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

[rrobs]

i bust in all the time. feel free

Good that you see where you were mistaken in
your interpretation.

I was being too hard on you. But that is me,
no shades of grey.

I was being sarcastic. My true feeling is that you are an incredibly unreasonable person with your own set of moors that comes from who knows where and which you try to force on me and perhaps others as well who don't see life exactly like you do. Well, sweetheart, I don't buy it! I can out mean the best of them when I want to. I just prefer being nice to people, but you are insufferable.

Now we're cook'n with gas! Give me your best shot. If I'm so inclined I'll reply, but don't hold your breath.

 

[exchemist]

It is terribly asymmetrical all right. But that's fine. It doesn't bother me. It's pretty interesting.

There is such a thing as researching the Bible in a logical and methodical manner. It is not necessarily just dogma.

I suspect the majority of your scriptural knowledge comes from second hand sources, namely church doctrine which is not always scriptural. They rely a whole lot on tradition. The Bible says tradition goes against the truth. Bottom line is, assuming my first statement to be true about the source of your biblical knowledge, most of what you know is actually tradition and not necessarily scriptural, thus making your knowledge of the Bible limited at best.

I have taken 2 years of college biology. Of course, evolution played a major role in my study. I know what it says. I also know what the Bible says from my own research quite apart from church tradition. It would seem that for somebody to come to a conclusion on a matter, they ought to know both sides of the story. I have the feeling that most of the "scientists" here are in the same boat as you in that the knowledge they have of the Bible is really knowledge of tradition. I wonder how many have poured over the Bible for themselves with anywhere near the same intensity as they've presumably spent pouring over the science books. I've done both which I would think ought to give me more authority than those who've only done half the research.

rrobs, when you have a minute, I'd be really interested in your reply to my post 190 on this thread. I can see you've been busy with lots of other people, but I would quite like to understand why it is that creationists are so sure the bible rules out large-scale evolutionary change.

 

[rrobs]

IMO, that's precisely why these "debates" (I hesitate to call them that) never go anywhere. Creationists derive their views on the history of the earth from the Bible, whereas "evolutionists" get theirs from science.

You do know that there are plenty of Christian scientists, PHDs and all, who use science as evidence that Darwin was wrong, don't you?

Those are two fundamentally different and contradictory approaches, yet interestingly few people acknowledge it.

You have empirical evidence on that? I would think that most everybody acknowledges the difference between the biblical and scientific approach. Isn't that the crux of this whole thread?

And if creationists would just come here and say up front that their views on the history of the earth come straight from the Bible and leave it at that, there wouldn't be much left to say (and sub-forums like this wouldn't be needed).

Have I hidden my reliance on scripture? To make it clear, my views are based on the Bible. There, now it's in the open.

However, problems arise when those creationists try and argue against the science, even though their position is entirely theological.

Or the problem arise when scientists argue against the Bible, even though their position is scientific.

 

[rrobs]

It doesn't I'm afraid. Why do you think the bible precludes evolution from one genus or even phylum to another? I cannot see anything that contradicts this.

All I can say is that Genesis says a few times that all the plants and animals were created after it's kind (genus) and that each has seed (sperm) in it that produces an offspring of the same genus.

I suppose it doesn't say straight out that evolution can't occur across genus, but I would say it's implied by God's concept of genus and seed. But, hey, maybe I'll find out differently when Christ Jesus returns and we will know as we are known. (There are a couple of verses for that last assertion, but I don't want to upset anybody by quoting Bible verses in public. If you want, I'll send them to you privately.)

 

[rrobs]

It is rude IMO to present quotes from scripture when actual input from a thinking human being is expected.

This is a friggen inter-net forum my friend! You expect actual input form thinking human beings? Look at us. We are all a bunch of people sitting around, wasting hour after hour in a nonsensical and totally non-productive activity. You should lower your expectations and you won't be disappointed.

 

[exchemist]

All I can say is that Genesis says a few times that all the plants and animals were created after it's kind (genus) and that each has seed (sperm) in it that produces an offspring of the same genus.

I suppose it doesn't say straight out that evolution can't occur across genus, but I would say it's implied by God's concept of genus and seed. But, hey, maybe I'll find out differently when Christ Jesus returns and we will know as we are known. (There are a couple of verses for that last assertion, but I don't want to upset anybody by quoting Bible verses in public. If you want, I'll send them to you privately.)

The point I invite you to consider is that the bible does not say by what process God created the "kinds". So he may not necessarily have made them in the forms we see today. He may have planted the seed of life, in the form of the laws of nature and the resulting chemical elements, and allowed nature to grow into life.

After all, it does say he commanded "Let the earth bring forth........." Now why would He ask the earth to do it, if life did not arise from the earth? I think that is abiogenesis and then evolution. Why not?

 

[rrobs]

Did I say or even imply that you were an idiot? Your conscience may be trying to tell you something about your behavior.

You just did it again! Trying to tell me that my conscience is telling me I'm an idiot. For the record, it doesn't.

 

[Jose Fly]

You do know that there are plenty of Christian scientists, PHDs and all, who use science as evidence that Darwin was wrong, don't you?

No, I don't know of any who actually do that. I know of some who claim to do so, but even a cursory understanding of biology is enough to expose their arguments as fundamentally flawed.

You have empirical evidence on that? I would think that most everybody acknowledges the difference between the biblical and scientific approach. Isn't that the crux of this whole thread?

The differences in the approaches aren't really something that's empirically-based. But given that you agree it's something "almost everybody acknowledges", I assume we agree on the point.

As I noted, the problems arise when creationists try and justify their faith-based position by appealing to science and making what are quite frankly, ridiculous arguments.

Have I hidden my reliance on scripture? To make it clear, my views are based on the Bible. There, now it's in the open.

And that's great. I appreciate your honesty.

Or the problem arise when scientists argue against the Bible, even though their position is scientific.

In general I agree.

 

[rrobs]

The point I invite you to consider is that the bible does not say by what process God created the "kinds". So he may not necessarily have made them in the forms we see today. He may have planted the seed of life, in the form of the laws of nature and the resulting chemical elements, and allowed nature to grow into life.

After all, it does say he commanded "Let the earth bring forth........." Now why would He ask the earth to do it, if life did not arise from the earth? I think that is abiogenesis and then evolution. Why not?

You are right about the Bible not saying by what process God make all the animals other than they came from the earth. To me that means I don't know the process in detail. That's all. If it were important to know the exact process God would have told us. The Bible says it contains all things that pertain to life and godliness. So if it's not in the Bible it is apparently not necessary to know.

He created everything after it's kind (genus). The feline genus has experienced evolution within the feline genus. Some species in the feline genus have disappeared, some new ones have appeared on the scene. So, yes, cats of today are different than the original cat God created, but they are still all cats of the genus feline.

According to the Bible, an oak seed may over time produce different species of oak trees, but it never made a pine tree. A pine tree, in all it's variety (species) comes only from a pine tree seed.

For the record, there is a lot more detail on how God formed and created the animals. Please notice that I just used two different words, formed and created. They are different words that mean different things. He formed their bodies from the earth because all the things necessary to form a body were already created when God created the earth itself. Our body came from dust and that's where it will go when it's all over. Before the animals, God created just the earth which had all the material necessary to form a body. No need to recreate carbon, etc. It had already been created when He created the earth, so He just needed to form it from the dirt.

If you look closely you will see that when it says God created the animals He did so by breathing the breath of life into them (i.e. soul life), which didn't exist prior to that time. He had to create life because that didn't exist when He created the earth so He had to create something that didn't exist before.

Bottom line, God formed the body from the ground and He created the life of that body when He breathed the life into the body. People are a whole other story. God originally created man with spirit. Man's body was formed from the earth (dust), He made man a living creature when He breathed into him the same life He had created for the animals (no need to reinvent the wheel), and He created man in His own image, which the Bible says is spirit. So animals are body and soul, while man is body, soul, and spirit.

It takes a very, very careful reading of the first two chapter of Genesis and a few other verses, but that is all in there. Few take the time to see the detail that's really there. I think it is because everybody already "knows" what the Bible says without actually studying it in depth.

I don't mean to confuse you with all of this. It's like trying to teach someone calculus that is not sure about trigonometry. I can give you more on the subject if you are interested.

 

[rrobs]

Since I am not desperate to defend the Bible I do not own any concordances etc. and I will tend to trust translations of experts over those of amateurs no matter how many of those books they have. Vaguely written texts are open to multiple translations but from my experience all of them fail when read literally

Stick with science then and stop telling people who have spent countless hours in scholarly and systematic study of the Bible what the Bible says. Heck, you probably never thought it could be a scholarly and systemic study, let alone did any. You are speaking about that which you know little to nothing. That doesn't help the case for the scientific method, that's for sure.

 

[rrobs]

No, I don't know of any who actually do that. I know of some who claim to do so, but even a cursory understanding of biology is enough to expose their arguments as fundamentally flawed.

A cursory understanding? That's all? There goes your credibility with me.

 

[Audie]

True colours have been run up the mainmast
of ye Q ship.

 

[Jose Fly]

A cursory understanding? That's all? There goes your credibility with me.

I'm sorry.....what?

Let's recap the point. You claimed that there are "Christian scientists, PHDs and all, who use science as evidence that Darwin was wrong". I responded by noting that there are indeed some who claim to do so. But....and this is the key point.....their arguments are so fundamentally flawed that even first-year biology students are capable of shooting them down.

So how exactly does that affect my credibility?

 

[Deeje]

"Does not alter the truth that this is
how you choose to see things."

An outsider looking in does not see
JW as you do?

Am I the arbiter of what makes sense to you or anyone else?

The way we individually "see" things is a complex combination of factors....some of which we can control and some of which is the result of processes that are beyond our ability to even recognize without serious psychoanalysis.

This is why Christians are merely messengers. People's response to the message is entirely theirs. Two people can hear the same message and one will respond negatively and the other will respond positively. It is the message itself that reaches the heart and causes the response. It's what makes one person "spiritual" and another totally "unspiritual"...and it has nothing to do with nationality or current religious beliefs or lack of them. The message itself can completely transform a person, sometimes to their complete surprise. (Hebrews 4:12)

The Bible makes a clear distinction between the two kinds of individuals, and that is why Jesus told us to preach his message in all the world. Response to the message itself indicates the kind of person who receives it.

The Bible tells us that God is the one reading the hearts of recipients (not us) and he is either "drawing" them to his truth, or leaving them to believe whatever they wish. He is dividing the human race for either salvation or rejection. He is choosing the citizens of his kingdom based on their propensity to place their own will above all others....including His. The final judgment will be based on those found "doing the will" of God....and those opposing it. (Matthew 7:21-23)

This is the only choice we humans have if we want a future on this planet. If people do not want what God is offering, then they will not be forced to be disgruntled but compliant citizens in the new world to come. This corrupt world is going down, so we have the choice to either go down with it, or put our own will in second place, jump on the "ark" by changing our attitude.....and survive. The new world will mean life the way we know it should be....no pain or suffering or violence or death.....This was Jesus message. (Matthew 24:37-39; Revelation 21:2-4)

I believe it...you may choose not to....that really has nothing to do with me.

 

[Audie]

I'm sorry.....what?

Let's recap the point. You claimed that there are "Christian scientists, PHDs and all, who use science as evidence that Darwin was wrong". I responded by noting that there are indeed some who claim to do so. But....and this is the key point.....their arguments are so fundamentally flawed that even first-year biology students are capable of shooting them down.

So how exactly does that affect my credibility?

Always the claims of "evidence" but no data is ever forthcoming.

That is why it is YOU wholack credibility!
Point goes to whoever says it first!

That, and more deliberate misreading.

I smell yet another who is fixin' to head back
to creoburg with tales of rude atheists all of
whom he argued to a standstill.

 

[Audie]

Am I the arbiter of what makes sense to you or anyone else?

The way we individually "see" things is a complex combination of factors....some of which we can control and some of which is the result of processes that are beyond our ability to even recognize without serious psychoanalysis.

This is why Christians are merely messengers. People's response to the message is entirely theirs. Two people can hear the same message and one will respond negatively and the other will respond positively. It is the message itself that reaches the heart and causes the response. It's what makes one person "spiritual" and another totally "unspiritual"...and it has nothing to do with nationality or current religious beliefs or lack of them. The message itself can completely transform a person, sometimes to their complete surprise. (Hebrews 4:12)

The Bible makes a clear distinction between the two kinds of individuals, and that is why Jesus told us to preach his message in all the world. Response to the message itself indicates the kind of person who receives it.

The Bible tells us that God is the one reading the hearts of recipients (not us) and he is either "drawing" them to his truth, or leaving them to believe whatever they wish. He is dividing the human race for either salvation or rejection. He is choosing the citizens of his kingdom based on their propensity to place their own will above all others....including His. The final judgment will be based on those found "doing the will" of God....and those opposing it. (Matthew 7:21-23)

This is the only choice we humans have if we want a future on this planet. If people do not want what God is offering, then they will not be forced to be disgruntled but compliant citizens in the new world to come. This corrupt world is going down, so we have the choice to either go down with it, or put our own will in second place, jump on the "ark" by changing our attitude.....and survive. The new world will mean life the way we know it should be....no pain or suffering or violence or death.....This was Jesus message. (Matthew 24:37-39; Revelation 21:2-4)

I believe it...you may choose not to....that really has nothing to do with me.

Nope, you are just the one who sort of chooses how you choose
to see things. Wherever did you get that "arbiter" thing? Not
from me; its your choice.

As messengers, Christians seem a most unreliable
group, dont you think? 30,000 sects all calling
forth, lo here, and lo there.

You make a most fundamental mistake in your
notion about me. I do not, and cannot choose
what I believe. I am not into deliberate self deception.

 

[Astrophile]

Allow me to rephrase your question; Is free will very good?

What a strange question! It doesn't appear to have anything to do with my question about the serpent, and I don't know enough about moral philosophy to be able to answer it.

However, since you have raised the issue, perhaps you can help me with a problem about the meaning of free will. The way that I was taught it in the Baptist church seemed to be that there were only two choices on any subject (however trivial), namely God's way and the wrong way, and that the wrong way would inevitably lead to punishment. In these terms, 'free will' was an illusion; it was no more free than a 'free vote' in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, or 'freedom of religion' in an Islamic republic. In this interpretation, saying that 'free will' is or is not very good seems to me to be as pointless as arguing about whether the crock of gold at the end of a rainbow is very good.

Alternatively, 'free will' might mean that one has a choice between good things; for example one might be free to choose what to wear or what to eat, what career to follow, whether to get married or to stay single, where to live and where go on holiday, but not free to disobey God or to go against His will. In this interpretation, I think that 'free will' is real and that it is a good thing.

As I said, I don't know enough about moral philosophy to be able to answer your question, and I may have been writing nonsense throughout this post. Also, I have probably not understood your question, and therefore this post is not really an answer to it. However, for what it is worth, I submit it for your consideration. Now can you please answer my question about the serpent?

 

[Audie]

What a strange question! It doesn't appear to have anything to do with my question about the serpent, and I don't know enough about moral philosophy to be able to answer it.

However, since you have raised the issue, perhaps you can help me with a problem about the meaning of free will. The way that I was taught it in the Baptist church seemed to be that there were only two choices on any subject (however trivial), namely God's way and the wrong way, and that the wrong way would inevitably lead to punishment. In these terms, 'free will' was an illusion; it was no more free than a 'free vote' in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, or 'freedom of religion' in an Islamic republic. In this interpretation, saying that 'free will' is or is not very good seems to me to be as pointless as arguing about whether the crock of gold at the end of a rainbow is very good.

Alternatively, 'free will' might mean that one has a choice between good things; for example one might be free to choose what to wear or what to eat, what career to follow, whether to get married or to stay single, where to live and where go on holiday, but not free to disobey God or to go against His will. In this interpretation, I think that 'free will' is real and that it is a good thing.

As I said, I don't know enough about moral philosophy to be able to answer your question, and I may have been writing nonsense throughout this post. Also, I have probably not understood your question, and therefore this post is not really an answer to it. However, for what it is worth, I submit it for your consideration. Now can you please answer my question about the serpent?

The answer in in post 315

 

[Subduction Zone]

@rrobs why do you automatically jump to the assumption that others are calling you an idiot? The reason that I specifically mentioned your conscience is because that part of your psyche is associated with the knowledge of right and wrong. My implication was that your conscience knows that you are wrong.

 

[Deeje]

Drink deep or taste not that Pierian spring!

That's precisely what science does: it goes beyond the fuzzy thinking of surface appearances and *tests* the ideas against real observations. if, instead, you base your beliefs on 'faith', that inevitably leads to shallow drinking.

I see it as the opposite. The "fuzzy thinking of surface appearances" are explained when science actually looks at the mechanisms that drive life on planet Earth. But how are they evaluating what they see? I observe science as contemplating what "might be" or "could be" an explanation for these things, and then testing their ideas with pre-conceived ideas about how they should interpret their findings to fit neatly into the box that they created with their 'toothpicks'. It doesn't seem to matter that their foundation is full of holes.

What they have built on those 'toothpicks' is impressive, by sheer volume alone, but if their first premise is flawed, then to my way of thinking, I would never buy an impressive looking mansion built on such a flimsy foundation. I love science and its excursions into natural systems, but when it goes outside of what is real and ventures into pure unsubstantiated speculation, then that is a different story. You can't use what is, to mask suggestions for what isn't.

Interpretation is everything in any belief system.....evolutionists deny that they have one, but when you understand how much in this theory rests on pure assertion and suggestion and faith in the way scientists interpret their evidence, then that should be enough to seriously question the foundation of it. We also have to accept that science is the first to tell us that they have no proof for anything they assert. If they have no proof then that requires belief.

That, to my way of thinking, leads us all to accept either one 'belief system' or another. That is the real choice IMO, but scientists will strongly refute that and still maintain that evolution has to be true.....not because they can actually prove what they teach, but because the alternative is unthinkable.