• 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!

Can I have both?

do you think......

  • 4. Neither could be true?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6. You don’t know?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
1. I believe in evolution and I believe the earth is billions of years old. This is what I was taught and the evidence is overwhelming to accept it.

I used to think that too until I actually investigated what factual evidence they had for their theory. It's a clever bit of sleight of hand when you really examine the theory for yourself.
You see, they have "evidence" for adaptation, which some call "micro-evolution" but this is only small changes in a single species that is created when a creature is forced by circumstance into a new habitat or to adopt a new diet. Science can demonstrate that this happens because they have done lab experiments to prove it. Now, here is where the sleight of hand comes in.....they "suggest" (but have no actual evidence) that this process goes way past what they can prove. This they call "macro-evolution". This is the assumption that if a little works to change a creature slightly (though never taking it out of its taxonomic family or "kind") then time would necessarily change one creature with multiple adaptations or mutations into many different creatures. This "assumption" is "suggested" (but which is presented as if it were fact) because they have no actual evidence to back it up. The "evidence" is their interpretation of what they want to believe. It all sounds so convincing until you realize that its all smoke and mirrors.

They will push this agenda by ridiculing anyone who dares to point out that they have no proof for any of it. Accusations of "you are uneducated in science" or "you don't understand how evolution works"....or that the evidence is "overwhelming" betrays the fact that they have no real physical support for this theory but pretending that they do. The power of suggestion is huge, as any advertising agency will tell you. If they had real proof, rather than just elaborate diagrams and great video graphics, then perhaps they could not be so roundly challenged on this topic.

What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was adaptation, not evolution. Unless you know the difference, it is easy to pull the wool over uneducated eyes.....and even educated ones who have a need for it to be true. We will all believe what we want to believe.

2. I also believe the 7 day creation story from Genesis. It’s a beautiful story filled with incredible information.

YEC is also false. The 7 days of creation were not literal 24 hour days. The earth is not 6,000 years old. The creatures that pre-date man were not created 24 hours before them. The first verse of Genesis ch 1 makes a simple statement of a single creative act of monumental proportions, but what follows does not in any way preclude the idea that the earth itself is very ancient.
There could well have been millions of years before God chose the earth to prepare for habitation by living things.

Each creative "day" could well have been thousands or even million of years long. The Hebrew word "day" is "yohm" which can mean a period of time, not just a 24 hour period. That means that creation could have been a slow and deliberate process with the Creator taking all the time necessary to craft each and every living thing to his satisfaction. Each "day" ended with a declaration that all was going to plan according to his purpose.

My mind’s understanding of these things is in harmonious peace.

There can be harmony if you know what to harmonize and what to eliminate as fantasy.

The universe popping into existence in one Big Bang for no apparent reason and then life appearing from nowhere and transforming itself into all the lifeforms that we can see on this planet is fantasy with not a single shred of proof to back it up.
Conversely, if there was an intelligent force behind creation and it wasn't some big magician in the sky waving his wand, then science can be used to find evidence for that Creator, without being shackled by either equally ridiculous scenarios.

Does anyone else feel the same?
If not, do you think you could get there?

Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing can't create anything....finding a solution to the dilemma means searching the actual evidence for ways to correlate them. There is a meeting in the middle that allows science and God to be a superb team.
128fs318181.gif


I didn't vote because there didn't seem to be one that fitted what I believe.
 
Last edited:

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
You made this assertion:

I asked you about it.
I will ask again. Why do you believe that, but not Harry Potter?
Tom

"I think" and "could be" is not assertions. They are just statements that allow for the possibility. If I said "This is the way it is" or so that it is "fact" that is assertion.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
"I think" and "could be" is not assertions. They are just statements that allow for the possibility. If I said "This is the way it is" or so that it is "fact" that is assertion.
What you posted is:
I think Adam and Eve were literal people.
If you don't see that as an assertion I don't know how to explain English.
So, I'll just ask again. Why do you think that Adam and Eve are literal people, but not Harry Potter and Dumbledore?
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
So I can easily say with 100% certainty that Harry Potter is fictional.
I can easily say that Genesis is fictional as well, because it includes lots of things that obviously were made up.
Like Adam and Eve.
So, what's the difference between them?
Tom
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
I can easily say that Genesis is fictional as well, because it includes lots of things that obviously were made up.
Like Adam and Eve.
So, what's the difference between them?
Tom

Prove your assertion. Or at least provide some evidence other than your opinion.

Just like I did with J.K Rowling. I did not provide an opinion. I made an assertion with evidence.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
1. I believe in evolution and I believe the earth is billions of years old. This is what I was taught and the
evidence is overwhelming to accept it.
2. I also believe the 7 day creation story from Genesis. It’s a beautiful story filled with incredible information.

My mind’s understanding of these things is in harmonious peace.

Does anyone else feel the same?
If not, do you think you could get there?

What?! No, I don’t see how these two polemic ideas can be reconciled.

Either an Intelligent Designer exists, or all living things share common descent. For me, The sheer diversity of organisms cannot be explained through random mutations! Only separate creative acts can account for it. And even the first single-celled life was just as advanced as it is today.

Hebrews 3:4
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
I used to think that too until I actually investigated what factual evidence they had for their theory. It's a clever bit of sleight of hand when you really examine the theory for yourself.
You see, they have "evidence" for adaptation, which some call "micro-evolution" but this is only small changes in a single species that is created when a creature is forced by circumstance into a new habitat or to adopt a new diet. Science can demonstrate that this happens because they have done lab experiments to prove it. Now, here is where the sleight of hand comes in.....they "suggest" (but have no actual evidence) that this process goes way past what they can prove. This they call "macro-evolution". This is the assumption that if a little works to change a creature slightly (though never taking it out of its taxonomic family or "kind") then time would necessarily change one creature with multiple adaptations or mutations into many different creatures. This "assumption" is "suggested" (but which is presented as if it were fact) because they have no actual evidence to back it up. The "evidence" is their interpretation of what they want to believe. It all sounds so convincing until you realize that its all smoke and mirrors.

They will push this agenda by ridiculing anyone who dares to point out that they have no proof for any of it. Accusations of "you are uneducated in science" or "you don't understand how evolution works"....or that the evidence is "overwhelming" betrays the fact that they have no real physical support for this theory but pretending that they do. The power of suggestion is huge, as any advertising agency will tell you. If they had real proof, rather than just elaborate diagrams and great video graphics, then perhaps they could not be so roundly challenged on this topic.

What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was adaptation, not evolution. Unless you know the difference, it is easy to pull the wool over uneducated eyes.....and even educated ones who have a need for it to be true. We will all believe what we want to believe.



YEC is also false. The 7 days of creation were not literal 24 hour days. The earth is not 6,000 years old. The creatures that pre-date man were not created 24 hours before them. The first verse of Genesis ch 1 makes a simple statement of a single creative act of monumental proportions, but what follows does not in any way preclude the idea that the earth itself is very ancient.
There could well have been millions of years before God chose the earth to prepare for habitation by living things.

Each creative "day" could well have been thousands or even million of years long. The Hebrew word "day" is "yohm" which can mean a period of time, not just a 24 hour period. That means that creation could have been a slow and deliberate process with the Creator taking all the time necessary to craft each and every living thing to his satisfaction. Each "day" ended with a declaration that all was going to plan according to his purpose.



There can be harmony if you know what to harmonize and what to eliminate as fantasy.

The universe popping into existence in one Big Bang for no apparent reason and then life appearing from nowhere and transforming itself into all the lifeforms that we can see on this planet is fantasy with not a single shred of proof to back it up.
Conversely, if there was an intelligent force behind creation and it wasn't some big magician in the sky waving his wand, then science can be used to find evidence for that Creator, without being shackled by either equally ridiculous scenario.



Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing can't create anything....finding a solution to the dilemma means searching the actual evidence for ways to correlate them. There is a meeting in the middle that allows science and God to be a superb team.
128fs318181.gif


I didn't vote because there didn't seem to be one that fitted what I believe.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

My belief in evolution is only as it occurs within a species. I do not believe a new species can evolve from a different one.
I do believe God created humans in His image (not literally).
However, if God also created evolution to allow species to evolve into different ones, I have no problem with that either. It really makes no difference.

Also, I see no problem with a big bang or any other theory for creating the universe. God is omnipotent, meaning there is nothing he cannot do, in any way He chooses.

Any thoughts.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
'A beautiful story filled with incredible information,' is not sufficient to believe in a literal Genesis account of Creation.

What you have presented is a radical contradiction unless you can propose a symbolic metaphysical understanding of Genesis.

You cannot have it both ways.

And what's wrong with a 'symbolic metaphysical understanding' of Genesis?

For that matter, what's wrong with understanding that the Genesis account is a vastly simplified (and written by men who didn't understand even the basic information given and whose readers didn't quite understand them) account of 'how we got here.?"

As well, the truths found in the bible are religious, not scientific. I can see how 'God formed man from the dust of the earth" and "we evolved from primordial lifeforms which got THEIR beginnings from combining non living nucleotides or whatever. Whether that 'non-living' thing was 'dust of the earth' or nucleotide collisions in a primordial soup, it's pretty much the same thing, seems to me.

The bible doesn't really address HOW we got here (I believe we are supposed to be trying to figure that out ourselves, through science) but rather why; what purpose is there for our existence, if there is one?
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
What?! No, I don’t see how these two polemic ideas can be reconciled.

Either an Intelligent Designer exists, or all living things share common descent. For me, The sheer diversity of organisms cannot be explained through random mutations! Only separate creative acts can account for it. And even the first single-celled life was just as advanced as it is today.

Hebrews 3:4
Ok, I see your problem.

1. My “intelligent designer” is an omnipotent God. Omnipotent, meaning there is nothing He cannot do.
Therefore, should he design our planet to provide a system for evolving all plant and non-human animal life over millions of years, from a common descent or multiple ones, why should I say that He cannot do so?
However, I feel very confident that He specially created human beings in His image, and placed them on the earth at a time of His choosing.

2. The Bible story in Genesis 1 and 2 tells me so much more than a simple story of two people in a garden eating an apple.
I don’t think there was a special tree in a special garden for one thing. So my view of the story does not conflict with number 1.

What do you think?
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
What?! No, I don’t see how these two polemic ideas can be reconciled.

Either an Intelligent Designer exists, or all living things share common descent. For me, The sheer diversity of organisms cannot be explained through random mutations! Only separate creative acts can account for it. And even the first single-celled life was just as advanced as it is today.

Hebrews 3:4

Your entire statement leads me to believe you personally place restrictions on what your God is capable of doing.

My God has no human restrictions on how he designed our universe and world.

What am I missing?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
And what's wrong with a 'symbolic metaphysical understanding' of Genesis?

For that matter, what's wrong with understanding that the Genesis account is a vastly simplified (and written by men who didn't understand even the basic information given and whose readers didn't quite understand them) account of 'how we got here.?"

No problem, but that is not the issue, The Christian fundamentalists, and your church the LDS, believes Genesis is in one way or another literal.

As well, the truths found in the bible are religious, not scientific. I can see how 'God formed man from the dust of the earth" and "we evolved from primordial lifeforms which got THEIR beginnings from combining non living nucleotides or whatever. Whether that 'non-living' thing was 'dust of the earth' or nucleotide collisions in a primordial soup, it's pretty much the same thing, seems to me.

Me too, but not the scenario proposed in the thread by the author of this thread,

The bible doesn't really address HOW we got here (I believe we are supposed to be trying to figure that out ourselves, through science) but rather why; what purpose is there for our existence, if there is one?

Again agreed.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
My belief in evolution is only as it occurs within a species.

I agree! Or maybe into new species, maybe even into genera or possibly families. Now, for myself (and Deeje), the Global Noachian Flood was a real event; so to us, One thing's for sure: Noah couldn't have taken every land creature on the Ark; but possibly up to 35,000 pairs. (Source: http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...l/news-story/a7e558bc25fecf8e2865867579f05479). Yet now, there are 100,000's of discovered land species, and more to find. Therefore, limited evolution occurs, a built-in genetic feature with restrictions. Actually, this happens for our benefit!

More on that, later.



Also, I see no problem with a big bang or any other theory for creating the universe. God is omnipotent, meaning there is nothing he cannot do, in any way He chooses.

You could be right....one day, we will find out!

I'm glad we agree!
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Any thoughts.

Do you believe that God had a purpose to his creative works? Why would he create a huge family of angelic sons in heaven and then create creatures of flesh to live on earth?

I see the Bible as one story that begins in a paradise called Eden, and ends up back in paradise on earth again. I do not believe that God created humans to go to heaven or any other spiritual destination; I believe that he placed us here as material creatures on a beautiful planet to live an unending mortal life in peace and security, taking care of the planet, each other, and the creatures that share it with him.

The two trees mentions in Genesis had opposite effects. Eating the fruit of one tree that was God's exclusive property meant death, but partaking of the "tree of life" meant living without ever dying. What do you think it all means?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Ok, I see your problem.

1. My “intelligent designer” is an omnipotent God. Omnipotent, meaning there is nothing He cannot do.
Therefore, should he design our planet to provide a system for evolving all plant and non-human animal life over millions of years, from a common descent or multiple ones, why should I say that He cannot do so?
However, I feel very confident that He specially created human beings in His image, and placed them on the earth at a time of His choosing.

2. The Bible story in Genesis 1 and 2 tells me so much more than a simple story of two people in a garden eating an apple.
I don’t think there was a special tree in a special garden for one thing. So my view of the story does not conflict with number 1.

What do you think?

I am pleased you use 'My Intelligent Design,' because it is not science. Neither is the selective consideration of how evolution takes place, 'within species or like kinds' only. This does not reflect the evidence of science, and fails to deal with an earth and life billions of years old.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
No problem, but that is not the issue, The Christian fundamentalists, and your church the LDS, believes Genesis is in one way or another literal.

I'll have to inform the General Authorities of this, so that they can disavow what they have taught and put in all the teaching manuals since 1909, when they wrote the first of several official letters regarding this issue.

All of them state, more or less long windedly, that the church has 'no official position' on evolution, and that the only thing that we teach is that God DID create us. We do not have the chutspah to inform Him of HOW He had to do it. We are content to let Him tell us.

In fact, (come to think of it) I THINK we might be the only Christians who don't have to explain away the two different timelines for the Genesis creation story. ;)

Most of us find ourselves quite content to let 'science' explore the 'how' from the evidence provided by His creation...and let scripture tell us the 'why.'

Most of us. I do have to admit that I have actually met a few literal 24 hour, 7 day creationist Mormons, but they tend to be conspiracy theorists, too...Bless 'em, I don't understand them and am glad there aren't many of 'em.



Me too, but not the scenario proposed in the thread by the author of this thread,



Again agreed.


Well, it kind of was, in a way. One simply has to realize that subjective truth need not be objective fact to be valid.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Does anyone else feel the same?

It's nice to see some representation for theistic evolution on the forums. All too often conversations about the topic don't get into the nuances of how life sciences and religious narratives can intersect in complementary ways. I'm not a Christian, so I don't follow the narratives of the Bible, but I do have similar sentiments as you do when it comes to relating the life sciences with religious mythos. That is, I don't have a problem making space for all sorts of different stories in my life.

The question is asked - could others ever get there? Could others ever get to the space of allowing many stories about the same thing to coexist within their minds? Some can, some can't. You have to be something of a pluralist, and not everyone swings that way.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Do you believe that God had a purpose to his creative works? Why would he create a huge family of angelic sons in heaven and then create creatures of flesh to live on earth?

I see the Bible as one story that begins in a paradise called Eden, and ends up back in paradise on earth again. I do not believe that God created humans to go to heaven or any other spiritual destination; I believe that he placed us here as material creatures on a beautiful planet to live an unending mortal life in peace and security, taking care of the planet, each other, and the creatures that share it with him.

The two trees mentions in Genesis had opposite effects. Eating the fruit of one tree that was God's exclusive property meant death, but partaking of the "tree of life" meant living without ever dying. What do you think it all means?

Thanks for your response Deeje. I always like hearing from you.
One reason, you make sensible comments. Another, after studying most of the Christian religions, I have found that JW probably my favorite.
But, I cannot get to the belief of humans in our material bodies inheriting an eternal earth. Just doesn’t make sense to me.
I believe God made us in His image, which is spiritual in nature.
That is our image (male and female are irrelevant). Why would we desire or need a material body or planet forever?
Second problem with JW, they make you knock on people’s doors and I’m a bit introverted.:mad:
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
As long as the word "believe" means two different things in the two sentences above, then sure you can have both.
It's when people want both, but don't recognize the difference between them, that logical problems arise.
Tom

You’re quite right. My wife pointed out that I left much out of the op. But I wanted people to have a lot of leeway in responding.

I believe in evolution, but not how most evolutionists portray it.
I believe in the creation story, but not at all literally.
 
Top