Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About iCambrian

  • Rank
    The Scientist

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Christian Humanist

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,047 profile views
  1. What Im asking is, what does it mean to people who say that they believe in it, for example, if notme's parents taught her that, what exactly do they believe that it means?
  2. Did you ever actually believe it? And what does it mean? Does it mean that catholics believe that the bread literally turns to skin? Or that God is simply spiritually connected to this bread in some sort of supernatural way? Ive always heard communion referred to as a symbol, not as a literal transformation of food into skin and blood. I wasn't raised catholic though. Interesting...
  3. What? hahaha, nobody actually believes that the bread is a piece of his body when taking communion. Who told you this?
  4. Evangelical Christians

    You know I was thinking about this. Technically, I would probably fall into the evangelical camp as well. Just because its terms are somewhat broad in definition.
  5. The Theory Of Evolution

    Is my post confusing @hasanhh?
  6. There are many Christians who believe that even these "isolated peoples" can be saved as well. Surely Islam also recognizes that such people can be saved as well.
  7. The Theory Of Evolution

    Heres something anyone can try at home http://timetree.org/ You can go to this website, search whatever two taxon you would like, find out where, genetically they are predicted to have existed and diverged, then go and just google the fossil record of said taxon. You will find that genetically, life on earth presents itself in a way which matches the fossil succession. Which only really makes sense when you consider that life today has descended from a series of common ancestors. For example, you can search ursidae and felidae and you will find common ancestry predicted in the early Cenozoic. or varanidae and iguanadae and you will pickup ancestry in the late jurassic Then you can go look up the fossil succession, and you will find mammals like ursidae and felidae dominating in the Cenozoic, while reptiles like iguanadae and varanidae dominating in the Mesozoic. Which only makes sense, if these groups of animals shared common ancestry.
  8. Confused about my Beliefs.

    Despite what trump claims, he isnt exactly Christian. Not like the more practicing types. And the government is ultimately secular, so the presence of a legalized strip club does not reflect poorly on Christianity. As they are more secular entities. Regardless though, there are Christians who speak in tongues and hold big boa constrictors in spiritual dances, and that I would say is a bit embarrassing.
  9. The Theory Of Evolution

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard
  10. The Theory Of Evolution

    well you have ah, things like ring species or ring speciation observed today. And this is seen in relatively recent animals. And you get things like morphological changes of the italian wall lizard too, in relatively recent times. There is laboratory derived speciation of insects as well. So speciation, as far as im aware is something that can naturally happen within 10,000 years or less. Or perhaps less than a million.
  11. The Theory Of Evolution

    I couldnt answer that question, maybe a geneticist could. I would think the answer could vary based on the type of mutation. As many mutations wouldnt affect an organism in a way that would produce a new species. That and because there are different types of mutations that are going to affect different areas of the genome and will affect a different number of basepairs and proteins, its probably a question with varying answers. Though there are examples of speciation that have occurred, in which the number of mutations behind that divergence has been recorded. Ill see if i can dig up some examples when i get some more free time.
  12. The Theory Of Evolution

    Yea I agree. I think that, There has been an understandable backlash from young earth christians and creationists, or instantaneous creationists, which has unfortunately given atheists groups the chance to claim scientific finds as atheistic concepts and atheistic science. And in that, I think people forget the power and capabilities of God, and the possibility that God could use something like descent with modification, to build life in a flexible, adaptive and superior way.
  13. The Theory Of Evolution

    One other thought i just want to add to the whole PE gradualism thing. I think the topic is, not irrelevant, but I think that... Lets say, just for the sake of discussion, some research was found in which large morphological jumps in the fossil succession could not be explained through gradualistic evolution. This is hypothetical. 10 years pass, and a biological mechanism is found that could account for that jump. Then we would be back at square one, almost with a feeling of defeat. Alternatively, we could skip that whole situation all together and could just recognize that, fast or slow, there is a biological, natural, and logically understandable/reasonable way in which common descent occurs. And if God is behind it, it doesnt really matter if it were fast or slow. And we wouldnt get our hopes up, thinking that people like Gould see something profound that indicates intelligent intervention into what we would otherwise consider natural everyday events. We can bypass the dissapointment, if that makes sense. So, as far as im aware, the biological mechanisms are already there, but even if hypothetically they werent, i wouldnt get my hopes up for something supernatural. Just my opinion.
  14. The Theory Of Evolution

    Well, the question really becomes a game of numbers when talking about PE versus gradualism. We have to ask ourselves, at what rate can gradualism or gradualistic evolution occur, before it extends beyond gradualism. The fossil record, by its nature, automatically depicts punctuated equilibrium. We couldnt see gradualism if rock units are separated by 10s or hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions of years, if gradualism is something that is defined to occur on the scale of hundreds of years or up to a thousand. So, Gould proposed PE, but i dont think Gould has demonstrated that what is viewed in the fossil succession, is something that couldnt be accounted for by gradualism. I think he is just proposing a controversial idea, that can be rightfully proposed because we cannot see evolution on a very fine level, in the fossil succession. From the stance of a paleontologist, we cannot distinguish between what truly happened (PE or gradualism). So there is nothing unjustified about Goulds proposal, from the stance of a paleontologist. But it is, from a paleontological view, subjective, as to whether or not PE is true. So, really, what has to be done is, someone would have to look at morphological changes in fossils over a vast period of time, and would have to look at the fastest rate at which gradualism could occur, and then would have to figure out if the fastest rate of gradualism could account for the morphological changes seen in the succession. To answer the question, as far as I am aware, rates of mutation observed in gradualism today and in modern times, can account for morphological changes seen across the fossil succession, regardless of if they appear to occur suddenly or not, due to the nature of geology. If you find research otherwise, you are welcome to post it here. One other thing, on a side note. Random mutation was mentioned. There is something called "random walks" in paleontology, in which a succession of fossils might change back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, morphologically. Indicating an unclear path of evolution that is driven, in a seemingly blind way, by something that doesnt have a clear end goal or objective, like the planets environment. The planets environment can change back and forth, warm and cold, more or less oxygen, smaller or larger predators etc., and so fossils that appear to reflect that, can also change back and forth through the succession, as if they arent necessarily going toward an end goal, bur at rather changing to reflect or respond an environmental pressure. And so evolution itself is sometimes considered random for this reason, that it is...blind, and is more responsive than it is proactive. Though otherwise, I think that, being blind does not necessarily equate to being random. And just because something seems unpredictable to us, doesnt mean that it is without sense or reason. But just some thoughts...