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

[wegs]

No-one is a Darwinist on a crashing aeroplane.

haha, they probably won't be talking about it, anyways!

I think a lot of folks are stuck in a life in which the main truths revolve around finding the next meal and how to hang on to whatever threadbare existence they've scratched out for themselves. Some fraction of people have been fortunate and/or curious enough to get a decent education, and of those some have the opportunity and interest to look for truth beyond themselves. You see this reflected in some of the voices here. Then again, you see another kind of search, the one that involves dismantling truth.

In a way that's all we've been discussing in most of these threads.

I agree...I've often thought, if we all took the labels down...we are more alike than different.

There's nothing wrong with a person who seeks truth. You just have to find a good balance between thinking about and engaging with life. You'll definitely make a few people uncomfortable here and there, but you're simply embodying a fundamental aspect of human nature. It would be more unnatural to suppress it than it would be to embrace it. In fact I think you should embrace it warmly.

That's it, entirely. I think that there have been times when I've realized certain 'truths' are not true at all. And it frightened me. So, you leave it alone for a while. You continue on with life...and then, something else 'happens,' and you wonder. You start seeking truth yet again. And on and on it goes. I'm not afraid anymore, and that is probably what has changed the most. I think you are right, embrace it ...warmly.

I am reasonably certain about many things, but decidedly uncertain about many others. I speak the most often, and the most confidently, and the most forcefully, on the matters that I am reasonably certain about. And many people are exactly like me in this regard. So the certainty that you see can be somewhat illusory.

There's definitely a confidence in your writings. But not a 'know it all' tone, you know? You believe what you say. And dare I say, you prbably walk the walk you're talking.

I cant say with 'confidence' that a Creator exists. How would I ever know? Right? But, I want to believe One exists. A being that had a reason for everything. That our existence means something to him. Perhaps, that is wishful thinking. Perhaps, faith is built on hope. Hope of something more, without evidence of something more. (I feel I can tell you this without judgement, so thank you)

The trouble I'm dealing with lately, is organized 'religion.' Dealing with the bible, and all the holes in it. Holes I never noticed until over the past say five years. I know it's not a complete history book, but I say to myself...why is it confusing? Not all of it, but significant parts of it. To tie back into the original topic here, Genesis alone doesn't take faith to believe, but turning a blind eye to believe. That's not faith. That is ignoring truth. Ignoring truth is not synoymous with faith. So, I chalked that 'book' up long ago to metaphorical. For we all know mankind wasn't created out of dust...MANKIND EVOLVED. And I'll say that I think they (early 'church' fathers) just didn't know, they didn't have science to answer the questions of the 'great unknowns' ....so they conjured up a story? Could that be? I won't lie, that's a disconcerting thought. :/

This is not always the case however. There are some crackpot nutjobs out there who are certain about everything. Not something to aspire to.

agreed. lol
certainty about everything is ignorance incognito. (imho)

I can definitely relate to that. But alas, the further I venture, the closer I look, the more I learn, the more mystery I find! So I've made peace with it. I've made peace with the great mystery of existence. In fact I even love it. Mystery means there's more to discover, and that in turns means that there will be plenty more opportunities for me to become awestruck, and amazed, and even profoundly perplexed. And those are cherished moments because they almost always eventually lead to inspiration, and growth.

When I'm not doing all that, though, I'm being all too typically human in every other way.

yes, it will lead to growth. i'm no longer afraid to keep searching. i know the answers are out there.

Speaking of awesome, you're something of a brilliant ray of sunshine around here, and it's refreshing

oh, thank you!
and thank you for ...not judging. lol it means a lot.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

This is about the greater reality of theism that you like to ignore.

I am a ''theist'' dumbass, I can't ignore theism anymore than I can ignore hunger.

In fact simply by virtue of not being, say, a Christian fundamentalist yourself, you are discarding and/or ignoring details that many theists insist are essential to conceptualizing the nature of God and his relationship with creation correctly.

How do you know they are theists?
I'm guessing you saw yourself as a ''theist'' back in your bible-thumping days, but you've proved, in this post alone, that you you've no idea (outside of your big old ego) what it means to believe IN God. We'll see as things unfold.

For example, unless your faith is exclusively Jesus-centric, you are not accessing God through the correct channel, and therefore not accessing God at all.

I'm not sure how one can direct ones faith towards something, maybe you can enlighten me.
Faith only kicks in when necessary, when there is absolutely no way of knowing but you have to make a decision. The kind of ''faith'' you're talking about is something you decide to back or believe in, but doesn't really tax you beyond what you are prepared to accept. It's not real faith.

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to Him and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.”

''The lost sheep'' does not mean people who only accept Jesus as God's representative, and this woman being a caananite, was the religious opposite of Christians.
She had faith that God could heal her son, period, and Jesus could help her because she had faith in God. Jesus himself took no credit for anything, all the credit went to the One who sent him. But I seriously doubt you have the capacity to comprehend that so I won't go any further.

Why? Because Jesus is the part of God that makes such access possible. You can't relegate him to a position that is anything less than the only way to truly know God, and be saved, without rejecting the fundamentalist Christian conception.

You're talking nonesense.
What do you mean ...'' the part of God that makes such access possible.''?

Moreover, God, and the metaphysical mechanics of both the material and the spiritual world, are necessarily inextricably linked. For example, in the Christian fundamentalist universe (and by universe in this context I mean the entire ballgame of existence) we have souls that are born into the material world, live once, and are then judged according to the specific standards set out in the single and only scriptural source revealed and endorsed by him. Fuck with any aspect of this picture and you're well on your way to saying that God is not the God that the fundamentalists say he is. Fuck with any aspect of this picture, and you've made my case for me.

And this is just one example

What does the bolded section mean?

Can you demonstrate anything you say with the scriptures so I can get a picture of what it is you're trying to convey. Thanks in advance.

What do you mean you don't know what I mean by "spiritual duties"? What do you think being a practicing theist entails then? Writing a specific word down on a census form?

I'm not sure how you're using the term, because you seem to have your own spin on what God, theism, and real religion is, so if you can, please use something scriptoral to demonstrate the context.

I've no idea what a being ''practicing theist'' entails. Is this some kind of materialist idea?

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.

Heh. That's merely an opinion. Deists have a different opinion. Thus rather than advancing your argument, you're highlighting mine.

It's not an opinion, one only need to read any scripture, and further more deists don't have a different opinion, they simply deny that God intervenes with those who want Him to.

Deists do worship god you nitwit.

No they don't you weasel.

I've explained that several times now, and even pointed you in the direction of additional information should you wish to actually shock us all and learn something.

You've no idea what it is, or what it means to worship God, other than your own egotistical notions.
They recognize that there must be a creator of the universe, as anybody with a human brain can work out, but they make up some story that He made the universe and then left it to it's own device, having nothing more to do with it.

''....In fact, the only real difference lies in their explanation for the origins of time and space. Deists claim that a god created the universe and its rules, but did (and does) nothing else. Atheism simply takes this one step further by denying any existence, and therefore involvement of any 'god' at all, in the beginnings of the universe or otherwise; in this way, deists can be thought of as atheists in everyday practicality...'' Here:

In fact I strongly suspect that a great many of them are more spiritually engaged than you are.

Oh! Do you?
Why is that then?

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

???

Yes, we all know you are afflicted with selective blindness.

The point is simple. If you actually believe in an sort of objective reality (and since you believe in a creator you clearly do) then the nature of that reality simply is what it is. Your own personal opinion on the matter has no bearing on it, nor do the personal opinions of any number of other individuals.

The only real way of understanding whether or not God intervenes is from God Himself, and outside of personal experience, the only way to have some kind of comprehension is from scriptures. The deists have access to every current scripture, but they have decide that God does not intervene (despite scriptures to contrary). So unless they have some kind reason that goes above the scriptures, there is no question of them being right in their conception of God. It is smply their concotion.

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.

You didn't follow my advice did you? You didn't go and learn about Deism. Thus, you continue to look like an ignorant moron.

Here's some advice for you. Relax.

You've got this completely backwards. Deists are opposed to such concoctions.

No. Deists create concoctions so they don't have to believe IN God.

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.

They are trying to avoid making the same mistakes that are so common in the rest of the theistic world.

Yes, like you, they see all this ''soul/spirit'' stuff as concoctions, which is why they aren't theists. They don't have that capacity, or that capacity is suppressed for whatever reason. You have it backwards, they, like you, ARE the concoctors.

What is the ''theistic world''?

Mistakes which have led to a plethora of inconsistent and contradictory theological and metaphysical views. In other words, they want to worship god in the purest way possible, free from any of those highly suspect anthropomorphic frameworks.

Go on then Sherlock, explain How they worship God?
And what is suspect about what ''anthropomorphic frameworks''.

And contrary to your ignorant assertions, this doesn't preclude the possibility that god actually is a personal entity.

My ''assertions'' would sound ignorant to you, because you are out of your depth when talking about these subject, while believing you are superior to me and as such cannot accept anything I say. You think being smart is the same as being intelligent, and because you probably have a wealth of useless, information in your evolved chimp mind, you consider yourself intelligent.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,

Whether or not one animal descended from another over geologic time is not a question of evolution but of Paleontology.

It doesn't matter what the dicipline. I'm asking if she/he believes it happens.

Obviously you didn't mean "dog" but "ungulate". In any case,

Does it make the claim any less absurd?

My point is merely to ask: where do you draw the line between personal conceptions of God and the weight of all of the evidence to the contrary? At what point do anti-science Creationists simply admit that they've been profoundly wrong? How much cynicism must religion produce before it's found to be broken?

Are creationists anti-science, or do you say that because they don't believe that dogs turn into whales.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm not invoking religion.

jan.

 

[wegs]

Deists don't "worship" God, as seen in the three Abrahamic religions. That's true.

Jan, I just looked at a website...address is:
www.moderndeism.com

I finally *get* where you are coming from.
After reviewing that site a bit, I've definitely fallen short on my "knowledge" of deism.

Question for you jan, off topic a bit: according to the site, deists employ "reason" as the foundation of their belief system.
I've read in this thread, you refer to Scripture. It would seem that deists "tolerate" holy books but don't rest their faith in God from them.
So, just curious as to why you reference Scripture if you are a Deist?

Just wondering; has no relevance to this discussion, really.

 

[billvon]

Does it make the claim any less absurd?

No, it doesn't, because the claim isn't absurd. Whales and dogs are very, very similar. Same skeleton, just different size bones. Same brain. Same circulatory system. Same muscles. Same reproductive system. Same endocrine systems. Just minor adaptations separate a dog from a whale, all of which were caused by the changes as the two diverged from a common ancestor.

Loss of fur. Minor; heck, there are hairless dogs now.
Atrophy of hind legs. Minor - you are just losing something you once had.
Change in size. Minor - if you can go from a gray wolf to a chihuahua you can go from a gray wolf to a killer whale.
Change in nostril location. Minor - compare a boxer to a greyhound and multiply by 10.

Are creationists anti-science, or do you say that because they don't believe that dogs turn into whales.

Dogs do NOT turn into whales. They simply share the same ancestor (which was a mammal.)

 

[Aqueous Id]

Whether or not one animal descended from another over geologic time is not a question of evolution but of Paleontology.

It doesn't matter what the dicipline. I'm asking if she/he believes it happens.

What a Paleontologist can determine is the order of succession of fossils. In other words, there is no belief. It's simply a matter of classification. The same is true of the geneticist who can trace the evolutionary succession of life forms though genome studies. Biology forms a third pillar of knowledge which correlates other details. All three of these sciences, and the dozens of specialized fields they intersect, all are pointing in the same direction. They are cross-checking each other and the results correlate.

Obviously you didn't mean "dog" but "ungulate". In any case,

Does it make the claim any less absurd?

Yes. It is absurd to claim that whales evolved from dogs, since that contradicts science. It is also absurd to claim that whales did not evolve from ungulates, since that contradicts science. It is not absurd to claim that whales evolved from ungulates. It is supported by science and therefore true and correct to say so.

My point is merely to ask: where do you draw the line between personal conceptions of God and the weight of all of the evidence to the contrary? At what point do anti-science Creationists simply admit that they've been profoundly wrong? How much cynicism must religion produce before it's found to be broken?

Are creationists anti-science, or do you say that because they don't believe that dogs turn into whales.

It is absurd to say dogs turn into whales. It is true that dogs don't turn into whales. But it is anti-science to claim that whales did not evolve from primitive ungulates*. The problem, as you identify it, is belief. The strident repudiation of science in favor of beliefs, especially in light of evidence, is indeed "anti-science". This applies whether we are talking about whale evolution, human evolution, or the evolution of any other organisms.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not invoking religion.

You are advocating the same anti-science arguments made by Christian Fundamentalist Creation Science groups. You are expressing factual errors (i.e. "science claims dogs turn into whales") consistent with their beliefs. You are dismissing facts and evidence which have been tested by experts. You are minimizing the weight of expert knowledge. You are doing so while expressing religious beliefs. Since there is no known rationale for expressing oneself this way, other than invoking religion, and in particular a belief in the Creation Myth, I think a court would probably rule that this is tantamount to, if not the actual act of, invoking religion.


*Note, this is identical to the the statement by billvon above, that dogs and whales share a common ancestor. That ancestor has been identified as a primitive ungulate.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs,

Question for you jan, off topic a bit: according to the site, deists employ "reason" as the foundation of their belief system.
I've read in this thread, you refer to Scripture. It would seem that deists "tolerate" holy books but don't rest their faith in God from them.
So, just curious as to why you reference Scripture if you are a Deist?

Just wondering; has no relevance to this discussion, really.

I'm not a ''Deist'', but I use the characteristic of ''Deism'' (reason) to better understand God's nature, personality, and pastimes.
Theism incorporates panthesim and deism.

Pantheism - the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God,[1] or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity.

The difference being that God is not seen as identical with nature or the universe, the difference being spiritual energy and material energy. Both are God, but simultaneosly different.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

billvon,

No, it doesn't, because the claim isn't absurd. Whales and dogs are very, very similar. Same skeleton, just different size bones. Same brain. Same circulatory system. Same muscles. Same reproductive system. Same endocrine systems. Just minor adaptations separate a dog from a whale, all of which were caused by the changes as the two diverged from a common ancestor.

Why do you assume that they diverged?
Why couldn't they just be similar?

Loss of fur. Minor; heck, there are hairless dogs now.
Atrophy of hind legs. Minor - you are just losing something you once had.
Change in size. Minor - if you can go from a gray wolf to a chihuahua you can go from a gray wolf to a killer whale.
Change in nostril location. Minor - compare a boxer to a greyhound and multiply by 10.

These changes occur by intelligence, not natural selection, or random genetic mutation.

Dogs do NOT turn into whales. They simply share the same ancestor (which was a mammal.)

For all it's absurdity, it doesn't really matter. It's kind of like the atheist use of FSM. It doesn't matter to them that it makes no sense
because the whole thing is (to them) absurd.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,

What a Paleontologist can determine is the order of succession of fossils. In other words, there is no belief. It's simply a matter of classification.

So the claim that whales evolved from these other animals is not believed at all, meaning the evidence doesn't only show similarity of structure, it actually shows that they DID evolve from these other creatures?
Can you explain how they know that they DID actually evolve?

It is absurd to say dogs turn into whales. It is true that dogs don't turn into whales. But it is anti-science to claim that whales did not evolve from primitive ungulates*.

In the same way that it was anti-science to say flies didn't spontaneosly generate from rotting meat back in the day?
I find your charge disturbing, not to mention oppressive. There are scientists who do not agree with this, and it wouldn't surprise me that some who do agree with it, do so out of fear of losing money, career, credibility, and so on, especially with that kind of hovering ultimatum.

The problem, as you identify it, is belief. The strident repudiation of science in favor of beliefs, especially in light of evidence, is indeed "anti-science". This applies whether we are talking about whale evolution, human evolution, or the evolution of any other organisms.

Because one doesn't agree with the idea of whale evolution does not mean one ''repudiates'' science, it doesn't necessarily follow. I can't accept the explanation of whale evolution because I just don't see it. Would you be satisfied if I said ''I don't see how this could be, but I will accept it anyway because the mainstream scientists say it is so''?

You are advocating the same anti-science arguments made by Christian Fundamentalist Creation Science groups.

I've told you already, it just doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't matter what arguments I use, the point is that it has to make sense to me, otherwise I cannot accept it. And right now the ID movement is showing some serious flaws in the evolutionists ideas. If there is more information that is able to counter the ID claims, then it should on the net. As it stands if you google ''whale evolution'' you get the same thing telling you that it happened, showing you how it happened by way of cartoons, all with minimum information. It's as if it is a forgone conclusion, as if there is no absurdity in the pictures and videos. It is the emporers new clothes.


jan.

 

[iceaura]

Are creationists anti-science, or do you say that because they don't believe that dogs turn into whales.

No one believes that dogs turn into whales.

The rule of thumb holds - there are people who accept Darwinian Theory, there are people who don't understand it, and there are people who have never encountered it; and that covers the bases. There are no people who understand Darwinian Evolution who don't accept it as a solid, well-supported theory capable of explaining the origin of the species, and the basic theory of Biological Science.

Why do you assume that they diverged?
Why couldn't they just be similar?

You could, but that would mean assuming they don't make sense - that the resemblances are random and arbitrary and without explanation through reason.

You claimed to be in favor of employing reason, and making sense.

These changes occur by intelligence, not natural selection, or random genetic mutation.

No. It's long past time for you to have gotten this simple, basic fact straight: the genetic changes in dogs occurred by random mutation, chance sexual recombination, and selection for adaptive trait. Intelligence - by which you mean human intelligence - was not capable of deliberately engineering dog genetics until very recently. Neither was human intelligence the only selection factor operating on the traits - the dietary modifications, for one, were not deliberately selected by people. The selection pressure was largely "natural", especially given that human communities have long been part of the natural world that canids live in.

I've told you already, it just doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't matter what arguments I use, the point is that it has to make sense to me, otherwise I cannot accept it. And right now the ID movement is showing some serious flaws in the evolutionists ideas.

No, it isn't. It's selling a lot of books and raking in the speaking fees by gulling the rubes, another chapter in the long and almost honorable Christian tradition of separating the credulous from their money.

And as you repeatedly reveal (once again claiming somebody thinks dogs turn into whales, or the genetic variety of domestic animal breeds was generated by intelligence somehow rather than random mutation, and so forth, months and years after being corrected in these simple matters) your inability to make sense of this stuff is based in a willful, purposefully maintained ignorance. Like Sergeant Schultz on the old TV show "Hogan's Heroes", you contrive to see nothing by shutting your eyes and turning your back and cultivating amnesia. And like the good Sergeant in that respect (although without the joviality and intrinsic honesty of that man) you are forced into that position by your choice of ethical and political faction - you're on the side of the bad guys, and that allegiance is crippling your reason and observation.

 

[Rav]

I am a ''theist'' dumbass, I can't ignore theism anymore than I can ignore hunger.

I said you liked to ignore the "greater reality" of theism. That is, the reality of theism beyond your own particular brand of it. What brand is that you ask? It could be described as the platform from which you declare the practices and beliefs of other theists to be either fundamentally flawed in some way (your thoughts on Christian fundamentalism for example) or not genuinely theistic (your thoughts on Deism, for example).

If you're going to reply to a comment it's generally a good idea to pay attention to the details.

I'm guessing you saw yourself as a ''theist'' back in your bible-thumping days, but you've proved, in this post alone, that you you've no idea (outside of your big old ego) what it means to believe IN God. We'll see as things unfold.

Whether I was a theist or not is actually irrelevant. The fact that fundamentalist Christians believe that they are theists is.

And it's laughable how you complain about big egos while simultaneously declaring that theism isn't theism unless it's your brand of theism.

For example, unless your faith is exclusively Jesus-centric, you are not accessing God through the correct channel, and therefore not accessing God at all.

I'm not sure how one can direct ones faith towards something, maybe you can enlighten me.
Faith only kicks in when necessary, when there is absolutely no way of knowing but you have to make a decision. The kind of ''faith'' you're talking about is something you decide to back or believe in, but doesn't really tax you beyond what you are prepared to accept. It's not real faith.

This wasn't intended to be a comprehensive definition of what faith is. It was simply a statement about what the Christian faith revolves around. Again, please pay attention.

Here are some very comprehensive perspectives, provided by Christian fundamentalist denominations, on what it means to lead a life of faithful devotion to God:

http://apostolicchristian.org/faith_statement.php
http://apostolicchristian.org/faith_worship.php
http://apostolicchristian.org/faith_belivers.php
http://www.ibfi.us/files/Declaration of Faith/DofFaithIBFI001.pdf

After you've perused this small but representative portion of the available resources, come back here and explain why the Christian notion of faith is so fundamentally inferior to your own that it doesn't actually constitute real faith at all. And then, demonstrate that your assessment is correct.

Anything short of that and your whole argument boils down to a rather pathetic No true Scotsman fallacy.

''The lost sheep'' does not mean people who only accept Jesus as God's representative, and this woman being a caananite, was the religious opposite of Christians.
She had faith that God could heal her son, period, and Jesus could help her because she had faith in God. Jesus himself took no credit for anything, all the credit went to the One who sent him. But I seriously doubt you have the capacity to comprehend that so I won't go any further.

At the very core of the Christian faith is the idea that Jesus, through His cleansing sacrifice, prepared humanity to engage with God on a more personal level. In other words, even though it was certainly possible to engage with God before He took human form, the dynamic was somewhat different. See the following Q&A entry by William Lane Craig which is essentially a treatise on the fullness of Christian faith (and as such is a suitable addendum to the resources provided above) but also reiterates and expands upon my primary point: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-does-it-mean-to-have-relationship-with-god

You're talking nonesense.
What do you mean ...'' the part of God that makes such access possible.''?

The only way that could seem like nonsense to you is if you are entirely ignorant about the basics of Christian theology. The above resources should remedy that to some extent, if you bother to examine them that is.

What does the bolded section mean?

Errr, it was followed by an example. Examples are essentially illustrations. Illustrations illustrate. Let me know if you can't comprehend the example that followed.

Can you demonstrate anything you say with the scriptures so I can get a picture of what it is you're trying to convey.

All I have to do is provide examples of Christians talking about what the Bible says, since rather than trying to defend the veracity of Christian fundamentalism I am simply pointing out that it exists. To that end, see:

The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe
Politically Incorrect Salvation
Middle Knowledge and Christian Exclusivism
Does the Balance Between Saved and Lost Depend on Our Obedience to Christ’s Great Commission?
Hinduism and Morality
How Can Christ Be the Only Way to God?
What does the Bible say about reincarnation?
The Future Judgment of the Believer

Funny how all I really have to do in this exchange is cite other theists who oppose your stance. Funny how this action, all by itself, makes my case. Funny how you keep failing to realize that. It borders on the inexplicable, actually.

I'm not sure how you're using the term, because you seem to have your own spin on what God, theism, and real religion is, so if you can, please use something scriptoral to demonstrate the context.

My spin for the purposes of this discussion point is the Christian spin. See above.

I've no idea what a being ''practicing theist'' entails. Is this some kind of materialist idea?

For example:

What is the difference between a Christian and a devout Christian?
What Does it Really Mean to be a Practicing Catholic?
What is repentance and is it necessary for salvation?
Practicing Your Faith – The Marks of a Christian

Such perspectives should, of course, be considered in the light of a proper exploration of the nature of faith, as linked to earlier.

It's not an opinion, one only need to read any scripture, and further more deists don't have a different opinion, they simply deny that God intervenes with those who want Him to.

Errr, denying that God intervenes in human affairs is a different opinion to affirming that he does! That one opinion is based on a claim that scripture is revelatory, and the other is based on the claim that it isn't, doesn't change a thing!

Unless you can conclusively demonstrate that scripture does contain revelation from God, you can't demonstrate that Deists are wrong. And yes, Deists have a similar burden if they want to claim that scripture definitely doesn't contain revelation from God. So what we have is a situation where for every argument there is a counterargument, and for every counterargument there is a counter-counterargument, and so on. People on both sides feeling perfectly justified in adopting mutually exclusive positions, with no objective proof one way or the other. In other words, nothing new! In other words, you are still highlighting my argument instead of advancing yours.

They recognize that there must be a creator of the universe, as anybody with a human brain can work out, but they make up some story that He made the universe and then left it to it's own device, having nothing more to do with it.

''....In fact, the only real difference lies in their explanation for the origins of time and space. Deists claim that a god created the universe and its rules, but did (and does) nothing else. Atheism simply takes this one step further by denying any existence, and therefore involvement of any 'god' at all, in the beginnings of the universe or otherwise; in this way, deists can be thought of as atheists in everyday practicality...'' Here:

This is utterly hilarious. Honestly. Not only have you completely ignored the distinction between deism and spiritual deism, you aren't even sourcing actual deists or their recommended resources! Let me remedy that for you:

"It is only in the CREATION that all the ideas and concepts of the word of God can come together. The Creation speaks a universal language that does not depend on any human speech or language. It is an eternal 'original copy' that all men can read. It cannot be faked or counterfeited. It cannot be lost or changed. It cannot be kept secret. It does not depend on man deciding whether to publish it or not. It publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all the nations, and all the worlds. This natural word of God reveals to us all that man needs to know of God."

"Do we want to think of his power? We see it in the vastness of the Creation. Do we want to think of his wisdom? We see it in the unchanging order of the universe. Do we want to see his generosity? We see it in the abundance that fills the earth. Do we want to think of his mercy? We see it in the way he does not withhold abundance even from the ungrateful. In fact, do we want to know what God is? Do not look in the bible (that any man could have written), but look instead to the Creation."

"If man was as fully and strongly impressed with the belief of a God as he ought to be, his moral life would be ruled by the force of that belief. He would stand in awe of God and of himself, and would not do anything that was offensive to either. To give this belief full power, it is necessary that it acts alone. This is Deism."

- Thomas Paine


And upon this foundation, we get:

"Since Deism is specifically correlated with rationalism, there is the erroneous belief among many that spirituality does not exist among adherents. However, this is untrue, as spirituality is a major component of Deism. There are many religions that believe that spirituality is attained simply by believing in the proper doctrines. The opposite is true in Deism. Spirituality is about the ability to experience God and it is a multi-faceted experience that can be accomplished in numerous ways by the individual with the primary ways being awe, epiphany, fellowship, communion and the transcendental. These spiritual experiences are beyond description and allow the individual to have unique and profound experiences of God and nature." - Modern Deism: A Primer

You will of course persist with your claim that this is not true worship, but that doesn't really matter. The whole notion of worship is all bound up with a particular conception of the nature of God and God's relationship to creation anyway. In other words, your criticism is actually only valid if you can demonstrate that the deists have it wrong. If they have it right (or even just less wrong than everyone else, which is what some of them believe) then they are indeed setting the benchmark for what constitutes the most genuine communion with God that humans are capable of.

In fact this whole thread is a farce in that sense. It really should be entitled: "Is it possible to believe in my conception of God, and be a darwinist at the same time?". The answer of course is no, which, by the way, reveals the disingenuous manner in which you entered this discussion since far from being open minded as you claimed, and possibly willing to accept theistic evolution as you implied, it has now become clear that a prior investment in your beliefs about the specific nature of God and his relationship to creation precludes you from doing so. In fact since you also reject other theistic viewpoints on the same grounds, you are essentially no different from a fundamentalist yourself, which introduces even more hilarity into this discussion since you try to paint yourself as an inclusivist.

Oh! Do you?
Why is that then?

I don't know. Maybe because they have more spiritual depth than you, and a superior understanding of reality.

Go on then Sherlock, explain How they worship God?

Already done. And expounded upon.

And what is suspect about what ''anthropomorphic frameworks''.

An anthropomorphic framework, in this context, is an embellishment of the concept of God with human, or human-like, characteristics. They are suspect because the details are always different, sometimes to the point of being mutually exclusive. But more importantly, they are inextricably linked with metaphysical and theological ideas that also often differ to the point of being mutually exclusive. Thus the truth value of any such conception is highly suspect, to say the least.

This is not an argument against the existence of God of course, or even against the possibility of human-like characteristics being manifested by God. It is instead an argument in favour of the cautious stance deists take with respect to the veracity of such conceptions, and the scriptures they are based upon.

My ''assertions'' would sound ignorant to you, because you are out of your depth when talking about these subject, while believing you are superior to me and as such cannot accept anything I say. You think being smart is the same as being intelligent, and because you probably have a wealth of useless, information in your evolved chimp mind, you consider yourself intelligent.

I'm not really concerned what someone such as yourself thinks of me, and I am content to simply rest on the merits of my contributions in the eyes of our other readers.

 

[billvon]

Why do you assume that they diverged?

Because we know which organism they diverged from.

These changes occur by intelligence, not natural selection, or random genetic mutation.

They can occur via all three.

Have you ever seen a human with a withered leg or a crippled arm? Random genetic mutation. Harmful in humans, quite helpful in whales if those legs are getting in the way of swimming.

It's kind of like the atheist use of FSM. It doesn't matter to them that it makes no sense
because the whole thing is (to them) absurd.

The most persistent creationist argument is the "argument from incredulity" - "I cannot understand evolution, so therefore someone intelligent must be in charge." However, most people _can_ understand evolution so this isn't much of an issue to them.

 

[gmilam]

I am a ''theist'' dumbass

I see we finally agree on something.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I see we finally agree on something.

lol!

jan.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The leaders of all the major religions, including the Pope himself, accept evolution, as well as plate tectonics and other scientific discoveries that argue against the fairy tales in the Bible. Their attitude is that most of what's in the holy books is metaphor, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Jesuit universities have been teaching evolution for decades, and they've been teaching plate tectonics since it was discovered.

 

[Jan Ardena]

billvon,

Why do you assume that they diverged?

Because we know which organism they diverged from.

How do you know that they actually diverged from them?
Why couldn't they just be similar but not related\?

They can occur via all three.
Have you ever seen a human with a withered leg or a crippled arm? Random genetic mutation. Harmful in humans, quite helpful in whales if those legs are getting in the way of swimming.

So we can assume that at every transitional point nature selected the organism.
Wouldn't there have been a point when the transforming leg would have been useless, or the nose would have been in a position where it was neither a nose or a blow hole? Why would nature select an organism which is incapable of full functionality?

The most persistent creationist argument is the "argument from incredulity" - "I cannot understand evolution, so therefore someone intelligent must be in charge." However, most people _can_ understand evolution so this isn't much of an issue to them.

No it's not. The evolution that visibly over a few generations is obvious, even if it is not properly understood. What creationists have realised is that there is a wiff of bullshiit when (seemingly) absurd claims like whale evolution, is touted as scientific fact, when the current evidence does not support it. The bullshit, so far, is as obvious as actual evolution which can be observed, and for which there is evidence.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

What creationists have realised is that there is a wiff of bullshiit when (seemingly) absurd claims like whale evolution, is touted as scientific fact, when the current evidence does not support it.

Current evidence does support it.

 

[billvon]

How do you know that they actually diverged from them?

Because when we compare the molecular clocks between dogs and whales, they converge. If they did not share an ancestor, they would never have been in synch to begin with, and so would show uncorrelated results.

So we can assume that at every transitional point nature selected the organism.

At every point PERIOD nature selected the organism.

Wouldn't there have been a point when the transforming leg would have been useless

Yes! And at that point, when the animal was swimming 100% of the time, losing that leg would HELP it.

or the nose would have been in a position where it was neither a nose or a blow hole?

Again, yes! It would have looked something like a manatee's nose - not a regular nose, and not quite a blowhole, but moving in that direction, and already working pretty well in the water.

Why would nature select an organism which is incapable of full functionality?

Because it worked better than its previous nose in water.

The evolution that visibly over a few generations is obvious, even if it is not properly understood.

Well, it's understood pretty well. And if small changes can happen over small time periods, it is logical to assume that large changes happen over large time periods.

The bullshit, so far, is as obvious as actual evolution which can be observed, and for which there is evidence.

We have observed new species evolve.

 

[spidergoat]

I am a...

There I fixed it for you, you had the punctuation wrong.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

there is a wiff of bullshiit when (seemingly) absurd claims like whale evolution, is touted as scientific fact, when the current evidence does not support it.

Huh??? They've got the DNA. The cetaceans are related to the artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates: cattle, deer, camels, pigs, sheep, giraffes, etc.) and the whole group has been reorganized and renamed Cetartiodactyla.

Their closest relative is the hippopotamus. This is an absolute forehead-slapping no-brainer. Hippos are the most aquatic of the artiodactyls, excellent swimmers who spend much of their time in the water, even grazing there. For a group of them to swim all the way down the river to the sea and discover more food there that was only being eaten by much smaller creatures that they could muscle out of the way without needing fangs and claws, hardly challenges credulity. Once they were there they spent more time in the water and evolution selected for those of each generation who were slightly better adapted to it.

Mammals, with their more energetic warm-blooded oxygen-breathing metabolism--not to mention the brains that this metabolism supports, absolutely rule in the water. It takes a huge reptile, amphibian or fish predator to overcome an aquatic mammal. They were safer there than they were on land, with lions and tigers stalking them.

Everything else that's happened in the evolution of the whales and dolphins is represented in their DNA. Some of it is even visible, like the vestigial pelvis fragments that aren't attached to anything.

We've always assumed that they were descended from some aquatic or marine mammal, like seals or otters or even bears. But everyone assumed it was a carnivore, not a grazer like the hippos. Considering that many species of cetaceans are grazers, and simply graze on krill (which are animals) rather than grass, this whole thing is, indeed, a no-brainer.

Some of the land-based artiodactyls have developed a taste for meat, most notably pigs, but even goats will eat it if they find it.