Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

[Michel07]

Hehe, that made me smirk a wee bit. Good stuff.

Originally Posted by Michel07
Well, two things God has lots of and that is patience and time

Of course it is a reference to He is waiting for us.

 

[Scuba Pete]

the simple fact, is that any God that uses evoulution to create is not the God of the bible

Doesn't the Bible state that the pot has no business telling the potter how to make it or for what purpose it should be used? Check Romans 9. Who are you to tell God that he is deficient for using evolution then? Who are you to unequivocally state such a thing? You're just a pot!

Doesn't the Bible also state that with the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day? Meaning that God is not on our time line? Check II Peter 3

I would suggest to Bible fearing Christians, that BEFORE they take a stand against evolution, that they first find where God has taken such a stand in the scriptures. So, if God did not see it necessary to condemn evolution, why do you?

The Scriptures were designed not as a history or science book, but to bring about faith in God. It does not conflict with current scientific understandings of evolution or geology. YOUR understanding might conflict with the apparent facts, so the best thing to do, is to change your understanding and not to try to twist the Scriptures into saying something they don't. That's disingenuous.

 

[3.14]

Do you think it is possible to believe in both evolution and God/creationism.

ofcourse it is posible to believe in both stuf contradicting god has never stoped people form believing in him. if it bends the rules of a religion just call yourself an unorthodox creationist

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Not all but some scriptures do have historical aspects to them. however, I agree with your ideas of the time line Scuba Pete. As I've stated many times in this thread, evolution and creationism have several parallels.
Doug, I have a question for you," Did God bury the dinosaur bones?"

 

[Soldano16]

There are some elements of evolution that seem correct even if I don't believe in the whole process of one species becoming another.

Do you think those hundreds of thousands of professional scientists are wrong or lying?

 

[fantome profane]

Do you think those hundreds of thousands of professional scientists are wrong or lying?

I don’t think she said that. I don’t agree with ChristineES, I think she is wrong and most probably uniformed concerning the evidence that exist in support of evolution, specifically speciation. But she does have the right to think for herself. What you are doing is employing not one, but two logical fallacies simultaneously, the appeal to authority, and the appeal to popularity. It doesn’t matter how many scientists support the theory of evolution, ChristineES still has not only the right, but a responsibility to reach her own conclusions.

All we can do is try to show her some of the evidence that she may not be aware of.

 

[Soldano16]

But she does have the right to think for herself. What you are doing is employing not one, but two logical fallacies simultaneously, the appeal to authority, and the appeal to popularity.

there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism

So she's thinking for herself but based on what information (or as I'm implying, what lack of imformation). Has she studied? How much has she learned about evolution? Can she articulate her doubts in scientific terms? Are her doubts really scientific at all or just emotional and based on ignorance of the subject?

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim.

We are talking about scientific work not American Idol. There is a difference. 1+1=2 is hugely popular but false?

You are 0 for 2.

 

[fantome profane]

there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism

Then that is what you should do, argue that these claims are true. That is not what you did, you implied that she was wrong not because she didn’t have a good argument, nor did you present an argument of your own. You implied that she was wrong because her opinion differed from “professional scientists”.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim.

This is the place to present actual evidence, and it should be easy for you to do that. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But instead you presented “hundreds of thousands of professional scientists”.

 

[Soldano16]

Then that is what you should do, argue that these claims are true. That is not what you did, you implied that she was wrong not because she didn’t have a good argument, nor did you present an argument of your own. You implied that she was wrong because her opinion differed from “professional scientists”.

This is the place to present actual evidence, and it should be easy for you to do that. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But instead you presented “hundreds of thousands of professional scientists”.

Don't become a joke. We are talking about science as it is taught in the greatest universities by the greatest minds in the world. And some little person sticks up their hand and says they don't accept one of the most fundamental principles of the theory and I'm supposed to take that opinion seriously and take my time to show her she's wrong?

Present evidence? You want me to prove evolution in this tiny little box? I'll rely on the Nobel prize winners and the Phd's who run the biology programs at the world's top universities and assume she's ignorant and wrong. Seems like a hugely safe bet.

ps: she didn't present an argument. Do you see one below?

Maybe I should simplify a bit. There are some elements of evolution that seem correct even if I don't believe in the whole process of one species becoming another. Animals and people are very adaptable to their environment. Being a Christian, I, of course, believe that God made us that way

 

[Autodidact]

I don’t think she said that. I don’t agree with ChristineES, I think she is wrong and most probably uniformed concerning the evidence that exist in support of evolution, specifically speciation. But she does have the right to think for herself. What you are doing is employing not one, but two logical fallacies simultaneously, the appeal to authority, and the appeal to popularity. It doesn’t matter how many scientists support the theory of evolution, ChristineES still has not only the right, but a responsibility to reach her own conclusions.

All we can do is try to show her some of the evidence that she may not be aware of.

When dealing with a subject that requires specialized training and knowledge, something that people literally spend decades of their lives studying, it is not a fallacy to appeal to authority in this way. As a matter of fact, if YEC creationists are correct, then all of modern life science is wrong: all the biologists, all the geologists, all the astronomers, etc. It may be that in fact this is so: all of science is wrong, and YEC is right, but it is not possible for them both to be right, since they are in opposition.