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

[Subduction Zone]

Really. You know that "any" scientist can be forced
to reluctantly confess that there is a god.

You simply made that up.
Or you are thinking of the Inquisition?

Not that your quip in any way addresses the
fact that there is not one datum point ever
detected that supports any sott of "god",
which as always, is just speculation.

As for "reason" = "god", I have seen assertions,
seen equivocation, but that is a champion.

He does so by redefining "God". The word is pretty much useless when it includes the possible natural cause for the beginning of the universe and would not match the definition used by any theist that I know.

 

[rrobs]

It doesn't. It seems to focus entirely on Man and his soul. I don't see anything about animals and plants, or the origin of life itself, here that precludes the scientific view. If you think it does, you will have to explain it to me.

Funny you should say that. If you look closely at my posts I never said evolution was not possible. I simply offered an alternative view on it. I've maintained all along the evolution can and does occur within a genus.

The scientific view changes as new discoveries are made. A good scientist doesn't know what he or she doesn't know, so they allow for changes in a given theory. That makes good sense. I understand there is more to it, much more, but if anybody is interested there is a ton of information on the Internet about the scientific method.

In short, there is nothing in the Bible to preclude the scientific view. It does indicate that science doesn't have the story 100% correct, but I think a good scientists is always aware that their theories are subject to change as more info is gathered.

 

[Audie]

Did I really see a creo trying to give us
science lessons?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny you should say that. If you look closely at my posts I never said evolution was not possible. I simply offered an alternative view on it. I've maintained all along the evolution can and does occur within a genus.

The scientific view changes as new discoveries are made. A good scientist doesn't know what he or she doesn't know, so they allow for changes in a given theory. That makes good sense. I understand there is more to it, much more, but if anybody is interested there is a ton of information on the Internet about the scientific method.

In short, there is nothing in the Bible to preclude the scientific view. It does indicate that science doesn't have the story 100% correct, but I think a good scientists is always aware that their theories are subject to change as more info is gathered.

The only problem for you is that there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. There are mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution. Scientists follow the evidence.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Funny you should say that. If you look closely at my posts I never said evolution was not possible. I simply offered an alternative view on it. I've maintained all along the evolution can and does occur within a genus.

The scientific view changes as new discoveries are made. A good scientist doesn't know what he or she doesn't know, so they allow for changes in a given theory. That makes good sense. I understand there is more to it, much more, but if anybody is interested there is a ton of information on the Internet about the scientific method.

In short, there is nothing in the Bible to preclude the scientific view. It does indicate that science doesn't have the story 100% correct, but I think a good scientists is always aware that their theories are subject to change as more info is gathered.

No scientist claims to have anything 100%. Discoveries are made constantly that refine our knowledge of evolutionary theory. This does not mean that evolutionary theory as it is currently understood is necessarily wrong. Think of reality as a circle. Now, you can make a decent approximation of a circle with an octagon. You can make a much better approximation with a dodecagon.

Now, just because the dodecagon is a better, more complete approximation of the reality of a circle, that doesn't make the octagon inherently wrong. You can think of scientific advance this way, as a progression from fewer sided shapes to more sided shapes. We will probably never get to the point where science is a perfect circle, but with every refinement, we get closer. Science is not about going from a completely wrong theory directly to a completely right one, which is how creationists seem to think it should work. I hope this descriptive tool helps clarify things a little.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No scientist claims to have anything 100%. Discoveries are made constantly that refine our knowledge of evolutionary theory. This does not mean that evolutionary theory as it is currently understood is necessarily wrong. Think of reality as a circle. Now, you can make a decent approximation of a circle with an octagon. You can make a much better approximation with a dodecagon.

Now, just because the dodecagon is a better, more complete approximation of the reality of a circle, that doesn't make the octagon inherently wrong. You can think of scientific advance this way, as a progression from fewer sided shapes to more sided shapes. We will probably never get to the point where science is a perfect circle, but with every refinement, we get closer. Science is not about going from a completely wrong theory directly to a completely right one, which is how creationists seem to think it should work. I hope this descriptive tool helps clarify things a little.

And scientists are not about to drop a theory that works for one that qualifies as "Not even wrong". Being wrong in the sciences is useful. It allows a person to correct an incorrect idea. Creation "scientists" refuse to put their ideas into the form of a testable hypothesis because they are afraid of being shown to be wrong. They can only try to claim that evolution is wrong and they fail at even that.

 

[Audie]

The only problem for you is that there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. There are mountains of evidence for the theory of
evolution. Scientists follow the evidence.

No matter how much is supplied-

Not enough, not enough! they cry, there are gaps! It is not proven!

If it dont fit their infallible readin' of scriptures.

Evidence for god?0
None at all is more than enough for what they do choose to believe.

Now, two things they can never ever deliver:

A fact for god

A fact against ToE.

Weirdly, they never step back and wonder- Could that
mean something important?

 

[rrobs]

Actually the RCC isn't, especially since it has an almost 2000 year history that traces back to the apostles.

All religions are not static-- they're dynamic, largely because of two reasons: 1.times change so periodic adjustments have to be made, and 2.there are things done in the early church that were not written down in the scriptures or needed to be clarified since they may be too vague. Ideas as to what Jesus was vis-a-vis God is just one sticky-wicky that the Church had to try and deal with. Needless to say, there was much more.

The Church simply is not just made up of the Bible, and it was the CC that actually selected the canon of the Bible that you use.

Yes, religions change. God, and His word do not change.

There is a lot of verses that indicate the truth was being compromised in a major way. Read Paul's letters to the churches as well as those he wrote to Timothy. You'll see that many were infiltrating the Christian church and teaching false doctrine.

The Bible says it contains all things that pertain to life and godliness.

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:
​

If words have any meaning at all, this verse says that there is no reason to go outside of the scriptures to learn about God. God never mentions Apostolic writings, catechisms, statements of faith, or anything else the RCC inserts into right doctrine, especially when those insertions are contrary to the Bible. For example, the RCC prays to saints while the Bible says that everybody that ever died will stay dead until God raises them from the dead for judgment as per the Book of Revelations. The Bible is quite clear on the status of dead people.

Eccl 9:5,

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
​

Ps 115:17,

The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
​

There are others. Just look for them.

There is actually one exception to this rule, and that would be Jesus Christ. He did rise from the dead.

John 3:13,

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.​

Clear as a bell. The Bible says Jesus is the only one who rose from the dead and is not in heaven. So who are all the saints the RCC prays to? They are all dead and not listening. You just have to make up your mind as to who knows best, the Bible or the RCC.

 

[rrobs]

Did I really see a creo trying to give us
science lessons?

Do you mean to the ones trying to give me Bible lessons?

Here's what I said,

"The scientific view changes as new discoveries are made. A good scientist doesn't know what he or she doesn't know, so they allow for changes in a given theory. That makes good sense. I understand there is more to it, much more, but if anybody is interested there is a ton of information on the Internet about the scientific method."

Where am I wrong in that? Do scientific views never change? Does a good scientist think he knows it all? Do scientists ignore new evidence and cling to their theory regardless of that new evidence.

I don't remember precisely when, but I'm pretty sure we learned that what I said is true in the first day or two of pretty much any science course I've taken, whether grade school, high school, or college. But all that was a while ago. Have things changed?

What is a creo?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you mean to the ones trying to give me Bible lessons?

Here's what I said,

"The scientific view changes as new discoveries are made. A good scientist doesn't know what he or she doesn't know, so they allow for changes in a given theory. That makes good sense. I understand there is more to it, much more, but if anybody is interested there is a ton of information on the Internet about the scientific method."

Where am I wrong in that? Do scientific views never change? Does a good scientist think he knows it all? Do scientists ignore new evidence and cling to their theory regardless of that new evidence.

I don't remember precisely when, but I'm pretty sure we learned that what I said is true in the first day or two of pretty much any science course I've taken, whether grade school, high school, or college. But all that was a while ago. Have things changed?

What is a creo?

The problem with the Bible is that you are merely a self educated person with an agenda, no better than those you are debating against. My views on the Bible are at least as valid as yours. You forgot reality in your Bible studies making them moot.

Scientific views follow the evidence. There is no evidence for your beliefs. That puts them in the same category as believing in Bigfoot. Or a better way to think of it, as believing in universe farting pixies. There is as much evidence for universe farting pixies as there is for your version of God.

 

[rrobs]

The only problem for you is that there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. There are mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution. Scientists follow the evidence.

I still don't think you even understand what I am saying. I've said over and over that the Bible says evolution can occur within a genus. Are you saying there is not scientific evidence for that, there is no scientific evidence that one species evolved into another over time?

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Albert Einstein​

 

[Subduction Zone]

I still don't think you even understand what I am saying. I've said over and over that the Bible says evolution can occur within a genus. Are you saying there is not scientific evidence for that, there is no scientific evidence that one species evolved into another over time?

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Albert Einstein​

What are you talking about? Speciation has been directly observed. There is massive evidence for the evolutionary changes that lead to new genuses arising too.

By the way, your claim that species can evolve only within limits is not even supported by the Bible. That is merely a reinterpretation of the book to account for facts that even you can't deny. But sadly for you there is no evidence of a limit to evolution. There is slam dunk evidence that you are an ape.

 

[rrobs]

The problem with the Bible is that you are merely a self educated person with an agenda, no better than those you are debating against.

You and the others may be self educated with an agenda, but don't include me in that group. It doesn't make me any better though.

God chose his children before He created the universe.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
​

I have no idea as to you being one of those whom He chose or not. You may confess Jesus as your Lord and believe God raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9-10) in your dying breath. That will make you a son of God with the same rights and privileges as all of God's children have. I don't know that you won't do that and that is why I shouldn't judge you. If I do, it's my problem.

My point is, I don't think anybody (certainly not me) is better than anybody else. God knows everybody's heart and He's the only one the really matters.

 

[Audie]

Do you mean to the ones trying to give me Bible lessons?

Here's what I said,

"The scientific view changes as new discoveries are made. A good scientist doesn't know what he or she doesn't know, so they allow for changes in a given theory. That makes good sense. I understand there is more to it, much more, but if anybody is interested there is a ton of information on the Internet about the scientific method."

Where am I wrong in that? Do scientific views never change? Does a good scientist think he knows it all? Do scientists ignore new evidence and cling to their theory regardless of that new evidence.

I don't remember precisely when, but I'm pretty sure we learned that what I said is true in the first day or two of pretty much any science course I've taken, whether grade school, high school, or college. But all that was a while ago. Have things changed?

What is a creo?

Let me rephrase then.

Your "evos" here, myself included are far far better
educated than you in the sciences.

What you dont just get wrong is news of the obvious.

Yet you offer lessons and suggest those interested could
learn more?


Tty this- give us one fact contrary to ToE, one for "God".
One or the other, or both.

If you cannot, you've nothing-zero- to teach us except maybe
how tiresome you can be

 

[rrobs]

What are you talking about? Speciation has been directly observed. There is massive evidence for the evolutionary changes that lead to new genuses arising too.

By the way, your claim that species can evolve only within limits is not even supported by the Bible. That is merely a reinterpretation of the book to account for facts that even you can't deny. But sadly for you there is no evidence of a limit to evolution. There is slam dunk evidence that you are an ape.

You just got done telling me there is no evidence for what the Bible says regarding species evolution. I swear that's what you said. Now you're saying there is?

How in the world can you tell me what is and is not supported in the Bible? As I've said, most of what you probably know of the Bible is actually tradition which more often than not runs contrary to the scriptures. Were you the one I asked about the extent of your Biblical research? I mentioned Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, concordances, lexicons, interlinears, reverse interlinears, etc? I asked which ones you preferred. Whoever it was, as usual, didn't give a direct answer. If it wasn't you, I'll ask you now, have you spent any time with those and any other Biblical research tools?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You and the others may be self educated with an agenda, but don't include me in that group. It doesn't make me any better though.

God chose his children before He created the universe.

Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
​

I have no idea as to you being one of those whom He chose or not. You may confess Jesus as your Lord and believe God raised him from the dead (Rom 10:9-10) in your dying breath. That will make you a son of God with the same rights and privileges as all of God's children have. I don't know that you won't do that and that is why I shouldn't judge you. If I do, it's my problem.

My point is, I don't think anybody (certainly not me) is better than anybody else. God knows everybody's heart and He's the only one the really matters.

Your bias makes you blind to your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just got done telling me there is no evidence for what the Bible says regarding species evolution. I swear that's what you said. Now you're saying there is?

How in the world can you tell me what is and is not supported in the Bible? As I've said, most of what you probably know of the Bible is actually tradition which more often than not runs contrary to the scriptures. Were you the one I asked about the extent of your Biblical research? I mentioned Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, concordances, lexicons, interlinears, reverse interlinears, etc? I asked which ones you preferred. Whoever it was, as usual, didn't give a direct answer. If it wasn't you, I'll ask you now, have you spent any time with those and any other Biblical research tools?

I understand the errors that desperate theists make when their myths are threatened. Muslims have the same song and dance that you do.

 

[Audie]

What are you talking about? Speciation has been directly observed. There is massive evidence for the evolutionary changes that lead to new genuses arising too.

By the way, your claim that species can evolve only within limits is not even supported by the Bible. That is merely a reinterpretation of the book to account for facts that even you can't deny. But sadly for you there is no evidence of a limit to evolution. There is slam dunk evidence that you are an ape.

If there were such a barrier, surely someone would
have detected it by now.

Where is it, how and why does it work?

Silence.

Yet they insist it must be, is, there. Why? Coz they choose
to say the bible tells 'em so.

Talk about intellectual bankrutcy!

 

[Audie]

Your bias makes you blind to your errors.

"Self-educated within the agenda."

Yup, sounds like our boy.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

How?

Well, in school we had science teachers that were part of our religious school and they proposed middle-ground thinking like "7 days but they're God's days which can be eons."

I'd also like to think that a God who doesn't want us to improve and grow as people (to evolve) is not a God worth worshiping. God wants us to be like God. We are called to evolve.