• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
But such a being wouldn't have to be a god. He/she/it/they/other may simply be a superscientist, not a god. This is where the missing definition of a real god, one that would allow us to determine whether any candidate were a real god or not, becomes crucial, and arguably fatal, to the pro-God argument.

I am always amused when people think God and science can be separated. Who invented science? Who is the one who demonstrated what an incredible scientists he really is? Everything in creation is a product of science and principles that humans are only really beginning to comprehend.

In the branch of science known as biomimetics, intelligent men and women have examined the incredible things in nature and have sought to copy them. Velcro was based on a gecko's feet....jet propulsion on the way squid and octopi propel themselves through water. The wings of birds were the basis of aircraft design.....and if they can duplicate the tensile strength of a spider's web, they could bring down a jumbo jet in mid flight.

Now, if it takes intelligent humans to mimic the constructions and designs evident in nature, what makes you think that the originals had no intelligent designer? Can all those things just be fortunate accidents with no intelligence directing them?

You'd have to admit that no evidence suggests anyone else examined reality with sufficient care to devise the Standard Model and quantum mechanics.

Humans have only discovered what already was. They taught themselves by trial and error to identify the systems that are already in place....so who put them there? Mr Nobody?

Not 'adaptation' ─ exaptation. That's when a body part evolved for purpose A further evolves because it fulfills purpose B. A usual example is >the bones of the ear<.

Actually that is one of my favorite examples....whale evolution......(from Berkeley.ed Whale Evolution)

"Whales that evolved after Ambulocetus (Kutchicetus, etc.) show even higher levels of saltwater oxygen isotopes, indicating that they lived in nearshore marine habitats and were able to drink saltwater as today's whales can. These animals evolved nostrils positioned further and further back along the snout. This trend has continued into living whales, which have a "blowhole" (nostrils) located on top of the head above the eyes."

nostril_migration.gif


You read the script then look at the diagram...what do you see?
You see the skulls of creatures millions of years apart and a suggestion that there is a progressive process of evolution going on.......based on what? Similarity of the shape of a skull?...and nostrils supposedly heading up to the top of the skull where we find those of dolphins today.
The first creature is a land dweller and the second one supposedly 11 million years later, had taken to the water.

It says previous to this...with these images...
paki_ambulo.png


"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skullsparticularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wallstrongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

That anyone can see any relationship of whales to those land dwelling animals is beyond my imagination, but not beyond science's apparently. And they are not averse to fudging a few facts to get their lame duck dinosaur across the line.




Whale evolution fraud - creation.com

Have you ever even considered that evolution might be one gigantic fairytale?

As I said, morphology as a means of classification into taxons was replaced by genetics.

Who made those classifications and on what basis? Its not hard to play by the rules if you wrote them.
I cannot see any "morphology" that is not suggested. Suggestions are not facts. Evolution is not taught as a suggestion, it is taught as absolute truth....ask any student. They never see the guesses in the text and yet they are always there.

And what do you make of the sheer consistency of the results of research on the basis of the modern theory of evolution?

What do I make of it? I see a whole lot of people jumping on a popular bandwagon, making a Creator 'go away' so that they can basically do whatever they want now because there is no one higher than themselves to answer to. It caters to a heart's desire and also uses the repelling effect of not wanting to appear 'unintelligent'.
The sheer consistency of the results is not surprising since all are looking for things to fit neatly inside one box....the one that doesn't require an Intelligent Designer.

And if you're not familiar with it (and you don't seem to be, but correct me if I'm wrong) then you need to be before you criticize it. Criticism on the basis of religious belief unsupported by examinable evidence doesn't count in science, for sound reasons which you already know.

And "evidence" examined by those who have a clear agenda to support a pet theory, will always find ways to make sure that the evidence supports evolution....their interpretation of that evidence will guarantee it.
Who is going to argue?

What evidence? You can't even say what the ID is, let alone why it should bother to fiddle with bits of heritable biology, let alone for what purpose it does so. It's all baseless waffle.

Its only 'baseless waffle' to those who have no spiritual connection to the Creator or his creation. They will fawn all over "Mother Nature" but deny the existence of her 'husband'...."Father God". Together these two are the perfect couple. They passed "life" onto other beings and gave them a perfect home, which man is trying to destroy, despite all his clever scientific knowledge.....

Absolutely right. If you're not using scientific method, that's to say in outline, arguing honestly and transparently and without bias from examinable evidence, then you're not doing science.

Thank you...my sentiments exactly.... "arguing honestly and transparently and without bias from examinable evidence" is exactly what we need to do. The problem is that bias creeps in and distorts what should be honest and transparent. Interpretation is everything and I believe scientists rely more on their own interpretation than they do on what nature is actually telling them.

Delete 'prove', which tends to get confused with mathematical proofs, and substitute 'demonstrate'. Science proceeds by satisfactory demonstration. Religion does not and until it can offer a satisfactory definition of a god, it cannot, if only because it doesn't know what it's talking about.

How can you delete "prove" when human existence is at stake. If you can't prove something then it is not a fact. You have a belief...just like we do. Our belief leads somewhere...where does your unbelief lead you?

Science can't prove anything with regard to macro-evolution. It must rely then on supposition and assumptions as we saw in my quote from Berkeley ed.
They interpret the evidence to fit their theory but can't prove that it is true.....so what does their theory stand on? Nothing concrete. It is an elaborate castle built on toothpicks IMO. No building can stand without solid foundations....it will ultimately collapse.

If you don't know what he is, how do you know he's a he, and how do you know he's a god, and how do you know he's the only god?

He is not any gender in a physical sense, but refers to himself that way so that we humans will understand his position as head of his 'household'. He portrays himself as a Father. The Bible has very little to say about who and what dwells in the spirit realm, but suffice it to say, there is enough to allow us to see spirit beings as mighty powerful creatures, which is what the word "god" means essentially.
The monotheistic God of the Bible is head over all such creatures "the God of gods" so to speak, because he is their Creator too. That makes him THE God who is over everything. He does not need to prove himself to unbelievers, but certainly demonstrates his existence to those who humbly search for him and appreciate his creation on more than an intellectual level.

And if you have no evidence to demonstrate the correctness of your claims, why should any reasonable person agree with you?

I am glad that you omitted to address the quote from Berkeley in post #141, because your silence speaks louder than your words. I can show you many such quotes that prove that there are no real foundations to the evolutionary theory. Its all just smoke and mirrors as far as I can see. It isn't as proven as they would have us believe, but when egos, accolades and grants are involved, you can't really expect integrity.
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Usually the term has meant a particular region of the brain that is self labeled higher functioning.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Does evolution totally remove God, and spirit from reality.
No, as there's a great many of people, including theologians and ministers in various faiths, who are what we sometimes refer to as accepting "theistic evolution" [God-guided evolution].
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
You're right. The Bible is nothing more than a bunch of myths that got put together into a couple of story books. But that's beside the point. The point is, if the stories are true, as you believe, then that doesn't speak very highly for your God. See my posts quoted above for reference.




Your posts indicate that you believe God came up with a plan. That didn't work out, because A&E disobeyed Him. So, He had to come up with a plan B.

Perhaps I misunderstood your your previous posts. Now you are saying you don't think God was surprised. That's my belief also. As I stated previously:
The problem here is that it wasn't a Plan B at all. An omniscient god doesn't need a Plan B. KILLING almost EVERYTHING was part of Plan A all along. Your omniscient god knew, for all of eternity, exactly what He was going to do - KILL almost EVERYTHING and then blame Adam & Eve.​
I'm glad to see you are agreeing with me.

My numbering in following quote...
  1. Highly critical of what?
  2. As an atheist I don't believe in demons any more than I believe in gods. So I'm certainly not seeing demons anywhere.
  3. First you stated the God came up with a plan B. That indicates that He didn't know plan A would fail. Now you state that He knew all along that A&E would disobey him. So whatever you labelled as plan B is really just a continuation of plan A.
If you don't believe the Bible, why are we talking about it? I have no interest in Atheism, so I generally don't engage in conversations about it. Could it be you are a closet Christian and really want to know about God and the Bible? I think that's it!
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
rrobs said:

On a second thought, forget it. You have no idea what truth is. You are just floundering around in a sea of speculation and popular opinion. Here today and gone tomorrow.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of sarcastically telling me to be nice, why don't you try to address the question: Why is your TRUTH true and other people's TRUTH wrong?
I'm not being sarcastic. I meant exactly what I said.

I'm not answering your question because you, like many others, are being disingenuous in that you have no real desire to know the answers.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Aha, one of the great theology questions! Lots on this here (though feel free to skip the Catho stuff as I expect you will find it unappealing): CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will
You are right about my feelings for RC doctrine. There is no need for it anyway. All the answers are in the Bible.

2Pet 1:3,

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Please don't construe my answer as saying I hate Catholics. I just think they've been taught too many things that are non-scriptural. Nobody can go beyond what they are taught. The priests only say what they've been taught in seminary. It's an institutional problem, not a people problem. I have as much care and love for the Catholic as I do for anybody who is seeking to know God.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I'm about to use Genesis to show that God is not against evolution. I'm just going to tell you what it says. You can take it as truth, lies, mythical or anything else you want. I'm simply going to point out what it says. If you don't like Genesis, disregard the rest of this post. That would really be the smart thing to do. But if you are open to learning, read on.

Gen 1:21,

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
The word "kind" is the Greek word "genos" from which we get our word genus. According to the Bible, (I know it's considered at odds with science, just telling you what the book says about itself, belief is optional) evolution can in fact occur within a genus. Dogs can evolve into other dogs. Cats evolve into other cats, etc. What the Bible says can't happen is for a dog to evolve into a cat.

Genesis also talks about seed (sperm) and that may be worth some research in connection with evolution. I'll let you do that for yourself if you want.
I do not see anything in Genesis that tells us explicitly how the various "kinds" or species were created by God, simply that they were created.

God gave the command " Let the earth bring forth (or produce) every kind of living creature......" I do not see why this is at odds with the scientific idea of abiogenesis of biochemistry from inorganic starting materials, or for subsequent evolution of the various species from earlier ancestors. It seems to me the bible is in fact silent on the mechanisms the Creator used. All it says is that these things took place over the course of "days" - which I think all sensible people now recognise should not be read as literal revolutions of the earth on its axis (not least as it make no literal sense for the bible to talk of three "days" passing before the sun was even created, which was on day 4 of the account!).

I therefore do not see any logic for why evolution - or abiogenesis from inorganic chemistry - is picked on for attack by fundamentalist Christians. A reasonable Christian interpretation of the bible is perfectly consistent with both, it seems to me.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
You are right about my feelings for RC doctrine. There is no need for it anyway. All the answers are in the Bible.

2Pet 1:3,

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Please don't construe my answer as saying I hate Catholics. I just think they've been taught too many things that are non-scriptural. Nobody can go beyond what they are taught. The priests only say what they've been taught in seminary. It's an institutional problem, not a people problem. I have as much care and love for the Catholic as I do for anybody who is seeking to know God.
Never mind that, I posted the link because of the historical background it gives to the great theological question that you posed. The Catholic view is only part of the article and is clearly demarcated from the rest of it, which is just a summary of scholarship on the subject and should be uncontentious to any Christian denomination.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Some still are, like Dawkins and Coyne, only too happy to play the ridicule card and overwhelm people by referring to the sheer volume of "scientific evidence" to fend off any opposition.



This does not take into account that the Creator is not testable by any means of man's contrivance. The fact that his existence is not testable could also mean that humans are not yet advanced enough to comprehend a being with power capable of creating the universe. That would be tantamount to a slug trying to comprehend quantum physics. Does it ever occur to humans that they may not be the sharpest tools in the shed?



One would be calling adaptation "evolution" without qualification. Science has proven in a lab that adaptation is indeed a mechanism 'installed in the software' of all living things. Ability to adapt to new surroundings and food sources is a survival mechanism...and an awesome one. But taking what can be proven in a lab and insinuating that they have good evidence that adaptation can be carried over into the creation of new organisms is not exactly truthful. They have no evidence for that unless they manufacture it....and manufacture it they have in vast volumes of "evidence". The thing they neglect to mention is the suggestive nature of their claims and the inference and assumptions that take place in those explanations. Calling it all "evolution" implies that it can all be proven, when that is simply not true. They can prove adaptation but that is where the truth ends and fantasy begins.



I would like to see the actual evidence for "morphology". As far as I have ever researched, this "morphology is based on nothing but suggestion as to what "might have" or "could have" happened all those millions of years ago. Anything based on a "might have" or a "could have" is not a fact....it is an unsubstantiated assumption, put forward as a suggestion and then embellished with a heap of biased interpretation of evidence. We see fossils lined up in a 'chain' of supposed evolutionary changes and yet no one can even prove that they were ever in a line, or that there is any relationship, let alone a morphing.



The sheer volume is just that.....sheer volume of claims....not real evidence. All that volume is not provable and therefore there are no "facts" in science. How is it taught as truth when it is only suggestion supported by biased interpretation of evidence?



No they are not. The arguments against ID are as weak as dishwater because of the way science demands evidence to be presented. If you can't prove something by their methods, then it can't be considered "scientific". And yet science cannot even substantiate their own claims by the same criteria. They can prove nothing, which puts them on equal ground with those who believe in ID. They have a belief system just like we do, dependent on faith in what science asserts.



OK, lets look at "Exaptations"....

An "exaptation" is just one example of a characteristic that evolved, but that isn't considered an adaptation. Evolutionary biologists Stephen Gould and Elizabeth Vrba proposed vocabulary to let biologists talk about features that are and are not adaptations:

  • Adaptation — a feature produced by natural selection for its current function (such as echolocation in bats, right).
  • Exaptation — a feature that performs a function but that was not produced by natural selection for its current use. Perhaps the feature was produced by natural selection for a function other than the one it currently performs and was then co-opted for its current function. For example, feathers might have originally arisen in the context of selection for insulation, and only later were they co-opted for flight. In this case, the general form of feathers is an adaptation for insulation and an exaptation for flight.
Now in the explanation above from Exaptations are those hidden little words...."perhaps" and "might have". Do you see what is built on "perhaps" and "might have"? "In this case" meaning that if that actually happened, (and there is no proof that it did,) then we might suggest a whole bunch of things based on what might have happened even if it didn't. Most people don't see what they don't want to.

What did the Dover trial accomplish? It simply stated that ID was not "science" (by science's own definition) and should not be taught in a science class. I have never argued with that, but at the same time, it was tried under the definition of man's law and by the "scientific method", invented by scientists, neither of which has anything to do with God or creation. God does not need man's law to establish himself as Creator and I am sure he laughs when scientists claim that he can't exist by using their own limited means to establish his non-existence. :p



I have been a Bible believer for most of my life, being raised in a "Christian" home and being sent to "Sunday School" and doing my confirmation and feeling as empty as a bucket walking out of church every week. When my parents told me that after my confirmation I could choose to do as I pleased, I never set foot inside that church again. But I never lost my faith in God...only in the hypocritical church system. Searching in other denominations brought me no closer to finding the God I saw so clearly in creation....so I gave up and took an excursion into evolution to see if I had been wrong all that time. I found it so unsatisfying that I couldn't believe what was being shoved down my throat in a stronger fashion than religion was.

I was in limbo searching for a while, not knowing where to turn next......and then JW's knocked on my door. I didn't see them as any different to all the rest until I started asking all the hard questions. No one could answer them...but these people did, not from their own belief system, but straight from the Bible. I became a Bible student right then and there, as opposed to being a church-goer...a mere pew warmer. I haven't stopped learning since and I have a passion for the God of the Bible that has not waned in over 45 years. I don't need science to tell me that God doesn't exist.....I know he does, and he has proved himself to me over the years in more ways than I can count. God is as much an experience as he is a personage. So explaining God to someone who hasn't 'experienced' him is like explaining colors to someone born blind. You can know color exists because people tell you it does, but unless you experience color with your senses, it is just talk.



I do not claim to know 'what' God is....all I know is 'who' he is, and what he has accomplished from what he has revealed to all in his communications with humankind.

A Spirit Being is not in the realms of our experience to describe, or to portray in words.....we are just not equipped with any means to quantify such a Being. But, according to the Bible, when he "shows up" it will be one of those events that will leave us in no doubt about his existence.....mankind will be judged and the judge will chose the ones who qualify for citizenship in his kingdom. All I can hope for is his nod of approval.....
Great post, Deeje!
This does not take into account that the Creator is not testable by any means of man's contrivance. The fact that his existence is not testable could also mean that humans are not yet advanced enough to comprehend a being with power capable of creating the universe.

I guess 'not testable' means 'doesn't exist.' Lol funny!
Francis Bacon, René Descartes and others who helped formulate the modern scientific method, would be appalled.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Here we go!

“Scientific”, give us a break! You mean “philosophical”. Or, how about, just idea?
I have a thread on the basics of science. Perhaps you should spend some time there. Regardless of the scientific topic, evolution, global warming, plate tectonics, you name it, understanding the basics of science will improve both your ability to debate and to understand debates. Right now it is clear that you do not understand either the scientific method or what is and what is not evidence. Though evolution may be discussed there we do not have to discuss that subject.

Are you up to it?
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I don't have the unbridled ego to pretend I know TRUTH as many religious people believe they do
Given you freely admit you don't know the truth, how do you know the things I've said are not true?

In any case, I offer the following:

John 17:17,

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.​

Unbridled ego is refusing to believe that truth as given in the scriptures. It takes humility to set one's own ideas aside and believe the things God says in his word.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Given you freely admit you don't know the truth, how do you know the things I've said are not true?

In any case, I offer the following:

John 17:17,

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.​

Unbridled ego is refusing to believe that truth as given in the scriptures. It takes humility to set one's own ideas aside and believe the things God says in his word.
I have to take issue with this. Every man is entitled to reason for himself, surely? I'd have said it takes not humility but stupidity to set aside one's own ideas without seeing or feeling any reasons for doing so.

Surely you must see it will be useless to quote the bible at Ecco, when he does not believe in it? You need to persuade rather than lecture, don't you?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
And where in the Bible does it say when a fetus is viable, or when it becomes human? Orthodox Judaism is based on the Bible, but only considers that we become human at birth.

If the Bible does not--I believe it does--should science determine this or halachic law and practice, do you think?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
So now you are OK with aborting a fetus at 19 weeks. Good. Now you can petition the Supreme Court to change their ruling.

That doesn't invalidate my comment.

People who do not interpret Genesis literally, easily believe in Evolution.
People who do not interpret Genesis literally, easily believe in Evolution.

Your comment is not invalidated. It is true. People who don't read the Bible as the Word of God believe a lot of crazy stuff.

I've yet to meet an atheist who believes in the Noahic Flood or Virgin Birth, but they also believe a lot of nonsense IMHO.
 
Top