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

[iceaura]

I'm only interested in using the scripture to explain itself.

You make too many mistakes about it to succeed at that - starting with problem of trying to deal with the nuances of interpretation of terms and idioms, in a text that is a second hand translation.

Ultimately they have to be contradictions.
Something bringing itself into existence is a gross violation of common sense.

Common sense is what tells you the earth is flat, there is no upper limit to speed of travel, and people didn't evolve from monkeys.

It is clearly fueled by one's lack of belief in God.

Which if you had any real sense or ability to assess, would tell you that there appear to be great benefits in wisdom and understanding accruing to those who manage to lack your belief in God. Of course that - according to that God you have decided upon - is the fruit of the serpent, and casts you out of Eden; but maybe the dentistry and antibiotics and so forth are worth it, eh?

At what point would you accept that God is the origin of all material manifestations?

At any point that did not require me to pretend the material manifestations were other than I find them.

 

[Jan Ardena]

iceaura,

You make too many mistakes about it to succeed at that - starting with problem of trying to deal with the nuances of interpretation of terms and idioms, in a text that is a second hand translation.

There are loads of scriptures, making it easier to draw a conclusion.

Common sense is what tells you the earth is flat, there is no upper limit to speed of travel, and people didn't evolve from monkeys.

Not necessarily.

Which if you had any real sense or ability to assess, would tell you that there appear to be great benefits in wisdom and understanding accruing to those who manage to lack your belief in God.

Such as?

Of course that - according to that God you have decided upon - is the fruit of the serpent, and casts you out of Eden; but maybe the dentistry and antibiotics and so forth are worth it, eh?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

jan.

 

[Grumpy]

jan

I'm only interested in using the scripture to explain itself.

Ultimately they have to be contradictions.
Something bringing itself into existence is a gross violation of common sense.

You don't see any contradiction in posting both of these? Scripture's authority is solely based on scripture's claims to have authority(and your acceptance of those claims). The Universe did not "bring itself into existence", it is a result of whatever the conditions were "before" or "outside" the BB. We have no real idea what those conditions were, but that isn't an indication we should make crap up and assign them to anybody's idea of a creator or deity. Religion, in this case, is replacing "I don't know" with pure fabrication and calling it "knowledge".

It is clearly fueled by one's lack of belief in God.

You are aware that the Big Bang concept was a result of the work of a Jesuit Priest(Lemaitre)based upon the evidence of Hubble's expansion, right? I'm sure everything he ever did was fueled by his lack of belief in god, right?

At what point would you accept that God is the origin of all material manifestations?

When evidence is found that makes that the most likely explanation. So far the evidence supports no such thing, it never did. We used to think thunder was the result of Thor's Hammer, we were wrong. Wherever we look in Nature it has become obvious that such old, superstitious explanations are based on ignorance, not knowledge.

Grumpy

 

[iceaura]

There are loads of scriptures, making it easier to draw a conclusion.

I never said making mistakes like yours was difficult.

"Which if you had any real sense or ability to assess, would tell you that there appear to be great benefits in wisdom and understanding accruing to those who manage to lack your belief in God. "

Such as?

Such as the one immediately quoted, right there in front of you, that your inability to recognize your own thoughts and belief in a particular God via common sense prevents you from comprehending - human beings evolved on this planet. We belong here. We're part of what is good and right and worthy, like the cedars and the sparrows and the lilies of the field.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grumpy,

You don't see any contradiction in posting both of these? Scripture's authority is solely based on scripture's claims to have authority(and your acceptance of those claims).

I don't believe in authority because they claim to be authority. I accept based on what I do know.

The Universe did not "bring itself into existence", it is a result of whatever the conditions were "before" or "outside" the BB. We have no real idea what those conditions were, but that isn't an indication we should make crap up and assign them to anybody's idea of a creator or deity. Religion, in this case, is replacing "I don't know" with pure fabrication and calling it "knowledge".

Do you really think the idea of ''God'' being the original cause is ''crap''?

You are aware that the Big Bang concept was a result of the work of a Jesuit Priest(Lemaitre)based upon the evidence of Hubble's expansion, right? I'm sure everything he ever did was fueled by his lack of belief in god, right?

That's definitely a possibility.
Do you think that he is his uniform, or his occupation?

When evidence is found that makes that the most likely explanation.

Will you recognize that explanation of the evidence if and when it surfaces?
Or will you be saying ''When evidence is found that makes that the most likely explanation'' till the day you croak?


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Grumpy,

We used to think thunder was the result of Thor's Hammer, we were wrong.

When you say ''we'', who do you refer to?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

iceaura,

I never said making mistakes like yours was difficult.

And so starts the decent into ad hominems.

Such as the one immediately quoted, right there in front of you, that your inability to recognize your own thoughts and belief in a particular God via common sense prevents you from comprehending - human beings evolved on this planet. We belong here. We're part of what is good and right and worthy, like the cedars and the sparrows and the lilies of the field.

The notion that we evolved on this planet is an unlikely theory, and when you look at the explanation behind whale evolution, the absurdity really rings home. Thank God for Philip Gingerich.

jan.

 

[wegs]

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Just wondering Jan, why do you think evolution is an 'unlikely theory' when much natural evidence supports it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Just wondering Jan, why do you think evolution is an 'unlikely theory' when much natural evidence supports it?

Can you elaborate?

jan.

 

[wegs]

Can you elaborate?

jan.

The link I provided above, elaborates. But, here is a snippet from it:

How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

 

[iceaura]

And so starts the decent into ad hominems.

Not from me. I argue straight, and disparage directly.

Of course you do not know what "ad hominem" means, so this just goes by - but you have as much access to reasonable dictionaries and such as any of us.

The notion that we evolved on this planet is an unlikely theory, and when you look at the explanation behind whale evolution, the absurdity really rings home.

You do not understand Darwinian Theory, because you refuse (deliberately) to pay attention to it, and illustrate your by now willful failure to attend to it revealingly in your commentary on the apparent sequence of the evolutionary development of whales.

The Darwinian Theory of evolution, modern explication, is the second best supported, most universally applicable, and most solidly reasoned major theory in the pantheon of Western natural science. It is almost as firmly established as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics by now, and by much the same combination of reason and research (that Law and Theory relate closely).

This, btw, is Jan trolling:

Just wondering Jan, why do you think evolution is an 'unlikely theory' when much natural evidence supports it?

Can you elaborate?

My advice? - do not elaborate. He's seen all the arguments, all the evidence, honest argument is not his game. Simply reassert the simple facts, and label his responses accurately.

 

[wegs]

This, btw, is Jan trolling: My advice? - do not elaborate.

lol, too late

 

[Jan Ardena]

Iceaura,

Of course you do not know what "ad hominem" means, so this just goes by -

Then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The link I provided above, elaborates. But, here is a snippet from it:

How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

I see those as explanations from the evidence for evolution.

That being said, I favour other explanations which contradict darwinian evolution, of the evidence.

What is it that makes you accept the explanations of the evidence, that say darwinian evolution took place?

jan.

 

[iceaura]

Of course you do not know what "ad hominem" means, so this just goes by -
Then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Or attempting to start one. Agreed.

meanwhile, for people new to Jan, this is typical in its deception:

That being said, I favour other explanations which contradict darwinian evolution, of the evidence.

You will never see those explanations in action, explaining any evidence - they do not exist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Or attempting to start one. Agreed.

meanwhile, for people new to Jan, this is typical in its deception: You will never see those explanations in action, explaining any evidence - they do not exist.

In ''it's'' deception?
You do realize I'm human, don't you?

jan.

 

[gmilam]

Or attempting to start one. Agreed.

meanwhile, for people new to Jan, this is typical in its deception: You will never see those explanations in action, explaining any evidence - they do not exist.

That's why I have Jan on ignore.. and have for a while. (Unfortunately, he still bleeds through via other people's quote.) While it is important that someone keep showing his errors, I leave it to those with more patience than I. It is, after all, an endless game of whack-a-mole. His errors have been revealed many times, yet he still regurgitates them any time a new audience appears.

 

[wegs]

I see those as explanations from the evidence for evolution.

what are the alternative explanations for such evidence, would you say? So, you believe the evidence does exist, but you are not satisfied or convinced rather, with the explanations of said evidence? That's totally fair, but then what is the alternative explanation?

That being said, I favour other explanations which contradict darwinian evolution, of the evidence.

would you share what the 'other' explanations are against Darwin's theory?
(that you believe)
Unless you are speaking of Biblical Scripture as arguing against evolution...but then, we just come right back around to the same point, Jan.

It is an inconvenient truth, for lack of a better phrase, that one who is spiritual and follows the Bible, will at the very least, have to toss out Genesis from an origin of man view, in order to embrace the theory of evolution. One can't believe both; one does have to choose one over the other. I think you have said you believe that it is literal, (going from memory in this thread). So is that your counter argument against evolution? (just so I'm clear)

Having said that, to not believe that Genesis supports the origin of man, doesn't make one any less of a believer in God's existence. (in other words, a believer doesn't need to make a choice between believing in the 'wholeness' of God and evolution, simply because he/she feels Genesis doesn't support the origin of man)

I've been a believer in God all my life, and in all the circles I've been in with believers, there is sometimes a discomfort in accepting evolution. Genesis as a creation story, 'sounds nice.' Makes God sound ...more in control. Emphasis on 'sound.' We don't know God, and certainly I can't prove his existence. But, the evolutionary process doesn't (shouldn't) diminish the sovereignty of God, to a believer. I think that's more at the heart of it for many believers; it's not that they can't accept evolution, it's more that it makes them uncomfortable because it goes against a 'nicer' story passed down throughout the generations. I'm not saying this is how you think, Jan.

But, being a believer myself, I've had a lot of conversations about this with others, not just Christians, who believe Genesis' origin of man story to be real and discount evolution, but can't explain why they feel that way. We need to be able to explain why we feel the way we do. Not to satisfy others, but because we need to know why, ourselves.

What is it that makes you accept the explanations of the evidence, that say darwinian evolution took place?

see the above link I posted, please.

 

[billvon]

What is it that makes you accept the explanations of the evidence, that say darwinian evolution took place?

Well, for one thing, we have actually seen it happen.

 

[spidergoat]

spidergoat,



Ultimately they have to be contradictions.
Something bringing itself into existence is a gross violation of common sense.
It is clearly fueled by one's lack of belief in God.



At what point would you accept that God is the origin of all material manifestations?

jan.

When someone shows that there is one. None of the naturalistic explanations are a result of disbelief in god. God is not the default position in science, materialistic naturalism is. God is a way to avoid the question by invoking magic.