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. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    10,193
    Ratings:
    +5,409
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    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?

    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?

    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."

    [​IMG]

    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...
    [​IMG]

    "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?

    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.

    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 "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?

    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.....

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    #161 Deeje, Jun 27, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2018
  2. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,809
    Usually the term has meant a particular region of the brain that is self labeled higher functioning.
     
  3. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    29,282
    Ratings:
    +12,494
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    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].
     
  4. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    Christian
    Allow me to rephrase your question; Is free will very good?
     
  5. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    Christian
    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!
     
  6. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,391
    Ratings:
    +3,172
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    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
     
  7. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  8. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  9. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,391
    Ratings:
    +3,172
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    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.
     
  10. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,391
    Ratings:
    +3,172
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    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.
     
  11. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,647
    Ratings:
    +3,256
    Religion:
    Christian
    Great post, Deeje!
    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.
     
  12. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,647
    Ratings:
    +3,256
    Religion:
    Christian

    Here we go!

    “Scientific”, give us a break! You mean “philosophical”. Or, how about, just idea?
     
  13. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,391
    Ratings:
    +3,172
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    @rrobs is a sensible interlocutor who will understand what I mean, I feel sure, as will most other intelligent readers. :D
     
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    29,005
    Ratings:
    +16,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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?
     
  15. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,647
    Ratings:
    +3,256
    Religion:
    Christian
    Describing as scientific what clearly isn’t, indeed, categorizing anything falsely, is misinformation at the least.
     
  16. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,391
    Ratings:
    +3,172
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    [click]
     
  17. rrobs

    rrobs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,123
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,391
    Ratings:
    +3,172
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    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?
     
  19. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,850
    Ratings:
    +639
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    If the Bible does not--I believe it does--should science determine this or halachic law and practice, do you think?
     
  20. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,850
    Ratings:
    +639
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...