Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
So what? And we do not have a complete fossil record. We only have a small percentage of all the species that lived.
-
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!
How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith
- Thread starter osgart
- Start date
So what? And we do not have a complete fossil record. We only have a small percentage of all the species that lived.
Audie
Veteran Member
Well,I suppose that in the absence of any sort of data
contrary to ToE, the creo falls back on innuendo like
"oh yes,the..."
and
"strange how"
and of course,
"unambiguous"
This latter may prove impossible, as the creo will
be the final authority on what is or aint ambiguous.
If ToE is wrong, why dont they just give us
an unambiguous bit of data to prove it, and be
done with all this talk?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So you have been in a science classroom. Great. Did you just sit in on one class, or have you actually taken classes? What grade or what level of education was this class you sat in?
You haven’t ever shown that the evidence for evolution is flimsy. And you’ve yet to provide evidence for your God claims.
Instead of falling back on one of your “go-to” answers, why not try some original thoughts, and perhaps you could address the point.
You keep saying that scientists claim that evolution is beyond question, that they claim to have “absolute proof” and that’s how it’s taught to children in science classrooms. Probably dozens of people now, who understand evolution and scientific methodology have pointed out to you that science deals with evidence rather than proof and that scientific theories are open to change in the event that new evidence comes to light. These are people who have been through many hours of scientific training in classrooms and labs; they are people who study the sciences themselves. So these people are telling you that science doesn’t deal in proofs, and that science is not presented this dogmatically and staunchly in science classrooms and you just repeat your mantra over and over again in post after post. These people have been in the classrooms you’re talking about, and have not come out with this belief system that you keep asserting is pushed in science classrooms. Your claim on this matter, therefore, appears to be an erroneous one.
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.....
What are you looking for? Like, step by step instructions?
I’ve watched multiple people provide you information on this over and over again in multiple threads. I gotta say, you didn’t seem all that interested in their answers.
The information you are seeking is enough to fill volumes and volumes of books (and does, actually). You want some kind of brief summary of it here? Why don’t you start reading some books and scientific publications? You would actually have to be interested in the answers for that I guess.
Ah, your claim makes another appearance! And right in the middle of a discussion on the veracity of that very claim! The evidence doesn’t bear out your claim, Deeje. You can stop making it now. By the way, I have asked questions/challenged aspects of evolutionary theory in a science classroom. As have others. And many scientists have done so in scientific journals.
No, it’s not convenient at all, actually. I guess if scientists were the big sinister liars you claim they are, they would just declare evolution to be absolute proof and get on with it. Yet they don’t.
Evolution is a fact. The heritable characteristics of biological populations change over successive generations. That is a demonstrable fact. That happens. The theory of evolution states that all living organisms share a common ancestor. That is also demonstrable.
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?alt="
Oh okay. So I guess you don’t trust plumbers then, because they had to learn how to plumb in plumbing school, from other plumbers! I bet they teach those new plumbers their dogmatic and unproven beliefs about natural laws of pressure and gravity, water intake and the unproven science of welding!
I bet when you need surgery you don’t go to a surgeon, right? I mean, they learned how to perform surgery from other surgeons and doctors based on unproven scientific beliefs about anatomy and physiology! This position is a silly one, Deeje.
There is no “faith” in science, at least, not in the way you’re claiming. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don’t have evidence. Science relies on EVIDENCE. Scientists rely on the findings of other scientists who came before them, and add to our growing body of scientific knowledge about the world we live in.
Apparently they have more of a clue than you do, given that they keep telling you that science doesn’t deal in proof and makes no absolute claims of certainty.
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.
You “don’t think the foundations of this theory are based on anything solid” because you are generally misinformed on this subject, and you refuse to learn about scientific methodology and the nature of evidence. At least, less informed than people with education in the sciences, apparently. Your threads demonstrate that very well.
It is backed up by solid evidence which is the very reason it’s a scientific theory in the first place. All evidence from multiple independent groups of scientists all over the world, over the course of 150+ years in many multiple fields of science all converge on the apparent fact of evolution. Of course, you know this because it’s been pointed out to you so many times at this point. It’s one of the most robust and well-evidenced scientific theories in existence.
Evolution is a fact. The heritable characteristics of biological populations change over successive generations See above.
You know what else is funny....? That it was the church who persecuted Galileo for daring to question what they taught....not the Creator...so who got it wrong? What needed to change? The way the Bible was written....or the way the early church interpreted what it said? Whose interpretation was "creative"? And why did it need to be changed?
I'll let you answer that question.
Oh, "prove it"......you mean something science doesn't have to do?
I think it will be enough to allow the Creator to 'prove' himself in a way that does not require any faith at all. Believers do not require more 'proof' than what is in plain sight and felt deeply within the heart.
I believe you will not be left in any doubt at that time. We are in no doubt right now.
Audie
Veteran Member
Oh, "prove it"......you mean something science doesn't have to do?
I think it will be enough to allow the Creator to 'prove' himself in a way that does not require any faith at all. Believers do not require more 'proof' than what is in plain sight and felt deeply within the heart.
I believe you will not be left in any doubt at that time. We are in no doubt right now.
No, I say what I mean, not what you snark for me.
But to rephrase for your convemiencr-
If ToE is wrong, one contrary fact could destroy it.
But with "god", bible, all the "angels" and all the
evidence in the world, you cannot come uo with one.
For even a quarter second, does it come to you
to think what that means?
Last edited:
Consider this quote from Wikipedia about Galileo ─
Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism [that the sun is the fixed center of the universe] was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[4] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant.
Heliocentrism was the view that the earth went round the sun, contradicting the biblical view that the earth was the fixed center of everything. Copernicanism was the view that the sun was the fixed center of the universe.
The Roman Inquisition also drew attention to deficiencies in the argument that Galileo presented and was examined on. Galileo fixed them later, but it's hard to conclude that the Inquisition was arbitrary or unfair in reaching its finding at that time.
As I've pointed out with chapter and verse, the bible isn't a book of modern science. The bible's cosmology is the cosmology of the time and place its books were written ─ flat earth, geocentric universe, hard sky with stars &c affixed to it.
Why would you expect anything else? I'm asking that again because I'm seriously interested in your answer.
Yes...its called faith. It needs no proof from science to convict a believer.
"Does it come to you to think what that means"....if you're wrong about life on this planet and its origins?
Do you never consider that our faith is based on more than what you can see and what puny humans can test?
You treat science as if it is some infallible god that you must consult to make decisions about everything. We have as much faith in your gods as you do in ours. Your "evidence" is as weak to us as ours is to you.
Depending on something that is not dependable has its risks, but we are all free to choose our position.....but God doesn't exist (or not exist) because people without faith cannot find him. The Bible's response to that is..."for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about. 7 In fact, that man should not expect to receive anything from Jehovah; 8 he is an indecisive man, unsteady in all his ways." (James 1:6-7)
Jehovah deliberately separates himself from stubborn unbelievers who demand more than believers do. Its what separates us into the two groups who will face judgment at the end. For those who have convinced themselves that God is a myth, only a firsthand encounter will suffice. We believe it is coming. Your wish will be granted but I am not sure that you will enjoy what comes after the introduction.
Our connection to God is an experience, not just a blind belief. Once you experience God's hand in your life...you will never doubt again. Once you see creation as the wonderful crafted gift that it is, you will never see it as a product of undirected chance.
That's it.
Audie
Veteran Member
I think it might be helpful to understand that JW's have no history with Christendom's church system or its teachings. In fact we accept nothing written after the end of the first century (with the completing of the last canonical writings of John.) We believe that what the church taught, and what the Bible said parted company with the introduction of teachings that came after that, from men, not God or his word (just as it was prophesied to do.) We see that whole church system as a corruption of Christianity...the "weeds" that Jesus warned about that would be sown by the devil....a counterfeit look-alike in its early stages, but nothing resembling the original in the end times (the harvest time.) (Matthew 13:36-43)
God's word was recorded in parts of history when humans were going against God's counsel and science was only in its infancy. It was enough to deal with what was happening on earth, let alone what was going on in the wider universe. In the big scheme of things, what did it matter?
After the canon was completed, there was to be a long period of time when the Master was 'away on business' but promising to return and reward his slaves if they had done what was required of them. In the interim he was going to appoint a faithful slave who would see to it that all his servants would be fed whatever portions of food were available, to his entire household.
Due to the prophesies in Daniel, we expected to see this slave begin his duties in "the time of the end" when it was foretold that God would make an abundance of knowledge available in order to "cleanse, refine and whiten" his people. (Daniel 12:4, 9-10) They must have been in an unclean condition to warrant that process.
He also said that the wicked would continue on as if nothing had happened. They would not accept the cleansing or refining or whitening and remain in a spiritually unclean condition.
History attests that they became very corrupt.
Where am I going with this? We do not see human response to the church's authority or teachings as coming from God....just the opposite...we see the devil doing what the devil does best.....flooding the world with deception and confusion....and corrupting humans with power.
Whatever the church had to say about matters of science has little to do with reality or God in our opinion.
There never was a flat earth or any teaching about earth's relation to the sun....because, seriously, in the big scheme of things, it didn't matter. There were much bigger fish to fry at that time.....much understanding about man and his relationship with God and his entire future on this earth were of much more import that whether the earth goes round the sun or it doesn't.
Galileo was forced to recant his findings....but he did not do so because he no longer believed them.
He was found guilty of heresy, and "already ill and having been threatened with torture unless he recanted, he did. On his knees he swore: “I do abjure . . . the said errors and heresies . . . I shall never again speak . . . such things as might bring me under similar suspicion.” Interestingly, legend has it that upon rising, he struck the earth and mumbled, “Eppur si muove! [And yet it does move!]”
The sentence was imprisonment and penances until his death, which occurred nine years later. A letter he wrote in 1634 said: “It is not any opinion of mine that started the war, but my being in the bad graces of the Jesuits.”
In 1822 the ban on his works was lifted. But not until 1979 did Pope John Paul II reopen the question and admit that Galileo had been “made to suffer much . . . by the men and the organisations of the Church.” In the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, Mario D’Addio, a noted member of the special commission set up by Pope John Paul II to review Galileo’s 1633 conviction, said: “The so-called heresy of Galileo does not seem to have any foundation, neither theologically nor under canon law.” According to D’Addio, the Inquisition court overstepped its authority—Galileo’s theories did not violate any article of faith. The Vatican newspaper admitted that the conviction of Galileo for heresy was baseless."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1991925?q=galileo+church+heresy&p=par
Our position makes your assertions invalid IMO. We are not, and never have been, a part of the church teachings you speak about.
Just to clarify, does that mean the gospel of John, or Revelation John?
I agree that would be an easy case to make. The Trinity is one early ─ well, 4th century ─ example, and if I remember correctly, JWs reject the Trinity notion as unbiblical. It's certainly that, and the cherry on top is that it's incoherent too.
But doesn't every denomination of Christianity ─ or, I dare say, of any other religion ─ take it as a given that those who disagree with them are by that very fact shown to be in deep and perhaps terrible error?
That's the heart of this discussion.
Are you agreeing that the science of the bible is Bronze Age science? And since its writers lived in that age, why would anyone expect anything else?
What investigation has the church carried out to see whether prophecies come true or not? Or even are phrased with sufficient clarity to tell whether anyone could tell whether they came true or not?
How can you tell who is wicked and who is not?
Or is 'wicked' just a term for 'outsiders'?
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Ah yes, faith. Ie stubborn insistence on being conned by scoundrels.
Both. John's gospel and his letters were written after his Revelation. Whilst the apostles were still alive, there was active restraint on the foretold apostasy. But once that last apostle died and the writings of what would become the Bible canon was concluded, that restraint was removed. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-7)
History tells us what happened after that....for many centuries. It is shameful.
It is blasphemous in our understanding.
We are all exposed to the same information if we are Christians. As one raised in the church system, I have to say that I baulked at a lot of the teachings and I hated the hypocrisy I saw. It seemed to me that they could pick and choose what teachings of Jesus to follow and what to ignore. That never sat well.
Human imperfection will always be with us in this world and the churches have many very sincere individuals in them. But sincerity alone is not enough.....we need to value the truth, not just go through the motions of worship by rote....or hang onto things that don't make sense, just because everyone else accepts it. We have to do our own homework.
Being a Christian doesn't mean being perfect, but it does mean trying our best to do what Jesus taught as a collective of sincere individuals.
I do not like that expression "Bronze Age science" as it conjures up images of primitive, uneducated people. God's people may not have understood the the deep things of science, but they knew enough to navigate their lives in that difficult age. God's laws protected them in many ways, especially in matters relating to health and hygiene matters. Progress comes with increased knowledge. They did not have the knowledge of why God's laws were important back then, but we do today and appreciate the wisdom.
I do not see that a flat earth or any other statements in the Bible that would give them a false impression. I see them as much like ourselves, wanting to learn more about many things.
Prophesy is usually only clearly discerned in hindsight. We see a lot of fulfilled prophesy especially since 1914. A biblically significant date to us.
'Wicked' is a term that might mean one thing to humans but another thing to God.
In Israel, a wicked person was one who knew the commands of God but refused to carry them out. This was a willful and deliberate act of disobedience. I see the same today.
When we see how the churches behave in direct contradiction to Jesus' teachings, I believe that is wickedness in God's eyes.
Jesus will reject "many" at the judgment who believe that they are serving their "Master' faithfully, yet he will tell them he "never knew" them. They did many things in Jesus' name, but to no avail. (Matthew 7:21-23)
The obedient ones who do what Jesus commanded in all things are the ones who can rightfully give evidence of "doing the will of the Father" rather than just doing some of what was required and ignoring the more difficult things.
If the spiritual cleansing was going to take place in the time of the end, then no one can dodge 'the bath' and remain blameless.
That is how we see the situation.
Just to underline the differences in our approaches, 'John' as the (unknown) main author of the gospel of John, and John of Patmos, author of Revelation, are thought by modern scholarship to be different people. And ...
Paul is thought by modern scholarship to be the author of the first Thessalonians but not the second.
Would you be prepared to examine those arguments to see if they were well-formed from the evidence? Or are such possibilities already ruled out?
This touches on another major question, and I suspect difference, between us. For me, truth is conformity with reality. If you want to know whether something is true, you go and look at it with an open mind, and see what the evidence says.
You on the other hand are prepared to accept prophecy as true ─ please correct me if that's wrong ─ and the question of whether prophecy can ever be true doesn't seem to enter into it. For instance, how can something that only works after the event, and then only by construction based on unexamined principles, be 'true' in any sense?
I equate sincerity with a view honestly held. The idea that a god would be angry with someone for honestly and thoughtfully reaching a wrong conclusion about religion seems ─ well, if not Bronze Age, at least pre-Enlightenment.
They may well have been educated according to the standards of the day, but in those days everyone, wise or ignorant, knew the earth was flat, and the center of the universe, and the sun went round it, because, gosh, you only had to look to see it was right. The idea of a spherical earth was round in Greece in ancient times, as you mentioned, but although there's much evidence of the impact of Greek philosophy and thought on Judaism and early Christianity via Alexandria from around the end of the 2nd cent BCE, nothing of a round earth shows up in the bible: eg Matthew's mountain from which you could see all the kingdoms of the earth, or Revelation's stars falling out of the sky onto the earth, and so on.
So there's no surprise that the cosmology of the bible is of its day. What else could it be? Who knows how primitive our science will seem in two hundred years' time?
But thanks for your reply. Interesting.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
You may want to consider the following before continuing in your discussion with these natural men (not born again) who are quite incapable of understanding much of anything about God (1 Cor 2:14).
1Tim 1:4,
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].
1Tim 4:7,
But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself [rather] unto godliness.
2Tim 4:4,
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Titus 1:14,
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
2Pet 1:16,
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
They think they are smart, but God says otherwise.
Rom 1:21-22,
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
I myself wasted way too much time here, so I'm speaking from experience. Save yourself the trouble and let them indulge in their vain imaginations among themselves. Go study the scriptures instead. God bless you brother.22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Proof is what you require though, isn't it? You don't think you need to live up to your own standards?Oh, "prove it"......you mean something science doesn't have to do?
Ah, so you can't prove it because it's so obvious. I see now! Unbelievably enough, that's the second time I've seen this silly claim on this site in just the last couple of days.I think it will be enough to allow the Creator to 'prove' himself in a way that does not require any faith at all. Believers do not require more 'proof' than what is in plain sight and felt deeply within the heart.
I believe you will not be left in any doubt at that time. We are in no doubt right now.
Audie
Veteran Member
Do you think that God exists, or gods exist, only in the imagination of individuals?
Or do you think God has, or gods have, objective existence?
I ask, having found no credible alternative to the first view, and no credible evidence of the second.
Indeed, I can't find a coherent concept of a real god anywhere in Christian thought, such that if we found a real candidate, we could tell whether it were a god or not.
Do you know of one?
I have considered them, but presenting the truth as I understand it is not just for the poster I am addressing....there are many who read these posts but who don't contribute to the threads themselves. I post for them.
So many are searching for answers. One of my threads was closed with 85,000 views due to the mods being sick of nasty personal attacks.......but last I checked, it has gone to almost 107,000 views....that is 22,000 hits after it was shut down.....so we never know who is reading what we have written....and the conclusions they are reaching. We are just the messengers...God does the rest.
They can respond in any way they wish....the message of God's kingdom and the hope the Bible gives for the future is what either attracts people, or it doesn't.
Remember the parable of the sower whose seeds landed in all kinds of places.....each person's heart is like one of those places....only the ones with the "fine soil" will have the conditions for the seed to germinate. (Matthew 13:1-9)
We just keep sowing.....it's not up to us to make it grow....God does that. (1Corinthians 3:6)
(I am not a "brother" BTW
)
Well, you see, that is what has been my beef all along. It is the scientists who are not living up to their own standards. You require "proof" for God's existence and yet you feel adequately qualified to eliminate all mention of an Intelligent Creator because you can't test for his existence with any method science has ever developed. Does that mean that he can't exist or that you want proof before you will believe? I demand the same. If you are going to kill off God by telling us that there is no proof for his existence, then you better have something more substantial than guesswork and probabilities fired by nothing but vivid imaginations.
I ask for proof that evolution is true by the very same methods that you yourselves use and yet....the "evidence" you provide is riddled with assertion, supposition and suggestions about what "might have" or "could have" taken place all those millions of years ago. No proof means no facts, and no facts mean that you believe without actual proof.....How are you any different to us? You have just as much of a belief system as we do...you just won't acknowledge it. The power of suggestion is at work in so many areas of human experience.....but it works. The commercial world depends on it...the political world depends on it...the religious world depends on it....and so does science.
Christians believe that this life is a test....all of us will either pass it or fail. That is the Bible's message. Either we have what God is looking for in the citizens who will populate his "new earth" to come....or we are rejected. In a nutshell...that's it.
We will all know, one way or the other eventually. In the meantime I will keep plugging away and exposing evolutionary science for the gigantic fraud that I believe it is....based on nothing but creatively wishful thinking and a really good marketing machine.
Those who want God to go away will have their wish granted....for now.
But what happens if in the future, God wants them to go away? Is that fair?
I think it will certainly be an interesting exercise.