Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

[crystalonyx]

"The idea that, somehow, we evolved from amino acids in a soup billions of years ago is so laughably improbable I wonder why anyone takes it seriously. (In fact, I kick myself for previously believing such. "

Actually, the idea that we were created by some improbable being is much more unlikely.

 

[Yerda]

....So a velociraptor at t=0, arbitrarily, morphs into a chicken at t=60,000,000. Where's the species at t=30,000 or t=50,000,000? The simple answer is that there isn't any....

JC Masters - who is also a scientist

Which field?

 

[kai]

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

yes of course you just have to leave out the old testement, and there you go god started off the whole show

 

[Willamena]

I don't think any arbitrary lines have been drawn between micro and macro.
Let me use a mathematical example, which should prove to you, at least, that I have at least a rudimentary understanding of probability.

The arbitrariness is in choosing where the line between what is "micro" and what is "macro" falls. Speciation itself is arbitrary: which individual represents "one species" and which the next?

 

[Ivan]

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

Some people do. Although, I have a difficult time understanding how someone can believe in both. They completely contradict each other. In my opinion evolution is completely impossible, a big explosion could nver have created this universe. And then conveniently life started on this planet, which is also conveniently the only planet that can sustain life. And then we all came from single cells organisms...not likely. It takes way more faith to believe in evolution then it does in God/creation.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If the possibility that life evolved from amino acids in a soup billions of years ago can only be assumed then wouldn't any claims about its improbability also be an assumption?

You should think these things out a little more clearly before speaking. Life from non-life is abiogenesis not evolution. The improbability/difficulty of of the structure of life forming from the building blocks of the structure can be shown not assumed.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What your actually asking is: Can I believe in factual science, logic and reason and still follow illogic, the un-rational and things that are not factual? Now, maybe you can answer your question.

Thank you Mr. Spock.

 

[frg001]

Nice thread, shme about the looseness.
I assume most people are talking about 'evolution (due to natural selection)' - which is Darwins stuff. Because Evolution itself is inarguable. There are species that existed which don't, and many similar species that do. Things evolve.period (unless you don't believe in fossils,dug up skeletons, etc... (how they evolve is maybe at debate).

And creationism. Even as a strong atheist I don't see a conflict in a creator and Darwins evolution. "God created evolution"! What's the problem? (Unless you take the (quite unusual) view that the Bible and Genesis is literal - I don't know any person who does...And I know some pretty wacky people.
Maybe the utterly ludicrous, modern American attempt at spoiling science classes "Intelligent Design" is at issue with Darwins evolution, but not "Creationism"

 

[rojse]

Sure it can. But science relies on empirical observation and experimentation, not assumption. The Bible is not a science textbook.
Science attempts to explain the origins of the universe and the evolution of life on earth. It can't because initial conditions can't be observed, processes can't be duplicated in the laboratory (obviously the creation of the universe can't be duplicated), therefore conclusions are conjectural only.

JC Masters

How do you explain the diverse amount of domesticated dogs, then? I can, through artificial evolution. How do you?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Why would that be? Logically speaking, the entire Pentateuch is written from a historian and instructive point of view. Why would the first few chapters of Genesis somehow be allegorical or a parable?

The simple answer is that it isn't.

Yours,

JC Masters

So some omniscient, omniprescent being slapped everything together in 6 spans of 24 hours - because we're constraining God to human time frames by the idea that Genesis is entirely literal and honestly, wouldn't such a being be beyond time as we understand it - and was so knackered by the experience he had to have a day off to recover?
Yup, that's far more logical than it not being an entirely literal account.:yes:
I believe you might have missed the bit where a parable or allegory can be instructive.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The bottom line is man thinks he is smarter than he really is. If you want to impress me, create life in front of me. Reproduce your hypothesis of just exactly how life first began.

People get too anal about the time line. A day could be a billion years to God. Think just one moment how we explain things to children so they can understand. That is what God did with Moses.

 

[kai]

if god can create the universe he could create a book without parables and double meanings , a book everyone can understand with the ability to read, no interpretations, no hypothesis, just straightforward instructions please, he should be capable of that surely

 

[Azakel]

Sure you can, many religions do. What get me is when you say God are you only speaking of the Christian God(if it not in the Biblical Debates I get confused on what people mean by God, it could mean on God).

 

[kai]

Sure you can, many religions do. What get me is when you say God are you only speaking of the Christian God(if it not in the Biblical Debates I get confused on what people mean by God, it could mean on God).

yes i have the same problem i always assume its the old guy with the beard like on the sistine chapel ,, perhaps its a sign!

 

[Reverend Rick]

if god can create the universe he could create a book without parables and double meanings , a book everyone can understand with the ability to read, no interpretations, no hypothesis, just straightforward instructions please, he should be capable of that surely

You overestimate your abilities and underestimate God's greatness. If you think reading quantum physics or medical references is hard, imagine the level folks were on back then. People always want the short and simple version because they may resemble what they seek.

 

[kai]

You overestimate your abilities and underestimate God's greatness. If you think reading quantum physics or medical references is hard, imagine the level folks were on back then. People always want the short and simple version because they may resemble what they seek.

no just a book that everyone can understand ,like a magick book that when you open it you can understand it, in what ever age you live in , really simple like , because all the pages would be blank, except the last one which says , "now get on with life"

 

[zenzero]

Friend Christine ES,
Can god and evolution go together; [is the question correctly understood?]
God is a concept developed by man for an understanding it is fictional a label only whereas evolution is a process which was there before humans came and will be there after man evolves to some higher being.
Where is the problem. The word god can be replaced by any other label like Nature / existence / energy / nothingness / etc. It will not matter BUT evolution will carryon irrespective of whether man uses a word like god or not.
Love & rgds

 

[sandandfoam]

Friend Christine ES,
Can god and evolution go together; [is the question correctly understood?]
God is a concept developed by man for an understanding it is fictional a label only whereas evolution is a process which was there before humans came and will be there after man evolves to some higher being.
Where is the problem. The word god can be replaced by any other label like Nature / existence / energy / nothingness / etc. It will not matter BUT evolution will carryon irrespective of whether man uses a word like god or not.
Love & rgds

I believe Darwins theory of evolution to be correct. Is it not a concept developed by man for understanding?
Your concept of God may be a fictional label only. That this is the case for you does not make it also the case for another.
It could be argued that God will continue to be God if we decided to call God George. If we decide to call evolution the santa process it will still be evolution. What's the point?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Stephenw,
That is the point.
The mind has all the arguments for and against.
Kindly understand that *GOD* is a concept which has been labeled by man but evolution is a process.
Names or labels can always be switched but the reality of one being a *CONCEPT* and the other being a *PROCESS* will not and so both can go together.
The same is the reason to state that it is very important to understand one's MIND itself to get an understanding of god.
Love & rgds

 

[crystalonyx]

Actually, evolution is at odds with god belief, read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion".