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

[Deeje]

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.

I am doing a comparison. What does science know now, compared to what can be known? No one can even hazard a guess. What if science knows only a small fraction of all there is to know? How could you tell?

By contrast, please list for me the great religious discoveries about reality in the last decade.

What is a' religious discovery about reality'? Perhaps I could use the experience of hundreds of thousands of people who have chosen to become Jehovah's Witnesses in the last decade. Their discovery was monumental to them. They found a reason and a purpose for their existence and secured a hope for themselves and their families that they never knew existed. They also saw through the gaping holes of the evolutionary theory and filled them in with a Creator who values them and is offering something science cannot even guarantee for itself. A future.

Yes, you've mentioned that but you've done nothing to demonstrate that it's true.

Science cannot demonstrate in any real way that macro-evolution ever happened. So pot meet kettle.

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.

We see that "energy" as the Creator. Can you state positively that this energy can't have intelligence? Does science really know?

So you don't believe Genesis 1. Nice that we can at least agree about that.

What has Genesis 1:1 got to do with life coming not from pre-existing life? That pre-existing life was the Creator....it fits perfectly. "In the beginning God created...." Its simple but we get the point. He began life and designed it to be self-perpetuating in environments specifically created to host all the life he placed here.

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.

LOL....I see rhetoric like that and I have to smile. "At some point" means what? Life "poofed" itself into existence one day, for no apparent reason, by a means we have yet to identify? I thought you guys weren't into "poofing"?

"became self-replicating biochemistry"...."became" or was designed to use biochemistry to self replicate?
"It's true that this pathway isn't yet fully described"....I'm smiling again. Is that another way of saying science hasn't got a clue but we're working on it? Funny how science can teach something as truth (especially to children) when it has very little to back up its assertions.

Certainly I find the alternative ─ magic ─ to be wholly lacking in credibility.

That is where a lot of atheists come undone...who told you it was "magic". If the Intelligence capable of creating the universe and causing life is that powerful, why would we put a wizard's hat on him and give him a magic wand? That is your fantasy, not ours. If that is what you think the Creator is, then any wonder you reject him...I would too.

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.

I thought the whale example was enough.

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

Please state your definition of 'prove' here. What do you say is necessary to 'prove' something?

Well, I guess when I look at "evidence" presented by evolutionary scientists supporting their theory, I expect that it can be substantiated by more than guesswork and assumptions. If scientists have to say that they "think" something "might have" happened or "could have" happened or "perhaps" it was this way or that way....then I am not going to be convinced unless I see proof. You see when there is no proof for something, it requires "faith" to "believe" it....that is what we have, but you guys don't seem to be able to acknowledge that you have a "belief system" just the same as we do.....you just market it better.

 

[blü 2]

What is a' religious discovery about reality'? Perhaps I could use the experience of hundreds of thousands of people who have chosen to become Jehovah's Witnesses in the last decade. Their discovery was monumental to them.

But you can't even answer simple questions about the god they believe in. If that god were real, had objective existence, was not wholly imaginary, then you'd be able to give me a description of a (or the) real god. If indeed God is an objective fact, why can't you?

Science cannot demonstrate in any real way that macro-evolution ever happened.

Science has made a satisfactory argument from evidence that macroevolution (the coming into being of new genera and larger taxons) can happen, has happened countless times, and will keep happening as long as species keep reproducing. If you find fault with that argument, then find your examinable evidence, write your paper in an informed, unbiased and sound manner, present it and, if you're right, alter the science. If you can't do that, then the science stands, and macroevolution is a fact, whatever you prefer to think.

And while we're on that subject, your own view is that macroevolution happens by magic. How does magic work? Talk me through how to create a new genus by magic.

Can you state positively that this energy can't have intelligence? Does science really know?

I can say that energy as such is not sentient, has no memory, power to reason, sense of identity, desires &c. I can also say that complex and continuous and various transfers of energy are involved in brain biochemistry, and that sentience, memory, power to reason, sense of self, desires &c are found in working brains.

What has Genesis 1:1 got to do with life coming not from pre-existing life? That pre-existing life was the Creator....it fits perfectly.

Do you assert that God is, like all known living things, a being alive by virtue of the biochemical transactions of its parts? If God is not such a being then God's existence has no resemblance to what we call life; and Genesis purports to describe life arising from non-life, something you say didn't happen.

"At some point" means what?

A time between the formation of the earth 4.5 bn ya and something less than a billion years later. Rocks formed in that period bear the earliest signs of life on earth that we're presently aware of. If you knew any science you'd know that.

Life "poofed" itself into existence one day, for no apparent reason, by a means we have yet to identify?

The biochemistry would necessarily progress in steps from complex but non-self-replicating to self-replicating. You can begin your reading about what we presently know and presently hypothesize (and why) about the matter >here<.

"became self-replicating biochemistry" .... "became" or was designed to to use biochemistry to self replicate?

Why would a designer be necessary? What demonstration can you offer that spontaneous abiogenesis is impossible? What demonstration can you offer that your 'intelligent designer' exists outside your imagination?

"It's true that this pathway isn't yet fully described"....I'm smiling again. Is that another way of saying science hasn't got a clue but we're working on it?

Your further glib remark reminds me that you keep making denigratory generalizations that you can't back up with real examples. Do you customarily argue by deliberate untruths?

That is where a lot of atheists come undone...who told you it was "magic".

Magic is the power to alter objective reality independently of the rules of physics, usually by wishing ─ Let there be light! adds magic words too.

If the Intelligence capable of creating the universe and causing life is that powerful, why would we put a wizard's hat on him and give him a magic wand?

First because for all you can show, [he]'s no less fictitious than Gandalf and Dumbledore (but although I can describe them to you so that if you met them you'd have a fair chance of knowing who they were, you can't describe your god to me in any such way.) Second, you have no idea how the god of Genesis exists outside of imagination, let alone how [he] might do magic like creating the EM spectrum by speaking. If that's wrong, explain to me step by step how it was done.

That is your fantasy, not ours. If that is what you think the Creator is, then any wonder you reject him...I would too.

You know what your imaginary god is. Anyone can do that. You have no idea what a real god is, or what real 'godness' is, the objective and examinable quality that would distinguish a god from a superscientist as well as from a frog.


Oh, and before I forget: I asked you what you meant by 'prove', what must be shown before you regard something as 'proven'. What's the answer?

 

[MJ Bailey]

According to the OP, no Evolution does not remove god and spirit from reality. It is a very unique way in which our planetary habitat adjusts to continual change. Forgive me for not reading all of the other post, but I did however gaze at some. If no one ever had a belief there is not one Science on the face of this planet that would exist. A belief is something in which causes a person to seek tangible evidence for either the existence of or nonexistence of the subject being viewed. Just look at how many Sciences have come about, several through religious teachings and beliefs.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You assume that after searching a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the fossil record that we should have found a fossil for every species that has ever existed. That is a bad assumption.

We don't know if any of these fossils had any ancestors. You don't know, either. Therefore, you can't make any claims about any fossil not having ancestors.

And you can't make claims about any fossils having ancestors ....or descendants.

But the assumptions are there....otherwise, the fossil record wouldn't be considered as evidence for evolution.

Amazing, though, when paleontologists are pressed for evidence to reveal a more finely-graded transitional fossil lineage of an organism, the phrase "incomplete fossil record" is almost always used! Maybe it's more 'complete' than you are willing to accept.

And you said:
"You assume that after searching a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the fossil record that we should have found a fossil for every species that has ever existed. That is a bad assumption."

Isn't that a strawman? I talked about the Cambrian Explosion fauna only. Which record, BTW, reveals extremely well-defined organisms, even those with soft bodies! It is a well-preserved record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you can't make claims about any fossils having ancestors ....or descendants.

Why not? The logical conclusion is that they did have ancestors. There is no evidence for anything else. There is evidence that they did. You seem to be forgetting DNA.

But the assumptions are there....otherwise, the fossil record wouldn't be considered as evidence for evolution.

What assumptions? Once again by using that word you put the burden of proof upon you. A logically drawn conclusion is not an assumption.

Amazing, though, when paleontologists are pressed for evidence to reveal a more finely-graded transitional fossil lineage of an organism, the phrase "incomplete fossil record" is almost always used! Maybe it's more 'complete' than you are willing to accept.

Because that is almost always a ridiculous and ignorant demand. Such a record is not expected. Such a record is not even possible. Once again think of it.

And you said:
"You assume that after searching a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the fossil record that we should have found a fossil for every species that has ever existed. That is a bad assumption."

Isn't that a strawman? I talked about the Cambrian Explosion only. Which record, BTW, reveals extremely well-defined organisms, even those with soft bodies! It is a well-preserved record.

Yes, but we know you all to well. And no, the soft bodied fauna is always very very poorly preserved. The Ediacaran and other such finds were not found until the mid to late 20th century. Most creationists are totally unaware of them to this day.

We do have a consistent explanation for the fossil record. Creationists have no such explanation. Every attempt that I have seen by creationists was refuted a long time ago.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Actually, that would demonstrate an incomplete fossil record and nothing more.

Oh, yes, the ubiquitous phrase, "incomplete fossil record"!

Except, the Cambrian Radiation fossil record exhibits very well preserved and defined fossils, even soft-bodied ones!

Strange how, for thousands of species, no unambiguous precursors have been discovered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, yes, the ubiquitous phrase, "incomplete fossil record"!

Except, the Cambrian Radiation fossil record exhibits very well preserved and defined fossils, even soft-bodied ones!

Strange how, for thousands of species, no unambiguous precursors have been discovered.

You already made this bogus claim. The soft bodied fossils are a rare exception. You seem to think that they were plentiful. Can you find a reliable source that makes that claim?

And there have been "unambiguous precursors" found for thousands of species. You are merely pushing it back to the point where no unambiguous precursors are expected to be found.

 

[Deeje]

You know, I keep seeing you make claims like this, and I'm really wondering what you're basing that on. Is it just something you've heard somewhere?
I've asked you repeatedly if you've ever been in a science classroom. You've never answered that question.

Am I a qualified scientist? No. Have I ever sat in a science class...yes. Have I read everything that evolutionists have posted here as "evidence" for their theory? Yes. And I have shown time and again how flimsy that evidence really is.

You have people all over this forum telling you over and over that your claim that "evolution is taught as absolute proof," is an erroneous one. That in actuality, science deals with the best available evidence, and is always subject to change, given the emergence of new evidence.

And it seems strange to me that anyone can claim the high ground with believers when they have no more substantiated evidence for what they "believe", than we do. They just have more derision and more bluster from people who present themselves as pompous, infallible experts.

I have asked many times myself how science takes us from a microscopic a single-celled organism, that popped up out of nowhere one day with the ability to self replicate.....AND obviously with the ability to eventually morph into creatures the size of a multi-story building? Please show us how that happened and your "evidence" for such a story....and lets see who dodges what. This is the foundation of evolution, so show us how solid that foundation really is.....

That it is not, in fact, taught as "absolute proof." In fact, these same people have told you repeatedly that there is no "proof" in science.

I know! And isn't that just the most convenient excuse for not really knowing what happened because you are guessing? This theory is NOT taught as a theory to kids in school or to those at university.....it is taught as fact...try challenging it in a university science class. No student would dare.

So where is it that you think these people have come up with this idea about science? Has it never occurred to you that it may have been what they were taught in science classrooms, where they would also have been taught the scientific method?

YES! and that is the problem. Who taught the scientists their science? Why, other scientists of course. And who formulated the "scientific method"?....same people. You will excuse me whilst I have a quiet smile at the obvious flaw in your argument. Isn't that the same as saying creationists believe in creation because they were taught by other creationists to believe it? You guys treat science like it was your religion. "Faith" is all you need to "believe".. Helloooo.

I mean, how many times can you make the same claim in light of the apparent evidence that people who actually understand evolution and the scientific method are constantly telling you that scientific findings are never taught as "absolute proof." The only thing I can conclude is that you've never been in a science classroom and therefore have no idea what goes on there.

Oh I know what's going on alright.....but I don't think the science students have a clue.

Facts have to be backed up by solid evidence. I don't think the foundations of this theory are based on anything solid....but its a good con job.

Dawkins says it all really...

But calling evolution a "fact" is a lie...isn't it?

 

[Deeje]

But you can't even answer simple questions about the god they believe in. If that god were real, had objective existence, was not wholly imaginary, then you'd be able to give me a description of a (or the) real god. If indeed God is an objective fact, why can't you?

Read the Bible...there is the best and most comprehensive description of the person of God, given to an infant race who had yet to discover so many things. We will receive a wider education in the future no doubt. At present man is like a two year old poking around in the dark with a small candle. He just doesn't know he's a two year old.

Science has made a satisfactory argument from evidence that macroevolution (the coming into being of new genera and larger taxons) can happen, has happened countless times, and will keep happening as long as species keep reproducing. If you find fault with that argument, then find your examinable evidence, write your paper in an informed, unbiased and sound manner, present it and, if you're right, alter the science. If you can't do that, then the science stands, and macroevolution is a fact, whatever you prefer to think.

Now there's the language I expect from evolution supporters. "A satisfactory argument"...satisfactory to whom? Those who already believe it? How satisfied do they need to be if all they have is assertions?

"New genera and larger taxons"....which means what? That new varieties within a species can be produced? Can you provide evidence that any of these "new genera" or "larger taxons" ever stepped outside of their taxonomic family descriptions? Where is the evidence that any organism can morph into something else....except by suggestion and some good diagrams?

And while we're on that subject, your own view is that macroevolution happens by magic. How does magic work? Talk me through how to create a new genus by magic.

The magic was your suggestion.

What is a "new genus"? Is it not a new subdivision or subfamily of the original organism? Adaptation can produce these new varieties within a species...this is not, however evidence for single celled organisms morphing into dinosaurs though.....is it? Lets get back to grassroots here. The foundations of evolution seem to fly under the radar whilst examples of adaptation are touted as though they proved something other than that creatures can adapt by making small changes in their appearance and habits. But they never step outside of their taxonomic classifications unless we have diagrams indicating that they did. Diagrams are based on assumptions not real evidence.

I can say that energy as such is not sentient, has no memory, power to reason, sense of identity, desires &c.

What if the source of that energy did have all those things?

I can also say that complex and continuous and various transfers of energy are involved in brain biochemistry, and that sentience, memory, power to reason, self of self, desires &c are found in working brains.

Indeed. The Creator designed those working brains to accomplish a certain role in his absence. Humans alone were given qualities like their Maker so that they could represent him as caretakers of this planet and its other inhabitants. A role that we have shamefully neglected. I believe that there will be accountability.

Do you assert that God is, like all known living things, a being alive by virtue of the biochemical transactions of its parts? If God is not such a being then God's existence has no resemblance to what we call life; and Genesis purports to describe life arising from non-life, something you say didn't happen.

I assert nothing more than what the Bible tells us about this Being. He is a lifeform that is extra-terrestrial. (not of this earth) We are unfamiliar with lifeform like that in our material confines. Nor do we have any idea how life was transferred to the first human other than what Genesis tells us. The Creator made a human body out of terrestrial materials and gave it life. Everything in its DNA was already programmed to reproduce its kind, like all the other lifeforms that God had made.

A time between the formation of the earth 4.5 bn ya and something less than a billion years later. Rocks formed in that period bear the earliest signs of life on earth that we're presently aware of. If you knew any science you'd know that.

You do understand that Genesis is the record of the order of creation? When the time came for sentient life to appear, that was not the first life on earth. Plant life came first and, as I would imagine, bacteria that composted vegetation would accompany it. The creative periods were not 24 hour days. Each one could have lasted eons on this old earth. I am not a YEC.

The biochemistry would necessarily progress in steps from complex but non-self-replicating to self-replicating.

And that is what Genesis indicates....a slow progressive creation of life by a master craftsman, fashioning creatures of infinite variety, all self-replicating and self-sufficient in the habitats that were created for them. Or do you think that suitable habitats with the right food was all a gigantic fluke as well?

What demonstration can you offer that spontaneous abiogenesis is impossible?

What demonstration can science offer me that it is possible for life to just "pop" up out of nowhere?

You guys are the ones who assert that God's existence is not possible because you can't see him or measure him with your present equipment and limited knowledge.

What demonstration can you offer that your 'intelligent designer' exists outside your imagination?

The evidence is all around us...you guys just can't see it. You don't want to apparently, because it is so obvious to us.

Your further glib remark reminds me that you keep making denigratory generalizations that you can't back up with real examples. Do you customarily argue by deliberate untruths?

Not that you don't make "denigratory generalizations" of your own...?

I customarily argue what I understand as truth. Tell me when I have not spoken the truth. Disagreeing is not lying.....contrary to popular belief in these forums.

Magic is the power to alter objective reality independently of the rules of physics, usually by wishing ─ Let there be light! adds magic words too.

No mate, that is not the Bible's definition of God's power. He actually condemns magic. His power is without limit as I am sure we will all see in due time. The one who makes the rules can circumvent them if he desires to do so...are you going to tell him that he can't?

you have no idea how the god of Genesis exists outside of imagination, let alone how [he] might do magic like creating the EM spectrum by speaking. If that's wrong, explain to me step by step how it was done.

That is a bit technical for me...perhaps you can demonstrate how it happened by accident...?

Oh, and before I forget: I asked you what you meant by 'prove', what must be shown before you regard something as 'proven'. What's the answer?

I guess it means to "demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument."

By "evidence" I am thinking that it has to be substantive, not circumstantial....meaning that it has to be backed up by more than what appears to be the case by mere suggestion. The argument has to be based on more than assertion and supposition, which seems to be good enough for science but not good enough when applied to those who support the idea of an Intelligent Designer.

 

[blü 2]

Read the Bible...there is the best and most comprehensive description of the person of God, given to an infant race who had yet to discover so many things.

The God in the Garden story is a Bronze Age magic human who by inference has empowered himself by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life (thus becoming immortal). [He]'s the same god as sponsors invasive land-grab wars, grotesque massacres, mass rape, slavery, human sacrifice, polygamy and the subjugation of women and so on. I can refer you to chapter and verse if your memory has gone soft on the details. Is that your god? [He's] an unambiguous savage barbarian and I want no part of [him].

"A satisfactory argument"...satisfactory to whom?

I told you earlier, quite explicitly: our hypothetical impartial but informed onlooker.

"New genera and larger taxons"....which means what?

Ah, so when you said 'macroevolution' you had no idea what you were talking about. Yes, that's completely consistent.

The magic was your suggestion.

Goodness no, it's all through the bible ─ miracles are a subset of magic, as a moment's reflection will tell you. And you still haven't told me how to call the EM spectrum into being with magic words. Don't you know?

What is a "new genus"?

A genus that hasn't existed until now.

What if the source of that energy did have all those things?

What if the sky were puce? What if the Washington Monument were woven from spaghetti? What if Genghis Khan had actually been a tomato?

Indeed. The Creator designed those working brains to accomplish a certain role in his absence.

What satisfactory demonstration of the truth of that claim do you have?

I assert nothing more than what the Bible tells us about this Being. He is a lifeform that is extra-terrestrial. (not of this earth) We are unfamiliar with lifeform like that in our material confines. Nor do we have any idea how life was transferred to the first human other than what Genesis tells us.

On the basis of what examinable evidence, what honest reasoning, do you think that's a correct statement about reality?

You do understand that Genesis is the record of the order of creation?

No, I understand that Genesis records at the start yet another creation myth. Why would you think otherwise?

'When the time came for sentient life to appear, that was not the first life on earth. Plant life came first

No, microorganisms (archaea) came first. Check the evidence if in doubt. The bible, you'll have noted, says plants existed before the sun did, which is pure nonsense.

What demonstration can science offer me that it is possible for life to just "pop" up out of nowhere?

As I explained to you before, it didn't 'just pop up'. That phrase is just part of your glib, unevidenced, and unsustainable dismissal of things you find inconvenient. Please at least try to keep your statements honest, that is, accurate reflections of reality.

You guys are the ones who assert that God's existence is not possible because you can't see him or measure him with your present equipment and limited knowledge.

I make no such assertion.

Instead I assert that anyone (including me) can devise an imaginary god or two, but that nowhere is there a coherent concept of a real god ─ and you obviously know this too, since you have no useful definition of a real god to offer, no description that would allow us to tell what real thing is a god and what isn't.

Which is the heart of the problem, and more particularly your problem, since I at least know what I don't have.

Not that you don't make "denigratory generalizations" of your own...?

Not like you do. And even if just to illustrate that Christians are honest folk, you should stop. (Should you wish me to provide examples for any generalizations I might make, just ask. I, unlike you, will reply.)

I customarily argue what I understand as truth.

Truth, in my book, is conformity / correspondence with / accurate reflection of, reality. What definition of 'truth' are you using?

Tell me when I have not spoken the truth.

In those sweeping dismissive generalizations that I asked you to back with concrete examples (and which you ducked on all three occasions).

No mate, that is not the Bible's definition of God's power. He actually condemns magic.

[He] actually condemns rival magic: that's why [he] chucked A&E out of the Garden and why [he] kicked over the Tower of Babel ─ [he] states [his] motives very clearly.

I guess it means to "demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument."

How does that differ from 'satisfactory demonstration', the definition I offered you and you rejected?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The bible, you'll have noted, says plants existed before the sun did....

No, it doesn’t.

Genesis 1:3-4 describes “light” as being observed on the second Day, before any lifeforms were created.

Genesis 1:14 describes “lights” plural (and totally different Hebrew word), as explaining specific sources (Sun and Moon), which could finally be seen. The atmosphere was previously too thick with gases and debris, for an observer to see any particular source of light, even the Sun.

So, really, what you reveal is a fault that lies, not with the Bible, but with your understanding of it....or rather, your misunderstanding of it.

You shouldn’t be so eager to try and discredit the Scriptures.... it works against you in acquiring accurate knowledge.

I’ll let Deeje handle others — it’s too late here!

 

[blü 2]

No, it doesn’t.

Genesis 1:3-4 describes “light” as being observed on the second Day, before any lifeforms were created.

Yes, in the story 'light' existed on Day 2, but the sun did not. (You'll be aware that the water and land mentioned earlier couldn't have existed in the absence of the EM spectrum, so that's another scientific error.)

Genesis 1:11 says plants were created on Day 3.

And Genesis 1:16 says that God made the 'great light' to 'rule the day' (the sun) on Day 4.

The atmosphere was previously too thick with gases and debris, for an observer to see any particular source of light, even the Sun.

The bible doesn't mention that, or anything like it. Your source is trying to wish modern science onto an ancient text that has no notion of such a thing.

You shouldn’t be so eager to try and discredit the Scriptures.... it works against you in acquiring accurate knowledge.

On the contrary, I have no intention of 'discrediting' ancient documents. I defend them, emphasizing (as here) what they actually say and what they actually don't say.

And my copy of Genesis (a) says plants existed before the sun did, and (b) never mentions an atmosphere, let alone one imagined to be 'previously too thick with gas and debris'.

If you want to imagine that, well, it's a free country. But don't pretend it's in the text.

 

[oldbadger]

Does evolution totally remove God, and spirit from reality.

If yes, how so?

If no, how so?

That's not what your thread title addressed, is it?
The question in the title is:-
How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith?

My answer to that is:- Wasn't God clever? Imagine setting all into existence and motion, designed to take care of everything, all by itself. So God doesn't have to worry about the details of existence, motion, or any of the creations of Nature........ He can do something else.

 

[Deeje]

Is that your god? [He's] an unambiguous savage barbarian and I want no part of [him].

I'm sure he thinks well of you too.

I told you earlier, quite explicitly: our hypothetical impartial but informed onlooker.

Can you tell me where I might find one of those?

Ah, so when you said 'macroevolution' you had no idea what you were talking about.

Nice dodge. I asked for substantiated evidence that macro-evolution can go beyond the adaptation that can be observed in a lab....it is obviously too much to ask?

On the basis of what examinable evidence, what honest reasoning, do you think that's a correct statement about reality?

The examinable evidence that is all around us and inside of us. You put it all down to a series of fortunate accidents and blind chance mutations. I know deliberate design when I see it. Design demonstrates purpose and purpose demonstrates planning and planning demonstrates intelligence. Its just logical.

No, microorganisms (archaea) came first. Check the evidence if in doubt. The bible, you'll have noted, says plants existed before the sun did, which is pure nonsense.

That is incorrect. The first thing God said was "let there be light"...what is earth's only light source? Since "God created the heavens and the earth" in one act of creation that has childishly been called the "big bang", what makes you think plants can come before light? All that happened later was that the sun, moon and stars became visible, perhaps with the clearing of cloud bands? Plants and microorganisms were very early in the creative process.

As I explained to you before, it didn't 'just pop up'. That phrase is just part of your glib, unevidenced, and unsustainable dismissal of things you find inconvenient. Please at least try to keep your statements honest, that is, accurate reflections of reality.

So these lifeless single cells, that came from nowhere, just came to life gradually...somehow? They were only slightly alive at first....and then somehow became half alive, then a bit more alive, until they were completely alive....sure, sounds feasible to me....

Very scientific.

It amuses me that evolutionists will always succumb to making personal comments about a poster when they can't produce anything to back up what they say. It is an admission of defeat in my book. I'm sorry if you are feeling frustrated.....but you're still here....

Truth, in my book, is conformity / correspondence with / accurate reflection of, reality. What definition of 'truth' are you using?

The one that actually tells us how life began, and tells us that we are not a biological accident and that we have a purpose to our existence. What purpose is there in living this poor excuse for a life, with all its trials and tragedies, if this is all there is? We all know collectively, in our heart of hearts, that this can't be all there is. Why do we always want a better life if it can't be attained? Where do we get the idea that we should have a better life in better surroundings? We all want it.

In those sweeping dismissive generalizations that I asked you to back with concrete examples (and which you ducked on all three occasions).

That whale evidence keeps coming to mind....forgotten again already? But really you can't even back up your own beliefs with real evidence. You are the one with the science....all I have is a belief that is substantiated with what I can see and what I know from the Bible. I thought you guys had all the evidence.....? Well, I haven't seen any yet. Still waiting for you to show us how we get from single cells to dinosaurs.....?

Should I hold my breath?

 

[Audie]

That's not what your thread title addressed, is it?
The question in the title is:-
How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith?

My answer to that is:- Wasn't God clever? Imagine setting all into existence and motion, designed to take care of everything, all by itself. So God doesn't have to worry about the details of existence, motion, or any of the creations of Nature........ He can do something else.

Perfectly good answer if you want pure speculation. Though
if "god" is omnipotent, that isn't such a trick. Easier, I'd
think, than micro -tweaking everything. Just set up basic
principles and let them play out.

Plenty of evidence that things run themselves.

Not one fact to be found that this god exists. Speculation.

 

[blü 2]

I'm sure he thinks well of you too.

But meanwhile you're on [his] side when it comes to invasive war, pillage, massacre, mass rape, slavery, human sacrifice, polygamy and so on. I'm not.

Nice dodge. I asked for substantiated evidence that macro-evolution can go beyond the adaptation that can be observed in a lab.

You asked for nothing of the kind.

The examinable evidence that is all around us and inside of us.

Then why are you telling me instead of publishing in Nature?

That is incorrect. The first thing God said was "let there be light"...what is earth's only light source?

Phosphorus? Magma? God brought a torch? God was asking an angel for a flame for [his] cigarette?

But on day 4 God says, "Let there be lights in the firmament to separate day from night" (meaning that to this point there had been no sun, no light at all, in the sky); "And God made the two great lights" (towit the sun and moon) "the greater light to rule the day" (the sun) "and the lesser light to rule the night" (the moon). Odd that you can't read the plain words of your own text.

Since "God created the heavens and the earth" in one act of creation that has childishly been called the "big bang"

No, there's no concept of the Big Bang in the bible. Instead the earth is flat, and the center of everything, and the heavenly bodies go round it; and the firmament (sky) is solid, and holds up heaven, and the sun and stars are attached to it and will fall to earth if they come loose. If you missed the list of thirty examples of where the bible spells out these things, here's the >link<.

what makes you think plants can come before light?

I don't think that. I simply point to what Genesis says: plants were created on Day 3 and the sun was created on Day 4.

All that happened later was that the sun, moon and stars became visible, perhaps with the clearing of cloud bands? Plants and microorganisms were very early in the creative process.

No, whoever told you that was making stuff up. As I said, there's no concept of the Big Bang in the bible, and instead there's the cosmology I've set out on that link.

It amuses me that evolutionists will always succumb to making personal comments about a poster when they can't produce anything to back up what they say.

You think it's amusing to take cheap shots in the form of derogatory generalizations about science which you can substantiate with not a single real example? I don't.

The one that actually tells us how life began,

You believe life began by magic, yet you have not the faintest idea how magic might work. Yet when I give you a link to information about the scientific view of abiogenesis, you don't even read it. You have no genuine curiosity about what's true in reality.

we have a purpose to our existence.

What, apart from surviving and breeding and doing things we like to do, is the purpose of our existence?


Oh, and you forgot to tell me how your definition of 'prove' differs from my 'satisfactory demonstration', which you rejected.


Oh, and you still haven't told me what I should be looking for when I go looking for a real god, what test will tell us whether something or someone's a real god or not. If you don't know, just say so, of course ─ I don't know either.

 

[Audie]

No, it doesn’t.

Genesis 1:3-4 describes “light” as being observed on the second Day, before any lifeforms were created.

Genesis 1:14 describes “lights” plural (and totally different Hebrew word), as explaining specific sources (Sun and Moon), which could finally be seen. The atmosphere was previously too thick with gases and debris, for an observer to see any particular source of light, even the Sun.

So, really, what you reveal is a fault that lies, not with the Bible, but with your understanding of it....or rather, your misunderstanding of it.

You shouldn’t be so eager to try and discredit the Scriptures.... it works against you in acquiring accurate knowledge.

I’ll let Deeje handle others — it’s too late here!

Terrif book, no two agree on what it means.

As previously noted, its popularity may be
traced to how it says whatever you want.

 

[Audie]

I'm sure he thinks well of you too.

Can you tell me where I might find one of those?



Nice dodge. I asked for substantiated evidence that macro-evolution can go beyond the adaptation that can be observed in a lab....it is obviously too much to ask?



The examinable evidence that is all around us and inside of us. You put it all down to a series of fortunate accidents and blind chance mutations. I know deliberate design when I see it. Design demonstrates purpose and purpose demonstrates planning and planning demonstrates intelligence. Its just logical.



That is incorrect. The first thing God said was "let there be light"...what is earth's only light source? Since "God created the heavens and the earth" in one act of creation that has childishly been called the "big bang", what makes you think plants can come before light? All that happened later was that the sun, moon and stars became visible, perhaps with the clearing of cloud bands? Plants and microorganisms were very early in the creative process.



So these lifeless single cells, that came from nowhere, just came to life gradually...somehow? They were only slightly alive at first....and then somehow became half alive, then a bit more alive, until they were completely alive....sure, sounds feasible to me....

Very scientific.

It amuses me that evolutionists will always succumb to making personal comments about a poster when they can't produce anything to back up what they say. It is an admission of defeat in my book. I'm sorry if you are feeling frustrated.....but you're still here....



The one that actually tells us how life began, and tells us that we are not a biological accident and that we have a purpose to our existence. What purpose is there in living this poor excuse for a life, with all its trials and tragedies, if this is all there is? We all know collectively, in our heart of hearts, that this can't be all there is. Why do we always want a better life if it can't be attained? Where do we get the idea that we should have a better life in better surroundings? We all want it.



That whale evidence keeps coming to mind....forgotten again already? But really you can't even back up your own beliefs with real evidence. You are the one with the science....all I have is a belief that is substantiated with what I can see and what I know from the Bible. I thought you guys had all the evidence.....? Well, I haven't seen any yet. Still waiting for you to show us how we get from single cells to dinosaurs.....?

Should I hold my breath?

You have seen that there are single cells, and
there are cooperating colonies of like cells?

One step at a time. You do know of those,
both plant and animal?

 

[oldbadger]

Not one fact to be found that this god exists. Speculation.

Simple to answer that.
Any scientist can admit, if shoved hard enough, that there is a reason why our Universe initiated........... The Reason is just another name for God.

No speculation required, thankyou.

 

[rrobs]

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.

Very well said!

I've been loosing patience with some of the people here and have not been as nice as you. Your voice is more aligned with my normal temperament, so thanks for saying it all.