1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by osgart, Jun 25, 2018.

  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,732
    Ratings:
    +12,503
    Religion:
    Atheist
    This is an extremely dishonest post on your part. You are either lying or amazingly ignorant. I can't blame @Audie for her last post when you respond in this manner.

    Fossil evidence is not the only evidence. If a dishonest person sets an artificially high bar not meeting that bad does not mean that there is not any evidences.
     
  2. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Ratings:
    +205
    Religion:
    Christian
    We should all learn from errors. Can't argue with that. I never claimed infallibility.

    As far as the rest of your comment:

    1Cor 4:3-4,

    3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
    4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.​
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,571
    Ratings:
    +2,625
    Religion:
    Christian
    No it isn't. You basically assumed the precursors were there, when none have been found, ie., the evidence hasn't been found. And won't be.
    Oh, really? For organisms millions of years old, what other evidence do you think there is? Don't say DNA, lol.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    900
    Ratings:
    +205
    Religion:
    Christian
    No lashing in order. Bad timing, that's all. I just wasn't quick enough on the edit. Thanks though.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,732
    Ratings:
    +12,503
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Bearing false witness. A logical conclusion drawn from evidence is not an assumption. You should avoid that word since you put the burden of proof upon yourself when you use it.

    if you can't be polite and honest there is no point in trying to help you.
     
  6. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,732
    Ratings:
    +12,503
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Quotes from a book of myths are worthless. And rude.

    Try again.
     
  7. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,208
    Ratings:
    +2,481
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Humans invented the scientific method, which is close enough to what science is.
    Archimedes? Newton? Maxwell? Einstein? Other?
    Please don't mistake the science of physics with the physical entities and phenomena that the science of physics studies.

    To put that another way, everything in creation is a product of physics, not of science.
    Because I have an enquiring layman's understanding of evolution. And if you understood evolution, I dare say you'd agree.
    Yes. Just read the science.
    To be fair, they've had quite a few good ideas of their own. The car, the electric shaver and the scanning electron microscope are three of countless examples.
    No, My Lady Nature.
    Of course. But in the face of the mountains of examinable evidence and repeatable lucid demonstration supporting the modern theory of evolution, and the perfect vacuum where evidence to the contrary should be, I find that view completely untenable.
    Then those teachers, like all teachers of science, should point out to their pupils that all the conclusions of science are derived from empiricism and induction, and as such can never be protected against a counterexample we may find tomorrow ─ or may never find, perhaps because it isn't there.

    All the conclusions of science are tentative, a work constantly in progress. Nature is examined with great care, transparency, honesty and freedom from bias. Hypotheses are proposed and tested. Conclusions are reasoned from examinable evidence, published, scrutinized and debated by others with expertise. Those conclusions are constantly revisited and retested, again openly, honestly and transparently.

    If religion worked like that, perhaps a credible religion would emerge. Or perhaps there'd be no religion.
    By dropping the word 'prove' to avoid ambiguity with the way that word is used in maths, symbolic logic and other defined systems, and substituting 'satisfactorily demonstrated' (where the satisfaction is that of our hypothesized impartial but informed onlooker).
    What and where is the 'spirit realm'? What objective test will distinguish it from the imaginary?

    If God is real, then God has objective existence. If God has objective existence, then God is out there in reality, with real properties that identify God as God, just as capybaras and joshua trees have real properties which define them. So what real properties define the real God? What are the examiners of reality to look for that will tell them whether any real thing is God or not?

    What's the real, not imaginary, test for real, not imaginary, godness?
     
    #227 blü 2, Jun 29, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,040
    Ratings:
    +4,625
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Humans did not invent science.....they merely study what already exists and try to understand what mechanisms drive life on earth and complex laws in the wider universe. Someone with great intelligence had to put that material there in the first place IMO.' Nothing comes from nothing' and 'all life springs from pre-existing life'...science knows this and yet argues against it in evolution.

    What is that old adage? "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".....science tends to gloss over what it can't prove, giving the impression that things are considered a foregone conclusion, but are in reality based on very flimsy evidence....as I said, it appears to be an elaborate castle built on nothing but toothpicks.

    And without the intelligence unique to humankind, science would be as useful to us as it is to my dog. I don't see too many in the animal kingdom inventing much of anything. If they figure out how to use a stick, naturalists get all excited....[​IMG]

    You are gazing at the wrong parent.

    That is just the point...there are "mountains" of "evidence" that all rely on interpretation to confirm their validity. Bias dictates how evidence is to be interpreted. That means that provable evidence...i.e. of the substantiated kind amount to a hill of beans in reality. All they have are mountains of assumption and suggestions if the truth be told. :rolleyes:

    If only it was taught that way. But we all know it isn't. Any assault on the 'sacred cow' is met with insults about one's intelligence and an accusation of not understanding what evolution is. I understand perfectly well what they claim evolution is and I strongly contest it.

    No, by dropping the word "prove" you simply reinforce the truth about what is taught....nothing can be proven, therefore there is no truth....just supposition. Its a poor substitute IMO.

    When scientists figure that out, I'm sure they will let you know. They are infants in this area of scientific knowledge. Just because they cannot invent a test for something, doesn't mean it isn't there...surely deep space exploration is continually proving this to be true? :shrug: Do earth bound scientists really know much of all there is to know? I believe they have only scratched the surface.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    10,477
    Ratings:
    +9,891
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    A common misquote. See my signature.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,040
    Ratings:
    +4,625
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Meh...close enough.....it doesn't alter the truth of the statement :D Got a tooth pick?
     
  11. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    10,462
    Ratings:
    +4,988
    Religion:
    None
    "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?
     
    #231 Audie, Jun 29, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2018
  12. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    10,477
    Ratings:
    +9,891
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  13. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    5,839
    Ratings:
    +2,141
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Actually, that would demonstrate an incomplete fossil record and nothing more.
     
  14. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,208
    Ratings:
    +2,481
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Dogs, grass, microbes, lobsters, didn't invent science. Only H sap sap have done that.
    They do all that and you call it 'merely'? You couldn't possibly say that if you had any comprehension of what our systems of investigation of reality have achieved.

    By contrast, please list for me the great religious discoveries about reality in the last decade.
    Yes, you've mentioned that but you've done nothing to demonstrate that it's true.
    I've thought a lot about the meaning of absolute nothing, the absence of energy, dimensions of time or place, the state of utter non-existence. I'm therefore persuaded that Occam's razor requires me to think energy pre-existed the Big Bang; that the Big Bang was a consequence of energy, not a cause of it.
    So you don't believe Genesis 1. Nice that we can at least agree about that.
    No, you completely misunderstand. Science knows that chemistry at some point became biochemistry became self-replicating biochemistry. It's true that this pathway isn't yet fully described; but I have a hunch that a credible description will become available in my lifetime. And yours.

    Certainly I find the alternative ─ magic ─ to be wholly lacking in credibility.
    Last time I asked you for an example of one of your sweeping generalizations of that kind, you didn't respond. But I'll try again. What's an example relevant to science in 2018 of science glossing over what it can't satisfactorily demonstrate? If you don't have such an example, please expressly say so.
    Again, a nice clear example of bias relevant to science in 2018 please.
    You know my objection to confusing 'proof' in maths with 'proof' ─ satisfactory demonstration ─ in eg law. Please state your definition of 'prove' here. What do you say is necessary to 'prove' something?
     
    #234 blü 2, Jun 29, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2018
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  15. Segev Moran

    Segev Moran Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,561
    Ratings:
    +427
    Religion:
    Wow
    I think most of the times people just don't understand each other. I usually try to make sure i understand one's meaning of things as words are rather limited way of communicating.
    Evolution describes several processes that each explains a mechanism that we can observe.
    Out of this, we assume that those mechanism that we can prove are true without a doubt, also apply to our past.
    Natural selection for one, is the "mechanism" by which nature eliminated species that are not fit for their environment.
    When i say nature, i do not mean nature has a "will" to eliminate species, rather that the specie itself cannot survive in the condition nature presents to it.

    So to question evolution, you really need to question what it describe and for each part of it check and examine if it really happens as we describe it or not.
    god is not a description.
    You can describe a god (as you see it), but usually when people talk about god they have an actual entity in their minds (not a flesh and blood entity, but a thinking independent force with the ability to affect our reality.
    I disagree with this.
    I do agree however that almost every one have a different way to describe god.
    that's what makes it even harder to accept as real.
    Dimension is not relevant to this question.
    God either exists or not (being a force, an entity or any other concept)
    Not quite. Atheist don't think there is a sufficient proof that there is a god that have an actual effect on our realty (at least not in the way theist describe it)
    If you call Gravity a force of god, is not something an atheist will argue about (unless you will claim that gravity is manipulated and maintained by god and it can stop any time god wishes it. then you will have to present some evidence to support this claim :) )
    That's good. I can't really understand why people get offended when someone tells them they think their beliefs are wrong.
    I will never get offended if someone tells me he thinks evolution is a joke for example. who cares?
    If one really believes and trusts his god, why would he be offended if someone doesn't share his belief? how does that change anything?
     
  16. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    10,462
    Ratings:
    +4,988
    Religion:
    None
    I will have to strongly contest your statement that you
    understand evolution. It is as obvious that you do not as
    it would be that I did not know football, if I tried
    to be the announcer at a game.

    Re what "we all know" about how science is taught.

    It generally is taught badly in public schools.
    So is everything else.

    What you describe is not remotely like my experience.
    What we "all know" is that overgeneralizing is a mistake.

    As for questioning and sacred cows? I am well aware
    of how touchy the religious can be about, what was that
    word, "sacred"? That is a religious thing.

    Popping up with silly ideas, shallow thinking and thinking
    that those will challenge ToE is like a child saying calculus
    is all wrong coz look they dont even use numbers!

    IF some people have heard such nonsense a few times,
    and get a dismissive or contemptuous attitude next
    time someone says "Well then howcum we still have
    monkeys", well, what do you expect?

    Fact is, nobody ever has come up with any actual data
    that indicates a problem with ToE.

    You have not, nobody has. Name calling, like
    "fairy tale", is not data.

    IF anyone ever does, ti will be news of the highest order,
    but till then, it is just nattering. Sorry-ah, aw we'd say
    in HK, but that really is all it is.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    10,462
    Ratings:
    +4,988
    Religion:
    None
    Why yes; and it will always be incomplete, so ToE will
    always be wrong!

    The history of the cowboy's life is also incomplete.
    So, uh, what?

    Often some species will be known-so far-from only
    one specimen, maybe a leaf, a jaw bone, a bit of shell.

    What shall we conclude from that? All that ever existed
    is a jawbone? No mommy or daddy, no descendants,
    no body, just a jawbone appeared in the rock.

    (actually, that was a belief of the ancient Romans)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    7,794
    Ratings:
    +541
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    My point is the determination does not shift with science improving viability.
     
  19. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,505
    Ratings:
    +2,837
    He's doing the same thing as so many other creationists, i.e., exhibiting black/white thinking where something is either 100% absolutely proven or it's just a made up belief. His fellow Jehovah's Witness here is particularly fond of that way of "thinking".
     
    #239 Jose Fly, Jun 29, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2018
  20. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,505
    Ratings:
    +2,837
    No, they're there. I've posted descriptions of them before and in typical creationist fashion you've ignored it all each time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...