If you believe in God AND evolution, why do you believe in God?

[YoursTrue]

Yes, quite interesting is WOL. I didn't realize you had left JW. I admire your continuing journey. Stay curious and keep seeking. May God lead.
Namaste

Do you object to the article?

 

[YoursTrue]

Amazin

Yes, quite interesting is WOL. I didn't realize you had left JW. I admire your continuing journey. Stay curious and keep seeking. May God lead.
Namaste

That you interpret it as such is revealing of how people come to conclusions. Reasonable, true, untrue or not. Peace.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it is a fair question but a question I don't think you will get an answer to.
I think I know the answer but I won't speak for @YoursTrue

I don't understand the question except that someone doesn't like my viewpoint.

 

[Spice]

Do you object to the article?

Neutral as with most religious positions. I see good in pretty much all, but nothing that suits me to a T. I didn't get into the 7th day piece as I had to made an errand run, but by and by I'll look again.

 

[Spice]

Amazin

That you interpret it as such is revealing of how people come to conclusions. Reasonable, true, untrue or not. Peace.

I'm sorry. Did I misinterprete something?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't understand the question except that someone doesn't like my viewpoint.

The question restated:

Why does it matter if a person believes in evolution or not?
The very question asserts a connection between belief in God and belief in evolution.
What is this connection, or what do you expect this connection to be?

 

[Brian2]

It isn't assumed to be naturalistic. That is a conclusion based on the evidence and lack of any evidence that indicates otherwise. Science cannot be used to claim things without evidence.

I'm assuming you mean when where and how things evolved? Are are you referring to the origin of life which is a different field of study.

I am talking about evolution, but abiogenesis seems to be an extention of that.
And yes it is a conclusion that it is naturalistic based on lack of evidence that a God was involved.
But lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, so the scientific conclusions of how things happened are really presumptions that God did not step in and do things directly.
But of course God can do things through natural methods and so a lack of evidence for God's involvement is really not a lack of evidence if God did everything through nature.

Science refines with each new piece of evidence or new line of understanding. Some try to play that as a weakness, but it is a strength. The success of science is testament to that.

Biblical interpretation of books like Genesis also can be refined if science is refined with new evidence. Some people see this as a weakness in the Bible, but if the Bible is seen to conform to the refinement of science then it is a strength.

I would need to better understand what you mean by holding biblical interpretations as tentative.

Some Biblical interpretations are not so important with some things. Our understanding of creation narrative is probably one of those places. If we can see that our interpretation might change over time that can be a good thing. So holding on to the YEC position like a bulldog and also holding on to the Genesis myth interpretation like a bulldog are both not good ways to be about our particular interpretation of Genesis. Basically, a willingness to change our Biblical interpretation of Genesis as science discovers new things is a good thing imo. Also imo, a willingness to be tentative about some things that science says about the past is probably a good thing also.
Over the years my interpretation has changed, especially as I see that Genesis fits with what science says.

Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you mean the exact set of circumstances that occurred across time to go from an ancestor to derived descendant groups? It would be nice to have, but practical impossible to find. Such resolution is not necessary to support the general explanation of evidence. Additionally, for some lines of evolution, we do have greater resolution and that is improving one piece of evidence at a time.

I suppose what I am saying is that we don't need to believe all that science says about the past and to hold on to that like a pitbull.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am talking about evolution, but abiogenesis seems to be an extention of that.

Not really. One regards the diversity and relationships of living things and the other is the origin of life.

And yes it is a conclusion that it is naturalistic based on lack of evidence that a God was involved.

If there is no evidence, you can't make claims about it in science. You'd have everybody going with their favorite choice and that wouldn't tell you anything.

But lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, so the scientific conclusions of how things happened are really presumptions that God did not step in and do things directly.

Not really. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence.

But of course God can do things through natural methods and so a lack of evidence for God's involvement is really not a lack of evidence if God did everything through nature.

If there is no evidence, whatever I or anyone else chooses to believe has no bearing on the conclusions from the evidence.

Biblical interpretation of books like Genesis also can be refined if science is refined with new evidence.

There is no evidence for Genesis as it is written.

Some people see this as a weakness in the Bible, but if the Bible is seen to conform to the refinement of science then it is a strength.

I disagree. What you claim simply isn't there. Different interpretations aren't a refinement of the Bible, they are a recognition of the Bible in light of what we have learned. The refinement is in the believer.

Some Biblical interpretations are not so important with some things. Our understanding of creation narrative is probably one of those places. If we can see that our interpretation might change over time that can be a good thing.

I can more or less agree with that.

So holding on to the YEC position like a bulldog and also holding on to the Genesis myth interpretation like a bulldog are both not good ways to be about our particular interpretation of Genesis.

I don't think so.

Basically, a willingness to change our Biblical interpretation of Genesis as science discovers new things is a good thing imo.

Personally, yes. More broadly, I don't know. I'd like to hope it forms the basis of spiritual maturity. But some don't seem able to or ready to make that leap.

Also imo, a willingness to be tentative about some things that science says about the past is probably a good thing also.

With science all the conclusions are tentative. But the problem is that those that reject some or all of science do so on grounds outside of science and from personal bias.

Over the years my interpretation has changed, especially as I see that Genesis fits with what science says.

I don't know that it needs to fit with what we have discovered using science. We just have to recognize that it is best interpreted as allegory. That demanding that all we have learned be tossed out to appease the emotions of those cannot bear the idea of there being more to it is wrong in my opinion.

I suppose what I am saying is that we don't need to believe all that science says about the past and to hold on to that like a pitbull.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am talking about evolution, but abiogenesis seems to be an extention of that.
And yes it is a conclusion that it is naturalistic based on lack of evidence that a God was involved.
But lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, so the scientific conclusions of how things happened are really presumptions that God did not step in and do things directly.
But of course God can do things through natural methods and so a lack of evidence for God's involvement is really not a lack of evidence if God did everything through nature.



Biblical interpretation of books like Genesis also can be refined if science is refined with new evidence. Some people see this as a weakness in the Bible, but if the Bible is seen to conform to the refinement of science then it is a strength.



Some Biblical interpretations are not so important with some things. Our understanding of creation narrative is probably one of those places. If we can see that our interpretation might change over time that can be a good thing. So holding on to the YEC position like a bulldog and also holding on to the Genesis myth interpretation like a bulldog are both not good ways to be about our particular interpretation of Genesis. Basically, a willingness to change our Biblical interpretation of Genesis as science discovers new things is a good thing imo. Also imo, a willingness to be tentative about some things that science says about the past is probably a good thing also.
Over the years my interpretation has changed, especially as I see that Genesis fits with what science says.



I suppose what I am saying is that we don't need to believe all that science says about the past and to hold on to that like a pitbull.

I appreciate your honesty and willingness to actually say what you are thinking about. It is a refreshing break from those that manufacture there own facts and call it science or those believers that regularly interject seemingly obtuse and incongruent statements that sound to me like passive aggression and insults. I find either to be gratuitous, unnecessary and, in the end, useless.

By the former, I mean those that make repeated and regular empty claims they seem to want seen as science and flee answering valid questions. Only to return and repeat themselves before fleeing yet again in what I see as some strange cycle of attention seeking. By the latter, I refer to the many unusual posts by claimed believers that are often off topic and seemingly disconnected, but always seem to make acceptance of science the butt of some apparently irrational notions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really. One regards the diversity and relationships of living things and the other is the origin of life.

If there is no evidence, you can't make claims about it in science. You'd have everybody going with their favorite choice and that wouldn't tell you anything.

Not really. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence.

Well, now that you mention it, there cannot be evolution without abiogenesis. True, abiogenesis is obviously not evolution, but -- ! -- you can't have the continual process of evolution without first having abiogenesis, can you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am talking about evolution, but abiogenesis seems to be an extention of that.
And yes it is a conclusion that it is naturalistic based on lack of evidence that a God was involved.
But lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, so the scientific conclusions of how things happened are really presumptions that God did not step in and do things directly.
But of course God can do things through natural methods and so a lack of evidence for God's involvement is really not a lack of evidence if God did everything through nature.



Biblical interpretation of books like Genesis also can be refined if science is refined with new evidence. Some people see this as a weakness in the Bible, but if the Bible is seen to conform to the refinement of science then it is a strength.



Some Biblical interpretations are not so important with some things. Our understanding of creation narrative is probably one of those places. If we can see that our interpretation might change over time that can be a good thing. So holding on to the YEC position like a bulldog and also holding on to the Genesis myth interpretation like a bulldog are both not good ways to be about our particular interpretation of Genesis. Basically, a willingness to change our Biblical interpretation of Genesis as science discovers new things is a good thing imo. Also imo, a willingness to be tentative about some things that science says about the past is probably a good thing also.
Over the years my interpretation has changed, especially as I see that Genesis fits with what science says.



I suppose what I am saying is that we don't need to believe all that science says about the past and to hold on to that like a pitbull.

In the end, if a person is going to talk about science, they need to stick to the science, evidence and reasoning used to render logical conclusions on that evidence. Inserting personal interpretations and ideologies, dancing with logical fallacies and parading their ignorance serves neither science nor belief.

Claiming that science is invalidated because someone cannot personally see or doesn't want to see isn't going to win an argument. And it seems rude, condescending and disconnected in my opinion. Demanding respect requires the offering of it. I don't see that much and appreciate it when I find it.

We may not agree on everything, but I appreciate that you say what you think and listen as well without seeming to play games in your responses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, now that you mention it, there cannot be evolution without abiogenesis. True, abiogenesis is obviously not evolution, but -- ! -- you can't have the continual process of evolution without first having abiogenesis, can you?

As far as anyone knows, you can. You've been told this enumerable times. I'm not interested in playing this game again. You have a good day.

 

[Spice]

@Spice -- In answer to your question, it means that the seventh day of creation has not come to an end. To understand this better requires some time and study and prayer. I will start, however, by explaining a few things about this. There's more, but you can look it up if you want to at www.wol.org.
God prepared the earth for human habitation during the six figurative days. Each of these days is marked by the words that there came to be evening and morning. But with respect to the seventh day, the Bible does not say it has a closure. God told Adam and Eve to fill the earth and subdue it. But that was before he was expelled from the Garden due to his disobedience. So there are new heavens and a new earth that true Christians are awaiting in which righteousness will be. (Revelation 21:1-5) It's a very interesting study, so if you'd like, there's more detailed information at www.wol.org. Hope this helps to answer.

I couldn't find the article in a general site search using any key words from what you have offered. I'll need a more direct link or guidance as to how to find it.

 

[McBell]

Well, now that you mention it, there cannot be evolution without abiogenesis. True, abiogenesis is obviously not evolution, but -- ! -- you can't have the continual process of evolution without first having abiogenesis, can you?

Amazing the limits you would put on your own favored deit.

 

[YoursTrue]

As far as anyone knows, you can. You've been told this enumerable times. I'm not interested in playing this game again. You have a good day.

OK, thanks. You, too, have a good day. Oh, and by the way, here is what one source says about abiogenesis: "abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex." (Britannica) ("through a gradual process became increasingly complex.")

 

[Jimmy]

I believe in both, evolution and God.
View attachment 96317
From the first cell of non-life creation, there was some mysterious "force" that began the divides. Mysteriously "energy" showed up in a single cell that set it off to divide in LIFE. The division, growths, alterations, mutations, etc. IS creation and evolution. Some with no life as we know it, and some with what we recognize as life. But always changing. Always in evolution motion.

Some may think that the very first cell itself is "God" and God itself is expanding with each division. Most seem to think that "God" is a separate puppetmaster of that cell and its continuous action, and that God's breath determines life among certain cells.

But evolution continues with nothing added or removed, just different manifestations, configurations, divisions of that first single cell of creation.

However it's contemplated, that Higher Power of Mystery, Energy, Force, the Infinite One that started it all, that is what I designate as God.

If God was going to create something don’t you think you’d create something a little more magnificent than that?

 

[Jimmy]

It's sad because few here who are members of a religion and believe in evolution without question or doubt say why they also believe in God.

I believe they hold firm to the belief god made the cosmos then everything else followed like planets, life etc.

 

[Spice]

If God was going to create something don’t you think you’d create something a little more magnificent than that?

What could possibly be more magnificent than the creation we are a part of?

 

[Jimmy]

What could possibly be more magnificent than the creation we are a part of?

Creation of the cosmos

 

[Spice]

Creation of the cosmos

Do you not believe God created ALL?