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

[rrobs]

And yet creationists never manage to explain or use it in any meaningful or helpful way

Never, ever?

It's not "just a theory." It's a scientific theory.
"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

Correction noted.

Fish evolved into amphibians, then reptiles then birds and mammals (that is extremely simplified though)

That is indeed the scientific theory. See, I can learn .

Evidence from the sciences contradicts the Bible then. I guess you reconcile that by just ignoring all the evidence?

I might suggest you are ignoring the Biblical evidence.

Are you under the impression that evolution dictates that a cat gave birth to a dog?

No. The geniuses say that evolution occurs slowly over many years and all chance changes are small (a quick and dirty explanation). It only takes about a gazillion such small changes, all done at the right time and in the right order, to make a slightly better eye for example. How many such chance changes would have to have occurred to get from soup to a person? Somehow it is considered the height of intelligence to think that such a thing could have actually occurred. Talk about a fantasy! And people who believe in the Bible are considered gullible!

 

[rrobs]

Of course the morality of people who lived thousands of years ago was different from our current version of morality. Which makes it pretty obvious to me that morality and religion are man-made and not inspired by any deities.

Bingo! I couldn't have said it any better. Men and their ideas come and go, but the word of God is forever.

Isa 40:8,

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.​

 

[stvdv]

29 jun 2018 stvdv 014 00

The later with a slight change
It is probable that evolution is true (it is not a question of exists or not, evolution is not a thing, its a description).
As for the god question, i have no idea if it really exists or not.

Thanks for the update; i could have never guessed it from your quote [good to see how easy understanding goes wrong]

Interesting that you make the distinction between "evolution being a description, not a thing", so it's not about exists or not, but about true or not

Then with God you talk about "exists" or not. And what is exists or a thing. Which or how many dimensions we talk about?

While I have the idea that "God" is a description and not something that exists [at least not in earthly dimensions; so naturally it becomes description]

I never thought that there were people who actually believed that God is something that "exists" as a thing [what dimension we talk about then?]

Oh, now I get it. Is that the reason that atheist don't buy this whole God idea, being a thing? I can understand that. That thought never entered my mind even.

I mean I saw pictures of BeardMan, but never contemplated that to be real. Oh now I also understand that I never felt offended by atheists thinking.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Bingo! I couldn't have said it any better. Men and their ideas come and go, but the word of God is forever.

Isa 40:8,

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.​

Um no. I do not think the Bible is the word of god. It is clearly the word of human beings to me.

 

[Audie]

Never, ever?


Correction noted.

That is indeed the scientific theory. See, I can learn .

I might suggest you are ignoring the Biblical evidence.

No. The geniuses say that evolution occurs slowly over many years and all chance changes are small (a quick and dirty explanation). It only takes about a gazillion such small changes, all done at the right time and in the right order, to make a slightly better eye for example. How many such chance changes would have to have occurred to get from soup to a person? Somehow it is considered the height of intelligence to think that such a thing could have actually occurred. Talk about a fantasy! And people who believe in the Bible are considered gullible!

Some reason for "geniuses", "height of intelligence" "fantasy"
"gullible"?

And a misleading statement like "believe the bible...
gullible?"

You do know that there are people (gullible ones)
who will believe foolish things, about the bible
or anything else.

You are presenting a thoroughly false contrast between
your editorialized version of how evolution works,
and equally false and editorialized version of what
unnamed persons unknown might think of a bible reader.

Step up your game a little?

 

[rrobs]

Um no. I do not think the Bible is the word of god. It is clearly the word of human beings to me.

I pretty much knew that already.

 

[Audie]

Um no. I do not think the Bible is the word of god. It is clearly the word of human beings to me.

"God", you'd think, would have written a better book.

 

[rrobs]

Some reason for "geniuses", "height of intelligence" "fantasy"
"gullible"?

And a misleading statement like "believe the bible...
gullible?"

You do know that there are people (gullible ones)
who will believe foolish things, about the bible
or anything else.

You are presenting a thoroughly false contrast between
your editorialized version of how evolution works,
and equally false and editorialized version of what
unnamed persons unknown might think of a bible reader.

Step up your game a little?

I'll admit a lot was my opinion only and therefore of limited value. I often speak out of line. I should just stick with what the Bible says. Thanks for your constructive insight and suggestions.

 

[Audie]

Thanks for your constructive insight and suggestions.

None, we may presume, will be observed.

 

[rrobs]

None, we may presume, will be observed.

Funny you say that. Go back and read my edited post. I thought about what you said and realized you had a valid point. I should have known it all along, but is't all too easy to get carried away in these forums. It really pays to think before writing!

 

[Audie]

Funny you say that. Go back and read my edited post. I thought about what you said and realized you had a valid point. I should have known it all along, but is't all too easy to get carried away in these forums. It really pays to think before writing!

Well, that is different!

Cool.

After I finish a quick wet noodle lashing
I will see what else you have to say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darn it!

Life in cyber-space is interesting. It's the only place where no matter what someone says, there will be somebody to say everything they say is wrong. I could say 50 things and somebody would be there to say all 50 things were wrong. Real life is simply not like that. Come on guy, I must have said at least one thing in my many posts that ring true! But, alas, maybe that doesn't appear to be the case. As I type, I'm afraid each word is yet another false premise. What is one to do?

Ignoring the explanation is no honest. Your post looks like an attempt of lying by omission. There is no excuse to edit out the part of a post that explains what you did wrong and pretend that it does not exist.

And as a person that does not understand logic or how to debate properly you should not use phrases, such as "false premise" that you do not understand. Parroting others again only makes you look worse. You should try to learn from your errors so that you do not repeat them.

 

[Milton Platt]

Lol! How does the Cambrian Explosion support “only” the theory of evolution?

You’re so biased, it amazes me!

The Cambrian explosion was a period lasting 53 million years. Hardly an explosion. It was so named because at the time, there was a dearth of fossil records before that time period. Most animals before then were microscopic and/or soft bodied and so fossilization was rare.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The Cambrian explosion was a period lasting 53 million years. Hardly an explosion.

You're missing the point. During that period, there were thousands of species that appeared from the beginning to the end, but each one shows up abruptly, without any definite precursors.

Something evolution would not predict!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're missing the point. During that period, there were thousands of species that appeared from the beginning to the end, but each one shows up abruptly, without any definite precursors.

Something evolution would not predict!

But they don't. Where did you get that idea from? You do not seem to realize that the first fauna that appear are the "Small shelly fauna" and before them we have imprints of life from the Ediacaran. The Cambrian marks the first appearance of life with hard body parts that were easily preserved. But even those all start out simple, and they would have been based upon preexisting life without the hard body parts, and then grew more complex throughout the Cambrian.

Don't rely on creationist sources for your info. Not only are they incredibly dishonest, they are also usually about 50 years behind the times scientifically.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But they don't. Where did you get that idea from? You do not seem to realize that the first fauna that appear are the "Small shelly fauna" and before them we have imprints of life from the Ediacaran. The Cambrian marks the first appearance of life with hard body parts that were easily preserved. But even those all start out simple, and they would have been based upon preexisting life without the hard body parts, and then grew more complex throughout the Cambrian.

Don't rely on creationist sources for your info. Not only are they incredibly dishonest, they are also usually about 50 years behind the times scientifically.

Apparently, you don't understand what "definite precursors" mean.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently, you don't understand what "definite precursors" mean.

There is no need for what you call "definite" precursors. That the precursors existed is rather evident. To claim that life was created in the Cambrian would need to be proven by you. I am merely following the evidence. You want to pretend that because we can't be sure who the precursors were for the small shelly fauna that the answer was magic.

Seriously, does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[Audie]

Apparently, you don't understand what "definite precursors" mean.

Given your collossal ignorance of geology and biology,
that might be ironic if it were not so cute!

Of course when there are definite precursors for some
organism, a long sequence of transitional forms you will
deny it, so what is the point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given your collossal ignorance of geology and biology,
that might be ironic if it were not so cute!

Of course when there are definite precursors for some
organism, a long sequence of transitional forms you will
deny it, so what is the point?

I think that he may be demanding that we produce the soft bodied creatures that the initial small shelly fauna evolved from. Rather difficult since they left no record. Nor were expected to. He is attempting to make a special pleading fallacy. The sad thing is that even if life was miraculously created in the Cambrian he would still be an ape, he would still be a primate, he would still be a mammal, a tetrapod, a vertebrate and a chordate. That is where it would end for him. At least he could possibly claim that he was not related to a sponge with the poor argument that he is attempting to use.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is no need for what you call "definite" precursors. That the precursors existed is rather evident. To claim that life was created in the Cambrian would need to be proven by you. I am merely following the evidence. You want to pretend that because we can't be sure who the precursors were for the small shelly fauna that the answer was magic.

Seriously, does that sound reasonable to you?

"No need" for evidence, you mean. That's funny!