What is your take on theistic evolution?

[outhouse]

Out of curiosity, why do you think this?

First my friend, I should have qualified, I generally speak of the abrahamic god.

Moses has ZERO historicity and is pretty much known to be allegorical story written in a time to reflect ancient hebrews culture wants and needs. The story of moses itself has gone through many changes, editions and compilations and has no possibility for a real historical basis. So no, god did not write the ten commandments. Its why they send a man out of view up on the mountain with no witnesses and rely on one mans word that god wrote on stone :angel2:


As far as I know, no other deity has written anything either.

Take into account im atheist and believe all gods were created by man to reflect the culture that worshipped them. Its why we never see a deity in person and there will never be proof for said deity.


I find it primitive that people believe a deity would exist when they only believe in them due to the geographic location they were born or raised in. Magically all other deities are now man made but theirs are real.

Keep the theology, its great and helps people leed a better life. sometimes I think the ancient authors had that same attitude and it got lost in time with a literal translation that doesnt work for anybody.

 

[Riverwolf]

First my friend, I should have qualified,

Don't you mean "clarified?"

 

[outhouse]

Now if he existed, as many people honestly believe with their lives.

Then why would he rely on ancient men to write a book for him.???

theres only a few options if he existed.

#1 cant physically write, and ot lack of skill level in all languages required.

#2 expresses thoughts and feelings instead of languages


A deity would not write a book that matched a certain culture, a deity would write something for all mankind.

Its not something a deity has ever shown or done.

 

[outhouse]

Don't you mean "clarified?"

Qualified or clarified whats a few letters among friends

 

[Riverwolf]

Qualified or clarified whats a few letters among friends

Depends on if one of those friends is a bit of a grammar-nazi.

 

[outhouse]

Depends on if one of those friends is a bit of a grammar-nazi.

[hangs head low] :sorry1: clarified slipped me this morning, just getting coffee in me


You gotta love watching me squirm around my mistake though

 

[Riverwolf]

[hangs head low] :sorry1: clarified slipped me this morning, just getting coffee in me


You gotta love watching me squirm around my mistake though

Indeed. :yes:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Here is the definition of theistic evolution.
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is great that believers in theistic evolution accept science and evidence. Personally I find that "theistic evolution" is like "theistic gravity" in that the "theistic" part is unnecessary. But that's just a philosophical disagreement I have. It's only when believers actively reject science that our disagreements takes on real importance, i.m.o.

 

[NeedingGnosisNow]

I like both theistic evolution and intelligent design. i'm not going to even try to attempt to argue for either one because i can't know for sure whether either is right without evidence. God didn't seem to think we'd need any of that!

 

[Cha'im]

What about atheistic evolution being held by a theist?

Would that mean God is a byproduct of evolution? I suggest you read Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question.

I've not yet made fifteen posts so I can't provide a link. Google it!

 

[gdemoss]

Do you mean that god created all things, and that you take that literally? that's your problem right there. can you prove it "beyond a shadow of a doubt" it means what you think it means?

If it doesn't mean what it says then it can mean anything. I just take it at face value without trying to add to or subtract from the text. God said he did it in seven days, then I believe him. He also backs up these statements in other portions of the old testament where the literal 7 day creation is talked about.

what? you are mistaking two things, evolution as explanation for the first life, and evolution as something that is currently going on.

Your on to something here. I have been talking about evolution as the explanation of first life. The thread is about Theistic Evolution.

all that is required is a poodle. there's your proof. or a thousand other domesticated and bred animals. or resistance developing in bacteria. that IS beyond the shadow of a doubt. yet you deny it.. ? there is no place we can proceed in a discussion from there.

I agree with you about modern science and the discoveries that have been made concerning genes etc. Of course we can see what happens in breeding and can observe that there are changes within the kinds. That would be a form of macro-evolution if I am correct. I'd like to say that I agree with that form of evolution but I believe they have decided that macro-evolution was responsible for the theory that dinosaurs turned into birds. Here we get into wild guessing games that are not based on reality.

medicine cannot really afford such delusions, prejudice kills. the guy who found out that washing your hands before surgery, uh, helps a bit, was shunned because the doctors at the time thought it offensive to think the hands of a gentleman could be dirty.

I agree whole heartedly. The more that pure science can learn about the world we live in the better off we are as a whole. Scientists have been able to make enough discoveries that the average lifespan of humans has increased. Science is awesome.

do you think dinosaur fossils are just some joke? what kind of god would play such games? you see, I have trouble believing that... in that way I am biased as well. IF god exists, I simply refuse to believe he's petty, not very bright and a bit mad. so all interpretations that would imply that, I treat with skepticism.

No, I do not think God was joking when he caused the dinosaurs to become fossils. The argument over dinosaur fossils is how and when were they formed. According to God, he created them on day 6 with all other land animals. Sometime between then and now they became fossils. The bible speaks of a global flood. The most opportune time for fossils to be formed is in a flood when they are quickly buried in sediment. This I might add was something that was unlikely for Moses to have known or understood when he penned Genisis as he was born quite some time after the flood.

so? god claims to have created everything, and to be self-evident in creation. and god surely seems to use selection, see the parable of the seed and the rocky/fertile ground etc.

Yes, God claims to have created everything, and to be self-evident in creation. Does God use selection? I am trying to see how you are seeing the parable of the soils to come to that conclusion. God did not create a world that was originally subject to the process of those that are stronger surviving over those that are weaker. God created a perfect world. Man sinned and God cursed the ground for his sake. Man continued in rebellion and became corrupt and God destroyed them in a global flood. The Earth and its inhabitants have not recovered nor will they until God restores them.

that doesn't mean you know anything about it. if you consider evolution a belief, that kinda indicates you never really understood it.

Again, here we have to discern between theoretical science which speaks of things that it can not prove nor observe happening today and factual science that consists of repeatable experimentation that has proven to be very useful to all. I think the line gets blurred and it becomes hard to distinguish between the two.

no you don't. it's not a belief, it's a fact. I ask you again, how do you explain domesticated animals, or bacterial resistance that develops before our eyes, in ways we can observe?

covered this above.

yeah. but how do you find out what is false and what isn't? test it. to misrepresent evolution in order to refute it, that's false science right there. I'm not saying you're doing that, but that surely is being done.

Agreed.

what? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I don't think god is scared of any question a human could ask, or any truthful discovery a human could make. otherwise, that's not god, but just the voice of a control freak who wants to HAVE creation, and own it. god is way greater and way more gracious than that, IMHO.

Agreed, you don't understand what I wrote. After reconsidering what I wrote I rescind the statement as to me it is now nonsensical.

why would I? why would you want me to?

I don't know. I wouldn't

oh come on, don't take it so personal. I just wouldn't buy, uhm, a biologist's set from you or something. and you wouldn't buy a bible from me, so we're even ^^

 

[not nom]

If it doesn't mean what it says then it can mean anything. I just take it at face value without trying to add to or subtract from the text. God said he did it in seven days, then I believe him.

but the bible also says a day is as a thousand years to god, and a thousand years as a day. not to mention that a "day" didn't exist before sun and the earth did. if one wanted to split hairs, anyway

He also backs up these statements in other portions of the old testament where the literal 7 day creation is talked about.

where? honest question.

According to God, he created them on day 6 with all other land animals. Sometime between then and now they became fossils.

but if the bible is literal in all things, there wouldn't have been enough time for that? not millions of years.

The bible speaks of a global flood. The most opportune time for fossils to be formed is in a flood when they are quickly buried in sediment.

or an asteroid impact.. which is the most commonly held theory, and has a lot of evidence to support it. if "the flood did it", where are the human fossils alongside dinosaur fossils? not saying lack of having found them *proves* anything, but still?

God did not create a world that was originally subject to the process of those that are stronger surviving over those that are weaker. God created a perfect world. Man sinned and God cursed the ground for his sake. Man continued in rebellion and became corrupt and God destroyed them in a global flood. The Earth and its inhabitants have not recovered nor will they until God restores them.

what time span are we talking about here? surely not 6000 years? man and dinosaurs didn't live together, so how come there were all these predators long before us?

you see, spiritually I agree with what you said. only that I don't care if that ever existed literally. I don't even am totally sold that it ever existed spiritually; I just think it should exist. I do think there should be peace, preferably a real and lasting one. peace means way more than just the absence of open warfare with bombs.. let's leave it at that because it's a deep subject I guess. we're not really in the presence of god as humanity, are we. the kingdom of god is within and at hand, but we're off somewhere else.

but man didn't get created out of thin air about 6000 years ago, and 6000 years ago the world was every bit as vicious as it is today. maybe the first ideas of peace were sparked in some, what do I know. maybe that was day one, and adam and eve.. but just two people, who make a few children, who then, what? have sex with their siblings? funny how that kinda gets skipped and they seem to wander off into an already existing world with people in it, isn't it?

Again, here we have to discern between theoretical science which speaks of things that it can not prove nor observe happening today and factual science that consists of repeatable experimentation that has proven to be very useful to all. I think the line gets blurred and it becomes hard to distinguish between the two.

well yes. but how about applying that to theology as well? I consider a lot of the bible true because as uncomfortable as it may be, it's correct. but when it doesn't match reality as far as we can tell what reality is, I don't take it literally. for example, when jesus was lead to a mountain and shown all kingdoms of the world to be tempted, that can't be literal, since there is no such mountain, and the earth is not flat. do I consider that a problem? no. I get the point anyway. do you see what I mean? to say "if it's not literal it can mean anything" seems like something that wouldn't get me very far. and don't even get me started on the ark

but cheers and thanks for your detailed response

 

[EarthAlive]

man and dinosaurs didn't live together

There is actually evidence man and dinosaur coexisted and coexists, but this idea is crazy to many and they would not even consider looking at the evidence, but if you have spare time and you research this topic, you will find evidence for 100s of tracks and footprints of dinosaurs with human tracks and or artifacts which are millions of years old. It is argued by skeptics that one of these tracks is fake, but they have not looked at all the other tracks and fossil evidence they just dismiss it all as hoax no matter how convincing the evidence they are not interested becuase it debunks their darwinist assumptions, but the actual evidence has appeared in many places around the world, it is documented if you search for it. All supressed of course from mainstream textbooks.

 

[not nom]

There is actually evidence man and dinosaur coexisted and coexists, but this idea is crazy to many and they would not even consider looking at the evidence, but if you have spare time and you research this topic, you will find evidence for 100s of tracks and footprints of dinosaurs with human tracks and or artifacts which are millions of years old.

well then, no 6000 years, right? I would have no problem with the idea that man and dinosaurs lived together myself. but I do have a problem with something like literal genesis, that is so obviously false, that believing it borders on the protagonist of "nineteen-eightyfour" being told that when the party says the sun revolves around the sun, it does, because only what the party says is reality. I don't buy into it.

the world is a whole lot older than 6000 years. how come even just one person in countries with libraries thinks otherwise? I don't get it. that is the elephant on the couch, and so when I hear how evolution is some kind of conspiracy, and knowledge being suppressed, I can only weep :/

 

[outhouse]

There is actually evidence man and dinosaur coexisted and coexists

WRONG

there is none

sources please

but this idea is crazy to many and they would not even consider looking at the evidence

60% of the population of the USA believes in creation. Every follower of creation and those creationist that claim their scientist are looking for proof to prove their FAITH.

nothing has been found ever, because it doesnt exist.

you will find evidence for 100s of tracks and footprints of dinosaurs with human tracks and or artifacts which are millions of years old

No you dont, not one has ever been produced that wasnt a hoax.

but they have not looked at all the other tracks and fossil evidence

yes they have.

but the actual evidence has appeared in many places around the world, it is documented if you search for it

false, its only documented by theist.

All supressed of course from mainstream textbooks.

so is the stork theory

 

[not nom]

Would that mean God is a byproduct of evolution? I suggest you read Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question.

I've not yet made fifteen posts so I can't provide a link. Google it!

The Last Question -- Isaac Asimov

 

[Me Myself]

I do not believe in any evolution. If the Bible says that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day, I believe it because the Bible is God's Word.

May I ask,

what do you believe about dinosour fossils?

How do you cope with the fact that thwe two different versions of the creation of the world in seven days that are on the bible directly contradict each other?

edit:

Sorry! on the subject of the thread xD.

I personally believe in evolution, I think it´s incredibly clearly proven by now and really natural way to think life has evolved.

I also believe in God and in gods, but I don´t think there was once nothing and then God created everything.

I believe everything always existed, and always will. Along with God.

While I believe in God/s, I think they create and recreate the existence not once, but continualy.

 

[Breathe]

Would that mean God is a byproduct of evolution? I suggest you read Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question.

Not exactly.

Just God is. He wasn't the spark of the big bang, didn't guide evolution's hand, and had no interaction with creation's shaping. IMHO God isn't involved in such things.

 

[Viker]

Here is the definition of theistic evolution.
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a casual hypothetical thing I have nothing against it. It is just when things like it are claimed to be backed by hard unbiased research and science comes a problem.

 

[gdemoss]

but the bible also says a day is as a thousand years to god, and a thousand years as a day. not to mention that a "day" didn't exist before sun and the earth did. if one wanted to split hairs, anyway

Correct. But he was speaking in reference to the coming of Christ in Peter and it would be stretching it to apply that to creation. The earth was created on day one. God had created some light source on day one. He wasn't specific about it except to say that he divided the light from the darkness and called the light day. Then he clearly states that the evening and the morning were the first day.

where? honest question.

Ex 20:11 When he gave the 10 commandments.

but if the bible is literal in all things, there wouldn't have been enough time for that? not millions of years.

Millions of years are not needed to create fossils. I don't understand why you would have said this.

or an asteroid impact.. which is the most commonly held theory, and has a lot of evidence to support it. if "the flood did it", where are the human fossils alongside dinosaur fossils? not saying lack of having found them *proves* anything, but still?

Of course I can't prove anything but it could be possible that God used an asteroid to break open the fountains of the deep for the flood to occur. The most excellent question is where are the human fossils. First, I take into consideration that I don't know what the Earth was like before the flood as God said that he would destroy them with the Earth. There is very little detail about it given during creation or up to the flood. I don't know exactly how quickly the waters came. Would they have had time to respond? Could they possibly avoided being buried in sediment and just rotted in the water? Are they there and we haven't discovered them yet? I honestly don't know.

what time span are we talking about here? surely not 6000 years? man and dinosaurs didn't live together, so how come there were all these predators long before us?

I don't think an exact time can be put on the age of the earth but it seems that it would have to be between 6000 and 9000 years. Going by a literal interpretation they had to live together. I have seen many claims of evidence that they did such as Inca stones with dinosaurs on them. Or carvings in the base of the Grand Canyon of dinosaurs with man. I have also herd people say that these have been manufactured by men.

but man didn't get created out of thin air about 6000 years ago, and 6000 years ago the world was every bit as vicious as it is today. maybe the first ideas of peace were sparked in some, what do I know. maybe that was day one, and adam and eve.. but just two people, who make a few children, who then, what? have sex with their siblings? funny how that kinda gets skipped and they seem to wander off into an already existing world with people in it, isn't it?

No he was created out of the dust of the Earth 6000 or so years ago
Yes, two people who didn't even know that they were naked and would not have had any children except it be for the forbidden fruit. Then we are told only about the children that God wants us to know about. We are told in Chapter 5 that Adam had more children. Cain married and had sex with his own sister. They produced children etc. Family inbreeding continues after the flood with Abraham and his half sister. God forbids the practice 430 years or so after Abraham in the Mosaic Law. Today inbreeding brings some disastrous consequences but it would seem that something was different long ago. Even in Evolution there must be inbreeding until the population gets high enough for directly unrelated people to have children together right? The first two whatever they were had to produce more somehow.

well yes. but how about applying that to theology as well? I consider a lot of the bible true because as uncomfortable as it may be, it's correct. but when it doesn't match reality as far as we can tell what reality is, I don't take it literally. for example, when jesus was lead to a mountain and shown all kingdoms of the world to be tempted, that can't be literal, since there is no such mountain, and the earth is not flat. do I consider that a problem? no. I get the point anyway. do you see what I mean? to say "if it's not literal it can mean anything" seems like something that wouldn't get me very far. and don't even get me started on the ark

Good point. Ultimately theology can not be proven. While archaeologists may be able to locate and dig up the ancient cities of the bible, it doesn't prove anything. Neither Evolution (as origin of life) or Creation can be proven as fact by mere human investigation or observation. The individual has to come to his own conclusion of which he deems more likely true. The verse you mentioned about Jesus being tempted is one that I consider the use of the word 'all' there. I have researched the usage of the word in scripture and it doesn't always mean 'all' as in the totality of all possible. In that verse I take it to mean that he was showing him all of the kingdoms that were visible from their vantage point.

but cheers and thanks for your detailed response

Thank You and Likewise.