea of junk DNA at all, since they assumed that carrying around all that “dead weight” in the genome would come at a cost to the organism and that there would be a selective pressure to trim the genome size. However, calculations have shown that the extra cost of copying a large genome is negligible in the total energy balance of the cell. The extra baggage is probably mostly an effect of the fact that it’s easier to add stuff than removing it – deletion mutations tend to remove useful parts along with the junk so they will mostly be harmful.

    Reply
  6. Susan says:

    John C. Sanford, a former atheist and plant geneticist explains that the human genome as understood by population geneticists is not supporting the upward spiral of evolution.

    There are videos on it on YouTube with the first entitled:
    Dr. John Sanford: Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome

    Reply
    • Bryan says:

      Susan, in the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena
      that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; there was a natural, physical explanation.

      Can you give an example of a natural or physical explaination being replaced by a supernatural one?

      Reply
      • Brent Hurst says:

        Bryan,
        .
        “””””””every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena
        that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; there was a natural, physical explanation.””””””””””
        .
        Every? As in All? Every super-natural event, every paranormal experience, both subjective and collective? Its all been verified to have a natural explanation? Wow!
        .
        That statement itself is supernatural, I can think of several physical explanations of how or why someone would make a statement so far outside the bounds of reality.
        .
        OK, OK, sarcasm aside, I admit, fish falling from the sky was a bit disconcerting, but water spouts, I can see that. But there are many, many, events that have yet to be explained with any degree of certainty. Even Life on this planet still escapes anything resembling proof, theories yeah, but even those theories have major huddles to overcome.
        .
        I get worried sometimes when people get caught up in the cultural illusion where science has mastered everything and its all been explained, the mindset of blind faith, simply with a different power center.
        .
        Can you give an example of a natural or physical explaination being replaced by a supernatural one?
        .
        This question is nonsensical, some event was “theorized” to be supernatural but later it was explained in physical terms,
        .
        Other events were “theorized” to be explained naturally, but yet today they still defy verification.
        .
        Supernatural means it is beyond scientific understanding, so everything that is still unexplained can be termed supernatural, including the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter.
        .
        So to answer this question, yeah, Macroevolution. Scientists thought they had it figured out, monkeys, apes, Neanderthals, humans. But then things started popping up, the complexity of the cell, the order of evolution as with the eye, Neanderthals, Cro magnon being unrelated linearly.
        .
        So yeah, science thought they had a grasp on how life developed while they were still ignorant of deeper realities, as they grew a bit smarter they realized how much they did not know and so today it remains only a theory while they struggle for bits and pieces of probabilities in trying to prove even aspects of it.
        .
        The development of life on this planet is still supernatural as it still defies scientific understanding.
        .
        No doubt some here will disagree as claim that science has it understood, that is just blind faith on their part and to any rational mind can be proven to be false, but not all minds are rational, even when they claim supernatural scientific understanding.

        Reply
        • KR says:

          “Supernatural means it is beyond scientific understanding, so everything that is still unexplained can be termed supernatural, including the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter.”
          .
          The Big Bang, black holes and dark matter are all phenomena that can be and are being studied empirically using the scientific method. The very reason we’re discussing them is because of independently verifiable empirical observations. If you want to put the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter in the same category as gods, demons and angels, you need to show how gods, demons and angels can be studied using the scientific method. Where are the peer reviewed articles on these entities?
          .
          “So to answer this question, yeah, Macroevolution. Scientists thought they had it figured out, monkeys, apes, Neanderthals, humans. But then things started popping up, the complexity of the cell, the order of evolution as with the eye, Neanderthals, Cro magnon being unrelated linearly.”
          .
          This is a jumbled mess. Macroevolution is any evolutionary change at or above the species level. It’s an observable fact – we can actually see speciation happening through the phenomenon of ring species. The cell is complex – so what? Are you claiming complexity cannot be the result of an evolutionary process? How would you demonstrate that? The rest makes even less sense – what does “the order of evolution as with the eye” even mean? Care to elaborate on the Neanderthals and Cro Magnon?
          .
          “So yeah, science thought they had a grasp on how life developed while they were still ignorant of deeper realities, as they grew a bit smarter they realized how much they did not know and so today it remains only a theory while they struggle for bits and pieces of probabilities in trying to prove even aspects of it.”
          .
          The “it’s just a theory” nonsense again? Seriously? How many times does it need to be explained that a scientific theory is at the top of the totem pole when it comes to our understanding of physical phenomena? Facts are just observations, the theory is the explanation for those observations. Science isn’t about proving things (that would be another thing that’s been repeated often enough but never seems to register), it’s about building models that explain our observations and make testable predictions that can guide future research.
          .
          “The development of life on this planet is still supernatural as it still defies scientific understanding.”
          .
          It is being studied by applying the scientific method, so clearly not in the same category as Yahweh, the Devil and the archangel Gabriel.
          .
          “No doubt some here will disagree as claim that science has it understood, that is just blind faith on their part and to any rational mind can be proven to be false, but not all minds are rational, even when they claim supernatural scientific understanding.”
          .
          Since science is based on verifiable empirical evidence, it’s the exact opposite of blind faith. You’re really not making much sense here.

          Reply
          • Brent Hurst says:

            KR,
            .
            “”””””The Big Bang, black holes and dark matter are all phenomena that can be and are being studied empirically using the scientific method. The very reason we’re discussing them is because of independently verifiable empirical observations. If you want to put the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter in the same category as gods, demons and angels, you need to show how gods, demons and angels can be studied using the scientific method. “”””””
            .
            you seem to be working off of a cultural stigma as regards definitions. A
            .
            phe·nom·e·non
            fəˈnäməˌnän,fəˈnäməˌnən/
            noun
            noun: phenomenon; plural noun: phenomena
            1.
            a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.
            “glaciers are unique and interesting natural phenomena”
            synonyms:
            occurrence, event, happening, fact, situation, circumstance, experience, case, incident, episode
            .
            Big Bang, Black holes, and Dark matter so not even qualify as Phenomena as they are theoretical events. WHAT is observed are the EFFECTS, these “effects” are the phenomena to which the CAUSE of is theorized.
            .
            As for gods, demons and angels, these too are theorized causes that are drawn from their own set of phenomena.
            .
            To back up to one of your statements “””The Big Bang, black holes and dark matter………..The very reason we’re discussing them is because of independently verifiable empirical observations””””, you are simply very much in error.
            .
            “”””””This is a jumbled mess. Macroevolution is any evolutionary change at or above the species level. It’s an observable fact – we can actually see speciation happening through the phenomenon of ring species.””””””
            .
            This is in no way anywhere close to being proven, it is a theory based solely upon classification, mainly where the two end products can no longer propagate. The fact that the first pair can even breed to begin with, tends to place them in the same species, no matter how funny they look together.
            .
            “”””” The cell is complex – so what? Are you claiming complexity cannot be the result of an evolutionary process? How would you demonstrate that?”””””””
            .
            I suppose as a blind faith adherent to evolution you have never really taken an honest look at this problem. Find the absolute simplest form of life you can find, a single cell, and it is “simple” only in relation to the greater complexity of a full organism like a human being, but when compared to a bolt of electricity combining two amino acids into what might be termed a protein in a tank of slug designed by a human being so as to get this result, you have a universe still to cross before you can get the first spark of life.
            .
            “””””” The rest makes even less sense – what does “the order of evolution as with the eye” even mean? Care to elaborate on the Neanderthals and Cro Magnon?””””””
            .
            The problems with the evolution of the eye is a well known dilemma, and whereas science once thought homo sapiens were descended from Neanderthals and cro magnon, Neanderthals have been thrown out and recently they claim evidence cro magnon has identical DNA, there just doesn’t seem to be any true “evolving” going on. Your right, evolution is a big mess, some scientist say this, others claim that, they often making grandiose claims based upon appearances as with skulls, we were from Africa, then Russia. They all have theories, but proof is seemingly highly evasive, except for those who blaze ahead just blindly believing and working only trying to prove it rather than truly being objective.
            .
            “””””””The “it’s just a theory” nonsense again? Seriously? How many times does it need to be explained that a scientific theory is at the top of the totem pole when it comes to our understanding of physical phenomena?””””””
            .
            Probably the same number of times scientific theories have been caught with their pants around their ankles.
            .
            “””””Since science is based on verifiable empirical evidence, it’s the exact opposite of blind faith. You’re really not making much sense here.”””””
            .
            Anytime theories are assumed as facts

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Dunning–Kruger effect, I think. He’s read a few buzz words and thinks he’s an expert.

          • KR says:

            “Big Bang, Black holes, and Dark matter so not even qualify as Phenomena as they are theoretical events. WHAT is observed are the EFFECTS, these “effects” are the phenomena to which the CAUSE of is theorized.”
            .
            Thank you for making my point (not that it was needed, since I already made it). Red shift, cosmic background radiation, gravitational lense effects, x-ray radiation and galaxy rotation curves is independently verifiable, empirically observable data for which our best current explanation is the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter. This is how science works.
            .
            “As for gods, demons and angels, these too are theorized causes that are drawn from their own set of phenomena.”
            .
            What is the hypothesis and what testable predictions does it make? What is the independently verifiable empirical data that the hypotheis is based on? These are the questions you need to answer if you’re going to put the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter in the same category as gods, demons and angels. I’m still waiting for your examples of any such empirical research.
            .
            “To back up to one of your statements “””The Big Bang, black holes and dark matter………..The very reason we’re discussing them is because of independently verifiable empirical observations””””, you are simply very much in error.”
            .
            Nonsense – i just listed the observations that the theories are based on. The theories are explanations for the observations – they wouldn’t exist if these observations hadn’t been made.
            .
            “This is in no way anywhere close to being proven, it is a theory based solely upon classification, mainly where the two end products can no longer propagate. The fact that the first pair can even breed to begin with, tends to place them in the same species, no matter how funny they look together.”
            .
            See, this is how I know that you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about. If you had any understanding of evolution, you would know that there’s never going to be a “first pair”. And what’s with the “proven” nonsense? Didn’t I just explain that science is about finding the best explanation using the available data, not proving stuff? Do try to pay attention.
            .
            “I suppose as a blind faith adherent to evolution you have never really taken an honest look at this problem. Find the absolute simplest form of life you can find, a single cell, and it is “simple” only in relation to the greater complexity of a full organism like a human being, but when compared to a bolt of electricity combining two amino acids into what might be termed a protein in a tank of slug designed by a human being so as to get this result, you have a universe still to cross before you can get the first spark of life.”
            .
            I will accept this as a problem when you can demonstrate that the first self-replicating units were as complex as a modern cell (which has had about 4 billion years to evolve). Let’s just say I won’t be holding my breath.
            .
            “The problems with the evolution of the eye is a well known dilemma”
            .
            Not to me. An evolutionary explanation for the eye would require a plausible sequence of steps where every intermediate would be functional and provide a survival benefit. Well, we have such a sequence from a simple photoreceptor via a pit eye, a lense-less nautilus-type eye and eyes with rudimentary lenses all the way to the human eye. We know that all these intermediates are functional because they’re still being used in various extant organisms.
            .
            “and whereas science once thought homo sapiens were descended from Neanderthals and cro magnon, Neanderthals have been thrown out and recently they claim evidence cro magnon has identical DNA, there just doesn’t seem to be any true “evolving” going on.”
            .
            The name Cro Magnon doesn’t refer to any species or sub-species, it’s just an old name for a particular European population of early Homo Sapiens. Cro Magnon findings date to around 25 000 to 45 000 years ago so it’s hardly surprising if we don’t see any drastic evolution since then. In geologic terms it’s the blink of an eye. As for Neanderthals, genetic analysis has shown that all humans except those of Sub-Saharan African descent have a little Neanderthal DNA so it’s less about Homo Sapiens being the descendants of Neanderthals and more of us being partly Neanderthals ourselves. Our understanding of these relationships has clearly changed in the face of new data. Again, this is how science works.
            .
            “They all have theories, but proof is seemingly highly evasive, except for those who blaze ahead just blindly believing and working only trying to prove it rather than truly being objective.”
            .
            There you go with the proof nonsense again. Proof is for math and whiskey.
            .
            “Probably the same number of times scientific theories have been caught with their pants around their ankles.”
            .
            Science self-corrects when new evidence comes to light. Would you prefer that it didn’t?
            .
            “Anytime theories are assumed as facts”
            .
            Any scientist that does a silly thing like that will inevitably be exposed by reality. Scientific theories are work tools – if they don’t actually work, they will soon be abandoned. Scientists are like any other professionals, they want results – and a non-functioning theory is clearly no way to get them.

    • KR says:

      I watched the YT video with Sanford. He’s basically repeating the ENCODE claims of functionality, equating transcription with function without addressing any of the evidence for junk DNA that I laid out. We also get the old “evolution = eugenics” chestnut thrown in for good measure. Sanford’s ideas about “genetic entropy” make no sense. He claims that most if not all of the genome is functional but also says that a typical mutation will have no measureable effect. This does not add up.
      .
      Sanford also makes the rather startling claim that all geneticists acknowledge that our genomes are steadily deteriorating at an alarming rate – on the order of 5% or more per generation. With a generation time of 25 years, this would mean that more than 95% of the human genome would be destroyed in 1500 years. Let’s just say someone needs to take his theory back to the drawing board.

      Reply
      • Susan says:

        You spend too much time on science KR.

        Get into the scriptures so you can make your peace with God and He can enlighten you.

        That is life giving knowledge in the scriptures but a lot of people don’t read the Bible and some don’t read it with an open mind. Many people must come to the Bible with all sorts of prejudices and misconceptions they learned from unholy sources out in the world.

        We are all shaped by an unholy world to some degree that is why God exhorts us by saying:

        Romans 12:2 English Standard Version (ESV)

        2 Do not be conformed to this world,[a] but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.[b]

        You probably won’t get enlightened by reading a short period.

        So stay in it until God renews your mind.

        Reply
      • Susan says:

        You can’t let anything have priority ahead of God KR so you will have to lay your science Idol down to get enlightened.

        God is not going to share pride of place in your heart with your idol. He wants your total focus and attention and love and respect.

        If you want God’s approval then you will have to give him that. And stop letting these tainted sources block you. I hope this helps! God bless!

        Reply
        • Bryan says:

          Or as a lady told me once in a religious debate, “you think too much. Turn off your brain and turn on God!”.

          True story.

          Reply
          • Susan says:

            Why do science and a belief in God have to be incompatible? They aren’t. If you can keep them in their right places.

            You really should read God Will Make A Way, Bryan. It is really about being able to keep the proper boundaries.

            If you can keep the proper boundaries in your own thoughtlife then you can be a believer and a scientist.

            Non-overlapping magisteria Stephen Gould called it.

          • Susan says:

            Actually this is not such a bad statement. You just did not understand it.

            She is telling you there is a higher mind than your own and to come into agreement with it.

            How would a scoffer know though. He is the one too easily tricked into being deceived by his own senses and obeying them. He worries about the future, tries to control things he cannot control and refuses to act like a disciple of God.

            That woman’s statement is enigmatic. You chose to understand it literally so you could mock her when she is attempting to understand God’s higher mind. You can’t serve God’s purposes and stop serving yourself and thereby the evil one if you never learn to think like God can you.

            Don’t be angry if a Christian sees you as evil.

            The parts of the world that refuse to submit to God are evil to him.

            Christians are the only New Creation. Redeemed from evil and working to be like God and His Son and not be worldly like the rest of the world.

            It may not look like it to you but you cannot read people’s motivations can you?

            But there are still true disciples of Christ around today. I have encountered then and read about them.

            They are called the firstfruits in the Bible.

            The first of God’s greater harvest of souls.

            It’s too bad that you are fighting for atheists’ spiritual ignorance to prevail in this world.

            Most people are blinded by one of the 3 great idols of the world: science, education or the state.

            People don’t want to listen to God they expect one of these idols to do for them.

            But each one of those idols can cause as many problems as they solve.

            The only true object of worship in this world is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

        • Bryan says:

          This is what I found on Amazon about your book: “The best-selling book God Will Make a Way by Drs. Cloud and Townsend clearly illustrates the often-surprising ways God shows up and addresses our problems in ways we never dreamed possible. This new companion workbook goes even deeper to help readers thrive relationally, emotionally, and spiritually–especially in difficult times.”

          I totally understand. I used to have a special invisible friend called “God”.
          Like Elwood P. Dowd who starts having visions of a giant rabbit named Harvey, my special invisible friend was real….just like your special invisible friend. As I grew older I began to know just how my special invisible friend wanted people to live their lives.

          I too wasted money on books by “experts” like your “doctors” who knew more about my special invisible friend than I did. And, of course, you know so much more about our special invisible friend it’s truly amazing!

          But as I grew up, I was forced to admit that, like Harvey, my special invisible friend….was not real. But I know he’s still real to you and I respect that…sort of.

          My beef with special invisible friends is when they tell people tp discriminate against LGBT people, hijack planes and use them to kill people, etc.

          Otherwise, your quest to prove to the world that YOUR peraonal special invisible friend is the only true and real special invisible friend is harmless.

          Say hello to Harvey for me!

          Reply
          • Susan says:

            Really confuse Christians with Muslims much. I don’t know of any Christians hijacking planes.

            Do the messy lack of distinction between religious groups and your false equivocations ever bother you.

            I don’t know why atheists pride themselves on their logic when they can’t keep the characteristics of various religious groups straight.

            Why not try analyzing the crimes of the Militant Society of the Godless in the USSR for a change and realize there were tens of millions of Russian Orthodix Christians killed and forced into forced labor camps by atheists.

            Marx said he wanted religion destroyed and the atheist communist revolutionaries like Bakunin were quite a violent gang.

            So come out of your bubble now and stop cherrypicking groups to hate on.

            There has been no bloodier century than the 20th and atheists communists throughout the world like Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh had quite a lot to do with that.

            Hope you start dealing with historical reality soon.

            Have a blessed day!

  7. Brent Hurst says:

    KR,
    .
    “”””” (Bryan) Susan, in the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena
    that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; there was a natural, physical explanation.
    Can you give an example of a natural or physical explaination being replaced by a supernatural one?””””””
    .
    “””””(Brent) “Supernatural means it is beyond scientific understanding, so everything that is still unexplained can be termed supernatural, including the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter.””””””
    .
    I was not the originator of equating science (physical) and supernatural (non-physical)
    .
    “”””””(KR) The Big Bang, black holes and dark matter are all phenomena””””””””
    .
    No they are not, they are theoretical models (best explanations) for certain observable phenomena, red shift etc….
    .
    There is more than one way to acquire knowledge, science is a good one when it comes to physical phenomena, to manipulate the physical world. Yet even in this methodology the reality (dark matter, etc…) can turn out to be quite different than what was originally predicted. IDEALLY science can self adjust, but this assumes science is perfectly unbiased, but since human’s and their personal philosophies are so often invested in it, change can be slow. And there is historical evidence to back slow change up.
    .
    As regards “supernatural” when speaking of non-physical entities or forces that might effect our physical world from time to time, miracles, etc…, in the same way there is a distinction between scientific measurements and the theorized unseen reality said to have caused them,
    .
    one can through the observation of patterns of another sort, come to at least the same degree of certainty as a scientist might have about dark matter, recognize the existence of supernatural realities.
    .
    We are getting to caught up in details, so I am hoping to bring it back on point, at least the original point I was going for. Despite the fact this thread is about Darwin and evolution, this is a Christian apologetic sight, and any idea, as some seem to project, that science is all powerful and if it cannot be determined by science it does not exist, or even if we cannot explain it scientifically now, no doubt we will someday, these biases negate other methodologies for acquiring knowledge.
    .
    Within Bryan’s context, where supernatural only refers to things that science has YET to explain, then dark matter, which is to date only theoretical so as to account for certain phenomenal measurements, would be supernatural also.

    Reply
    • KR says:

      “I was not the originator of equating science (physical) and supernatural (non-physical)”
      .
      The problem is that you did a bit more equating than that. You basically stated that everything that hasn’t been thoroughly explained by science (your examples were the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter) is to be regarded as supernatural – i.e. non-physical by your definition. As I explained, all of these theories build on empirical observations – actual measurements that are decidedly physical. You may recall that I issued you with a challenge to present examples of such empirical studies of things we designate as supernatural (my examples were gods, demons and angels). Since no such examples have been put forward, are we to understand that you don’t have any?
      .
      “There is more than one way to acquire knowledge, science is a good one when it comes to physical phenomena, to manipulate the physical world. Yet even in this methodology the reality (dark matter, etc…) can turn out to be quite different than what was originally predicted. IDEALLY science can self adjust, but this assumes science is perfectly unbiased, but since human’s and their personal philosophies are so often invested in it, change can be slow. And there is historical evidence to back slow change up.”
      .
      The success of science is precisely due to its acceptance that humans are biased. It resolves this problem by tying its theories to independently verifiable empirical observations. IOW, the ideas in our minds are calibrated against the reality outside our minds where others are able to test them for themselves. I’m not aware of any other method to acquire knowledge that does this. If you want to suggest an alternative way to acquire knowledge, my question would be: how does this method address the problem of bias? Specifically, how does it avoid the vicious circle of using your mind to verify your mind?
      .
      “one can through the observation of patterns of another sort, come to at least the same degree of certainty as a scientist might have about dark matter, recognize the existence of supernatural realities.”
      .
      That sounds great but I’d still like to see some examples. Furthermore, how is this different from empirical verification (i.e. the scientific method)?
      .
      “Despite the fact this thread is about Darwin and evolution, this is a Christian apologetic sight, and any idea, as some seem to project, that science is all powerful and if it cannot be determined by science it does not exist, or even if we cannot explain it scientifically now, no doubt we will someday, these biases negate other methodologies for acquiring knowledge.”
      .
      I can’t speak for anyone else but my claim is not that things that cannot be determined by science do not exist. My claim is that I know of no other way to determine whether something exists than empirical observation. I’m open to the possibility that there could be other ways to obtain such knowledge, I just haven’t come across any yet. This is where some examples would be helpful.
      .
      “Within Bryan’s context, where supernatural only refers to things that science has YET to explain, then dark matter, which is to date only theoretical so as to account for certain phenomenal measurements, would be supernatural also.”
      .
      I’ll let Bryan speak for himself, my view is that anything that’s open to empirical investigation would qualify as physical and would at least have the potential of being explained by science. So far, I’ve seen no indication that this applies to gods, demons and angels so I maintain that the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter do not belong in the same category as those entities.

      Reply
      • Susan says:

        Because science can explain something doesn’t mean it owns it.

        If time is a construct by God and He is outside of time then He can set up the natural and spiritual laws that we operate under any way He wants to.

        You don’t rule out God either because some Christian made a scientific mistake.

        That person is not God.

        I see that kind of sloppy thinking all the time.

        I don’t know why Bryan brought up LGBT. He should be watching this site’s video: Marriage: Biology Not Bigotry.

        There was no strong movement for gay marriage in the US before the AIDS epidemic. There was no media attention given to the question.

        I am not saying AIDS got started by homosexuals either but STDS historically are traceable back in part to risky sex.

        It is labeled “risky” for medical reasons.

        Really does society as a whole have to run a risk of STD transmission because some people are incapable of practicing safe sex.

        Safe sex is a myth. Conforms are not 100 percent reliable.

        The gays could have opted for civil unions but they did not. Instead they wanted to redefine marriage which has always been related to the procreation of children with the object of protecting children.

        We don’t have any long range studies of the affects of gay marriage on society.

        Somebody just stirred the liberal emotional pot politically to paint the conservatives with horns and rebranded marriage contrary to it’s historical image.

        The people not thinking the whole issue through are the victims of the emotional rhetoric of same-sex advocates.

        Did you know that a few years back before the same sex law passed federally that there was a gay tech billionaire out buying up local races.

        The American people ought to make all the unAmerican lobbyists and special interest groups combining to local and state campaigns illegal and get these people out of our country.

        They are undermining Americans civil liberty for the sake of a few private interest groups.

        AIPAC does it for Israel. They attempt to interfere with internal US Congressional campaigns to assure we send money to Israel which is a rich country and receives more aid from the US then the rest of the third world countries combined.

        That is dirty politics. Off subsidizing wars when people are starving and without medical aid around the globe.

        If the Jews and the Muslims were converted to Christianity then there would be no division that causes so much world conflict but a lot of people like to refuse to listen to God in favor of their own self interest and some of them are willing to deceive you to do that.

        The Jews do it with AIPAC. Since when is the US tied exclusively to another country’s financial support and defense? And some people like Begin and Netanyahu are terrorists and war hawks themselves.

        The Shiite Muslims do it with taqqiyah which is a Shiite principle that states it is ok for a Muslim to lie to an infidel.

        So maybe you atheists had better start doing some deep research of every religion on the planet.

        If you can’t see Christ as he truly is then you will need to start investigating everyone and everything and don’t protest a thing until you get everything right which could take you a lifetime because this world is not straight it never has been.

        Some people have been meddling with the magnificent American political experiment trying to undermine democracy all along and Americans are stupid and we let them get away with it to serve their own interests.

        Some would say we have to have Israel as an ally. The oil is at stake.

        No we don’t.

        Not if everyone was converted and on the same sheet of music in agreement with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

        Right now we can’t do it but read Revelation. One day God will set up a worldwide future kingdom to replace this Mystery Babylon mess of a world that we live in now.

        There is no peace in this world right now because most of the world rejects it’s Peacemaker which is Jesus Christ.

        So take your politics world. Prefer it to Christ if you must but there is no peace in politics or political debates. It is all about war and conflict and everyone knows the lying victors write the history so you are fortunate if this world gets any of the facts straight and that may be why God bases everything on faith in Christ.

        You cannot believe in a lying, false, deceptive world but you can believe in Christ and his teachings.

        Reply
        • KR says:

          These ramblings have nothing to do with anything i wrote, so it’s a bit of a mystery why you addressed them to me. My posts are part of an exchange of arguments and ideas – they are not an invitation to one of your preachy rants. Since you clearly have no interest in addressing any of the points made, I will waste no further time on your screed.

          Reply
          • Susan says:

            Well the mistake is your’s then. This is a Christian blog and you can’t have things all your own way while you ignore God.

            Why would I accept anything you say when you refuse to get your heart right with God?

            God is The Authority in a Christian’s world not science.

            Most of this world acts insincere towards God though. That is just par for the course in this world.

            When God puts the world on notice that they did not live up to His standards instead of repenting they ignore God, make excuses and rationalize Him away just hardening their hearts more and more so they cease to hear from God after a while.

            If you harden your heart enough then you can start to project and blame God after a while.

            But most people know the Bible is all about heart motives.

            2God looks down from heaven
            on the children of man
            to see if there are any who understand,b
            who seek after God.

            Psalm 53

            3They have all fallen away;
            together they have become corrupt;
            there is none who does good,
            not even one.

            What you thought you would slink onto a Christian site and no one would give you the right answer from God?

            That you would just skirt the main issue which is human heart motives in favor of your idols science and evolution.

            Try proving to God your heart motive isn’t bad for coming over to this blog to try and corrupt a few of God’s children and tear them from His grasp.

            Doubt yourself more skeptic and that includes your motives.

            That is why John the Baptist came calling “Repent and be baptized”.

            To put the sinners on notice that the time of God’s forgiveness of sin was approaching.

            But some people have gotten so used to their corrupt heart motives and evil ways that they don’t come when John calls.

            Instead they conspire against Christ. Cf. Psalm 2.

            ◄ Psalm 2 ►
            English Standard Version
            The Reign of the LORD’s Anointed

            1Why do the nations ragea
            and the peoples plot in vain?
            2The kings of the earth set themselves,
            and the rulers take counsel together,
            against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying,
            3“Let us burst their bonds apart
            and cast away their cords from us.”

            4He who sits in the heavens laughs;
            the Lord holds them in derision.
            5Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
            and terrify them in his fury, saying,
            6“As for me, I have set my King
            on Zion, my holy hill.”

            7I will tell of the decree:
            The LORD said to me, “You are my Son;
            today I have begotten you.
            8Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
            and the ends of the earth your possession.
            9You shall breakb them with a rod of iron
            and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

            10Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
            be warned, O rulers of the earth.
            11Serve the LORD with fear,
            and rejoice with trembling.
            12Kiss the Son,
            lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
            for his wrath is quickly kindled.
            Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

            Footnotes:
            a 1 Or nations noisily assemble
            b 9 Revocalization yields (compare Septuagint) You shall rule

          • jcb says:

            It took me a while to come to the same conclusion, KR. Some people are not interested in an actual exchange of arguments and ideas, like Susan. At least she (occasionally) admits to that. Sadly, I just scroll past her comments now, as they don’t attempt to engage my arguments, nor do they attempt to offer an argument in defense of theism.

          • toby says:

            JCB, right there with you. I wish I could block Susan and Heavlin’s comments. They really offer nothing but content free exasperation.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Me too on that. Someone’s I see there are bunch of new comments on one of the articles, and then get really disappointed to see it’s just Mark and Susan ranting at (and past) each other. Mark’s are easier to scroll past because I can see immediately they’re mostly in bold.

          • toby says:

            Any of you guys have suggestions for other sites where people actually engage thoughtfully?

          • jcb says:

            Toby,
            Sadly, in my experience, I have yet to find a reliable site of the sort you mention. I’ve been censored from Wintery Knight, ignored by Bearded Disciple, yelled at from people on FT’s facebook page, and directly told they have no time to respond to my feedback by Alan Shlemon and J. Warner Wallace (even after I sent those two people lengthy, polite, commentaries about their articles).
            It’s not surprising as much as disheartening. I suppose you can’t go searching for open minded people as much as you have to wait for them to come to you.
            I can’t recall (hardly) an instance where a theist read my feedback and acknowledged any truth to it. (I hope someone searches all my posts, and can find evidence to the contrary).

          • toby says:

            From what I hear I wouldn’t want to even look at Wintery Knight’s site. Haven’t heard much of the others.
            .
            I think I’ve seen Wallace respond to one thing on this site and it was someone complimenting his article.
            .
            I can’t recall (hardly) an instance where a theist read my feedback and acknowledged any truth to it. (I hope someone searches all my posts, and can find evidence to the contrary).
            There’s always wiggle room in arguments on both sides. I think once on here there was an evolution post and i directed someone to Talkorigins.org and they were impressed and said they’d go read through the site. Never heard from him again. There was a girl here years back that argued for christianity, she went away for months, came back and said she was a non-believer. Arguments rarely sway people, but they can make them think. From there they have to do the heavy lifting themselves.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Wintery Knight never allowed my comments to post, even when pointing out simple errors of fact in his articles.
            I tweeted J Warner Wallace a couple of times and he blocked me.
            .
            Most apologists are terrified of pointing out their nonsense. This site is an anomaly, and even here the authors very rarely comment. A few times I’ll post something I feel clearly debunks the premise of the article. Then Mark or Susan will post replies to the article that ignore what I said, others will reply to them, a conversation starts, then someone will mention Trump or something and the article author will then chip in saying: “Why are you guys talking about Trump? This is why I don’t bother engaging with the comments here”.

          • toby says:

            Most apologists are terrified of pointing out their nonsense.
            Because it’s their living. They can’t address challenges to their inconsistencies or faulty arguments without loosing some supporters so the obvious easy way out is to ignore challenges. Or pick the worst arguments of their detractors to use in articles about how inane atheists ideas are. Or outright make up straw arguments to beat on.
            .
            This site is an anomaly, and even here the authors very rarely comment.
            I think our questions got to be too much for posters. They were getting challenges that they didn’t hear popularly circulated and found it hard to wriggle out of them. So they became too busy to bother with the comments section because they didn’t want to have to think up replies. They fear saying the wrong thing. “No, the earth isn’t 6,000 years old. . . . whoops, there goes some revenue.”

          • toby says:

            At least Frank wasn’t as bad as Matt Slick. He likes to pretend he doesn’t understand the question, either to buy time to think or just to pivot to some of his favorite arguments he thinks always work.

          • TGM says:

            Consider me in agreement as well. I, too, simply scroll past anything under SUSAN or under MARK, particularly that shown in boldface.
            .
            As for exchanging ideas, it seems an impossible task, particularly when your adversary is incoherent. You all have the patience of saints for indulging scientific ignorance. Even those claiming to be interested in learning (looking at you here TVZ), refuse the credible sources in favor of junk science. Alas. But I do appreciate the camaraderie, friends!

          • toby says:

            I started using a new RSS add on in firefox called Feedbro. I did use livebook marks, but that was limited to remembering 10 most recent updates. Feedbro let’s me just delete their posts off quickly. It’s pretty nice. Apparently you can set it up to grab updates on practically any site. Like youtube subscriptions and whatnot.

      • Brent Hurst says:

        KR,
        .
        “””””””The problem is that you did a bit more equating than that. You basically stated that everything that hasn’t been thoroughly explained by science (your examples were the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter) is to be regarded as supernatural”””””
        .
        “”su·per·nat·u·ral
        adjective
        adjective: supernatural
        1.
        (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
        “a supernatural being”

        “supernatural powers”

        noun
        noun: supernatural; plural noun: supernaturals
        1.
        manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.””
        .
        Since science can only make (empirical observations) from the Big Bang’s effects, then whatever CAUSED the Big Bang adj. Super-natural. Black hole and Dark Matter might exist, but what CAUSED them is adj. Super-natural.
        .
        KR, you seem to try to want to debate, and I am really going to try to keep it simple, it is obvious Bob and Andy and some others are merely Trolls and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. One thing that will give you away is the demand for unrealistic evidence like wanting me to produce DNA evidence of God from one of His discarded tissues or a footprint of an immaterial Being. So lets continue.
        .
        “”””””You may recall that I issued you with a challenge to present examples of such empirical studies of things we designate as supernatural (my examples were gods, demons and angels).”””””
        .
        Ah, now here you go, you are demanding material evidence of immaterial beings. Let me look a bit deeper
        .
        “”””””””IOW, the ideas in our minds are calibrated against the reality outside our minds where others are able to test them for themselves. I’m not aware of any other method to acquire knowledge that does this””””””
        .
        OK, I witness something, lets say a murder, and you did not. SO! I have acquired that knowledge, you have not. Since I cannot reproduce that event, then obviously the only way you might gain that knowledge is through my witness or that of others who might have also witnessed it. You are free to reject such witnesses, but I assume since you cannot measure, test, or observe such a reality, then it must not have happened.
        .
        Now “Biasness” might come into question, it is true the witness might be bias, or you might be bias of the witness as you prefer to remain unbelieving, your mind, even as a scientist, is perfectly capable of imposing “values” upon the data. So even so your measurements might be correct, your mind still plays a part in interpretation even as it might form connections and relationships between the data.
        .
        Furthermore, you are relying upon the senses, you understand the spectrum of light and sound, and how your eyes and ears, by their design, can only hear and see within a narrow range. A range that is particular to each one, eyes for light, ears for sound, but what might exist between light and sound because eyes can only perceive light, ears can only perceive sound, and so your senses actually limit your view of the whole of reality. IOWs, an Angel could be standing right beside you, but since your physical body with its physical senses can only detect physical substance, you would be unaware of him/it.
        .
        So it you consider you are constructed from mere matter, and that the universe is no deeper than your physical senses, and that consciousness is no more than a chemical reaction as neurons are firing in the brain, then why would you be on a religious site. Who cares about a bunch of nut balls thinking there is a God who created this universe, we are all going to die, everything stops, no one left to know or care. I could hypothesize but I will save that until I see how you respond.
        .
        “”””””I can’t speak for anyone else but my claim is not that things that cannot be determined by science do not exist. My claim is that I know of no other way to determine whether something exists than empirical observation. I’m open to the possibility that there could be other ways to obtain such knowledge, I just haven’t come across any yet. This is where some examples would be helpful.””””””
        .
        My advice would be looking at Wiki “Methods of attaining knowledge”
        .
        But if we are speaking of knowledge of the supernatural, as in if there is a God, we have to deal with “witnesses” and I am not speaking of people that would simply be knowledge from authority. On one hand we would have scripture, and not merely the Christian bible but you should stay away from Islam as it is a political system disguised as a religion, hence conversion by force. Unfortunately in religion you will have to really read and understand the scriptures for yourself, culturally produced doctrines can often lead one into the low minded thinking that so many lazy minds steer towards.
        .
        Now assuming God inspired the scriptures, and likewise created the Creation, so the universal realities of the Creation become a secondary witness. Not simply laws like gravity but universal patterns, male/female, etc….
        .
        So let me use a bit of empirical observation, universally, we can readily observe a particular principle, and I will call it the “principle of the seed”. As you have grown up has your DNA ever changed, IOWs you have not evolved in the least, you have matured, slowly manifesting more of what is already inside of you. And if you take an honest look at the universe around you, you can see this principle in every living thing. You can see it even at the level of attitudes because if you possess a bad attitude or an unrealistic view of reality, that seed will effects all aspects of your life.
        .
        Now I have to compare the readily empirical evidence against some who say the race has evolved, I have not even evolved, maybe in attitude as new information was introduced as other intelligences around me spoke into my life, but I can never become more than what I am. So on one hand I have this huge weight of empirical evidence that seems quite universal in its scope.
        .
        And on the other hand I have scientists claiming we have evolved, and their efforts to scratch and dig for some small piece of verification seem simply ridiculous. If I was bias towards evolution I can mentally grant a lot of weight and value to such attempts, but I am still crushed by the empirical evidence of the universe as this principle of the seed is everywhere.
        .
        I have not given you a religious argument “because the bible says so”, their minds also are biased as they often draw some sense of self righteousness from belief, now if you accept this principle, where does that leave us, that God formed Adam in the Garden, perhaps something like that but not necessarily as Christianity has defined it. But if there is no “linear” explanation, then maybe it is more vertical, once we accept it as a mystery, then maybe we can think about it in different ways. Quantum physics can break all the rules of Newtonian physics, but that was because certain events were still mysterious and people had to think outside their natural parameters.
        .
        Well I’m sure I’ve worn you out so I’ll end this post.

        Reply
        • KR says:

          “One thing that will give you away is the demand for unrealistic evidence like wanting me to produce DNA evidence of God from one of His discarded tissues or a footprint of an immaterial Being.”
          .
          Good thing I’m not demanding that, then. What I am demanding, though, is a justification for your claim that the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter belong to the same category as gods, demons and angels. The way you provide this is by showing that we can study gods, demons and angels the same way we can study the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter empirically by observing their effects. Your protest that it’s unrealistic to even ask for this is a tacit admission that the two sets of entities are categorically different. Either you will have to come up with a new category for gods, demons and angels or just admit that the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter are not supernatural. You can’t have it both ways.
          .
          “OK, I witness something, lets say a murder, and you did not. SO! I have acquired that knowledge, you have not. Since I cannot reproduce that event, then obviously the only way you might gain that knowledge is through my witness or that of others who might have also witnessed it. You are free to reject such witnesses, but I assume since you cannot measure, test, or observe such a reality, then it must not have happened.”
          .
          You’re getting your ontology mixed up with your epistemology. It’s not a question of whether it happened or not, it’s a question of whether I can know that it happened. If all I have is witness testimony and there’s no body or other physical evidence that a murder has been committed, then I can’t claim to know that there’s been a murder. I don’t think anyone is going to be convicted of murder based solely on witness testimony in complete absence of a body or other evidence – and that’s probably a good thing. There’s a reason the courts value forensic evidence higher than witness statements.
          .
          “Now “Biasness” might come into question, it is true the witness might be bias, or you might be bias of the witness as you prefer to remain unbelieving, your mind, even as a scientist, is perfectly capable of imposing “values” upon the data. So even so your measurements might be correct, your mind still plays a part in interpretation even as it might form connections and relationships between the data.”
          .
          This is why there’s always a “materials and methods” section in a scientific paper. This is where the researchers lay out how they got their data and how they interpreted it. The idea is that other scientist should be able to confirm that the methodology is sound and that the results have been correctly interpreted. The description should be detailed enough that these other researchers should be able to replicate the original work if they want. Even before the article goes to print, there will have been a number of experts within the same field that have reviewed the article to see if it’s up to snuff (this is what’s referred to as peer review). In many cases, the reviewers will make comments that may lead the authors to do a rewrite before the final publication.
          .
          Is this a fool-proof system? No. Errors will sometimes slip through and there are also some cases of outright fraud that may be difficult to spot immediately. However, any research that actually gets used will eventually have to answer to reality. Bad science tends to get exposed because it doesn’t work.
          .
          “Furthermore, you are relying upon the senses, you understand the spectrum of light and sound, and how your eyes and ears, by their design, can only hear and see within a narrow range. A range that is particular to each one, eyes for light, ears for sound, but what might exist between light and sound because eyes can only perceive light, ears can only perceive sound, and so your senses actually limit your view of the whole of reality. IOWs, an Angel could be standing right beside you, but since your physical body with its physical senses can only detect physical substance, you would be unaware of him/it.”
          .
          No-one denies that there are limitations to science but this doesn’t change my basic point: if we can’t study something empirically (either directly via our senses or indirectly using some kind of instrument), I see no other way of doing this studying – at least no other way that can be independently verified. That last point is crucial, since we’ve agreed that we’re all subject to bias. I see no other way out of that trap than empirical verification.
          .
          “So it you consider you are constructed from mere matter, and that the universe is no deeper than your physical senses, and that consciousness is no more than a chemical reaction as neurons are firing in the brain, then why would you be on a religious site.”
          .
          A couple of reasons. One is that I care about the truth and about how we reach that truth. I’m convinced that believeing in things for bad reasons is not only irrational but potentially dangerous. I care about humanity and would very much like for it to continue to exist long after I’m gone. I think we have a lot of potential and will be able to do amazing things if we don’t destroy ourselves.
          .
          There’s no lack of potential dangers that could put an end to us: nuclear holocaust, pandemics, climate change, pollution of the biosphere, asteroid hit etc. Most if not all of these can be addressed if we act rationally and see the world as it is – not as we wish it to be. This is why I keep harping on about empirical verification. Being rational, in my view, is to do your best to align your beliefs with reality and I know no better way to do this than empirical verification.
          .
          Another reason is that I just like to debate, at least in this format where I have time to think through what I want to say.
          .
          “Who cares about a bunch of nut balls thinking there is a God who created this universe, we are all going to die, everything stops, no one left to know or care. I could hypothesize but I will save that until I see how you respond.”
          .
          Well, I obviously care so it seems a collection of atoms can have the capacity to care. Even if I stop, there will hopefully be people going on after me and I want to do my little part to at least not make their chances worse than they are.
          .
          “My advice would be looking at Wiki “Methods of attaining knowledge”
          .
          I took a look at it and it seems the only additional method that doesn’t suffer from the bias problem is logic, though I would argue that what we consider to be the laws of logic are ultimately founded on empirical observations of how reality works. There was also a category called modelling but I would include that in the empirical camp. Testimony, authority and revelation do not strike me as reliable (for reasons of potential bias) and would all require empirical verification.
          .
          I’m not sure I followed your thinking concerning the “principle of the seed” and its relevance to this discussion. If there is such a thing, how would we know if not by empirical observation?

          Reply
          • Brent Hurst says:

            KR,
            I’m going to use a lot of rhetorical questioning to challenge, please try not to become offended.
            .
            “””””Good thing I’m not demanding that, then. What I am demanding, though, is a justification for your claim that the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter belong to the same category as gods, demons and angels”””””””
            .
            Everything that is considered “natural” from “Time” on down to all the laws of this universe, do not translate to what caused this universe to come into existence. Even these universal realities such as TIME are said to be brought into existence by the Big Bang. I can make a distinction between the Big Bang and what Caused the Big Bang, but even within this Creation the Big Bang is seen as the catalyst for the producing of Time. So even the Big Bang is beyond the creation of Time and Space, therefore it is (adj.) Super-natural. This is really not that difficult as I have already explained it.
            .
            As for (g)ods, differentiated from (God) as an Infinite Creator, are in reality personifications of powers or forces within the Creation whereas God is transcendent (supernatural). Demons and Angels, though I do not see demons as the church tends to categorize them, would be creations within this Creation, but as they exist out of phase with matter and are not subjected to the laws that govern matter, so in a sense they are termed supernatural. Yet within the sphere of their existence there are still Laws that govern that realm.
            .
            But since you apparently reject the existence of anything you cannot see or measure, namely because they are supernatural, I’m not sure why you care.
            .
            “”””””This is why there’s always a “materials and methods” section in a scientific paper. This is where the researchers lay out how they got their data and how they interpreted it……..Is this a fool-proof system? No. Errors will sometimes slip through and there are also some cases of outright fraud that may be difficult to spot immediately. However, any research that actually gets used will eventually have to answer to reality. Bad science tends to get exposed because it doesn’t work.””””””
            .
            So you agree science can be tainted, and I agree bad science can get exposed, but sometimes this can take decades.
            .
            “”””””””No-one denies that there are limitations to science but this doesn’t change my basic point: if we can’t study something empirically (either directly via our senses or indirectly using some kind of instrument), I see no other way of doing this studying – at least no other way that can be independently verified. That last point is crucial, since we’ve agreed that we’re all subject to bias. I see no other way out of that trap than empirical verification.””””””
            .
            “independent verification” can only satisfy knowledge of the material side of Creation. If you place your BEING in material, then this will be the extent of what Truth you can acquire. Since you have set this limitation, I feel I must hold you accountable to it.
            .
            “”””””””A couple of reasons. One is that I care about the truth and about how we reach that truth. I’m convinced that believeing in things for bad reasons is not only irrational but potentially dangerous. I care about humanity and would very much like for it to continue to exist long after I’m gone. I think we have a lot of potential and will be able to do amazing things if we don’t destroy ourselves.””””””””
            .
            “Caring” is an abstract reality, it is only a feeling which means it is subjective, so there is no way I can independently verify this so I will assume it does not exist. Maybe I can attribute a “survival” instinct to you, often this instinct is expanded to family as part of one’s survival, but what is this “caring” for the human race to continue. We are all going to die sooner or later, the sun will die, the earth will vaporize, even a meteor could wipe us out in a few years. Perhaps you think you care so that you can think of yourself as a GOOD person, but if you prolong the human race then you prolong the suffering and harm we cause each other. Besides in a universe where there is perfect balance, you can never be good, every act you perform has an equal evil effect.
            .
            Are you going to tell me next that religion is responsible for the evils of this world, quote the Crusades or Salem and minimize the hundreds of millions killed by atheistic regimes where the only concern is power and resources. Is Carrie’s mom reflective of most Christians or are most Christians just trying to live in peace with their neighbors. If some Christians shame others do not Atheists also use shame as a manipulation.
            .
            “””””Well, I obviously care so it seems a collection of atoms can have the capacity to care. Even if I stop, there will hopefully be people going on after me and I want to do my little part to at least not make their chances worse than they are.””””””
            .
            Care, hope, these are not scientific, they belong to a person’s subjective experience, Susan wants to be a good person, do her little part to help others have a better chance for their continued existence, how can I tell the difference between you two.
            .
            “”””””I took a look at it and it seems the only additional method that doesn’t suffer from the bias problem is logic,”””””
            .
            Yes, logic, reason, all “truth” cannot be measured in a test tube, and yet Truth is all around us but our minds have built in biases, science is useful, but it doesn’t comfort a child with a skinned knee like a kiss can. If you are truly seeking Truth, the first think you have to get rid of is these abstract values your mind in imposing on reality.
            .
            “”””””””I’m not sure I followed your thinking concerning the “principle of the seed” and its relevance to this discussion.””””””
            .
            This is what is amazing to me, this principle is expressed by every living thing, from flowers, to worms, to human beings, in everything there is a seed, DNA for the body, and through all the phases of your life, infant, childhood, puberty, all of it directed by the parameters of that seed within you. It is so obvious and yet all those great scientific minds trying to prove evolution can’t even see it because it is the very obstacle they have to overcome to prove evolution. And you wonder how to test it with empirical observation, take the pit from and avocado and suspend it over a cup of water with toothpicks. Then see what grows. And this principle stretched from one side of the universe to the other, assuming there is even plant life out there. Life is always produced from life, this is the universal standard.

          • KR says:

            “Everything that is considered “natural” from “Time” on down to all the laws of this universe, do not translate to what caused this universe to come into existence. […] Yet within the sphere of their existence there are still Laws that govern that realm.”
            .
            No amount of handwaving will eliminate the fact that the Big Bang, black holes and dark matter are open to empirical investigation while gods, demons and angels are not. This, by definition, means that they belong to different categories.
            .
            “But since you apparently reject the existence of anything you cannot see or measure, namely because they are supernatural, I’m not sure why you care.”
            .
            This is a misrepresentation of my position. You’re still conflating ontology with epistemology. I believe I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t claim that what we can’t observe doesn’t exist. My position is that without empirical verification there seems to be no way to have knowledge of such existence. I care about consistency – which would entail, among other things, not trying to have your cake and eat it (which seems to be what you’re doing).
            .
            ““independent verification” can only satisfy knowledge of the material side of Creation. If you place your BEING in material, then this will be the extent of what Truth you can acquire. Since you have set this limitation, I feel I must hold you accountable to it.”
            .
            Without independently verifiable empirical verification, I can’t see how you can claim to know that there even is anything beyond the “material side”. Again, this is a question of epistemology, not ontology. I’m not claiming that there’s nothing beyond the material, just that I see no way of knowing that there’s anything non-material.
            .
            ““Caring” is an abstract reality, it is only a feeling which means it is subjective, so there is no way I can independently verify this so I will assume it does not exist. ”
            .
            I think you’ll find that consistently disregarding what other people feel will eventually give you a rather unpleasant empirical experience. People on the autistic spectrum who have trouble reading and accommodating the feelings of others will testify to this. Feelings are part of reality, dismiss them at your peril.
            .
            “We are all going to die sooner or later, the sun will die, the earth will vaporize, even a meteor could wipe us out in a few years.”
            .
            The death of the sun is billions of years away. Considering how far we’ve come over the few hundred years we’ve been applying the scientific method, can you even imagine what we will be able to do if we’ve managed to survive that far? The future is a promise to no-one – the only thing we can know for sure is that if humanity allows itself to go extinct, it won’t be part of it. It’s my subjective opinion that this would be a shame.
            .
            “Perhaps you think you care so that you can think of yourself as a GOOD person, but if you prolong the human race then you prolong the suffering and harm we cause each other. ”
            .
            You’re a cheery type, aren’t you? If this is truly your outlook, why are you still alive?
            .
            “Besides in a universe where there is perfect balance, you can never be good, every act you perform has an equal evil effect.”
            .
            This makes very little sense to me. Why would you think there’s perfect balance in the universe? What objective measure of good and evil are you using?
            .
            “Are you going to tell me next that religion is responsible for the evils of this world, quote the Crusades or Salem and minimize the hundreds of millions killed by atheistic regimes where the only concern is power and resources.”
            .
            No, what I’m saying is that if we base our beliefs on what can be verified empirically, we have a better chance of attaining truth than if we base our beliefs on political or religious dogma.
            .
            “Care, hope, these are not scientific, they belong to a person’s subjective experience, Susan wants to be a good person, do her little part to help others have a better chance for their continued existence, how can I tell the difference between you two.”
            .
            You can tell the difference by investigating truth claims to see how well they comport with our empirical experience.
            .
            “Yes, logic, reason, all “truth” cannot be measured in a test tube, and yet Truth is all around us but our minds have built in biases, science is useful, but it doesn’t comfort a child with a skinned knee like a kiss can. If you are truly seeking Truth, the first think you have to get rid of is these abstract values your mind in imposing on reality.”
            .
            Nonsense. Feelings are part of reality so obviously any empirically-based outlook will take them into account.
            .
            “It is so obvious and yet all those great scientific minds trying to prove evolution can’t even see it because it is the very obstacle they have to overcome to prove evolution. And you wonder how to test it with empirical observation, take the pit from and avocado and suspend it over a cup of water with toothpicks. Then see what grows.”
            .
            It may be obvious to you but to me it seems you’re just describing how life works. I still fail to see the relevance to anything we’re discussing.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            KR: “I believe I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t claim that what we can’t observe doesn’t exist.”
            You’ve said this several times. I don’t get how someone can keep responding with the straw man that you ‘dismiss the existence’ of something you can’t observe, or even claim it can’t exist at all.
            .
            Brent: “It is so obvious and yet all those great scientific minds trying to prove evolution can’t even see it because it is the very obstacle they have to overcome to prove evolution”
            ‘Everything comes from a seed’ isn’t an obstacle for evolution. It seems you’re confusing evolution with biogenesis. And this so-called ‘principle’ could easily be turned around to create an obstacle for creationists. Everything comes from a seed so therefore species weren’t created ex nihilo. Or to put it another way, life is always seen appearing by natural causes, so it’s a principle that the supernatural is never involved. I wouldn’t make that argument myself, but it’s a logical extension of your ‘principle of the seed’ argument.
            .
            It seems logical to me that given we have life now and at some point in history there was no life in the universe, at some point life started in some manner that contradicts your ‘principle of the seed’ – whether through natural biogenesis or supernatural means. One doesn’t need to take a stance on which of those two is more likely in order to observe that either way, the ‘principle of the seed’ fails.
            .
            “you can never be good, every act you perform has an equal evil effect.”
            Could you explain how you think this plays out in practical terms. The child with the grazed knee to whom you give a kiss – what’s the ‘equal evil effect’ that will naturally result from the kiss? My coworker just did a sponsored swim. If I donate $10 to her, what ‘equal evil effect’ will result?

          • KR says:

            “Without independently verifiable empirical verification” is a rather awkward phrase – should obviously have been “without independently verifiable empirical observation”.

        • Andy Ryan says:

          ” As you have grown up has your DNA ever changed, IOWs you have not evolved in the least, you have matured, slowly manifesting more of what is already inside of you.”
          .
          Your DNA does change through your life. That aside ‘I have not evolved therefore species do not evolve’ is not a good argument. Is your argument that if evolution was true you would expect individuals to change in some way that you’re not seeing, and therefore the scientific understanding of evolution is wrong?
          .
          “I have scientists claiming we have evolved, and their efforts to scratch and dig for some small piece of verification seem simply ridiculous”
          Brent, what books have you read on the evidence for evolution? If you think it’s a ‘small piece of verification’ then you’re misinformed.
          .
          “So on one hand I have this huge weight of empirical evidence that seems quite universal in its scope”
          What ‘huge weight of empirical evidence’? All you’ve said to support this is that you can ‘never become more than what I am’ and your reference to the ‘principle of the seed’, which has nothing to do with evolution anyway. What are you not seeing that you think proponents of evolution by natural selection would expect us to see?

          Reply
  8. Susan says:

    I don’t think unbelievers are very good at empirical observation if they let a methodology supplant their own minds on such an important question as the existence of God.

    When God gave us Jesus very few did science. What they had was their minds and sensitivity to people.

    Skeptics basically devalue their own minds and throw their people sense away.

    It does not even matter if evolution is true or not because a Christian does not judge God.

    A Christian accepts what God tells them and is convicted then is given the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    So to believe in God is a totally different path from practicing science.

    I wonder more people don’t see that evolution pic at the top of the article as a sleight of hand trick.

    It should not even be posted on a Christian site because a lot of Christians do not believe in evolution or self identify with apes.

    Christians should be taking every thought captive to Jesus Christ.

    You may have to live in an evil world but you do not have to accept or examine every one of it’s evil propositions and claims because a Christian can choose to separate himself from the evil of this world.

    If a prostitute walks up to you in the street and makes an offer do you have to examine her claims or do you say no thanks and walk off?

    Believing in God is sense based. It is between a human being’s hearing and his mind where his sense interpretive faculties lie.

    That is the way God set up the path to belief. You hear. If your heart contain good ground then you form a lasting relationship with God.

    It’s the people who try to substitute man’s way: science for God’s way that are wrong.

    You don’t look for the metaphysical in the physical. It does nothing to fulfill God’s plan to transform individuals.

    If you want to know God you should be a better student of people then you would know everything God says about them is true.

    I could not care less about evolution there is too much controversy in it.

    You are either on the road less travelled with God or you are back with the world letting them subvert the spiritual message that Jesus died to supply. Exchanging eternal life for men’s “knowledge” is a poor exchange.

    No need to argue it at all.

    Once you see some of God’s ways you realize that He does not operate like the world. His ways ARE far above humans’ ways.

    This world likes to break the boundaries in people’s heads so they cannot reason along with God.

    So I don’t identify with apes. As a person made in the image of God and saved by grace there is already more than enough things for me to get right to be a more godly person without regressing backwards by identifying with apes.

    I learned to value the image of God in me that the world would like to destroy my self knowledge about.

    I self identify with God not apes and always have for years and years before I ever read God’s account.

    But when you read it you know it is true. In the Old Testament it is God letting us see the evil and the good heart motives of people.

    A person can be influenced to act according to his heart motive.

    That’s why police investigators try to ascertain the motive behind crimes.

    Find out exactly what motivates a person. Tie it to their words and their deeds and if they line up proving a person did a crime then they can be convicted.

    That type of judge and jury system goes on all the time and doesn’t rely on science just man’s ability to assess things using his own mind.

    Of course, you could fix a trial if the judge and jury had bad heart motives you could appeal to.

    Reply
  9. Brent Hurst says:

    KR
    .
    “””””””” The future is a promise to no-one – the only thing we can know for sure is that if humanity allows itself to go extinct, it won’t be part of it. It’s my subjective opinion that this would be a shame.”””””””””
    .
    “Allows”? Everything will die, how does this reality escape you also. Do you understand the nature of the universe you live in.
    .
    “”””””This makes very little sense to me. Why would you think there’s perfect balance in the universe? What objective measure of good and evil are you using?””””””
    .
    For someone claiming a scientific view point, once again you appear not to understand the nature or laws of this universe.
    .
    “”””””Nonsense. Feelings are part of reality so obviously any empirically-based outlook will take them into account.””””””
    .
    When the subjective influences the objective, that is bias,
    .
    “”””””””It may be obvious to you but to me it seems you’re just describing how life works. I still fail to see the relevance to anything we’re discussing.””””””
    .
    Interesting, “how life works” has no relevance towards truth and empirical observation. After my own empirical observations, I am afraid I am going to have to categorize you with your friends, basically incapable of truly rational debate. And since it obvious in your view I have not said one thing worth any consideration, then I would not expect you to respond. Feel free to find another forum as I suppose there is no one here to debate you.

    Reply
    • KR says:

      ““Allows”? Everything will die, how does this reality escape you also. Do you understand the nature of the universe you live in.”
      .
      And people say atheists have a bleak view. It’s a pity you seem to have left the conversation – I would be very interested in hearing what exactly makes this inevitable. The only inevitability I can see is the eventual heat death of our universe – and who knows, there may be a way around that, too – seeing as we have a gazillion years to figure that one out (if we make it that far). Compared with all other species that have gone extinct, we’re in the unique position (I’m assuming) of having become aware of the evolutionary process and even learning of ways to manipulate it.
      .
      We are also uniquely adaptable through our technology which is getting ever more sophisticated. Ironically, this may be the biggest threat to our survival – creating artificial intelligence that surpasses our own, making ourselves surplus to requirements. We’ve already started implanting various types of technology into the human body and this will likely become more common. Eventually, we may reach a point where it’s basically a philosophical question whether humans have gone extinct or simply chosen to take a non-biological form. But I digress – back to your post.
      .
      “For someone claiming a scientific view point, once again you appear not to understand the nature or laws of this universe.”
      .
      As responses go, that seemed a little non-responsive. I guess I will have to live on in ignorance about the laws keeping the universe in perfect balance. That’s a shame as a perfectly balanced universe shouldn’t be moving inexorably towards heat death. Not fair to leave with a cliffhanger like that!
      .
      “When the subjective influences the objective, that is bias.”
      .
      Indeed – but the way to make rational decisions is not to ignore feelings but to recognize them for the powerful drivers they are.
      .
      “Interesting, “how life works” has no relevance towards truth and empirical observation.”
      .
      The relevance was in reference to your “principle of the seed”, which I just didn’t understand. Sorry.
      .
      “After my own empirical observations, I am afraid I am going to have to categorize you with your friends, basically incapable of truly rational debate.”
      .
      I know the feeling.
      .
      “And since it obvious in your view I have not said one thing worth any consideration, then I would not expect you to respond. Feel free to find another forum as I suppose there is no one here to debate you.”
      .
      I’ll consider it.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        What a loss, eh? I’ve never seen such a gulf between someone’s comprehension of the subjects they discuss (tiny) and their lofty condescension to others (huge). Swinging from snarking at science he doesn’t understand to Deepak Chopra-style new age nonsense and deepities. Cheerio Brent, it’s been fascinating.

        Reply
        • KR says:

          This place really has quite a cast of characters, doesn’t it? More and more, though, I feel that we’re stuck in a loop. Maybe Brent is right and it’s time to move on?

          Reply
          • toby says:

            So they can devour themselves over whether baptism is essential or if you should handle snakes or drink rat poison.
            .
            With Andy’s last exchange with Brent I thought it would be nice to have a site to direct them to that points out some basic info so conversations don’t fly past each other. Like explain the different uses of “theory”. Basic facts of evolution. Conversations would start with being pointed in that direction and begin after that info was digested. I’d like to see the same from the other side. “What do you mean when you say supernatural, god, heaven, grace, etc.”

          • KR says:

            Or faith, that’s a difficult one to nail down. I saw you were asking about other forums, did you see this one?
            .

            http://www.religionforums.org
            .
            I literally just found it so don’t know much about it but it might be worth checking out.

          • Susan says:

            Yes, you should be going because you are not open to receiving God’s perspective.

            And nobody here is really open to lesser perspectives.

            I don’t know how you mentally get around the nothing is impossible with God verse but people can get endlessly creative when engaging in self deception.

            I don’t know how people even dabble in the objective when they never even went the subjective route.

            Spirituality and God are more about the subjective than the objective.

            But you point out the need for people to change God’s way and some get offended.

            I suppose they get used to their sins and idols controlling them.

            You can be free and irresponsible or free and responsible.

            Have a nice life and a blessed day.

          • Susan says:

            Absolutely ridiculous that you would sneer at Christians without checking your own atheist family’s closet for skeletons first.

            I will take the people credulously accepting the accounts of a holy god over the people who denied His existence like Marxist atheists any day of the week.

            The founder of American Atheists who sued to have prayer stopped in US schools was Madalyn Murray O’Hair who is no poster child for sanity. She lived in a neighborhood of people who had immigrated out of eastern European communist countries to escape Marxism but she herself denied the horrible reality of communism and wanted to emigrate to the Soviet Union. Why was she opposing school prayer when she did not even care for her children or own country? Her eldest son claims that as a child his mother told him she should have aborted him.

            Nobody denies the reality of true evil in this world more than Madalyn Murray O’Hair did. It made her less than judicious about the company she kept and that is why she hired an ex-con that ultimately killed her and all the members of her family except the one son that broke free of her controlling grip and became a Christian leader after he left her.

            It is strange atheists like to indict Christians for all sorts of insanity without checking just how insane some of the more prominent atheists are like Karl Marx who let his family starve living in the gutter while he sat around concocting evil political theories with Moses Hess and Friedrich Engels. Theories that ultimately led to the death of at least 100 million people if not more.

            Marx had a couple of his grown children commit suicide.

            Atheist Stalin was a defrocked priest.

            O’Hair was a criminal herself stealing from her own company. She should have been in jail not pretending to act on people’s behalf suing in the American court system to affect other Americans rights and stop school prayer.
            She was just an angry woman who lacked common sense so she entertained the company of unrepentant felons like herself and it caused her demise.

            It must be time for you to leave the sanity of this Christian blog now and for you all to go back to atheist crazy town blogs. That is where your atheist family gets together.

            I have visited those blogs carrying the Gospel but never again. I ran into a particularly virulent young woman on Seidensticker’s blog. She really was vindictive.

            So sorry it is time for you vindictive people mired in your carnality to go home now.

            You have all gotten plenty of rational answers from God’s people but deny all the answers so the irrationality lies within you like Christ said to everyone:

            Examine yourself!

            How does the world eradicate evil and insanity without starting with himself first?

            It doesn’t.

            O’Hair was a crazy woman who loved nothing but her own crazy ideas.

            So how did an insane woman get the standing to sue God in a court of law?

            Because nobody did a background check on her.

            Background checks are not required before one party sues another.

            So go check your atheist leaders backgrounds.

            Mocking like an irrational internet troll who lacks self control is easy until you find crazy town in your own closet.

            Have a blessed life back on your atheist blogs where you can blaspheme God to your evil heart’s content like O’Hair did.

            I am no longer reading your mockery or blasphemies. And how do you trust the science machinations of a person with an evil character?

            Hope you get your hearts right with God, atheists!

            Christ is right the fault lies within us and if we can’t gain self mastery thru following him then our own evil nature could finish us off like O’Hair’s did her.

            No Christian killed O’Hair.

            Her own bad judgment in deciding to keep bad company did.

  10. Brent Hurst says:

    Andy,
    .
    “””””””It seems logical to me that given we have life now and at some point in history there was no life in the universe, at some point life started in some manner that contradicts your ‘principle of the seed”””””””””
    .
    Linear thinking is a process from within the influence of Time, the Finite is born from the Infinite, Timelessness gave birth to Time, from the Timeless/Infinite POV, there is no beginning or end, if you want to understand how the Creation came to be, you must stand in the Infinites perspective. That’s all you need to know to figure it our but I really don’t see that happening. Perhaps it wasn’t meant to be.

    Reply
  11. Susan says:

    I feel bad when people start to think they can know better than God then let down their gut instinct to shield themselves from the communication of evil.

    .

    But that is what adopting a scientific perspective teaches a person to do. Pull down his heart guard, devalue his own mind and senses and let someone in to teach them things that reinforces ungodliness.

    .

    Christians don’t call what I write “rants”.

    .

    I am evangelical so I am one of the people who tries to stay tuned into God the most.

    .

    The great majority of this world stay tuned to Satan’s channel and want to communicate his thoughts, ideas, lies, etc. to us so it will fool us by an act of the will into surrendering our thoughtlives to the world.

    .

    Christians do make appeals to emotion but no more and maybe less than unbelievers do.

    .

    Look at all the emotional shock tactics the liberals employed on the younger less developed generation to pass the will of the disobedient gay people over God’s will that they repent and turn from their evil ways. Sin is endemic and so endemic these days that people could be giving up on themselves before they even hear God out.
    .

    I don’t rant. I exhort because I know that exhortation is motivational and makes the more prudent people stop and think.

    .

    Exhortation is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
    Arguing is not.

    .

    Arguing is where people engage in battles of will to try to act like they owned you in debate to force their ungodly opinion on you which is just another result of satanic influence on the human being.

    .

    Satan likes to keep people in their pride exalted in their own false knowledge conveying it confusing everybody.

    .

    You can use your mind for or against God.

    .

    But if you won’t acknowledge God then the devil really has made you throw away your prudence and gut instinct to defend yourself from evil and that leaves you wide open in contact with every evil mind and thought in this world ever conceived.

    .

    You can tell television is getting more and more degraded and irresponsible towards people. Culture always contains an irresponsible element and people do need to protect themselves from corruption. Look at Hitler sharing ideas with the occult and Nietzsche. Strange thoughtlife there and the Germans did not protect themselves from it. He appealed to their self live and pride. Quite a demon Hitler was. Lenin, Trotsky, Bakunin, Mao etc. all shared their thoughtlives with Marx who may have been a Satanist if you believe the facts Wurmbrand uncovered on him. But a Satanist does not go around announcing he is a Satanist. He will pretend to be someone else so the world does not reject him.

    .

    If God is motivational and people can act in concert with God’s will then it should be obvious that those that are not dedicated to God could be performing the devil’s will some of the time.

    .

    People do make weak commitments to God.

    .

    The battle is in the heart, mind, will, conscience and emotions of the person.

    .

    If you give away your heart and mind to serve a methodology then man is still in control of you and Satan likes to control men through fear, lies and deceit.

    .

    If you are an unbeliever you had better start to ask yourself what false motive prompts you to fail to defend yourself and give your own willpower away because that is connected to self determination of one’s own identity.

    .

    There is always a battle for the hearts and minds of men in this world. I know that sounds cliche but sometimes cliches are the truth because people repeat the great truths over and over while the world devalues them.

    .

    What is more important than a good heart motive and a clean conscience before God and the ability to look at yourself in the mirror and see God in you?

    .

    Why nothing, of course.

    .

    But many are deceived. We read the Bible to reveal that fact to the world. God says so. Adam and Eve were deceived and so are the rest of us to different degrees.

    .

    You can listen to the truthful God in His reveal all work or you can listen to the devil’s promptings through this world and it’s ways.

    .

    Your choice who you will listen to.

    .

    This world is a lot more than mere survival and materialism and I could be a dead woman saying this in another time or place even today.

    .

    But I would rather tie my life to the truth than a lie.

    .

    Give The Glory To God and May His Grace Abound To Everyone Reading!

    Reply
  12. Brent Hurst says:

    Andy,
    .
    “”””””””Your DNA does change through your life.”””””””””
    .
    “https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-constantly-changing-through-the-process-6524898″
    .
    DNA Is Constantly Changing through the Process of Mutation
    .
    DNA is a dynamic and adaptable molecule. As such, the nucleotide sequences found within it are subject to change as the result of a phenomenon called mutation. Depending on how a particular mutation modifies an organism’s genetic makeup, it can prove harmless, helpful, or even hurtful. Sometimes, a mutation may even cause dramatic changes in the physiology of an affected organism. Of course, in order to better understand the varying effects of mutations, it is first necessary to understand what mutations are and how they occur. ”
    .

    “””””That aside””””
    .
    “”””””‘I have not evolved therefore species do not evolve’ is not a good argument. Is your argument that if evolution was true you would expect individuals to change in some way that you’re not seeing, and therefore the scientific understanding of evolution is wrong?””””””
    .
    Personal maturation was only an example of a universal reality, for someone who’s always bringing up the strawman argument you don’t seem to recognize it very well. Appealing to categorical differences doesn’t make (micro) evolution, if DNA was evolving then it would already be a proven.
    .
    “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory”
    .
    “”The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.”
    .
    Between the facts, and the provisional explanation, lies the universal empirical seed.
    .
    Lets try this, “Is macro evolution a fact or a theory?”
    .
    If science has yet to prove macro evolution, then is there room for another explanation?
    .
    Is macro evolution even provable?
    .
    Or do you expect it to remain a theory?

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      Right, so the link backs what I said – DNA changes through your life.
      .
      “Do you expect it to remain a theory?”
      Brent, you don’t know what ‘theory’ means in scientific parlance. Here’s a clue: no-one says the theory of flight is ‘just a theory’ or says it ‘remains a theory’. You seem to think it’s similar to a hypothesis or guess, something that hasn’t progressed to being a fact yet, or a law. Wrong. But I genuinely can’t be bothered to explain more to someone so convinced they already know it all. Do your own homework and look up what a theory is in science. Throw Stephen Gould into the search and you’ll find his good explanation.

      Reply
      • Brent Hurst says:

        Andy,
        .
        “”””””Brent, you don’t know what ‘theory’ means in scientific parlance. Here’s a clue: no-one says the theory of flight is ‘just a theory’ or says it ‘remains a theory’. You seem to think it’s similar to a hypothesis or guess, something that hasn’t progressed to being a fact yet, or a law. Wrong. But I genuinely can’t be bothered to explain more to someone so convinced they already know it all. Do your own homework and look up what a theory is in science. Throw Stephen Gould into the search and you’ll find his good explanation.””””””
        .
        “””””A wordy way of not addressing my point.””””””

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          Your point included a misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘theory’, which I addressed. Further discussion risks equivocation when you don’t understand the very terms you’re using. Have you looked it up yet? I’m guessing not.

          Reply
          • Brent Hurst says:

            Andy,
            .
            “”””””””””Your point included a misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘theory’, which I addressed. Further discussion risks equivocation when you don’t understand the very terms you’re using. Have you looked it up yet? I’m guessing not.””””””””
            .
            “”””””””Here’s a clue: no-one says the theory of flight is ‘just a theory’ or says it ‘remains a theory’. You seem to think it’s similar to a hypothesis or guess, something that hasn’t progressed to being a fact yet, or a law. Wrong. “”””””””””
            .
            “noun
            a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on [general principles independent] of the thing to be explained.
            “Darwin’s theory of evolution”
            synonyms:
            hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; ”
            .
            Wait, let me go back to what you said, “”””” You seem to think it’s similar to a hypothesis or guess, something that hasn’t progressed to being a fact yet, or a law. Wrong.””””””
            .
            And what were those synonyms again, beginning with “[hypothesis], [thesis], [conjecture], [supposition], [speculation]
            .
            As for the “Theory of Flight”, there may be slight variations in how we think flight happens, but flight does happen, it can be demonstrated with a piece of paper by any elementary school kid. To equate this with the theory of evolution is nonsense but what I would expect from Trolls whos only interest is dissecting minutiae as if to make a point. Seriously Andy, with as much straw as you leave behind we could feed a circus, of course that’s just a theory of mine.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            So to answer my question, you’ve not looked up the scientific meaning, and instead are equivocating with the other meaning of the word. Try again, Brent.

  13. Susan says:

    Interesting article on the Satanism of Marx and his correspondence with Darwin when Marx wanted to dedicate a book to Darwin.

    Google: Karl Marx and his Hateful Dream of Atheism on News24.com.

    The draft document for the Communist Manifesto was called: The Communist Question of Faith.

    Marx was really aiming at destroying religion and the world as His Satanic poetry reveals. He believed in God as a Satanist.

    His ex-Jewish converted to Christianity father tried to reach Marx but he didn’t. It could be Marx was already under the influence of another Satanist.

    Marx had a lot of anarchist influences on him.

    Reply
  14. Susan says:

    This evidence is indisputable!

    Google “God Prophetically Named The Stars” and read it.

    The Gospel message is written in the constellations and nobody and nothing on Earth can tamper with it.

    Why don’t more people realize this evidence exists?

    Because the evidence was obscured by the message being misinterpreted.

    In this Psalm it says the heavens declare the glory of God and they do.

    Psalm 119 v. 1-6

    19 The heavens declare the glory of God,
    and the sky above[a] proclaims his handiwork.
    2 Day to day pours out speech,
    and night to night reveals knowledge.
    3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
    whose voice is not heard.
    4 Their voice[b] goes out through all the earth,
    and their words to the end of the world.
    In them he has set a tent for the sun,
    5 which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
    and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
    6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
    and its circuit to the end of them,
    and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

    You can argue the pros and cons of evolution until the cows come home but there is no dismissing the Word pictures that the stars convey that match the Biblical account.

    Reply
  15. Susan says:

    Some atheists are not really atheists. They demonstrate they know God exists by the amount of invectitude they heap upon Him. So it is deceptive to then claim God doesn’t exist. If an atheist really believed God was a fictional character they would just ignore Him. Instead they smear Him with their lies proving by their words that they actually do believe in Him but have lost control of themselves and can’t help venting their anger at Him.

    The Madalyn Murray O’Hair Murder by her son William J.Murray
    https://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2011/04/05/the-madalyn-murray-ohair-murder/

    The article begins:

    My mother, brother and daughter were murdered by fellow atheists.

    Reply
  16. Susan says:

    Murray also had this to say about his own atheistic family tree:

    “I was born into a home of near constant rage and violence. As a result of my mother’s constant angry outbursts, she could not hold down a job. She, my brother and I, lived with her parents and my unmarried uncle. My grandfather had never filed an income tax return and most of what he did do during his life was illegal or ill advised. My grandmother read Tarot cards and sent out demons by burning human hair. My uncle kept hoards of pornography in his room and my mother filled the house with statues of mating animals which she worshipped.”

    SOURCE: http://www.wjmurray.com

    So Murray examined himself and his family and noticed it was bearing bad fruit and escaped. Separating himself from his own mother and family.

    Matthew 7:16, NASB
    “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they.

    It is hard to examine people’s fruits on the Internet where there is no face to face contact and no background info available.

    Some people like their privacy to protect themselves and other people like it to conceal their evil deeds or lifestyle.

    But neither of these privacy concerns will stop evil people from either trying to communicate evil to you or controlling you by their evil.

    So look out for the verbal abusers and troll mockers those people were never raised right to respect other people’s boundaries and think they can control your thought life through emotional abuse delivered verbally.

    How does the abused not become the abuser?

    By following Jesus Christ’s direction to examine one’s self.

    Don’t ever let an abusive person control your thoughtlife.

    If you give an abuser an inch he will take a mile.
    That is what boundary violators that tefuse to love and respect people do because they never learned the right way from God.

    Modeling Christian character is not because some people aren’t that observant and lack people skills.

    They always need the explanation supplied, too.

    Reply
  17. Brent Hurst says:

    Andy,
    .
    “”””””””So to answer my question, you’ve not looked up the scientific meaning, and instead are equivocating with the other meaning of the word. Try again, Brent.””””””””
    .
    “scientific meaning”
    .
    ““Darwin’s theory of evolution”
    synonyms:
    hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; ””
    .
    You saw for yourself that the dictionary even used the Theory of Evolution as an example of hypothesis, etc…
    .
    But, again, this is what makes you a Troll, general dismissal of anything question asked of you, while simultaneously demanding inane dissection of minutiae,
    .
    This is the process….as seen clearly in this conversation as you toss out non-sensical arguments about what the word “theory” means
    .
    “””Trolling on-line forums as described above is actually analogous to the fishing technique of “trolling”, where colorful baits and lures are pulled behind a slow moving boat, often with multiple fishing lines, covering a large bodies of water, such as a large lake or the ocean. The trolling lures attract unsuspecting fish, intriguing them with the way they move through the water, thus enticing these foolish fish to “take the bait”. Not unlike unsuspecting internet victims, once hooked, the fish are reeled in for the catch before they realize they have been duped by the Troll/Fisherman””””
    .
    But beneath this is the emotional immaturity that drives the Troll
    .
    “”””The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn’t count as trolling; it’s just flaming, and isn’t funny. Spam isn’t trolling either; it pisses people off, but it’s lame.”””””
    .
    And no matter how many people you guys might dupe, or how much power you might feel as you make inane demands, when the computers shut off and you are home alone or with your family, you are still a child inside, insecure, and pitiful. You will get nothing out of me Andy but sadness that you are such an emotional coward. But again, that’s just a theory of mine.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      So… You’ve still not looked it up. “scientific meaning of theory”. Not hard – you could have googled and read it in less time than it took you to type out all of the above.
      .
      When someone talks about ‘just a theory’ with regards to evolution, it’s clear they don’t understand the context in which the word ‘theory’ is used. In the words of the aforementioned Stephen J Gould, “…facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.” A theory in science is actually more important than a law. You seem to think theories are just things we’re not quite sure about yet.
      .
      The theory of evolution is the explanation for the mechanism of evolution, just as the theory of flight is the explanation for how things fly. They’re not the theory that evolution or flight happens.
      .
      And no, pointing this out isn’t trolling. I’ve invited you to look this all up yourself and not take my word for it, even suggesting a particular clear
      explanation yout could search for. I won’t make an accusation of trolling. I’m sure it’s just arrogance and the Dunning-Kruger effect that stops you taking the short amount of time it would take to look this up.

      Reply
  18. Andy Ryan says:

    For anyone else who is interested, this is what Stephen J Gould wrote on the meaning of ‘theory’ in a scientific context. Again, this isn’t quibbling over definitions, it’s pointing out the equivocation fallacy used by people who say ‘just a theory’:
    .
    [start quote] In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is “only” a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”
    .
    Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
    .
    Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. [end quote]

    Reply
    • Mark Heavlin says:

      “And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.”
      .
      Genesis 1:26-27 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
      .
      Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
      .
      .
      From Wikipedia with link provided: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
      .
      “When asked directly if he was an agnostic in Skeptic magazine, he responded:
      .
      ‘If you absolutely forced me to bet on the existence of a conventional anthropomorphic deity, of course I’d bet no. But, basically, Huxley was right when he said that agnosticism is the only honorable position because we really cannot know. And that’s right. I’d be real surprised if there turned out to be a conventional God.’ ”
      .
      Bet he was surprised on May 20,2002.
      .
      Hebrews 9:27 Just as man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment,

      Reply
    • Brent Hurst says:

      Andy,
      .
      “”””When someone talks about ‘just a theory’ with regards to evolution, it’s clear they don’t understand the context in which the word ‘theory’ is used.”””””
      .
      Then your argument is not with me but the dictionary.
      .
      “””””Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.”””””
      .
      So your proposing a “Gap” theory, mmm, it would seen then that anyone, collecting some scant and disassociated facts, can string them all together with a theory implying certain relationships, and then come up with the conclusion you are a Troll, Interesting. So then according to Stephen Gould, it is a proven fact you are a Troll now.
      .
      But, since we live in a Finite universe, our existence merely a dream of the Infinite, even evolution would be merely an illusion even as Time is an illusion

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        “So your proposing a “Gap” theory”
        Nope.
        .
        “So your argument is not with me”
        I’m not arguing with anyone – I’ve patiently explained something. Whether people understand it or not is out of my hands. If you’re using a word in a particular context, in this case a scientific one, then you need to use a different definition is to commit the logical fallacy of equivocation.
        .
        Dictionary: System of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
        “Darwin’s theory of evolution”.
        .
        Even creation sites advise people to argue that evolution doesn’t qualify as a theory rather than say it’s ‘just a theory’. Even they understand the latter misunderstands the meaning of the word in this context.
        .
        “Our existence merely a dream of the Infinite”
        Wow, like far out dude.

        Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            That must mean you’ve reached an altitude far above sea level. My dictionary has several meanings for ‘high’ but I’m just going to pick one of them and assume that’s the right one.

        • Brent Hurst says:

          Andy,
          .
          “””””””Dictionary: System of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
          “Darwin’s theory of evolution”.””””””
          .
          Why did you stop, lets continue as the dictionary describes the type of Theory connected to evolution.
          .
          “synonyms:
          hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; ”
          .
          “”””””My dictionary has several meanings for ‘high’ but I’m just going to pick one of them and assume that’s the right one.”””””
          .
          This seems to be your modus operandi, but alas, since you also seem to suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, no doubt you will maintain your right. Its a shame really, a mind is such a terrible to bend and pustule.
          .
          “””””””then you need to use a different definition is to commit the logical fallacy of equivocation”””””
          .
          Oh, you mean like equivocating the theory of evolution with the theory of flight. Right, gotcha, I wouldn’t want to make that logical fallacy. After all “flight” is a fact, clearly observable all around us, “Evolution” on the other hand seems to be having a bit more trouble actually finding examples, hence the appeal to ring-species and such as they search for anything that might even suggest the possibility of Evolution.
          .
          You so know what “Possibility” means right, or do we need to find another dictionary.

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            “After all “flight” is a fact, clearly observable all around us”
            Have a google for ‘observable examples of evolution’, genius. Clue: yes, there are many.
            .
            “you mean like equivocating the theory of evolution with the theory of flight”
            Nope, that’s not equivocation as they’re both using ‘theory’ in the same scientific sense.
            .
            That aside, you still missed the point about my example of ‘theory of flight’. As you point out, theory of flight doesn’t mean ‘theory that things can fly’. And it doesn’t mean we’re not sure HOW things fly either. See also the germ theory of disease, the theory of gravity, etc. The point is that whether or not you believe in evolution, the fact that natural selection is referred to by scientists as ‘the theory of evolution’ is not a reflection of any lack of confidence in it. It’s not waiting for more evidence before progresses from being a theory to a law. Feel free to offer your reasons why you reject the cornerstone of modern biology, but ‘it’s called a theory’ isn’t a reason.
            .
            If you doubt this, ask yourself why the theory of flight never became the ‘fact of flight’, and why the germ theory of disease never became the ‘germ law of disease’. Then ask why we have both a law of gravity and a theory of gravity (perhaps you simply didn’t know that). The latter isn’t less than the former – in fact the theory is actually MORE important than the law, as it explains it.
            .
            “no doubt you will maintain your right”
            Here’s the problem with your bad grammar. You complain that I’m avoiding points or just trolling by pointing it out, but here I genuinely have no idea whether you’re trying to say that I will maintain my right, or whether you meant to say ‘you’re’, meaning that I will maintain that I AM right. So your poor grammar has left your meaning opaque. I guess now you’ll desperately try to find a typo in my post to get your own back. I’m sure there’s probably one in there, but it’s not really the same.
            .
            On that note:
            “a mind is such a terrible to bend and pustule.”
            Pustule is a noun, not a verb. You can’t ‘pustule’ a mind, or anything else. Perhaps you need to consult that dictionary of yours more carefully. Maybe a decent printed one rather than online.

  19. Andy Ryan says:

    By the way, you quote ‘hypothesis’ as being the first example of a synonym for ‘theory’. Merriam-Webster has a whole section on ‘The Difference Between hypothesis and theory’. Here’s an important quote from that for you:
    “hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories. The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles”
    .
    Do they mean like with the Theory of Evolution? Yes they do. I’ll past the entire section for you after I’ve posted this. But yes, they’re talking about people like you there, ‘wrongly interpreting’.

    Reply
  20. Andy Ryan says:

    Merriam-Webster: The Difference Between hypothesis and theory
    A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.
    .
    In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.
    .
    A hypothesis is usually tentative; it’s an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.
    .
    A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.
    .
    In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.
    .
    Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.
    .
    The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)
    .
    This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it’s implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.
    .
    The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was “a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.” As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said, a theory “doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”
    .
    While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said “to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up.”
    [end quote]
    From here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis
    .
    Note that it SPECIFICALLY calls out people making the same mistake you do and referring to evolution as ‘just a theory’. Out of interest, the Kenneth Miller quoted at the end is a Catholic and a well-respected enthusiast on the subject of evolution.
    Have we put this to bed now. Or are you just going say that quoting facts and reputable sources at you is just ‘trolling’?

    Reply
  21. Brent Hurst says:

    Andy, dude, take a chill pill.
    .
    So a scientist observed a few facts, in an effort to understand their “relational” value, he generates a theory, a best guess hypothesis.
    .
    “IF” he can find enough substantiating evidence, or enough predictable evidence to support that theory, that theory gradually moves from a hypothesis to a working theory as with the theory of flight. Before the Wright brothers, flight was a theoretical possibility (theory/hypothesis). After they attained flight, then that theory is goes through a system of distillation as it is perfected. And the same is true of Gravity, it can be measured and formulated into equations just a the theory of flight can be measured and formulated into equations, predictable equations.
    .
    This is “not” true for Evolution,
    .
    Micro Evolution where within a species there is within the DNA great degrees of adaptability whereas a wolf can be bred into every breed of dog we see today, this is acceptable even as it can be done again, this kind of modification has been going on for centuries as “survival” works in farming or the black moths survive where the trees are covered in soot from factories.
    .
    BUT the jump between species, that friend is a major hurdle, hence the appeal to ring species and the like. Ring species, upon which I am not an expert, seems to lend itself to reclassification. A gross analogy of reclassification is like taking a Chihuahua and a great Dane and classifying them as different species, then breeding them and saying LOOK!. But of course we are not dealing with something like dogs but birds from which thousands of breeds have spread across the planet since the time of the dinosaurs. The fact that they might have trouble inter breeding again is deceptive as if to classify them as different species. Just as inbreeding causes problems by proximity, the difficulty in ring species might be attributed to special separation. Mainly just their distance from a common ancestor.
    .
    “”(Wiki) Formally, the issue is that interfertility (ability to interbreed) is not a transitive relation – if A can breed with B, and B can breed with C, it does not follow that A can breed with C – and thus does not define an equivalence relation. A ring species is a species with a counterexample to the transitivity of interbreeding.[3] However, it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end.””
    .
    Hence this does nothing for Evolution,
    .
    “”(Wiki) Richard Dawkins says that ring species “are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension”.[2]””
    .
    Even Dawkins, in trying make this apply to Evolution has to make a leap from the Spatial dimension to a Time dimension.
    .
    There are guesses, hypothesis’, they come no where close to the theory or Gravity or Flight, but they do show the desperation Evolutionists will go to in trying to establish Evolution as a fact. If it is so much an established fact then why are we talking about POSSIBILITIES such a Salamanders and Gull or Wobblers, because it is to date, no where near a factual probability.
    .
    I get it, science is lost, they see the genetic codes, the different species as they draw different amounts of the genetic code, the hierarchy of complexity as different species do so, the escalating complexity over time, and they think “yeah, what else could it be, first a cell, then a built up to mammal or Reptile, it makes sense”. And if one only uses linear thought it does, but the universe only appear linear to those who are trapped within it. Perhaps you are highly left brained, that might explain you focus on grammatical perfection, and perhaps your bias when it comes to the application of science.
    .
    But Music is a science, it has rules, Jazz might break those rules but even when it does it does so in systematic patterns. And yet to play music is still much more than a scientific understanding of the notes, something else is at work in a musician, the rules to music are more of an outline, the notes and chords are considered the “content” but the “context” escapes people who try to play but do not possess the talent and it is not something that can be taught. My point being there is more going on that the science is perceiving.
    .
    LIFE, as it appears in this Creation, is something more than the combination of some elements, it is more Quantum than Newtonian, if that makes any sense to the left brain, take a moment and consider this.
    .
    Time and Space only can into existence with the Universe, the whatever impetus cause this universe to explode and expand is not under the limitations of time and space. Within the Universe we experience a linear progression as our individual consciousness is supported by and trapped by the passage of time. But from the POV of the SINGULARITY, from the Infinite’s POV, all of this is happening at once. There is no future or past, no beginning and end. It is in this Quantum static field that I am looking in upon this Creation, not like the Christians around here who are still bound in their limited POVs and are just quoting their belief models. So from my POV the Universe looks quite different, it is more like this whole Universe, from beginning to end, was one complete “Thought”, and then with the big bang that thought was stretched apart into these aspects we call time and space.
    .
    In that “Thought” the chicken was in the egg even as the egg was in the chicken, but when time expanded, so they were spread apart, one seeming to come from the other and vise versa. Andy, I am perfectly capable of thinking in scientific linear thought, after all I live in the same world that you do, work, pay bills, etc… But I am also capable of perceiving this Universe from an entirely different perspective, one which you have not mastered. (No offense intended) The difficulties in Evolution (LIFE) is because Life is a mystery that is meant to force us to look up rather than back, perhaps to see this whole experience from a different perspective.
    .
    Like see Light, one moment acting like a wave, the next like a particle, but what exactly is it as it appears to be both, or possibly neither. And that “something more” drove science into the quantum world to explain matter, likewise Life drives us towards our own existence, our own consciousness as we are more than the material of the universe can explain.
    .
    Perhaps this will be all mumbo jumbo to you, but I have tried…………….

    Reply
      • Brent Hurst says:

        Andy,
        .
        Since you are not a moderator to the debate, that call would be a presumptive as your argument.
        .
        Thanks for the exercise though,

        Reply
  22. Brent Hurst says:

    Anatomy of a Troll,
    .
    First one should notice the preparation of the lure, usually whining about, “nobody will answer my questions” or just plain bloviating their position, throw in a few quotes and whatnot. (Which I really made Andy work for this time)
    .
    Then if you take the time to orchestrate a response, so it is, in their minds, you have taken the bait.
    .
    At this point there is no real need for them to truly enter a debate, they have hooked and reeled, now all that’s left is for them to jump around on the shore, “you lost, you lost, na na na na na na”, as their immature lust for some sort of power, either in making you mad or even just responding in this case, is all they truly desired.
    .
    Often this can be seen in the fact that the rules they wish to impose upon others, like demanding a response, does not seem to apply to them as they can write off almost any response with a one liner.
    .
    Their true satisfaction is no different than a child’s desire for attention, good or bad probably does not matter. Perhaps they feel impotent in their lives, menial job, demanding boss or wife, and so this is all they have to feel important as they seek to transfer their insecurities to others.
    .
    Depressing, depressing indeed, perhaps I’ll share one of my poems with any readers out there.
    .
    Wake Up, Wake Up

    Why should I believe you, when you say that you believe too
    You seems unwilling to discern the truth from a simple lie
    You tend to blame your situation, or perhaps the Devil’s instigation
    And ignore the beam that is now stemming from your eye

    Surely we are but sheep, so secure and sound asleep
    In shallow valleys do we spend our frail and fragile lives
    Grazing in the meadows, surrounded by our fellows
    Never looking up to see light that fills the sky

    Maybe we are better off like this, where the darkness can provide us bliss
    Than to see the light and then ourselves be seen as well
    Lest in dust and ashes we would sit, to know ourselves as souls unfit
    And to see the emptiness that lies beneath existence’s veil

    So we pretend our understanding, and with our ignorance expanding
    We walk a path that lies between both our pleasure and our pain
    And while our flesh we are defending, we are never truly comprehending
    That a lie, only finds life, within our brains

    Yet to know ourselves as nothing, our reality merely bluffing
    And the truth revealed where only God Himself remains
    We’d rather God stay forever hidden, as in our hearts He remains unbidden
    Lest we find ourselves so consumed by Holy flame

    Maybe we are better off like this, where the darkness can provide us bliss
    Than to see the light and then ourselves be seen as well
    Lest in dust and ashes we would sit, to know ourselves as souls unfit
    And to see the darkness that within us surely dwells

    Reply
    • Susan says:

      Your poem reminds me of a candle.

      A candle can be lit or remain unlit.

      It can burn down to nothingness or still be burning out itself i.e. dying to self daily.

      But I would eschew the descriptive word “nothingness” because it is not a word found in the Bible and you don’t want to be transferring non-Biblical concepts to people overriding God’s explanations.

      If you mean humble then use that word. That is an accepted biblical term to describe a life path with God.

      Reply
      • Brent Hurst says:

        Susan,
        .
        “””””But I would eschew the descriptive word “nothingness” because it is not a word found in the Bible””””””
        .
        Gen. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”
        .
        The word is there, here it is translated “empty”, other bibles translate it “void”, all of which mean “nothing”, often the term “ex nihilo” is used in theology meaning “out of nothing” and it is out of nothing that God created the universe, including the soul of man.
        .
        Until we receive the living Spirit of God in our second birth, our present existence is one of ex nihilo, which means “Nothingness is the foundation of our Being”. And so when the Spirit of God looks at us, even through the eyes of His Christ, we are still dead.
        .
        All of Creation, from angels to ants, is only a temporal reality existing with a beginning and an end, and these two are inseparable, from the dust we arose and unto the dust we shall return, this is the truth of all that is Created.
        .
        It is only as we receive God’s eternal Being in the form of the Spirit which Christ poured out that we receive eternal life. The church presently teaches the immortality of the soul of all men, thus “life” to them is only a matter of avoiding punishment, thus they have no need of God’s Spirit but simply a sacrificial lamb as in the O.T. so it is they claim to be under the blood
        .
        In the N.T. though, we are to drink the blood as well as eat the body, because in His blood is the Life giving Spirit that comes from the Father Himself. In my created Adamic nature I am no different than any other man, we all fall short as we do not possess the divine nature but are merely created.
        .
        But if God has granted me a portion of His Spirit, then have His righteousness, His Being, become the source of my life,
        .
        Therefore even though I am on the Path to God, I cannot think myself more righteous than other men who might not have seemed to chosen God for God has not chosen them. And the fact that God has shown me Grace I will not lord over those who are to return to the nothingness of the void. Left to my own nature I would have died the second death, the death of the soul like any other man.
        .
        But if I have cried out to God, it is His Spirit within me that motivates me to do so, and so I will not claim His righteous and Spirit within me, as if it were to be part of my own fallen nature.

        Reply
  23. Susan says:

    Darwinism reminds me of a pseudoscience. I am so glad I didn’t have to learn this crappy pseudo scientific idea to any great degree.

    I regard it as social de-engineering.

    A lot of people naturally believe in God and along comes this crap idea to change human role models and upset the best values and for what?

    Crappy pseudo science that a lot of people say cannot be concludively proved to be true.

    The Age of Enlightenment helped spawn the Sexual Revolution because atheist philosophers like Voltaire and Rousseau tried to say people came from nature so they did not have to observe Christian sexual mores.

    But not observing Christian social mores undermines the nuclear family.

    The undermining of the nuclear has led to fatherlessness and a lack of genuine male role models for boys. For some reason little boys who need good male role models the most have trouble finding them today.

    Jesus Christ does provide a role model for boys but society is getting further and further socially engineered by crap science away from it’s best role models and some of the worst role models like Kinsey who was a zoologist not a sexologist decided to take his crazy ideas present them as “research” and serve them up in the mainstream media as good science when if you research his methods they were all crap.

    Now we have this crapoy pseudoscience all throughout the West contributing to the devolution and the devaluation of human beings to serve the selfish interest of a few intellectuals who did not even reason or do science that well.

    They were just good at disseminating their crap ideas to destabilize this world even further than it already was.

    Watch out for the people with the crap ideas. Some of these people are manipulators who just want to ignore God to serve their own selfish ends and they don’t care if they tear down this world so long as they can prop up their own rotten views.

    How did Kinsey know anything about infant orgasm?

    That should be unknowable.

    He consulted a bunch of pedophilic perverts to get that info then passed it off like he did normal scientific research.

    Too bad a good part of this world is willing to devalue it’s own common sense and empirical observation ability in favor of a group of crap scientists crap ideas but it does.

    It does.

    Reply
  24. Susan Tan says:

    Evolution is the social devolution mind virus.

    It programs people to identify in their thought lives with lower creatures so they can suppress the truth not identify with God and come into a higher thoughtlife that leads to better motives and actions.

    Why would anyone replace God with an animal in His thoughtlife?

    Maybe because he gave up on himself and obtaining the higher life with God so now to deny they did this they create a science idol and go teach people to identify with lower animals. That way they do not have to obey God and master any of His social graces or acknowledge God really is higher than they are.

    Devolving everyone socially lets them off the hook. Oh I am not so bad. It is all just animal nature and urges.

    That thinking allows people to devolve into doing nothing but satisfy their creature comforts.

    They don’t have to do anything but take care of themselves then secure in the smug thought that they are no better than animals when God might be engineering us to be much better.

    That is materialism. Wants to know everything about what we already have some knowledge about but does not want to aspire to know more than that. It prefers it’s silly humanistic speculations to genuinely knowing God.

    So ignore God evolutionist. Stay a lower animal.

    I know there is something better than the current human condition because God told me so in the pages of His work “The Bible.”

    God told everyone else, too. Don’t descend into the lower animal mind. Repent and come and dwell with Me right now. But lots of people are too busy living with that devil that dwells in human nature and got so used to living with the devil that they refuse to do what the greatest Person in the universe says to do.

    Darwin is the ultimate example of this disobedient form of thinking. He was so thoroughly undermined by his lower nature that he invented his own ideology supporting it and passed off his personal failure as “rationality”.

    But what is so great about “rationality”. It is only a claim to sanity.

    Spirituality is higher than rationality. It is God given rationality.

    Human rationality versus God’s rationality.

    Your choice UNLESS someone socially engineered you to think in a regressive instead of a progressive manner.

    These are my life research findings. I arrived at a good deal of it using simple common sense and the Bible devoid of all the crap science though an occasional reference to history, sociology and psychology and I know God is the Great Psychiatrist and uses faith to cure people of sin.

    The devil is the great devolutionist who keeps you identifying in your lower mind with him.

    Who stays in his lower mind when he can have a more godly spiritual mind?

    The devolved do.

    God Bless everyone reading.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *