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

[Deeje]

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

Yes, and cells have programs that make them behave according to pre-programmed instructions.

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

Yes, and I know that single celled organisms were not programmed to become plants....and plants were not programmed to become animals. I am not related to a banana.

You do know about "kinds"....? Species can have varying degrees of minor differences, (due to adaptation) but they never venture outside of their taxonomy. The programming in their cells will not allow it.

 

[Audie]

Yes, and cells have programs that make them behave according to pre-programmed instructions.



Yes, and I know that single celled organisms were not programmed to become plants....and plants were not programmed to become animals. I am not related to a banana.

You do know about "kinds"....? Species can have varying degrees of minor differences, (due to adaptation) but they never venture outside of their taxonomy. The programming in their cells will not allow it.

What I do know is-
I do know an awful lot more biology than you do.
"Kind" has no meaning in biology. It is only a bible
term. I dont care to talk bible.

I can attempt to walk you thru some basic concepts
but not if you are fighting it with everything you have,
and asserting things that have no basis other than
some biblical interpretation.

None of the above is snark, attack, or anything like
that. I am just talking straight.

 

[blü 2]

No, again, it doesn’t. Where do you think the light in the second Day comes from?

Not from the sun. The sun, moon and stars weren't created till Day 4.

It’s the Sun, grief! It just wasn’t able to be seen, till the fourth Day.

The text says no such thing. It very explicitly denies your claim. Whoever told you that the 'light' in 'Let there be' was the sun had simply not read what's written.

Everything in Genesis 1 is explained to us from the perspective of an observer, as if by a person on the Earth.

No, the narration is in the style of a storyteller. It is, after all, a creation myth.

You probably think Genesis is talking about literal days, too.... but Paul’s commentary in Hebrews 4, regarding God’s Rest Day (the seventh), reveals it isn’t.

Nothing Paul says can alter what's written in Genesis. For example, Paul, in one place and briefly, says that the Garden story represents the Fall of Man; whereas you only have to read Genesis 1-3 to find that it says nothing even remotely resembling that; and Ezekiel 18 to find that guilt for sin can't be inherited.

That doesn't mean you have to believe Genesis, any more than it means you have to believe Paul. But it means that the two are incompatible, as you can readily find by reading what the text says instead of what someone else says about the texts.

What do you think the import of Luke 10:21 is?

It celebrates magic useful to oppose Satan and demons. By modern standards, it's highly superstitious, but I dare say it reflects views widely held two thousand years ago.

 

[Deeje]

What I do know is-
I do know an awful lot more biology than you do.

I don't doubt that for a moment. But what you have been taught by your teachers has little meaning to me because I have no faith in the kind of science that tries its best to eliminate all reference to the design we see so evident in nature. Attributing the design to nature itself is very empty reasoning. It's basically a desperate attempt to deny the obvious IMO.

"Kind" has no meaning in biology. It is only a bible
term. I dont care to talk bible.

All that is observable in nature is governed by laws, put in place to make sure that "kinds" remain separated. It's why species in the oceans and on land can share habitats and it never occurs to them to mate with other species. It is physically impossible anyway. They are programmed to remain separate for as long as their species exists. Is that just a fluke?

"Kind" is not a scientific term? It is to the Creator. I cannot help it if you have problems with Biblical words. They are the words we accept and live by.....you are free to live by your own acceptable words. Taking them away doesn't alter the argument.

I can attempt to walk you thru some basic concepts
but not if you are fighting it with everything you have,
and asserting things that have no basis other than
some biblical interpretation.

There is nothing in nature to fight with what is in the Bible. (Please remember that I do not subscribe to YEC) What makes you think that God could possibly be at odds with his own creation? What makes you think that you need to "walk me through" anything? That is based on the assumption that you believe I am in error.....I believe atheists are in error, blind to the obvious....so we are on opposite sides of this issue. Do you expect that I could "walk you through" creation? Have you dismissed it without understanding what the Bible actually says?

What we see in this age, when evolution is taught as fact to children, is actually humans taking on the role of gods themselves. They have taken creation and claimed to be able to eliminate all reference to its Creator. Human interpretation of what is assumed to have taken place on this planet over millions of years, without any concrete evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, is the height of arrogance IMO. What good has this accomplished in your opinion? Its just made a religion out of science.

I have no beef with biology because I see it as God's science, not something belonging to atheists who apparently hijacked it to claim it for themselves....with no Creator required. I'm sorry but you can't wish him away with a theory.

None of the above is snark, attack, or anything like
that. I am just talking straight.

I understand that your beliefs are strongly held.....so are mine. We are all after the truth.....aren't we?

I do not accept the godless ramblings of science, designed to discredit the one whose work they study, or to overlook or excuse the widening gaps that many people are coming to see as impossible to explain without intelligent direction in the processes that are right under their noses.

I cannot see how undirected "accidents" can result in the myriad life forms that inhabit this earth, let alone explain how they are equipped to replicate themselves so that their species is perpetuated in self sufficiency, in specifically designed habitats, for as long as their habitat is protected from greedy humans who want to claim that land for themselves. They do this without a single thought of the damage they are doing to it or its residents.

There is no respect for the Creator or his creation. I believe that there will be an accounting, because that is what the Bible says will happen. You can choose to disbelieve everything it says.

 

[oldbadger]

Wise , for someone so confused.

You figured out that "god" (aka "some reason")
cannot be disproved!!

Well, I haven't seen any suggestions from you proving me wrong. I'd wait a long time for that, I reckon.
And it's all about 'THE REASON' ....

Like Batboy and his secret lab on the
moon!

God and Batboy share two iortant things
in common.

They cant be disproved.
Zero evidence for their existence.

Unlike you're batboy, there's one whole Universe of energy and matter........ possibly others beyond btw, and the REASON for all that does exist...... it is the REASON for our existence as well. Just admit that there is a REASON and then we can progress to the next level of thought.

Please just confirm that you understand this first part.

 

[oldbadger]

"Theism" is the broad category that includes any believe in a deity or deities, and "Deism" is one form of theism.

We just use a different dictionary, I guess.
For me Theism is about an aware and interested God, whereas Deism is about an unaware and/or disinterested God.

However, if the World decides to tell me that Deism can mean an involved God then I'm just going to have to produce a new title for 'God who cares no more about humans than wood boring weevils,, and such'.....

 

[oldbadger]

His version of "god" is worse than something that cannot be disproved. It is on the order of redefining any number greater than one as "two". The definition used is of no value in explaining anything.

But it does help me.....
....... to perceive God in everything, and everything as a tiny part of God. It's what I believe, is all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it does help me.....
....... to perceive God in everything, and everything as a tiny part of God. It's what I believe, is all.

That is fine. Others, neither theist nor atheist will accept your definition of God.

 

[Deeje]

I have nothing much more to say to someone who is so hostile in their defense, but the following.....

Not from the sun. The sun, moon and stars weren't created till Day 4.

Not true. Read Genesis and use a concordance to see what the original Hebrew words mean.

When God said "let there be light", it says that this was to make a division between night and day, so clearly, this was the same sunlight that creates day and night, even now...unless you believe that God used a special torch?

The text says no such thing. It very explicitly denies your claim. Whoever told you that the 'light' in 'Let there be' was the sun had simply not read what's written.

Now its your turn to read what's written.....

In Genesis 1:1 it says..."In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.".....it uses the word "bara'" which is translated "created".
But in verse 16 it says..."And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.".....it uses the word "`asah" which is translated as "made" . This word means...." to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application:—accomplish, advance, appoint...

Since the heavenly bodies were already created before the Genesis "days" began, (Genesis 1:1) then the sun's light was used to penetrate a primitive atmosphere to facilitate photosynthesis in plants.....but the sun and moon were not clearly visible from an earthly perspective. As when we have a cloudy day, there is still light.
Job 38:9 is God speaking speaking of the earth..."when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band", indicating that in its early stages cloud cover enveloped the earth in darkness. Allowing light to penetrate to the earth's surface allowed plant life to grow in that early period, even though the source of that light was not yet visible. It was something God 'did' when he cleared away what was hiding the sun and moon. They became visible on earth.

You can believe whatever you wish, but that is how we understand Genesis.....which makes a whole lot more sense than your version IMO.

 

[oldbadger]

That is fine. Others, neither theist nor atheist will accept your definition of God.

You think I go around selling my beliefs?

The thread title is:-
How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith

But one point that all can accept is that there is a REASON for the existence of everything......... and I choose to perceive that reason as my Deity. That's not a sell, it's just common sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You think I go around selling my beliefs?

The thread title is:-
How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith

But one point that all can accept is that there is a REASON for the existence of everything......... and I choose to perceive that reason as my Deity. That's not a sell, it's just common sense.

Fine with me, and I agree. Even Christians can accept evolution. Denying reality only harms one's religion, why so many like to do that is beyond me. Perhaps they are atheists deep down inside.

 

[oldbadger]

Fine with me, and I agree. Even Christians can accept evolution. Denying reality only harms one's religion, why so many like to do that is beyond me. Perhaps they are atheists deep down inside.

Ha ha!
Loads of Christians accept evolution, don't they?

Genesis does not have to be considered to be literal throughout, does it?

Although I do like the argument that the only reason why tyrannosaurs are not around is 'cos they weren't allowed on the Ark........... you see? Bet yer didn't know that!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha!
Loads of Christians accept evolution, don't they?

Genesis does not have to be considered to be literal throughout, does it?

Although I do like the argument that the only reason why tyrannosaurs are not around is 'cos they weren't allowed on the Ark........... you see? Bet yer didn't know that!!

The U.S. is not the world. And even in the U.S. there are quite a few Christians that accept evolution, they are just not the majority.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I've maintained all along the evolution can and does occur within a genus.

Yes, agreed. Maybe even extend it to the family taxon, for most current classifications.

In short, there is nothing in the Bible to preclude the scientific view

For me, Common Descent (accepted by most biologists) for all life is not accurate science.

 

[exchemist]

But it does help me.....
....... to perceive God in everything, and everything as a tiny part of God. It's what I believe, is all.

Sounds as if you have a similar worldview to Einstein, then.

 

[Looncall]

Yes, agreed. Maybe even extend it to the family taxon, for most current classifications.



For me, Common Descent (accepted by most biologists) for all life is not accurate science.

How unfortunate for you: so near yet so far. No ringing bell, no cigar.

 

[blü 2]

Not true. Read Genesis and use a concordance to see what the original Hebrew words mean.

Okay. "Let there be light": Strong's transliteration 'owr, Strong's translation illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.):—bright, clear, day, light (-ning), morning, sun ie any light.

1:14-15: "lights in the firmament to separate day from night": Strong ma'owr : properly, a luminous body or luminary, i.e. (abstractly) light (as an element); figuratively, brightness, i.e.cheerfulness; specifically, a chandelier:—bright, light.

1:16: "And God made the two great lights": ma'owr as above.
"... the greater light to rule the day": ma'owr as above.

What do you say "the greater light to rule the day" was, which God makes on Day 4? And what was "the lesser light to rule the night", also on Day 4?

When God said "let there be light", it says that this was to make a division between night and day, so clearly, this was the same sunlight that creates day and night,

Go back and read Genesis 1:3 (Let there be light) again, and this time note carefully that it does NOT say that this was to make a division between night and day.

And then read Genesis 1:14 again and note that here at last are the words "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night", and Genesis 1:16 where God accordingly makes "the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day".

Then you'll see that God made the sun on day 4, the day after [he] made the plants.

 

[Audie]

I don't doubt that for a moment. But what you have been taught by your teachers has little meaning to me because I have no faith in the kind of science that tries its best to eliminate all reference to the design we see so evident in nature. Attributing the design to nature itself is very empty reasoning. It's basically a desperate attempt to deny the obvious IMO.



All that is observable in nature is governed by laws, put in place to make sure that "kinds" remain separated. It's why species in the oceans and on land can share habitats and it never occurs to them to mate with other species. It is physically impossible anyway. They are programmed to remain separate for as long as their species exists. Is that just a fluke?

"Kind" is not a scientific term? It is to the Creator. I cannot help it if you have problems with Biblical words. They are the words we accept and live by.....you are free to live by your own acceptable words. Taking them away doesn't alter the argument.



There is nothing in nature to fight with what is in the Bible. (Please remember that I do not subscribe to YEC) What makes you think that God could possibly be at odds with his own creation? What makes you think that you need to "walk me through" anything? That is based on the assumption that you believe I am in error.....I believe atheists are in error, blind to the obvious....so we are on opposite sides of this issue. Do you expect that I could "walk you through" creation? Have you dismissed it without understanding what the Bible actually says?

What we see in this age, when evolution is taught as fact to children, is actually humans taking on the role of gods themselves. They have taken creation and claimed to be able to eliminate all reference to its Creator. Human interpretation of what is assumed to have taken place on this planet over millions of years, without any concrete evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, is the height of arrogance IMO. What good has this accomplished in your opinion? Its just made a religion out of science.

I have no beef with biology because I see it as God's science, not something belonging to atheists who apparently hijacked it to claim it for themselves....with no Creator required. I'm sorry but you can't wish him away with a theory.



I understand that your beliefs are strongly held.....so are mine. We are all after the truth.....aren't we?

I do not accept the godless ramblings of science, designed to discredit the one whose work they study, or to overlook or excuse the widening gaps that many people are coming to see as impossible to explain without intelligent direction in the processes that are right under their noses.

I cannot see how undirected "accidents" can result in the myriad life forms that inhabit this earth, let alone explain how they are equipped to replicate themselves so that their species is perpetuated in self sufficiency, in specifically designed habitats, for as long as their habitat is protected from greedy humans who want to claim that land for themselves. They do this without a single thought of the damage they are doing to it or its residents.

There is no respect for the Creator or his creation. I believe that there will be an accounting, because that is what the Bible says will happen. You can choose to disbelieve everything it says.

Ah well I am more Artemis than Herecles.
Faced with your Augean stables there, I
guess I will just wish you the best of luck.

 

[Audie]

Yes, agreed. Maybe even extend it to the family taxon, for most current classifications.



For me, Common Descent (accepted by most biologists) for all life is not accurate science.

For you, common descent is a proper noun.

"For me" as a rationale for avoiding objective examination
of data will do for inclusion in a description of, yes, hold
your hat-

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

 

[metis]

Yes, and cells have programs that make them behave according to pre-programmed instructions.

Not if they mutate or get altered through outside influences.

A close friend of mine has identical twins who were d.n.a. tested to be as such when very young, but as they got older there was a change whereas they no longer were identical, and besides different appearances, they even have different personalities. The doctors believe that what possibly could have caused the change is if maybe one of them contacted a virus that ended up altering one of their genes.

As times goes on, we now know that, contrary to popular opinion, genes are not as fixed as much as was originally believed, and that numerous events can cause them to change.

All material things appear to change over time, and genes are material things. Evolution happened and is still happening, and any serious religious body should recognize that and other realities versus using their traditional teachings as a set of blinders.