Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?

[wegs]

Please take this in the spirit I intend it in, jan. And it is to just get you to see that what you are asserting is sort of an artificially made argument by "creationists."

I believe in a Creator but these two terms macro and micro evolution frankly...are being misused here. They are biology terms and as such scientists don't make distinctions between the two. The argument against evolution therefore using these terms is a bit misleading to everyone. In truth, macro evolution is little more than tons of micro evolution over many many years. Just to sum it up.

So, to use scientific terminology in an incorrect way doesn't help the argument for creationists.

And that is fact.

 

[arauca]

We don't know the mind of God.

Going with that, how could anyone write Genesis? I grew up with "the bible is divinely inspired." Well, now that I'm an adult, I ask myself, why would God then not tell the early church fathers (who compiled the bible!!) about evolution?

It stands to reason that Genesis isn't to be taken literally.

If you believe it as literal jan, can u tell us why at least?

I see Genesis one (1) very illuminating and scientific. The other part to me are the prophets ( they are admonishing the society ) writings are ok , then history and most part of the Torah is on how a society formed and laws to have a strong religious society . Keep in mind the books in the bible were divided. Christians put them under one cover and called it bible .

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs,

Genesis states that God made Adam out of dust; eve out of his rib. So, no evolutionary process there.
Genesis is the story of the origin of man. The abrahamic faiths teach that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.

No it's not. It's the story of a particular linage, and these people were the first of that lineage.

An atheist will see it as a potentially interesting story and nothing else. Some theists will see it as fact and other theists like me, see it as a metaphor for a variety of things, namely cause and effect and morality.

The only difference between an atheist, and a theist, is that one believes in God, and the other is without belief in God. You are not a theist because of how you view a scripture. You are a theist because you have a capacity to be.

I believe in God, jan but I don't ignore science. We can't make up half truths to support our faith. We can't ignore that we are part of an evolutionary process. To me, a Creator is behind that.

Let's see how you answer the questions I posed.

I'm not trying to talk you into anything but there comes a point where you have to stop being vague and take a firm stand on what you know, and what you have faith in. If you deny that an evolutionary process exists, that doesn't make it so. That's all I'm saying.

I don't deny anything. If you believe we descended from a common ancestor through a natural unguided process, purposeless, and unintelligent, then the onus is on you to show that a) it happened, and b) how it happened, and I don't mean just-so stories, or elaborate animation. So far it's all talk, and fierce ridicule of those that don't see it. That's not science IMO.

And if you believe that Genesis is the true story of the origin of mankind, then you believe that we (mankind) have only been around for 6000 years, maybe 10,000 because historians account for mortality rates of that timeframe.

I don't believe anything you stated here.

The bible doesn't state that, true. Biblical scholars do who have studied the lineage from Jesus to now. Accounting for all the generations, it adds up to no more than 10,000 years and that is being generous.

The world is a big place, so don't just take what Bible scholars tell you as truth, and don't just look to there Bible for ancient history. Look elsewhere do some cross referencing.

jan.

 

[wegs]

Well, one answer there is that they didn't - two people wrote it. Genesis 1 and the first few sentences of Genesis 2 were written by the Priestly source, and uses the term "Elohim" to refer to God. Most of Genesis 2 was written by the Jahwist source and uses the term "Yaweh" to refer to God. Both creation stories were likely based on earlier Sumerian creation stories.

The bible we hold in our hands and read from ... was initially put together (the holy books) ...by the RCC.
Divinely inspired writings in parts, but the bible you read from
was compiled by early RCC fathers.

And not all the Gospels are there.
Some were omitted.

 

[Rav]

I have never given what could regarded as a ''personal conception'' of God. There is no personal conception of God

Allowing one religious text, instead of another, to dictate what god is (metaphysically speaking), who God is, and what god expects from you, is a personal choice.

See: Conceptions of God (which is really only the very beginning of a demonstration about how much conceptions of god can differ from group to group, or person to person)

Whatever your starting point, the personal experiences you have in the course of discharging a particular set of spiritual duties will necessarily further shape both your conception of god and the nature of the personal relationship you have with that conception (there's a feedback loop there, of course).

The more you deny this simple and demonstrable reality, the more theologically and philosophically ignorant you look.

The ''concept of God'', in this day and age, comes from scriptures. All these debates, discussions, and arguments are based on the concept of God as portrayed in the scriptures.

Even ignoring the fact that you can derive fundamentally different theologies and metaphysics from different scriptural sources, there is certainly no shortage of individuals who love to come to places like this to share their own uniquely personal revelations about such things. In other words, everywhere we look, we discover that you're wrong.

It appears that ''theistic evolution'', or the idea that darwinistic evolution is correct, is in opposition to them, not adjacent.

So fucking what? (if I even understood that correctly)

None of it matters unless you can demonstrate that in spite of the utterly ridiculous mess of scriptural contradiction and inconsistency that collectively underlies the worlds many different religions, some of it (or even any of it) actually comes from an authoritative source.

But you can't.

Dude, show some example of your hypothesis with scripture, otherwise I have no idea what you're babbling about.

Huh? Dude, if you're not going to bother reading, don't reply.

There is no ''god of deism'', there is ''God'', or there are ''gods''. The Deists believe that ''God'' created the universe, then left it to it's own device.

If there is indeed a creator, it's an entity that either intervenes in human affairs, or doesn't. And if there is, and it doesn't, then the deists are right, and you are wrong. Their conception of god aligns well with reality, yours doesn't.

In other words, reality doesn't give a shit about how wrong one clueless theist happens to be. Or even several billion.

They do not worship God, and they don't believe in God (unless you think that to believe something is the same as ''believing in something)

Speaking of clueless theists, you're among the worst I've ever comes across. And it's such a shame too because unlike some others, you seem like you could have a real choice in the matter if you wanted to.

Deism is not merely a philosophical position. At least it needn't be, and certainly isn't for a great many deists. Rather, deism is a communion with god through nature, and a soulful yearning for and embrace of god in all it's mysterious and transcendent wonder. The only thing lacking is the assignment of some particular set of details, which vary from scripture to scripture anyway and are thus not reliable indicators about what god may or may not be.

All you have to do to emancipate yourself from your ignorance is google the term "spiritual deism" and spend a bit of time reading.

Unlike you, i am not concerned with competition for spiritual advancement

Bullshit you're not. With respect to a whole host of other theistic viewpoints you're as arrogant as they come about the correctness of your own particular theological approach, and the supposed inadequacy of anything that doesn't gel with it. This post is just further proof of that, and your ignorance as well.

 

[sideshowbob]

Supreme Controller means He does what He likes.

How do you know he doesn't like to build a system that evolves?

How God creates can be found in scriptures.

You're moving the goalposts. The question was about whether one could "believe in God" and accept evolution, not whether one could believe the scriptures and accept evolution.

In that case, the answer would be no, you can't believe that Genesis is literally true and accept evolution. Genesis is factually wrong.

 

[wegs]

Jan;

I saw what u wrote a few posts up in reply to me.
And my reply back is we are not here to debate the virtues of being a theist.
Your thread title is asking can a theist also believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?
I say yes.

And, I said why.

The rest is just semantics.

I'm not sure if I can say much else on it.

 

[arauca]

Well, one answer there is that they didn't - two people wrote it. Genesis 1 and the first few sentences of Genesis 2 were written by the Priestly source, and uses the term "Elohim" to refer to God. Most of Genesis 2 was written by the Jahwist source and uses the term "Yaweh" to refer to God. Both creation stories were likely based on earlier Sumerian creation stories.

Sumerian go far back . Think about the wisdom in Gen. 1 . Think for a wile Water covered the earth and the water was hot and there was no land surface , It was dark because light could not penetrate , some cooling had to take place to separate liquid water from vapor . then to produce land it was necessary to give a tilt to the planer and cooling off on the pols and ice was produced and earth solid appears, .. Think how a Sumerian could come up with this knowledge that we now in the 20 century can visualize through science and more.

 

[billvon]

Think for a wile Water covered the earth and the water was hot and there was no land surface.

Sounds like how someone who lived along the Nile (where the river floods each year, then recedes, revealing fertile land beneath) would imagine the Earth was created. Indeed the Egyptian creation story is very, very similar.

It was dark because light could not penetrate

In Genesis 1 it was dark because there was no light - until God created it. Gen 1: "Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light."

some cooling had to take place to separate liquid water from vapor .

In Genesis 2 things start off dry until God creates a mist out of the ground. Gen 2: "For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."

then to produce land it was necessary to give a tilt to the planer and cooling off on the pols and ice was produced and earth solid appears

?? Nothing in the Bible about tilt.

If you are trying to make a comparison to the early Earth the opposite happened. First we had (hot) dry land, then the Earth cooled, then once it was cool enough for liquid water it started to rain.

Think how a Sumerian could come up with this knowledge

Through observing his world.

Night seems like death because everyone is asleep and the world is quiet and still. So before the world began it must have been night.
The life-giving soil appears when the Nile water recedes. Thus, the beginning of the world must have been a pulling back of the water.
Everything dies in the summer until the rains come. Therefore before life began everything must have been dry until God made it rain.

 

[arauca]

Sounds like how someone who lived along the Nile (where the river floods each year, then recedes, revealing fertile land beneath) would imagine the Earth was created. Indeed the Egyptian creation story is very, very similar.



In Genesis 1 it was dark because there was no light - until God created it. Gen 1: "Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light."



In Genesis 2 things start off dry until God creates a mist out of the ground. Gen 2: "For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."



?? Nothing in the Bible about tilt.

If you are trying to make a comparison to the early Earth the opposite happened. First we had (hot) dry land, then the Earth cooled, then once it was cool enough for liquid water it started to rain.



Through observing his world.

Night seems like death because everyone is asleep and the world is quiet and still. So before the world began it must have been night.
The life-giving soil appears when the Nile water recedes. Thus, the beginning of the world must have been a pulling back of the water.
Everything dies in the summer until the rains come. Therefore before life began everything must have been dry until God made it rain.

In my version stop using Genesis 2 Please only Gen. ( ! ) I know in Gen. does not say about tilt . You could not say to a child about tilt , the fact is that we now have an understanding that if the ice on the poles melts the earth will be covered , you would agree if the clouds would to heavy the light would not penetrate ..

Think scientifically with open mind no prejudging , there is room even that once before the earth could have been populated.

 

[spidergoat]

.....




What obvious thing have I denied?

Why is anything in my quote ''unscientific?

And please stop trying to derail my thread, if you don't like it go elsewhere.

jan.

You don't want to believe that the diversity of life on Earth is unguided. That's fine for you personally, but it means that presenting any evidence for this is irrelevant. You will continue to believe whatever you want to believe, so what's to discuss?

 

[spidergoat]

What does this have to do with anything.

jan.

It means that limiting evolution to small changes (what you are calling microevolution) is impossible.

 

[billvon]

In my version stop using Genesis 2 Please only Gen. ( ! )

?? Is one not valid or something? They are both part of the Bible.

I know in Gen. does not say about tilt . You could not say to a child about tilt , the fact is that we now have an understanding that if the ice on the poles melts the earth will be covered

No it wouldn't. Sea levels would be about 70 meters higher, but most of the dry land would still be there.

Think scientifically with open mind no prejudging,

Good advice!

there is room even that once before the earth could have been populated.

Before what? The earth has certainly been populated for millions of years.

 

[wegs]

It means that limiting evolution to small changes (what you are calling microevolution) is impossible.

True, but the main issue is that you can't take biology terms and use them in a theistic way.
Biologists don't really see the two as all that different, scientifically.
So to grab the terms and use them to argue one's point for creationism, doesn't really work.
I'm sure u know this lol, I'm just saying this in reply to u but for that point to be made.

 

[spidergoat]

True, but the main issue is that you can't take biology terms and use them in a theistic way.
Biologists don't really see the two as all that different, scientifically.
So to grab the terms and use them to argue one's point for creationism, doesn't really work.
I'm sure u know this lol, I'm just saying this in reply to u but for that point to be made.

Right, because if you are making up a god, you can make up any powers or attributes about it you wish. He could have laid down the fossil record in a day just to test our faith. The entire universe could have come into existence 5 minutes ago.

 

[arauca]

?? Is one not valid or something? They are both part of the Bible.

I meant only chapter one
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
No it wouldn't. Sea levels would be about 70 meters higher, but most of the dry land would still be there.

I meant Pangaea as example India did not slam into the Asian plate and definitively the Ande and the Rocky existed
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



Good advice!



Before what? The earth has certainly been populated for millions of years.

I meant perhaps this is the second cycle of the planet earth

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Allowing one religious text, instead of another, to dictate what god is (metaphysically speaking), who God is, and what god expects from you, is a personal choice.

Where have I done this?

See: Conceptions of God (which is really only the very beginning of a demonstration about how much conceptions of god can differ from group to group, or person to person)

A ''concept of God'' is a personal idea of God, not a different God. God always remains the same person in every scripture. If concepts of God were to be taken seriously then the FSM would be, for all intent and purpose, God, but it obviously isn't.

Whatever your starting point, the personal experiences you have in the course of discharging a particular set of spiritual duties will necessarily further shape both your conception of god and the nature of the personal relationship you have with that conception (there's a feedback loop there, of course).

Not sure what you mean by ''spiritual duties''.
Tha aim is to get rid of your own personal conception of God, so a personal relationship can take place. Hence the term ''surrender''.

The more you deny this simple and demonstrable reality, the more theologically and philosophically ignorant you look.

You've given me nothing to deny.

Even ignoring the fact that you can derive fundamentally different theologies and metaphysics from different scriptural sources, there is certainly no shortage of individuals who love to come to places like this to share their own uniquely personal revelations about such things. In other words, everywhere we look, we discover that you're wrong.

Intellectualy we can come to any conclusion about scripture if we choose, but when we study the scripture we find that it is very straightforeward. For example in genesis it does not mention that Adam and Eve were the first ever human beings, yet we know (from the same source) that Cain found a wife, and builded a city.

None of it matters unless you can demonstrate that in spite of the utterly ridiculous mess of scriptural contradiction and inconsistency that collectively underlies the worlds many different religions, some of it (or even any of it) actually comes from an authoritative source.

Religion and religious institutes are a different matter, and should be treated as such.

Huh? Dude, if you're not going to bother reading, don't reply.

I'm reading what you're saying but it makes not much sense unless you can demonstrate it.

If there is indeed a creator, it's an entity that either intervenes in human affairs, or doesn't.

Or, it intervenes with humans who know how to make contact, and doesn't intervene with humans who want to have the illusion of living a life where God does not exist.

And if there is, and it doesn't, then the deists are right, and you are wrong. Their conception of god aligns well with reality, yours doesn't.

I'm not saying the Deists are wrong, only that there position is not a theistic one. They believe God exists, a transcendental creator, but they choose not to worship Him.

In other words, reality doesn't give a shit about how wrong one clueless theist happens to be. Or even several billion.

???

Deism is not merely a philosophical position. At least it needn't be, and certainly isn't for a great many deists. Rather, deism is a communion with god through nature, and a soulful yearning for and embrace of god in all it's mysterious and transcendent wonder. The only thing lacking is the assignment of some particular set of details, which vary from scripture to scripture anyway and are thus not reliable indicators about what god may or may not be.

All you have to do to emancipate yourself from your ignorance is google the term "spiritual deism" and spend a bit of time reading.

The essential nature of the soul is spirit, the same nature as God (as opposed to matter)

Soul - the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

Spirit - the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.

The deists do not accept anything considered supernatural, so their idea of ''spiritual'' is material. They see themselves as purely material beings, and God as a creator (not supernatural), at least based on what i've read.

So while they are being ''spiritual'' in their way, it is inconsistent with the personality and nature of God, therefore it is there own concoction. That is not theistic.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan;

I saw what u wrote a few posts up in reply to me.
And my reply back is we are not here to debate the virtues of being a theist.
Your thread title is asking can a theist also believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?
I say yes.

And, I said why.

The rest is just semantics.

I'm not sure if I can say much else on it.

I'm not asking about the virtues of being a theist, but an understanding of what it is to be a theist would go a long
way in determining the actuality of the question posed in the OP.

But fair enough.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You don't want to believe that the diversity of life on Earth is unguided. That's fine for you personally, but it means that presenting any evidence for this is irrelevant. You will continue to believe whatever you want to believe, so what's to discuss?

Same applies to you.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Please take this in the spirit I intend it in, jan. And it is to just get you to see that what you are asserting is sort of an artificially made argument by "creationists."

I believe in a Creator but these two terms macro and micro evolution frankly...are being misused here. They are biology terms and as such scientists don't make distinctions between the two. The argument against evolution therefore using these terms is a bit misleading to everyone. In truth, macro evolution is little more than tons of micro evolution over many many years. Just to sum it up.

So, to use scientific terminology in an incorrect way doesn't help the argument for creationists.

And that is fact.

Do you agree that one kind of animal gives rise to a different kind of animal?

jan.