Biologist Acknowledges: ‘Rising Number of Publications’ Calling for ‘Major Revision’ of ‘Standard Theory of Evolution’

In a recent scientific presentation and subsequent journal article, a well-known evolutionary biologist noted that a “rising number of publications” believe that the standard theory of evolution might need to be revised or even replaced because it has shortcomings and has failed to account for recent trends in evolutionary biology.

Gerd B. Müller is a biologist and professor at the University of Vienna in Austria who is considered an expert in the field of evolutionary biology. In a journal article published by Royal Society Publishing, while by no means dismissing his evolutionary beliefs, Müller posited that the standard theory of evolution needs to be rethought and adjusted to accommodate for modern scientific discoveries as there are “a growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution.”

“Slight modifications and adjustments to the received theory are recognized even in the most traditional quarters,” Müller wrote. “But in the past decade, without much notice by general audiences, a more wide-ranging debate has arisen from different areas of biology as well as from history and philosophy of science, about whether and in which ways evolutionary theory is affected, challenged or changed by the advances in biology and other fields.”

Furthermore, Müller explained, a “rising number of publications” are calling for “a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution.” He said this “cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.”

Müller’s journal article was based on a presentation he gave at a meeting of the Royal Society in London last year, during which a number of scientists discussed new trends in evolutionary biology.

Although Müller believes that “evolution is the fundamental conceptual framework of biology all scientific explanations of living phenomena must be consistent with,” he acknowledged that “a growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years” from many different fields, including evolutionary developmental biology, epigenetics, ecology, behavioral biology and microbiology.

“None of these contentions are unscientific,” he said, adding that “all are backed by substantial empirical evidence.”

  • Connect with Christian News

According to Müller, recent scientific discoveries are not all compatible with the classical theory of evolution.

“[The] repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them,” he wrote. “To the contrary, the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.”

He also acknowledged that “genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution.’ Hence, the micro–macro distinction only serves to obscure the important issues that emerge from the current challenges to the standard theory.”

And while Müller characterized the call for change and updating as “an exciting period in evolutionary biology,” he noted that as the “principal Darwinian research tradition is upheld, … the specifics of evolutionary theory structure are undergoing ferment, including the revision of some of its traditional elements and the incorporation of new elements.”

“Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework,” he concluded.

In response to Müller’s recently-published report, the Discovery Institute published an analysis of his statements, describing the acknowledgment for a need to revise and update evolutionary theory as “devastating” for “anyone who wants to think that … orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out.”

“[Müller’s report is] a major concession on the part of a major figure in the world of evolution theory,” it opined. “It’s a huge black eye to the ‘All Is Well’ crowd. Who will tell the media? Who will tell the Darwin enforcers? Who will tell the biology students, in high school or college, kept in the dark by rigid Darwinist pedagogy?”

Because Müller is a distinguished voice in the field of evolutionary biology, the Discovery Institute says his admissions about the weaknesses of evolution are significant.

“Evolution has only ‘strengths’ and no ‘weaknesses,’ you say? Darwinian theory is as firmly established as ‘gravity, heliocentrism, and the round shape of the earth?’ Really? How can anyone possibly maintain as much given this clear statement, not from any ID advocate or Darwin skeptic, not from a so-called ‘creationist,’ but from a central figure in evolutionary research,” it asked. “To maintain at this point that ‘All Is Well’ with evolution, you have to be in a state of serious denial.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Bob Johnson

    Don’t get your hopes up. Gerd Muller, along with Massimo Pigliucci, is proposing the Extend Evolutionary Synthesis. This will not be advancing Creationism.

  • Lexical Cannibal

    You guys are like fish, wondering when land creatures are going to give up this whole “air” thing every times it seems like the wind might change. Pointing out that our model is incomplete and needs revision doesn’t mean the entire thing’s bunk and was wrong all along; revising incomplete working models is exactly the point of science itself.

    If “Oh no, something wasn’t quite right, guess we’ll have to abandon the whole thing,” was an acceptable mode of operation, then you should have chucked out your bibles ages ago.

    • Cady555

      Yes. When Pluto was discovered, it was called a planet because there was nothing else like it.

      Scientists have since discovered hundreds of Pluto sized objects. So Pluto has been reclassified as a dwarf planet. This was massive change and it is still controversial. Scientists are still arguing over whether to call Pluto a planet.

      But nobody has rejected the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System. Nobody has said “nah nah nuh nah nah. Now scientists will believe Apollo and his chariot pull the sun across the sky.”

      Likewise, scientists keep learning more about the mechanisms of evolution. The Theory of Evolution, like all theories, gets revised to reflect improved knowledge. Scientists will debate the relevance of new information. But in no way are evolutionary biologists rejecting the Theory of Evolution or its core principles. And no, scientists are not about to toss 150 years of solid evidence and data, throw up their hands and say “Yeppers. Goddidit.”

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        “scientists are not about to toss 150 years of solid evidence and data”

        the evidence is the exact same evidence for us all …. your conclusions are in error as you eliminate God from the evidence …….. and NOPPERS ….. evolution did not “GOTTERDID” ……….

  • MCrow

    It’s worth mentioning that Müller is not dismissing evolutionary theory, but calling for a paradigm shift. This happens now and again in science as new data is discovered, new proposals are made, and new tests are conducted. He’s not in any way saying that evolutionary theory is wrong, but, from what I’ve read of his research, he’s calling for an expansion of modern thought on it.

  • Reason2012

    Fish to mankind evolution is anti-science. Here’s what is science: It’s observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on. I.e., it’s observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact there are barriers that evolution cannot cross. In spite of this, evolutionists pretend there ARE no barriers, and give reasons to believe in it. Evolutionists:

    (a) Ignore that scientific fact

    (b) Make up a belief contrary to that scientific fact

    (c) Where that belief never happens and hence can’t be called science anyway but demand it be called science and contradict what IS observable scientific fact.

    Fish to Mankind Evolutionism is nothing but a complete distortion of science and observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact.

    • Cady555

      DNA evidence – DNA Sequencing
      DNA evidence – Pseudo genes
      DNA evidence – Endigenous retroviruses
      Paleontological evidence
      Evidence from Embryology
      Evidence from Biogeography
      Evidence from Comparative anatomy
      Evidence from Vestigial traits and atavisms

      Tell me when you have developed your alternative theory that accounts for all of the evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that currently supports the Theory of Evolution.

      This single alternative theory must address all facts in each of the areas without being contradicted by any evidence. A proposal that provides one explanation for endigenous retroviruses and a conflicting explanation for vestigial traits won’t cut it. It must be a single theory that simultaneously addresses all the evidence from each scientific discipline.

      The theory also must be consistent with other branches of science such as Plate Tectonics.

      Of course, before one can do this, they must understand the evidence from each of these disciplines.

      Let us know when your hypothesis is ready for peer review.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        peer review has no standard definition and is useless as a standard ……. truth is not determined by “peer-review” …… “peer review” amounts to 2-5 people actually read it and said “okey doke” ……….. all the things you mention were created by God ….. they were not “evolved” in a vacuum absent other forces and by themselves they mean nothing ….. and are evidence of Gods magnificent and intricate CREATION ….. and the truth is ….. YOU cannot explain them in any event in any adequate form as your knowledge is at best imperfect and when it eliminates God from the evidence ….. then it is no longer science …….. it is gibberish ………..

        • Cady555

          Where is your alternative hypothesis that addresses every item of evidence supporting evolution?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i do not need one … all i have to show is that YOUR hypothesis is incorrect …….. and guess what … that is PEER REVIEW ….. consider it REVIEWED …….

          • RWH

            Interesting assessment inasmuch as you have no scientific credentials to even review a light switch.. Arrogance is no substitution for real scientific knowledge.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and you have NO IDEA …. 1. IF i do or not …. and …. 2. if the persons who reviewed it DID or NOT or IF THEY EVER DID ….. so you are in the same boat …… and you have no real scientific knowledge on those points ….. you accept by BLIND FAITH ……..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the fact of the matter is ….. YOU made the same type of judgement as i ….. except you agree with the “peer reviewed” conclusion and i did not ………. and from the exact same evidence ……….

          • Cady555

            The Theory of Evolution has been shown to be correct. Repeatedly. By scientists around the globe in multiple scientific disciplines. I accept their scientific conclusions just as I accepted the scientific conclusion that predicted the eclipse.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “The Theory of Evolution has been shown to be correct.”

            nope … it has not … if it did ….. THEN WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS VERY CONVERSATION …………… and the FACT that you just called it a THEORY says that is a lie …… your worldview is your filter of the evidence …. you have eliminated God from the evidence ….. you are in error ………….

          • Cady555

            We are having this conversation because some people choose to ignore evidence.

            I can say over and over that there is no evidence that automobiles exist. I can live on a mountain with my eyes closed and declare that gas stations and car washes and car dealerships none of them prove the existence of cars. I can say that cars themselves are not evidence. But I would look dang silly.

            For those preferring to be well informed, I suggest Why Evolution is True by Coyne. Numerous wikipedia articles also provide good summaries with extensive links to primary documents.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “We are having this conversation because some people choose to ignore evidence.”

            and you are one of those people … you choose to filter out God ………. so NOT science ….

          • Cady555

            I have read the Bible and Why Evolution is True.

            Have you read both?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yes i have ….. so what ………. reading the words without understanding means nothing …. if you have read the bible only …. that does not mean you understand the bible …….

          • Cady555

            Great. Since christians don’t violate the 10 Commandments, you would not fib about having read Why Evolution is True. Discuss the evidence presented by Dr. Coyne and identify two or three studies you found unconvincing and why.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it is a pointless exercise as the only thing that matters is that it rejects the evidence of God ….. so it is in error ………… rejection of truth makes the study or studies and the book irrelevant …….. and in error ……….. and more importantly … NOT truth …

          • Cady555

            If it is a pointless exercise, why did you read it?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … the discussion of it is a pointless exercise ………

      • Beamer

        That does not explain how the current beings have all stopped evolving. He pointed out that all those things are still the same as they were hundreds of years ago which shows that it is not what happened unless of course you found an off switch in those experiments?
        Sorry but you went right past his question. He asked why they are not continuing to evolve. Prevaricating about all the big words I certainly don’t understand does not answer the question. Why is nothing evolving anymore?

        • Bob Johnson

          What makes you think evolution has stopped? Just because Reason2012 say so? A simple Internet such will turn up many examples and with the current changes to habitats, we can find endemic speciation occurring

        • Cady555

          Evolution has not stopped. Living things continue to evolve.

          Evolution is a process that can take hundreds of thousands of years. So no, humans do not see a creation of a new species of mammals or birds etc. in an 80 year lifespan. But we can see snapshots of the process today.

          The European Blackcap is an example of a population that has just begun to form two breeding populations. The two populations can still interbreed and produce fertile offspring but after only 50 years have distinctly different beak and wing shapes.

          Horses and donkeys are more distantly related, having split about 300,000 years ago. They produce live offspring but due to genetic differences the offspring are infertile.

          Housecats and lynx cannot interbreed and produce live offspring.

          Snakehead fish and lungfish have the ability to breath air and can survive outside of water for several days. With environmental pressure these fish could evolve over thousands of years into fully land based creatures.

          • Beamer

            I don’t have to understand it. I don’t care what it says. I know that God exists for me, so like I’ve said, it doesn’t matter what “proof” you have – as far as I am concerned if God had not created it in the first place you would not have the proof in the second place. I don’t need to ‘get my head around’ the scientific mumbo jumbo because I know nothing about what you are talking about; you are way above the general public, and because you don’t bother with layman’s terms why would you think anyone that doesn’t know would know after reading your post. I hated science when I was in school and that was more than 40 years ago.
            But even besides that. Why can’t you understand that i have a good reason for my belief even if you can’t understand or hold it or observe it. God doesn’t want you to have the experience of what I have had, but it has been up to you to believe or not from day one. If you choose to not believe why can’t you just leave us to OUR BELIEF. Why is it so important to try to convince us of what you believe when you won’t accept what we believe as possible.
            All that proof could not have happened without God creating it. Your absolute refusal to even consider that I have told the truth is a problem with me because I DO NOT LIE.
            I didn’t even lie when i wasn’t a Christian. But you have to realize that some of us have a belief because of what we ourselves have experienced in our lives. If you don’t want to believe it, fine, but don’t tell me I am wrong when you can’t know.
            Ask and believe – if you truly believe it will happen, God will answer your prayer, but belief is the one thing you won’t have – so you will never know the Truth.
            That’s doesn’t mean either of us is right or wrong. It means we disagree and we both have proof that satisfies ourselves. That’s all that we need to live our lives. Our own beliefs.

          • Cady555

            Nobody is required to understand evolution or any other topic. But if one choses not to learn about a topic, they have no basis to reject the knowledge of experts.

            I know nothing about car maintenance. But I would look ridiculous if I were to wax eloquent on spark plugs and pistons.

            I am not a scientist. I learned about evolution because I find it interesting. Evolution is not anti christian – many christians accept evolution.

            I don’t have a problem with someone who choses not to learn about evolution. But I think it’s wrong to spread untrue information while making no effort to learn the truth.

          • Beamer

            But I am not spreading untrue information. I have experienced things that only God can do, so I hope you are not suggesting I am speaking lies when I say my reasons why I am not interested in it. It cannot be shaken or forgotten, and I can’t lie and say that nothing happened. So whether you can believe or not, I know what I have experienced and there is no one that can change that. If it was a lie, I would not have posted about it.

          • Beamer

            As I said, I am not spreading untrue information, and I prefer that others don’t insinuate that I am since more than the two of us post here.
            I don’t expect you to understand or agree with what I say. It doesn’t change the fact that I have had the experiences I have had.
            Believe it, or don’t believe it, but don’t call me a liar because I am not one. I stand by what I believe in. And so do you. If you notice I also told you that regardless, I believe that if God had not created the things you say you can observe and repeat – in the first place, you would not have been able to do it in the second place.

          • Cady555

            You are the one who said “I don’t care what it says.”

            I did not call you a liar. Lying requires intent and I believe you are sincere. I do say some of your statements about evolution are inaccurate. For example, evolution has not stopped.

            My list up above is from Wikipedia’s Evidence for Common Descent article, which is quite good and easy to read.

            The term “endigenous retroviruses” is the least common term on the above. I included it because I personally find it the most interesting.

            Harmless sections of virus DNA can become inserted into living cells. Every so often, the cell is an egg or a sperm, in which case the harmless segment of virus DNA gets passed onto offspring and becomes a permanent part of that species DNA. These random insertions can be used to trace lineage

      • Reason2012

        Here’s fact, not hypothesis: It’s observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on.

        They can only give reasons to believe otherwise and call that “evidence”. Why is it you dislike observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact?

        • Cady555

          Evolution of a species takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

          Human civilization has existed on earth for 10,000 years or so.

          People unfamiliar with 3rd grade math cannot figure out why we have never witnessed the entire process of a species evolving.

          Those people then want us to ignore DNA evidence, paleontological evidence and evidence from numerous other branches of science because they cannot be personal eyewitness to a process that takes 1,000,000 million years or longer.

          How does that make sense?

          That’s like me saying a baby does not grow into a child, then a teen, then an adult, then a senior citizen over an 80 year life because the only evidence I will consider is a photograph of one specific family reunnion taken at 2:18 in the afternoon of August 1 1982. In that photo, babies do not become teens and teens do not become adults. Since it does not happen in a snapshot, it does not happen.

          Absurd, right?

          All we can witness as humans is a snapshot of a process that began about 3,600,000,000 years ago and will likely continue for billions of years into the future. But this snapshot is far from the only piece of evidence.

          And you still have not provided an alternative explanation that explains all of the data.

          • Reason2012

            Evolution of a species takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

            I.e., it does not happen and they can only give reasons to believe in it, the entire point.

            Those people then want us to ignore DNA evidence, paleontological evidence and evidence from numerous other branches of science

            There’s NO evidence for populations of fish ‘evolving’ over generations eventually into animals we’d clearly no longer consider fish and so for many other animals, only circular reasoning.

            Making up beliefs ABOUT fossils or DNA that never happens and then claim fossils or DNA are “evidence” of it is anti-science circular reasoning, not science.

            Evolutionist “That is really a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            “How do you know it is?”
            Evolutionist “Because fish to mankind evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know fish to mankind evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because that’s a transitional fossil – and here are reasons I believe it is”
            (repeat)

            Evolutionist “DNA similarity shows this and that are actually cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”
            “How do you know it does?”
            Evolutionist “Because evolutionism is true”
            “How do you know evolutionism is true when it never happens?”
            Evolutionist “Because DNA similarity shows this and that are cousins – and here are reasons I believe it shows that!”

            It would be similar to the analogy of someone else making up a brand new belief like “populations of trees morphed over generations eventually into human beings” and claiming fossilized tree branches and DNA similarity between tree branches and humans are “evidence” of it, and it would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

            That’s like me saying a baby does not grow into a child, then a teen, then an adult, then a senior citizen over an 80 year life because the only evidence I will consider is a photograph of one specific family reunnion taken at 2:18 in the afternoon of August 1 1982.

            False analogy. The human race has observed all parts of human growth, so it’s now observable, repeatable, verifiable reality. The correct analogy would be claiming a human being eventually grows into a banana plant, claiming people cannot do simple math to reach that conclusion when we can ‘see’ how they change over time, how there’s over 50% dna similarity between banana plants and humans and that’s “proof” of it. It would be just as much of an anti-science farce.

            All we can witness as humans is a snapshot of a process that began about 3,600,000,000 years ago

            False. A process they can only BELIEVE in that they also can only BELIEVE “began” 3,600,000,000 years ago.

            And you still have not provided an alternative explanation that explains all of the data.

            I’ve provided the actual observable, repeatable, verifiable FACT that there are barriers to evolution. Evolutionists throw out science and demand there ARE no barriers.

            Even using evolutionists’ belief that one life form just happened to come about: please prove it wasn’t TWO life forms and that hence many life forms are not related to each other because there are two different ancestors that are in no way related. Bingo.

          • Cady555

            Evolution has been going on for 3,600,000,000. Speciation takes about 1 million yrs. We cannot observe a process that takes 1,000,000 years give or take in a lifetime that spans 80 years or so.

            But, like a multigeneration family photo, we have a snapshot of species at various points in the process right now. There species all over the globe just beginning to diverge, others part way through the process where two species can produce live but infertile offspring and others having split into two species that cannot produce live offspring.

            The evidence is readily available to those with the integrity and curiosity to learn. The evidence bears no relationship to the inaccurate strawman presented above.

            Anyone who values knowledge should find a reputable website and compare what Reason wrote to what the science actually says and make up their own mind. Good starting points include:
            Wikipedia Evidence for Common Descent and Intro to Evolution
            And
            Talk Origins dot com

    • james blue

      Unfortunately the lifespan of humans is only around 8 decades, so how do you suggest they “observe” a process that take millions of years?

      • Tangent002

        The same way investigators re-construct the events of a murder to which there was no witness.

        • james blue

          Indeed, but he is dismissing that as not “observable”.

          • Tangent002

            Then clearly, all criminals convicted without an eyewitness should be immediately released.

          • james blue

            Are you suggesting that to me? Hard to tell on a written comment

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            perhaps they should …..

            Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 9th ed., book 4, chapter 27, p. 358 (1783, reprinted 1978), says, “For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

          • Nick Halflinger

            And eyewitnesses have been proven to be unreliable, so we should just save money and close down all the criminal courts.

      • Reason2012

        So you admit they can only give reasons to believe it, which is the point. Science starts with things actually happening, not making up beliefs about things that do not.

  • ButILikeCaves

    The only people saying this is “devastating for orthodox evolutionary theory” is Discovery Institute and their repeaters. Of course evolutionary theory is under revision: all scientific endeavor is always under revision. That is the beauty of it: as evidence comes to light, is better understood, revise the explanation to fit reality.
    If anyone thinks the theory of evolution has been static since 1859, they have no idea what science is. As stated in the article, he noted that as the “principal Darwinian research tradition is upheld” it is the specifics that need revision, updating… That’s science, folks.
    Now, on the flip side: does Creationism or it’s Fluffed Up Modern Version of Intelligent Design change to match the physical evidence as it comes to light, or is better understood?

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      “Of course evolutionary theory is under revision: all scientific endeavor is always under revision.”

      and therefore it is not truth ….. truth does not change ……….

      • ButILikeCaves

        If your “truth” is some archaic script that must be accepted without question or supporting evidence, then it is likely not true: it is dogma.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          ALL the evidence supports God …… and is truth …….. scientism changes week to week and is by definition NOT truth ………

          • ButILikeCaves

            Citation needed. Show this evidence.
            And you need an up to date dictionary.
            truth: noun
            that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            right … and SCIENTISM is not in accord with reality as it eliminates God …. and it KEEPS CHANGING …… you need to APPLY your dictionary ……….

          • ButILikeCaves

            sci·en·tism: noun
            thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
            Dude, really, do the world, or at least your “cause” a favor. Read a dictionary every now and then.

            And again: Citation needed. Show this evidence.
            (This is usually where I say “I’ll wait” but why bother: you and I both know ya’ got nuthin’!!)

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you need to APPLY the dictionary and not just read it ….. and you do not ………… i do not need anything to show a lie to be a lie ….. a lie is nothing …. i declare it to be a lie …. there is no evidence you accept ……….

          • ButILikeCaves

            >i declare it to be a lie
            Appeal to (self) authority? Really?
            What is this?!? AMATEUR HOUR?
            Staple is having a sale: you need to buy a chair and siddown.

          • ZappaSaid88

            Don’t bother with Amos. He is deep inside the bubble (and fond of ellipses apparently).

          • ButILikeCaves

            Just like a Telefunken U-47

          • ZappaSaid88

            With leather?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … God has declared it so ……… it is not from myself …. you OTOH are doing exactly that based on your worldview ….. your error ……….. you are not doing science as you eliminate the evidence without reason ……. so NOT science ………..

          • brucewang

            Amos doesn’t think the logical fallacies such as appeal to authority or No True Scotsmen apply to Christians. He’s flat-out told me so.

          • ButILikeCaves

            Yeah, I’ve skimmed through his “output” in other threads.
            I could eat Alphabits and poop a better argument.

          • brucewang

            Who needs to be right as long as you are loud and say the same things over and over?

          • Tangent002

            It’s not about being ‘right’. It’s about maintaining an illusion that there is actually a debate over evolution. This is why they repeat the same debunked, flea-bitten arguments over and over.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            That’s because Christianity only has an open definition with the ignorant and godless. Those who are informed know better.

          • brucewang

            How convenient. A closed shop. Doesn’t leave much room for proselytizing then, does it, so maybe you could give that a rest.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            No, you just don’t like it because it doesn’t benefit your BS argument.

          • Garbage Adams

            It’s not a non-sequitur. If you are closing off the definition of “Christian” to a few elite snobs, that must mean you are closing off membership to everyone else.

          • brucewang

            There’s NO BS in my argument and you know it. Come on, out with it. I DEFY you to tell me what I said that wasn’t 100% fact.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            As I said, Christianity doesn’t have an open definition. It comes from one place: The Bible.

            You are welcome to yell, scream, stomp your feet, roll on the floor and hold your breath until you turn blue, but that one simple fact will never change.

          • brucewang

            And it just happens to match the definition given in the dictionary: a person who follows the teachings of Christ.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Point?

          • brucewang

            The point is we use the proper tool for the proper job. The Bible’s
            purpose isn’t to look up word definitions and the dictionary’s purpose IS that. And anyway no one uses an “open definition” of what a Christian is. No one is arguing that it’s a person who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            None of this is relevant. You argued that the No True Scotsman Fallacy applies to Christianity. I simply showed how and why you are completely full of crap.

            You are now trying desperately to get some kind of upper hand when there’s no upper hand to get.

            This conversation is over.

          • brucewang

            No, it’s over when I deem it to be over, whether you block me or not. Your insufferable arrogance isn’t going to wash with me.

            If it’s No True Scotsman you’re suddenly talking about, you should have made that clear.

            The No True Scotsman fallacy occurs when somebody gets all high and mighty and deems someone not to be a “true” adherent to something when they do something the snobbier members of the same group don’t like. You and Amos do it all the time.

          • horacemorris

            You are a hate-filled racist, a Christian supremacist, a bigot, a homophobe, and a pig. Your name is Matthew T. Mason and your Twitter profile is here:
            twitter(dot)com/slidellman4life
            You have known ties to the KKK.

          • brucewang

            Just cutting to the chase here, are you going to block me and run away crying now, or post one more nyah-nyah-nyah message first?

          • Garbage Adams

            The dictionary definition of Christianity suits most people just fine.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the evidence is that you eliminate God from the evidence … and so you are in error ……..

          • ButILikeCaves

            >the evidence is that you eliminate God from the evidence
            Ahh, circular reasoning, rookie mistake.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. your error ……….. you are not doing science as you eliminate the evidence without reason ……. so NOT science ….. YOUR rookie mistake ………

          • ButILikeCaves

            I have three degrees and a professional license that say otherwise.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so you have four pieces of paper ….. so what …………. you eliminate the evidence … without reason ….. that is not science …………

          • Kevin Scott

            What evidence is he eliminating?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the evidence of God …. and that is error ………

          • Garbage Adams

            No one HAS evidence of God. How many times do you need to be told this?

          • Bob Johnson

            And if one did have evidence for God, then it would not be “by faith alone.” Indeed, faith and belief would be no part of Christian knowledge.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            until you finally get it right ….. there is … and no man has any excuse ……….

          • Garbage Adams

            I’m not adopting blind faith, Amos. Neither is anyone else. We want your empirical data or nothing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are blind to His faith as you suppress its knowledge in unrighteousness ………. His CREATION is a direct reflection of Him …. He is infinitely and eminently logical, reasoning and scientific ….. and the VERY FACT that we have logic and reason and science …. is EVIDENCE that He exists ….. and that you can perform any REAL science and get CONSISTENT results is a testament that He exists ……. again … the evidence is abundant …. and every man is without excuse …..

          • Garbage Adams

            The creation of the earth is explainable in several ways unrelated to a God. Please provide something factual and not based on your blind faith.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “The creation of the earth is explainable in several ways unrelated to a God.”

            no .. it is not …. unless you violate SCIENCE ……… and its laws of thermodynamics …….

          • Garbage Adams

            The Big Bang Theory is one. I have not violated the laws of thermodynamics, and I haven’t invoked God. See?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            TBBT is a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics …. so yes you did …..

          • Garbage Adams

            I am going to give you a chance to retract that statement. It’s going to turn you into a laughingstock if you don’t.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are already laughing at you ….. billions of billions of years required for TBBT to continue is unsustainable as a means of theory of the universe …. among other such claims of TBBT ………. everything did not come from nothing ….. and the inanimate has no ability to become animate ….. it a cruel joke ….. being played on you ……

            Mark Twain — ‘It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.’

          • Garbage Adams

            All right, I can shut down your argument with the blink of an eye, and so can you for that matter by looking it up on practically ANY physics website, but I’ll give you one more chance to do that.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            lies built on lies equals …. hmmmmm …. wait a minute …. doing the math …. lets see …. carry the seven …. ummmm ….. oh wait …. i got it …… LIES ………… scripture is the only source that gives an accurate account of the creation of all things ……… and the “physics websites” IGNORE it …….

          • Garbage Adams

            Scripture is not a measure of the accuracy of physics.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yes … it actually is ….. truth is the measure of science …. truth is independent of science …. truth stands alone …….. without assistance ……….

          • Garbage Adams

            Yes it does stand alone. But faith does not equal truth. And you need to stop pretending they are the same thing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            depends on where that faith and that truth originate …. man made faith like yours in science …. not so much ……

          • Garbage Adams

            I have no faith in science, because science isn’t a matter of faith. It’s a matter of accepting facts. Something you have yet to learn to do.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your acceptance of what is being proffered as science is and you have no personal way to verify it …. and we have ALREADY covered this ………….

          • Garbage Adams

            We covered it with no indication at all that you walked away understanding a single bit of it. If it’s settled, tested, peer-reviewed, thoroughly researched science, it’s as verified as it can get.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “settled, tested, peer-reviewed, thoroughly researched science, it’s as verified as it can get.”

            kind of goes against all the “science is an on going process and it is settled …. until we say it is not or new information becomes available” ………. so just more lies from you ……….

          • Garbage Adams

            No, the two statements are in agreement.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … not …. if it is settled …. and verified …. but changeable …. then it is NOT settled and NOT verified …..

          • Garbage Adams

            It is settled and verified and repeated experimentation (example: stepping off a rooftop demonstrates gravity) will prove it. But we are capable of gaining new knowledge all the time which doesn’t affect the final outcome.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            until its not … so not settled and not verified ………..

          • Garbage Adams

            Do you not feel even the slightest bit ridiculous fighting tooth and nail against the very methodology of science?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have said what you have said and your worldview is self contradictory ….. so you should look to yourself for that answer ……….

          • Garbage Adams

            It’s not contradictory. It likes up perfectly with what we learn from science.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are done also …………..

          • Garbage Adams

            Are you? That’s nice. I’m not.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored yet again ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “What statement?”

            YOUR statement was ….. “We have no evidence of God, we only have faith.” … so i asked …. “is that a scientific or theological statement ” … as it could be either or ….. and you said “BOTH” ….. so we are dealing with the science for now ………….

            and you were asked WHERE is your evidence of that ….. do you have trouble following the conversation ………

            “we have no proof of God, all we have is faith”

            NOPE … and against scripture and the evidence …….

          • ButILikeCaves

            Clicked the wrong reply button, Numnutz.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so again …. ad hominem ……………

          • ButILikeCaves

            Well, logic, reason, evidence don’t work, and frankly upon reviewing you copious output on other discussion threads, it is safe to say you are a complete and total idiot.
            You know little of what you speak.
            I had Alphabits for breakfast and will later poop a better argument.
            English As A Second Language Classes are taught at your local library.
            Did you parents have any children that lived?
            Hey, Cut & Paste Jockey, you once had an original thought but it died of loneliness.
            And I am just on deck…

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so again … just epithet … and no real evidence or thought ….

          • ButILikeCaves

            Well, my commentary does represent way more research, real evidence and thought that ANYTHING of yours I have read.
            Plus the added bonus of being entertaining. Yours on the other hand is quite repetitive, 1-dimensional, of no substance, and frankly boring.
            Pobrecito…

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i find it interesting that a person so impressed with themselves because of the pieces of paper they hold can only come up with ad hominem ….

          • ButILikeCaves

            Those pieces of paper represent decades of study and work in the topic of discussion. As for “ad hominem” at this point it is public service, since obviously your parents, kids, and friends won’t tell you.
            1) You arguments suck
            2) You use circular reasoning to back up your points
            3) You never supply evidence to bolster your point
            4) Your abomination of the English Language is sad
            5) If you not an idiot, you are at minimum self-deluded.
            6) At least your contact patch with reality is sufficient for daily survival.

            Inherited lack of intelligence I can forgive, you had no choice there: willful ignorance has no space in the modern world.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ………..

          • Garbage Adams

            But you didn’t ignore him, Amos. You clicked “reply” and typed the word “ignored”. So you’ve shown everyone on this forum that you cared enough to reply.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ….

          • Garbage Adams

            You haven’t ignored anything though. If you did, the conversations would end. You’re like a moth to flame.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ………….

          • Garbage Adams

            No. You didn’t. Again.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored again ………

          • Garbage Adams

            A dictionary, Amos, I’m telling you. It will change your life forever.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored once again ………..

          • Garbage Adams

            You haven’t managed to ignore a single thing yet. If you had, no one would even know because you would have ACTUALLY ignored it rather than typed in the word “ignored” thereby NOT ignoring it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored yet again ……….

          • ButILikeCaves

            The Prosecution rests, defendant has made my case for me!
            As the willfully ignorant will do…
            Watch out for that rake, Einstein!!

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …… ad hominem ……. epithet …….. An argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position ……. that was all you had and it was IGNORED ………

          • ButILikeCaves

            You obviously read it, so not ignored.
            Do you get any words right?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………

          • ButILikeCaves

            Not ignored. It festers, don’t it?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ……

          • ButILikeCaves

            Down to me, the change has come,

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored again ……

          • james blue

            Think you meant that for me.

            We have no scientific proof that God exists, we cannot prove his existence scientifically. If you can offer scientific proof of God’s existence please offer it ..

            We have no theocratic proof that God exists, we cannot prove his existence theocratically, we only have faith. You can say that is against scripture, but not “the evidence” If you have evidence please offer it.

            As I stated there is no proof of God, just faith.

          • brucewang

            I think there is a NOPE waiting just around the corner for you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the proof is abundant and every man is without excuse ………..

          • james blue

            Okay please offer some of this abundant proof.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            His CREATION is a direct reflection of Him …. He is infinitely and eminently logical, reasoning and scientific ….. and the VERY FACT that we have logic and reason and science …. is EVIDENCE that He exists ….. and that you can perform any REAL science and get CONSISTENT results is a testament that He exists ……. again … the evidence is abundant …. and every man is without excuse …..

          • james blue

            All that proves is that stuff exists, not how it came to be.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it proves that you are unable to acknowledge the truth ………. and you still are without excuse ……….

          • james blue

            sigh

          • Beamer

            Evolution or not, there is no reason why one has to “believe” the other
            if they are not satisfied with what it is about. So why do we have to
            keep banging our heads together to insist one way is right and one way
            is wrong?
            I have faith in my God and it won’t be changed by the insistence that there is proof that they can create a similar environment to prove what they want to prove. My insistence that God created the world won’t change your view, so why do you keep insisting that the faithful change theirs?
            Why is this world so insistent that everyone MUST AGREE with them. I’m sorry if I don’t agree with everyone that demands it but I just won’t say I agree unless I truly do.

            We believe that our God is capable of doing all that you view as scientific, so even if you proved anything, it is only because of the way God did it that you are able to work anything out. That is how we believe, even knowing that you don’t.
            Although I do appreciate how much fun it is to trouble Amos, and I certainly enjoy those “discussions” most often, but please, remember that we are all people and are all different in the majority of ways: experience being the one thing that each of us receive in many different ways. That is what has given us faith. It’s not just blind faith in God. it’s the experiences that led up to our faith, and it’s the things we’ve experienced that are our testimony to Jesus’ love.

          • ButILikeCaves

            >So why do we have to keep banging our heads
            >together to insist one way is right
            Because one side has centuries of research, billions of man-hours, millions of pages of documentation, and mountains (literally, mountains) of physical evidence to back it up.
            The other has only 1,400 words of Bronze Age oral tradition whipped up itinerant sheep herders who did not know where the sun went at night.
            When you try to make world changing decisions based in the mindset of the latter, problems arise.

          • Nick Halflinger

            They where goat herders; they only keep sheep for entertainment.

          • Beamer

            I’m sorry, but it is still our right to believe whatsoever we want to believe. Just as it is yours to believe your own view. That is the point I was making.
            All over the world there are believers in God and there are people who do not believe in God. (This is strictly about the Bible God) There always have been and there always will be.
            There is no reason why the 2 sides can’t under normal circumstances, get along without trying to insist we agree.
            As I said, regardless of what you insist is proof, we believe that it is only proof of what God had done originally. You are the one who chooses not to believe what we believe when we view it from our side.
            Regardless of our Faith in our God, or how we came to have our Faith in our God, you believe that the scientific proof is enough and we are the ones that choose not to believe what you believe when you view it from your side.
            You see, it is all about which view you believe. It’s not necessarily that one is right and one is wrong, since we both insist that what we believe is the right way, it is that we disagree about the topic.
            The proof I need for God is not anything that is tangible proof for you to believe. But it is proof enough for me. I wish I could help you see the proof I have seen, but it is not something that can necessarily be shared with more than words.
            So in my view, your science is proving what my God created whether it is a ‘fit’ to the bible or not, it is His creation.
            Your scientific proof is not going to change the mind of anyone who has had experience with God’s power themselves. You just are not one who has experienced it, and you want to have an explanation that does not include God and what you find is still proof that what God created is incredible and there is no other way that everything fits so well together; or has the perfect organs for their bodies; as another poster pointed out, nothing has evolved after a certain point and all remains the same and has for centuries. How do you explain that if it was not the original design?
            But, I am a Christian that also believes that each person has the free will to choose what to believe. So you are welcome to believe your view and carry on with it. It’s senseless to argue about it though. I just thought you should understand this from a Christian that tries to explain it, rather than just insist on you understanding my view.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Because one side has centuries of research, billions of man-hours, millions of pages of documentation, and mountains (literally, mountains) of physical evidence to back it up.”
            “The other has only 1,400 words of Bronze Age oral tradition whipped up itinerant sheep herders”

            and yet the “sheep herders” are smarter than you and your 4 pieces of paper … because they figured it out …. what was it …. 1400 years ago …. (actually it was over 7000 years ago) ….. and you are just now sort of catching up …. but you still do not get it ………..

          • ButILikeCaves

            What’s to get from 1,400 words of Bronze Age oral tradition whipped up itinerant sheep herders?
            Nice mythology you have there. Actually, not so nice the way many adherents have abused its usage.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ad hominem ……..

          • Garbage Adams

            Well-deserved.

          • ButILikeCaves

            ad ho·mi·nem – adverb & adjective
            An argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
            Here’s an example of very applicable ad hominen:
            Did you mother drop you on your head? Because you truly suck at this.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Nice mythology you have there. Actually, not so nice the way many adherents have abused its usage.” “If your “truth” is some archaic script” “An argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position”

            your ad hominem is against the person of Christ who is the Truth …. and if your “truth” changes from week to week … it is not truth …. it is a lie ………… and all you have is reaction …..

          • ButILikeCaves

            Jesus ain’t having this argument, you and I are.
            It might be easier to asses “What didn’t you flunk?”

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again ..ad hominem ……. and four pieces of paper proves nothing …….

          • ButILikeCaves

            Save enough boxtops for your Junior Birdman Badge yet?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored … ad hominem ……..

          • ButILikeCaves

            Under my thumb…

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored again ……………………

          • Garbage Adams

            Four university degrees proves a LOT.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            proves a lot of debt maybe ….

          • Garbage Adams

            Those degrees don’t just grow on trees, you need to learn them. Using scientific knowledge.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and lots of debt ….. knowledge does not make you smarter than everyone else …….. probably less so ……….

          • Garbage Adams

            In the specific field of study, yes, it makes you smarter, and better equipped to work within the field of study than someone who’s never learned it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yeah … nope … not so much …..

          • Garbage Adams

            So you are more of an expert than someone with a science degree?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            God is …… God made the science …….. but knowledge of science does not make you smart …. i know many people with degrees …… many are dumber than a bag of doorknobs ……

          • Garbage Adams

            Well, then, prove the existence of God first and we can go from there. We are stalemated until that time.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and you deny any evidence and we have gone through this twice …. you reject the truth …. you reject the evidence …. as you suppress the truth ….. and filter out what you do not want to know ………

          • Garbage Adams

            You have given no evidence, despite the fact that many people here are asking you to provide it. You keep turning back to scripture as your sole proof and in terms of authenticity that has more holes in it than swiss cheese. We don’t know who wrote scripture and ancient texts are never updated. Further, they provide no science. Tell me what I’m filtering out except a lot of crap that is rooted only in fundamentalist opinion.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again … we have gone through this ….. you reject the truth and the evidence …. it is not my evidence to give you …. it is all in front of you everyday …. it is not my job to convince you of the truth ………. you filter out the evidence in your own unrighteousness ………. you reject truth ………..

          • Garbage Adams

            Yes, we HAVE gone through this, especially the part where you steadfastly refused to provide an ounce of the truth and evidence you claim to have. And it’s not just me. Others here have asked for it and you continue to tap dance.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have all the evidence … you deny the evidence ……. and you are a LIAR ……….

          • Garbage Adams

            You are far worse than a liar. You are willfully deluded.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………..

          • Bob Johnson

            “So why do we have to keep banging our heads together to insist one way is right and one way is wrong?”

            Good question, however, that is intent of this article – to insist that evolution is flawed, calling for a “Major Revision”. And yet this is a decade old debate within the field. This is how all the scientific disciplines work. To paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, “ Nothing happening here. Move along.”

            Then this article quotes from the creationist, anti-evolution organization Discovery Institute, “evolutionary theory as “devastating” for “anyone who wants to think that … orthodox evolutionary theory has got it all figured out.”

            If these scientists had it “all figured out” people and organizations would not be spending time and money doing basic research. Yes, there is much that still needs to be learned. That is not way invalidates the current body of knowledge

          • james blue

            We have no evidence of God, we only have faith.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again …. is that a scientific or theological statement …………

          • james blue

            Both.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            great … then by your statement that it is science ….. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE ……. ….. describe your experiment ……. where are your data runs and how did you perform this experiment to determine your results ….. what were the controls you had in place …… what data did you throw out and on what basis ….. where is your PEER REVIEWED STUDY ….. and who read that study and approved its publication and where can it be found …………… because you are claiming science …. this is the current scientific methodology science recognizes ….. show me what you have ………..

          • james blue

            All the scientific stuff you requested is freely available for you perusal.

            However what does that have to do with what I said. We do not have evidence of God, we have no proof of God, all we have is faith.

          • Beamer

            I’m not sure I agree with you; we have faith true, which gives us the ability to see the blessings that God shows/gives to us. I have seen ‘proof’ plenty of times but it is proof to me, not to the general public.

          • james blue

            We have faith which leads us to believe/convinces us our blessings come from God, not proof they do or that he actually exists. Being convinced or believing doesn’t equal reality of proof. We only have faith in that.

          • Beamer

            I have had proof that he exists. No one else could do what he has done so I know it had to be God. It isn’t a whim or just Faith, it is experiences I’ve personally had. You can believe that faith is what makes God real to us, but for many of us, it’s a lot more than faith.

          • ZappaSaid88

            The evidence is that EVERY successful science experiment has proven that the natural order works without appeal to the supernatural. Evolution happens without gods, planets move without being pushed by angels, folks get sick without being infested with demons, etc

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. EVERY successful science experiment has proven that the God has order all everything that works without appeal to men ….. science, logic, and reason …. are ALL aspects of God and are reflected in His creation as His creation is a reflection of the Creator …… and to eliminate that knowledge from the science is really to eliminate science …. as there is no science without the Creator as science is a REFLECTION of the Creator ………..

          • ZappaSaid88

            Nope…you are in a bubble of delusion….detached from reality….with make believe friends…

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so no evidence …. just epithet and ad hominem ….

          • ZappaSaid88

            Nope…just lots of ellipses…lots..of…ellipses…folks who use circular arguments….aren’t worth the….time… Lying…for….Jesus….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            smoke and mirrors are not facts ….. when you can explain the motor proteins (KINESINS) and how they know how, when, and where they move proteins 5-6 times their size, that move along the micro-tubules and the SPEED at which they move through the liquid of the cell …… if they were our size, in the air they would be traveling at roughly 2000 miles per hour …… AGAIN, THROUGH A LIQUID ………. AND THEN explain how “evolution” brought that about ….. then we might be able to have an intelligent conversation about it ….. truth is you cannot even account for the micro-tubules they use as pathways …… and “EVOLUTION” and TIME is TOTALLY inadequate as an answer ……….. and so is “we dont know and that is “okay”” ……

            youtu;be/9RUHJhskW00?t=419
            youtube;com/watch?v=WFCvkkDSfIU

            replace the ; with a .

          • brucewang

            “It’s true because I saw it on a YouTube video.”

            Really.

          • ZappaSaid88

            No kidding. Out of his ellipsis laden blathering emerges a microbiology genius (with a video!).

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            BTW … they were “scientists” ….. but you can IGNORE IT ……….

          • brucewang

            “ignored”

          • Garbage Adams

            Where is YOUR evidence? All we ever see out of you is “nopes” and ellipses.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again … you are the ones ignoring the evidence of God ……… you have filtered it out by your own belief that it does not exist …. how do i show you what you filter out automatically ….

          • Garbage Adams

            Believe me, no one’s ignoring anything. We would all LOVE to know the evidence of God. What’s more, if you could provide it, you’d convert legions upon legions of atheists to Christianity in the snap of a finger. So….again….and AGAIN….and AGAIN…..WHAT is your evidence of God?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … you SPECIFICALLY act to suppress that knowledge …… in your own unrighteousness ……… and all the evidence is before you … and you continue to deny it ….

          • Garbage Adams

            Why would I, or anyone for that matter, wish to suppress anything? Haven’t you learned ANYTHING in these conversations? Don’t you realize that people respect real, honest truth? Things that have been tested and have provided consistent results? Who is REALLY the one suppressing information here, Amos? I believe that would be you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you DO because you do not want to acknowledge Him …. because if He exists then you have to answer to him ….. and you DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT ……..

          • Garbage Adams

            I would love to acknowledge him if I thought he existed. Nothing would
            give me greater pleasure. But you provide precisely nothing except a
            lot of blind faith.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            no you would not …. that would require you to change … and you have no interest in changing … or you would change with no proof …………..

          • Garbage Adams

            Well, why are you telling me what I think and what I would do, when you aren’t me?

            I know me better than you do, and I would happily believe in a God if there were proof to do so, and saying you have strong faith is not proof, it is not truth, it is not evidence. Do you understand what people are asking you to present? Maybe that’s the problem here.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Well, why are you telling me what I think and what I would do, when you aren’t me?”

            why are you here on a christian site when you are not a christian …. you are what you are …. you are not unique among all men ….

            “Do you understand what people are asking you to present?”

            they are asking for the truth …. and then they reject it when told …. they are liars ….

          • Garbage Adams

            Why do you always lean on that tired old excuse that “this is a Christian site”? When do I ever hear you mention, even ONCE, all the things that Christianity is about, like Christ’s love and forgiveness? I learned that when I was in Sunday school as a small child – the simplest and most obvious examples of what a Christian is and all I ever see you do is speak AGAINST love (for example, you’ve said that marriage has nothing to do with love).

            When you are such a poor example of a Christian yourself you shouldn’t be pointing you finger at others.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            because you cant seem to remember where you are ………… and who you are talking to … and what the topic here is …. it is CHRISTIANITY …..

            “all I ever see you do is speak AGAINST love ”

            and you do not know what love is ……… so it is easy for you to misrepresent it ….. love is a verb …. it is an action …. and love does no harm to another ….. and sorry … you have never read anything from me against love ….. only others misrepresentation of what love is ……. love is not approval of every heinous act that others want to cover with that word ……… they are turning the word love into a lie ………….

            “When you are such a poor example of a Christian yourself”

            you cannot even define what a christian is as your definition again is skewed to your own corrupt understanding ….. and you are in error ……….. am i a poor christian …. sure …. there are no perfect ones ……….

          • Garbage Adams

            Of course I know what love is. And I practice it daily by leaving people to love whom they deem worthy of loving, rather than doing as you do and tell them they’re wrong for doing it. You said that marriage had nothing to do with love, and that’s as much as I need to know how valid your knowledge of the subject is. When a homosexual loves another homosexual you view this as “heinous” which is ridiculous and shameful. That shows in one fell swoop that your hatred masquerades as both love AND Christianity.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            no you do not … you may accidentally express it from time to time …. but you do not understand it or know what it is ….. “When a homosexual loves another homosexual you view this as “heinous” which is ridiculous and shameful” … this fully demonstrates your lack of understanding of love ………. and christianity ……….

          • Garbage Adams

            I don’t need to be told by someone with zero comprehension of love what love is, thanks. I’m a married man with children and we all understand love. And I know homosexual couples who’ve been in dedicated relationships for years. That is love too. Demonstrably.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            dedicated to what ….. depravity is not a basis of love …. homosexuals do harm to themselves, their “partners” and to society in general …. so NOT love …………. and you cannot make that statement and say you know what “love” is …. so your statement is a lie ……..

          • Garbage Adams

            “Depravity” is just a word you toss around to advertise your own intolerance. They do no harm to themselves, certainly no more than any straight couple. You don’t even know what it is they “do” – how could you when every couple is different and practice different things? Admit it, you’ve got a stock hate answer here with zero basis in fact.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            depravity is a thing you want to IGNORE ……. and it is not love ……….

          • Garbage Adams

            Depravity is people hurting each other and abusing each other in acts of non-consent. Nothing involving homosexuality fits the bill. Sorry. You lose. Fail. Big time fail. Epic nope.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            homosexuality is PEOPLE HURTING EACH OTHER ……. and so is not love and is depravity ….

          • Garbage Adams

            Unfounded, ridiculous, hateful nonsense.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            stds, suicide and early death are not nonsense ….. and its not love either ………..

          • james blue

            Heterosexuals suffer all those things.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            not to the same degree nor the same consequences …….. premature death due to a homosexual life is deadly ……… for everyone concerned ………..

          • james blue

            Blah blah blah.

          • brucewang

            If you have a committed homosexual relationship and a committed heterosexual relationship side by side, there is going to be ABSOLUTELY no difference in the longevity of it. You don’t get sexually transmitted diseases just by being homosexual. If you want to argue that promiscuity leads to disease I’m not going to argue, and yeah, historically gay men tend to be more promiscuous which might up the stats a little bit. But you don’t state any of those things. You just say homosexuality leads to premature death and that is a flat-out LIE.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            being “committed” to depravity is not a virtue ……….

          • brucewang

            No one is committed to depravity, that’s your hateful spin on it. They are committed to their partners. You know, just like everyone else.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            that is all they are committed to ….. “that’s your hateful spin on it” … nope …. that is your uninformed spin on it …… and you are leading them and yourself to destruction …… and i would have them SAVED and to live LONG LIVES …… but to you that is “hate” ….. and now we see just how bassackward your worldview is … and you REJECT the SCIENCE that you claim to hold dear …… as it tells you that what is being done CAUSES EARLY DEATH ……..

          • brucewang

            I’m not uninformed though Amos. I have the bulk of science and medicine on my side, not a few right wing crackpots. Your data is stupid and has been corrupted. Nobody cares what diseases people get if they’re going to be promiscuous and use no protection, because that’s not what we’re talking about here. We are talking about committed, monogamous gay relationships which cause NO harm of any kind. Way to move the goalposts there buddy.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are done batmang ………………

          • brucewang

            Sure thing, take your ball and go home and tell everyone about your great victory which involved all faith and opinion and zero facts/reason/truth.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are done … ignored ……….

          • brucewang

            Clearly we aren’t done, because clearly you still fail to understand what “ignore” means.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………..

          • brucewang

            You failed.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …..

          • brucewang

            You utterly failed.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored

          • brucewang

            Downvoted.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored … one more time ……….

          • brucewang

            How about just ignoring it one time? You haven’t done that.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …. again …

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ………

          • brucewang

            It doesn’t work that way. I’m done when I’m done. If you don’t like it, block me.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …

          • Garbage Adams

            Unfortunately for you, neither are they exclusive to homosexuals. And yes it is love, just ask them. Or are they all lying?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            right … but premature death is from any and ALL causes … that being dead by an age prior to 65 years ….. most homosexuals are …. most heterosexuals ARE NOT …….. by a VAST margin ……

          • Garbage Adams

            Amos, homosexuals falling in love live normal long lives like everyone else. It’s common knowledge, anyone who knows a gay couple will tell you that, and the APA website confirms it too. You’re grasping at straws.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they do not fall in love ….. it is not the definition of love … they do harm to one another … so NOT love …………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “it is not the definition of love”

            Well, what is the definition of love, then?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            love does no harm to another ………

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s not a definition.

            I just walked to the store, and saw a few people, did no harm and wished no harm upon them. Does that then mean I love each and every person I saw?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yes it is … you just dont like that definition ……….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I didn’t ask what “love does”. I asked what love IS.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            love is a VERB ….. so that is what it is …………….

          • TheKingOfRhye

            it’s a verb and a noun.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I mean, it’s okay if you don’t have an answer for it, it’s kind of a tough one.

          • brucewang

            You’re lying. It’s a noun too.

            love
            ləv/
            noun
            noun: love; plural noun: loves
            1.
            an intense feeling of deep affection.

          • Nick Halflinger

            So Adam and Eve did not love each other, since the entire rest of the book points out the harm their relation caused. They simple had lots of kids because that is what heterosexual married people do.

          • Garbage Adams

            They love one another. This is why they want to get married. See how it works? I mean a CHILD could understand this.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. there is no love as they harm one another by their actions …. so NOT love ….. and they want to defile marriage in their efforts ….. they are not married as what they do does not fit the definition of a marriage …… and what they do is not sex ….. it is HARM …….. and even a CHILD knows the difference …………

          • Garbage Adams

            Your NOPEs get harder and harder to take seriously. There wouldn’t be any homosexual couples if they didn’t fall in love. This is just garden variety hate and bigotry at this point.

            They don’t harm one another. No one recognizes that from medical staff to officers of the law. You have no concept of informed consent between adults, that’s the problem here. That, plus the fact that you’re so determined not to listen to truth and reason.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are done also ………….. ……

          • Garbage Adams

            Block me then, you can’t stop me from speaking.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            A new study which analyzed tens of thousands of gay obituaries and compared them with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has shown that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public

            One such study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology
            Vol. 26, 657-61: ije;oxfordjournals;org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657

          • Garbage Adams

            lifesite news. Really?
            You could just save me the time of looking up where you’re getting this nonsense from (since you very tellingly never want to let us know).

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            right … which then links to the STUDIES and the PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS the information is from ………. you know …………. SCIENCE …………..

          • Garbage Adams

            It doesn’t. NARTH and organizations like it are outcasts in the scientific community.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are done also …………….

          • Garbage Adams

            No, we’re not.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
            by: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.

            “Married and Gay Couples Not All that Different,” proclaimed the headline of a news article portraying homosexual households as remarkably similar to married couples. “We’re the couple next door,” claimed one partnered homosexual. “We have a dog and a cat. I drive a Volvo. I’m boring.”[1] Such down-home portrayals of homosexual couples are meant to provoke the question: Since gay couples really differ only in that both partners are of the same sex, what rational basis exists for denying them full marriage rights?

            Are homosexual households, as the article suggests, simply another variant of human relationships that should be considered, along with marriage, as “part of mainstream American society”?

            On the contrary, the evidence indicates that “committed” homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:

            · relationship duration
            · monogamy vs. promiscuity
            · relationship commitment
            · number of children being raised
            · health risks
            · rates of intimate partner violence

            Finally, this paper will present evidence from gay activists themselves indicating that behind the push for gay marriage lies a political agenda to radically change the institution of marriage itself.

          • brucewang

            How hilarious that the guy who turns his nose up at science at every turn is now trying to find some to support his bigotry.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it is all SCIENCE ….. and it is amazing that because you do not like what it says you denounce it …….. some of this information is from the CDC as well as other recognized legitimate science sources ….. and now you are butt hurt ………. by your own chosen god of science ………

          • brucewang

            I don’t denounce science. I denounce your ridiculous cherry picking and fact twisting.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I denounce your ridiculous cherry picking and fact twisting.”

            i gave you DIRECT QUOTES from the CDC and other SECULAR and SCIENTIFIC sources …. and you are now doing WHAT YOU ACCUSE ME OF DOING …… you are a hypocrite ………

          • brucewang

            You want me to give you direct quotes and secular/scientific sources that contradict these? Easy. And there’s going to be a lot more on my side than yours.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are done batmang ……….

          • brucewang

            You know the rules. Block me if you want to learn how ignoring really works.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            IGNORED …………

          • brucewang

            You didn’t.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            batmang ignored ……

          • brucewang

            Such a pleasure to downvote these pointless, micro-tantrum spam messages of yours. Sigh.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ….

          • brucewang

            downvoted.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ……….

          • brucewang

            Oh no you didn’t.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            blue sleeps faster than Tuesday ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            2016 Public Health England (PHE) syphilis report
            (Men who have sex with men (MSM) represented 90% of all syphilis cases in 2015)

            Men who have sex with men (MSM) represented 90% of all syphilis cases in 2015, with a 232% increase in diagnosis over the last five years, said the report. More than half of the MSM diagnosed with syphilis in 2015 were also infected with HIV, and over half additionally tested positive for a separate STI. Rates in heterosexuals remain stable but are higher than ideal.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated the following regarding syphilis in the United States: “While surveillance data are not available by risk behavior, a separate CDC analysis suggests that approximately 64 percent of all adult P&S syphilis cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men, up from an estimated 5 percent in 1999….”[12]

            The CDC reported the following regarding the United States and homosexuality: “CDC conducted sentinel surveillance in 28 cities and found the proportion of cases resistant to fluoroquinolone antibiotics (a first-line treatment for gonorrhea) increased from 4.1 percent in 2003 to 6.8 percent in 2004. Resistance is especially worrisome in men who have sex with men, where it was eight times higher than among heterosexuals (23.8 percent vs. 2.9 percent).”[12]

          • brucewang

            People aren’t going to stop falling in love because of data like this. Settle down with a single person and remain faithful to them and you have zero risk of disease. Fact.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ROTFL ………… you cant DEAL WITH THE SCIENCE AND THE TRUTH …………. and you cannot point to even one PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE JOURNAL that says what you just said is a fact ……. and you are a LIAR ………………..

          • brucewang

            You’re not presenting science and truth. You’re presenting “alternative science” and “alternative truth”. And anyway I didn’t “deny” your data, I said nobody is going to care. People aren’t going to stop falling in love because some stupid test says they might catch a disease. How idiotic.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are done batmang …………

          • brucewang

            You cannot stop me from responding to messages on a message forum. Use the block feature. That’s why it’s there.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………

          • brucewang

            You did not.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ….

          • brucewang

            You failed to ignore. again.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ………

          • brucewang

            down voted

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …. again ……..

          • brucewang

            You shouldn’t say “again” when you never ignored it in the first place.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again … ignored ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            In June of 2004, the journal Nursing Clinics of North America reported: “One of the more pressing issues for gay men is anal carcinoma. Several recent studies have indicated the rate of anal dysplasia to be increasing in men with and without HIV. Ninety percent of men with HIV have the Human Papiloma Virus (HPV), while 65% of men without HIV have HPV. HPV type 16 is the most troublesome for developing cancer and is found in a significant portion of gay men.” (see also: Homosexuality and anal cancer).

          • brucewang

            Yeah, so why on earth are you assuming gay men all engage in anal sex, and why do you not focus on this same issue occurring in women who engage in it? And for that matter, what does a single sexual practice have to do with people in love? Nothing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i made no assumption …. i reported from SCIENTIFIC SOURCES and SECULAR SOURCES ….. and the SCIENCE GUY (you) …. CANT DEAL ……..

          • brucewang

            You reported hogwash which the scientific community has ejected from its ranks for being bigoted morons.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are done batmang ………..

          • Garbage Adams

            Timothy J. Dailey is a member of the reviled Family Research Council. Again, quote mining only serves to make you look ridiculous, especially when you don’t take information from impartial scientific sources.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so what ………….. it is not the only source ….. i have more ……… and you have nothing …….

          • Garbage Adams

            A bunch of hard-right haters? None of what you post really inspires a lot of confidence in your sources.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            we are done also ……………

          • Garbage Adams

            When I have run out of things to say, we’re done.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            2016 Public Health England (PHE) syphilis report
            (Men who have sex with men (MSM) represented 90% of all syphilis cases in 2015)

            But syphilis is in no way confined to big names, nor is it a sexually transmitted infection (STI) of the past. The 2016 Public Health England (PHE) syphilis report has shown that infection rates are on the up, with disproportionate rates in London. In 2015, the capital accounted for 56% of all cases in England, with a 22% increase in diagnoses in the year 2014-15. Since 2010 the number of cases of syphilis in Londoners has increased by 163%, with a 22% increase in the year from 2014 to 2015. The borough of Lambeth has the highest rates, closely followed by the City of London and Southwark.

            Men who have sex with men (MSM) represented 90% of all syphilis cases in 2015, with a 232% increase in diagnosis over the last five years, said the report. More than half of the MSM diagnosed with syphilis in 2015 were also infected with HIV, and over half additionally tested positive for a separate STI. Rates in heterosexuals remain stable but are higher than ideal.

            It’s 2016. Safe sex campaigns and targeted prevention efforts are in place. Sexual health care is free and accessible to both high and low risk groups. So what is going on?

            The basic science can’t be sugar coated. More condomless sex leads to higher rates of syphilis, (and gonorrhoea, chlamydia, HIV … the list goes on). Untreated syphilis means the disease continues to be passed on and leads to potentially horrifying long-term medical complications. Action is needed now to address the reasons behind these patterns, particularly in MSM, the group most affected.

          • Garbage Adams

            Why do you continue to discuss sexual matters? Would you do that if this was a straight couple we were talking about?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YOU are the one who brought it up …….. LIAR ……… we are done also …………..

          • Garbage Adams

            We’re done when I say we’re done.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

          • Garbage Adams

            That study was done in 1997. Do you have anything a little less, I don’t know, unrealistic?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so what … it is STILL SCIENCE …………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            more Garbage from Adams ……….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Below are some homosexuality statistics which reveal the nature of homosexuality:

            Dr. Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state regarding various cultures: “If homosexuality were significantly influenced by genes, it would appear in every culture, but in twenty-nine of seventy-nine cultures surveyed by Ford and Beach in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent.”

            Dr. Tahir I. Jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada states: “The increasing claims of being “born that way” parallels the rising political activism of homosexual organisations, who politicise the issue of homosexual origins . In the 1970s, approximately ten percent of homosexuals claimed to be “born homosexual” according to a large scale survey….However, in a survey in the 1980s, with the homosexual rights movement increasingly becoming active, thirty-five percent claimed to be born that way.

            In 1980 a study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry which stated that eleven former homosexual men became heterosexuals “without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy” through their participation in a Pentecostal church.

            In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, a recent study by the Canadian government states that “violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples”.[4] Also, according the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, “Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.”

            Concerning Homosexuality and promiscuity, in 2004 the Baptist Press reported the following: “A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city’s homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago’s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners…As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland — known as Chicago’s “gay center” — have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.”

            In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following:

            “ A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.
            Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men’s Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex….

            The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: “[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are.”

          • Garbage Adams

            First, you got that tommyrot from Matt Barber’s alt-right website which has been denounced for hate speech more times than I can count. Secondly, Whitehead is a member of the discredited group NARTH (National Organization for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality). Thirdly, you’re taking all your information from every wackadoo site you can find but ignoring the one place you should be looking, which is on the pages of science and medicine. You can quote mine to your heart’s content, when you cherry pick your sources it only ends up looking pathetic.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope ….. i gave you the link to the PEER REVIEWED STUDY that you seem to hold so dear to your heart …. and now you are butt hurt …………

          • Garbage Adams

            Matt Barber has been identified as the SPLC as hate. You FAIL.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yeah … splc ………. hmmmmmmmm ……..

            12 Ways The Southern Poverty Law Center Is A Scam To Profit From Hate-Mongering
            The Southern Poverty Law Center’s ‘Hate List’ has all the authority of a mean girl’s burn book. Yet it is dangerously provocative.

            SPLC Money Linked To Offshore Accounts | The Daily Caller
            31 Aug 2017 … The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has reportedly transferred millions of donated dollars to offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands, …

            King of the Hate Business: Inside the Southern Poverty Law Center
            25 Aug 2017 … In the wake of Charlottesville, liberals have been pouring money into the Southern Poverty Law Center in the misguided belief that the Center is …

            ‘Red Flag’ Report: Media’s Favorite ‘Hate Group’ Watchdog SPLC …
            31 Aug 2017 … The Southern Poverty Law Center has come under increased scrutiny in … nonprofit to put money in overseas, unregulated bank accounts.”.

          • Garbage Adams

            More right wing zealot spam from your favorite alt-right hate spam sites. Great!

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ….. go back to your hate group …….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            http://atlasshrugs2000;typepad;com/files/morris_dees_divorce_papers.pdf

            Morris Dees divorce papers …. says he is a child molester, pervert and liar …. multiple affairs while married ….. and you think he has any credibility …… /SMH …….

          • Garbage Adams

            That means precisely nothing, just as any right wing zealotry you dig up off your hate sites will mean nothing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …..

          • Garbage Adams

            God is not a part of evidence.

  • ZappaSaid88

    As usual the creationists and ID proponents jump all over this as some sort of proof that evolution was wrong all along. And as usual they provide exactly zero evidence for their side of the argument. Sad!

    • Cady555

      Yes. This is a perfectly routine advance in scientific knowledge. This is no way diminishes the Theory of Evolution.

  • Tangent002

    Müller’s paper is in no way a rejection of naturalistic evolution, merely that the current model does not take into account mechanisms other than natural selection. And no, none of those additional mechanisms include transcendent intervention.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      “naturalistic evolution”

      for which there is no evidence ………..

      • Tangent002

        There is plenty of evidence, you just don’t accept it.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          nope … there is no evidence … you accept it as blind faith ……… i do not …..

          • brucewang

            There is evidence. Unless you’d like to tell all those people working in the field of evolutionary biology that they go to work every day for no reason. Blind faith, he says!

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YUP ………….. and they deceive themselves as you do ………..

          • brucewang

            As they keep making discoveries that solidify their findings. And you continue to bury your head in the sand.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ……………..

          • brucewang

            You can’t ignore the other 5 people here telling you exactly what I’ve been telling you for weeks.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored ………….

          • Tangent002

            Yeah, he can.

          • brucewang

            He isn’t so far, although you might be better off if he was. You’re getting all the usual “nopes” and ellipses.

          • MCrow

            Ok, Amos, let me put it this way.

            If we eliminated all knowledge and writing up to this point of evolution, what do you think would happen? Because sooner or later, scientists would look at the evidence, and eventually conclude the same things. They might call it something different, and it might differ in details (in fact, this is what Müller has done), but the general conclusions would be the same.

            The same cannot be said of Christianity, nor any specific religion. If you eradicate all writings and knowledge of it, that’s it. Poof, it’s gone. This is why reconstructing beliefs for civilizations that wrote nothing down is so difficult. There would, doubtless, be religions of some kind, but they wouldn’t be the same ones as were forgotten.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Poof … God has said His word will last until the end of time …. and it has … and many have tried to wipe it out … BUT … even if you could remove every bible in one fell swoop ….. it would not alter the truth it contains one iota ….. men will invent every kind of religion to replace it … but it will still remain …. and will science remain? ……….. YUP ….. because it is part of God and is part of His nature and part of His creation and it is a direct reflection of His nature ….. but just as His word is misused by men … so is His creation as is science ….

          • MCrow

            Time is a poor measure of truth. Hinduism and Zoroastrianism are still practiced today and are far older than the Bible. Further, you can’t know Christianity will last until the end of time as we aren’t there yet. And how could the truth of the Bible remain if it ceased to exist?

            When you assert that we must assume God, you break with the scientific principal of Occom’s Razor. You add a conclusion which requires additional assumptions. If we can show completely natural causes for something, we don’t need to add “god did it.” If you want to beleive that he uses that natural process or even created it, fine, but denying what occurs in nature is what leads to faith healers not taking their kids to hospitals for treatable illnesses.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Time is the only measure … lies persist ….. because men are liars ……. men prefer the darkness to the light ………

          • MCrow

            Ok, so you say time is the only measure of truth, but that lies also withstand the test of time, so…

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … the lies change …. the truth does not … we have the truth that has not changed ever ….. and we have lies that keep changing because they are discovered to be lies ….. like global warming …. no wait … like global cooling ….. no wait …. like climate change ….. no wait ……………………………. and on it goes ……..

          • MCrow

            Again, other religions are practiced unchanged through the modern day. Zoroastrianism predates the Bible, and continues to exist in the Middle East. They are similarly persecuted for their beliefs by ISIS. Doubtless you’d say they are built on lies, but they have stood the test of time just as well as, if not better than, Judeo-Christian beliefs.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Again, other religions are practiced unchanged through the modern day.”

            has nothing to do with truth …………

          • MCrow

            You said time is the only test of truth. Is that or is that not accurate?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i am talking truth … you are talking religion ….. could be the same thing ….. but mostly not ……

          • MCrow

            Not the answer to my question. Is time the only test of truth as your previously stated?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            hence the adage “Time Tested” …………

          • MCrow

            Then Judeo-Christian beliefs are not, in fact, the only truth, as other faiths have withstood the test of time. I again point to Zoroastrianism, which predates Judaism and is still practiced in the Middle East today. In fact, they are easily the group targeted most by ISIS.

            Now, I know you will disagree, which is why I argue that time is not the best measure of truth. New facets of reality are discovered all the time, and we have to change our perception. Otherwise, we are stuck in a stagnant state

          • MCrow

            Also, you expect science to change as we discover new things. When Einstein discovered relativity, it changed the way we observed the universe. That is a good thing. Otherwise, we don’t learn anything new. What you’re proposing isn’t truth, it’s stagnation. We’d be dead as a species, with nothing new to learn or discover.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … the truth is always the truth ….. truth does not change …. OR ….. it is not truth ….. cool thing is …. God has nothing to learn ….. He is all seeing and all knowing ….. so what you describe is to be more like God ….. instead of more like men …. who are liars ….. but i guess you prefer to be lied to instead of the opposite …………

          • MCrow

            What I am describing is called exploration. Mistakes are made along the way, but mistakes need to be made to progress and learn. However, the knowledge is built on work, discovery, and exploration. Without those things, we end up complacent. I’ll remind you that religion traditionally has been a hindrance on discovery. Heliocentrism being suppressed because it disagreed with Christianity of the time is the classic example.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … religion has been the BASIS of discovery …. religious men may have been a hindrance …. and religious men are not resticted to christianity ….. scientism is that religion that has most gotten in the way ………

          • MCrow

            Religious men = religion. Hate to break it to you, but religion does not exist in a vacuum. It’s true that such people are not restricted to Christians, but saying science is what’s gotten in the way of discovery is ludicrous. Science put people on the moon. Science cured smallpox, polio, and malaria. Science allows us to fly through the air and communicate like we are now. Science has done these things, not religion.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            religion is what you want to discuss ….. i am discussing truth and God and christianity ….

            “Science put people on the moon. Science cured smallpox, polio, and malaria” – false
            “Science allows us to fly through the air” – false
            “communicate like we are now. Science has done these things” – false

            science is a methodology ….. it does nothing on its own …. and science is a direct reflection of God and His nature ……… so in the end it is still God ……….

          • brucewang

            He’s correct, Amos, and you’re wrong. Science DID put people on the moon. Science DID cure smallpox, polio and malaria. Science DOES allow us to fly. Simply auto responding “false” means nothing and serves no purpose.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … God allowed men to do that ………

          • brucewang

            Which God?

          • Nick Halflinger

            The same one that causes hurricanes and earthquakes.

          • brucewang

            Oh, him. Yeah, that’s probably the main reason I don’t believe in him. He’s hardly deserving.

          • MCrow

            Christiandom is a religion, formed of people. You’ve said yourself in past threads that the church are people.

            Science is a methodology, yes, and that methodology is what led to those discoveries. God didn’t magic the knowledge: humanity earned it through effort.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            christianity can be treated as a religion … does not make it one ….. in fact Christ saw religion as a diversion from His teaching …. “God didn’t magic the knowledge” … right … because it is part of His being and it is a direct reflection of Him in His creation ……..

          • MCrow

            Christianity is a religion, basically meets all the definitions of one, and trying to place it outside that category is intellectually dishonest.

            As to the second point, I’ll go back to Occom’s Razor. If we have to strive to earn the knowledge created by a supernatural being, it makes that supernatural being superfluous to the equation. We don’t actually need that being to do anything, it grants no special ability to interpret these signs, so let’s cut out the middle man and just say “we got this knowledge because that’s how nature works.”

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Scripture has a definition of religion and it is the only one God recognizes ……

            Jas 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

            and nothing else ……….

          • MCrow

            Then numerous non-Christians and non-devout are very religious in the eyes of god. However, and again, you are not working with the common definition of religion, which is a system of belief and worship of a superhuman controlling being, usually but not always a deity. Christianity, objectively, fits that definition

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “However, and again, you are not working with the common definition of religion”

            of course not …. this is a christian site …. and the definition that applies here is Gods definition ……..

          • MCrow

            Fine. Then let me rephrase.

            Judeo-Christian belief in a superhuman controller is not the oldest belief in a supernatural controller. Your claim that time is a measure of truth would suggest that these older beliefs in supernatural controllers which are still in practice are more truth than Judeo-Christian beliefs in a supernatural controller.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            these “older” beliefs do not have billions of followers …….. time tested …. God approved ….

          • MCrow

            You said time was the only measure of truth. Besides, according to you, only the “elect” count, which, I assume, you derive from Revelation? That’s a mighty small number

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” according to you, only the “elect” count, which, I assume, you derive from Revelation”

            no … that is found in John (all five books that He wrote of which one is Revelation), Romans Colossians 1&2 Timothy Titus (Paul), Peter (2 books), Matthew (1 book), Mark (1 book), and all of them are Christ speaking of it …… and in the OT Isaiah (42, 45, and 65)(which is also Christ speaking of it through Isaiah) ……but you are correct that the Elect are a REMNANT ….. and that is best described as similar to a remainder of a division problem ….. that little bit at the end that a whole number cannot be divided ….. (even though we learn how to do that later) …… God deals in whole persons …. He does not save a half or a portion of a person ….. He does not divide people like that ……. and i guess if we consider all who have been born and then are actually saved …. that number might be quite large …. but of the whole quite small …. yup …..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            BTW … it is not “derived” …. it is stated outright ………….

          • MCrow

            Regardless, many of those believers have no qualm with science being objectively true, and many of those followers even support the dreaded evolution

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so they support a lie …. nothing new there ……. they have no real science ….. if they do not embrace the God who is science, and logic, and reason ….. then it is still a lie ……

          • MCrow

            We derive what we know from logic and observation. You place your god in a supernatural (lit. above and removed from nature) position which has no evidence outside of your book. You can declare it truth, but have no evidence.

          • Bob Johnson

            Might makes right.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            God makes right ……… God has made certain promises …. and those promises hold to this day …. and He also promises that as time goes on many will turn from Him …. and we are seeing that now ….. and they are embracing a lie ….. but that will only last for a time …. as the truth will always defeat the lie ……..

            Men oppose the truth because it opposes them …….. and acceptance of it requires them to change …. and they do not want to change …….. it is like gravity …. it can be resisted for a period of time ….. but eventually all things fall to the earth ……….

          • Ira Pistos

            “Because sooner or later, scientists would look at the evidence, and eventually conclude the same things.”

            False, this is a faith statement.

            “The same cannot be said of Christianity, nor any specific religion. If
            you eradicate all writings and knowledge of it, that’s it. Poof, it’s
            gone.”

            False, this is a faith statement. God alone establishes our faith in Him. As ridiculous as it is to assume He’d let anyone undo what He has established, it is even more so to think that He could not re-establish in accordance to His will.

          • MCrow

            1) No, it’s not. It’s a comment on how the universe works. The universe functions in a way we can observe and then gain knowledge. Gravity works. If we were to eradicate all knowledge of gravity, we could gain it again through observation because the natural phenomena we refer to as gravity would continue to exist. Ditto on cell biology, and, yes, even evolution.

            2) No, it’s not. Countless examples of civilizations exist that we know virtually nothing about because that knowledge was lost to time. If we eliminate all knowledge of a religion, then only through the intervention of a deity could it be reconstructed. Or a time machine, I guess. The point is, the Bible exists because it was written down and, were it completely eradicated and all knowledge of it goes missing, it could not be reconstructed outside of someone already knowing it. It’s the same as any book.

          • Bob Johnson

            For their employers it is not blind faith, but instead return on investment.

      • ZappaSaid88

        “naturalistic evolution”

        for which exists the ONLY evidence.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          nope …. the evidence is the same for everyone …. what the evidence shows is filtered through a worldview …. and when your worldview eliminates God ….. all you get is error ……

          • ZappaSaid88

            Yes, the evidence is the same for everyone, including you! There’s no evidence for your god so there is no harm in eliminating it. To paraphrase LaPlace, we have no need for that hypothesis.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “There’s no evidence for your god so there is no harm in eliminating it”

            is that a scientific or a theological statement ………….

          • brucewang

            “is that a scientific or a theological statement”

            You tried that one one me, too.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and you FAILED ………..

          • brucewang

            No, you showed that you have no idea what you’re talking about and are badly in need of a dictionary.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … you failed to prove even one thing you asserted ………..

          • brucewang

            No, that’s not what happened.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………

          • brucewang

            You don’t even understand what “ignore” means. You’re having a screaming, ellipsis-laden temper tantrum against 5 or so people here with blind faith and zero evidence. That’s what’s going on.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ignored …………..

          • ZappaSaid88

            Replying to a comment with the word “ignored” means you didn’t ignore it.

          • brucewang

            You’re having exactly the same conversation with him I had. But I’m sure lots of people do.

          • Tangent002

            I’ve learned to no longer engage with Amos beyond a post or two. He has his fingers permanently implanted in his ears.

          • This style 10/6

            His preferred points are, “nope” and “error”. Who needs more argument?

          • brucewang

            Don’t forget FAIL.

          • Catalepus

            …and then Amos quite firmly puts his head between his knees and performs the miracle of shoving his head so far up his own posterior that he will never see daylight again.He has made himself blind, deaf, and dumb to any sort of reason. So very sad.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            means i read it …. you are not blocked …. what was written was ignored as having no probative value …… among other reasons ….. and i wanted you aware of that ………

          • This style 10/6

            That’s what Moses does, he is World Champion.

          • Garbage Adams

            It doesn’t eliminate God. There is simply no need to include God.

  • Garden of Love

    These discussions are always a waste of time. Neither side is going to change the other’s minds. You either believe God is responsible for everything that exists, or you don’t. The details are not important. The classic Christian creeds did not require any belief beyond “I believe in God, the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” It’s enough.

    • Cady555

      True, a few people whose faith requires a rejection of reality won’t be swayed. These are the ones who comment the same thing over and over and respond with blanket denials and ad hominem attacks (and ellipses).

      But many people reading the comments are interested in basing conclusions on data. Schools have not done a good job at communicating the evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. Those are the people who will consider the facts presented and check out the recommended links and resources.

      Many christians accept the Theory of Evolution. This does mot have to be an “us versus them” issue.

    • Cady555

      True, some people won’t be swayed.

      But I often learn something new when responding to thoughtful questions and comments. Most of us have more to learn.

      Schools have not done a good job at communicating the evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. There is an opportunity to discus the evidence scientists rely on.

      Many christians accept the Theory of Evolution. This does mot have to be an “us versus them” issue.
      The evidence for evolution is every bit as good as the evidence for Atomic Theory, the Theory of Plate Tectonics and the Theory of Gravity.

    • JohninRedding

      More and more there is solid science to suggest that evolution from one species to another has never happened. But society is so married to the idea of evolution that no one is willing to the the first to say so [could be the end of your career]. As to what is the potential outcome of the above mentioned statement, that is another story. Who knows what will take its place? The smart ones will at least consider an intelligent designer, whatever that might be.

      • Cady555

        “More and more there is solid science to suggest that evolution from one species to another has never happened.”

        Do you have a citation to support this claim? Because in actuality all the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

      • Joe Cogan

        “More and more there is solid science to suggest that evolution from one species to another has never happened.”

        Baloney. Citations, please.

    • Bezukhov

      You also have to believe that it was your version of this God that responsible for everything that exists.

  • JohninRedding

    They can start by emphasizing that it is only a theory; not proven fact. The teaching in high school and college imply it is true; all they need to do is find the evidence to prove it. The article even eludes to the idea these scientists are not giving up on evolution but admit the current evolution explanation is lacking in explaining reality. In reality they have ABSOLUTELY NO SOLID EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION, but they can’t quite declare they no longer believe. That would be the end of their career.

    • MCrow

      If we emphasize that it is just a theory, we would need to emphasize that science is mostly “just theories.” Gravity, cell biology, and light are all similarly “just theories” with the same rigorous standards applied to them as to evolution. Scientific theories require a tremendous amount of effort and evidence to gain acceptance. Evolution has plenty, and we have observed adaptation to environment.

      The article “alludes” to a shift in modern evolution, and that is actually fairly accurate if Müller proves correct as he is calling for a shift in understanding of how traits are inhereted. Currently, the modern understanding is genetics, but he is using evidence (actual, tangible studies) that show that genetics are a factor, but there might be others. So he’s not calling for evolution to be killed as a theory, just that modern understanding of it might be incomplete.

    • Cady555

      The evidence for evolution is extensive. It comes from multiple scientific disciplines.

      It would help to first learn what “theory” means when used by scientists. Theories are comprehensive explanations supported by evidence.

      For examples – That gravity exists is a fact. The Theory of Gravity is the comprehensive explanation of gravity based on evidence.

      It is a fact that the earth is covered by tectonic plates. The Theory of Plate Tectonics is the comprehensive explanation of the facts based on evidence.

    • Joe Cogan

      Hi, JohninRedding. I’m sorry to tell you that you’ve disqualified yourself from further comment with your “only a theory” remark. A theory is a data-based model that explains observed facts, makes testable predictions, and is falsifiable. It is decidedly not a guess, an hypothesis, or whatever you seem to think it is. Evolution, like gravity, is both a theory and an observed fact.

  • Joe Cogan

    This article is not helpful in dispelling the popular notion that Christians are anti-science cranks. All theories are revised as better data becomes available, and Müller would be the first to state that he’s not disputing the reality of evolution, he’s clarifying details about the process.

  • mr goody two shoes

    The only one their at creation was God so the bible never needs changing. While Evolution always needs changing because its always wrong. There are Some more new articles on Lutheran science institutes website .