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

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Jul 24, 2013.

  1. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And that is fact.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. arauca Banned Banned

    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 .
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


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

    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.

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

    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.

    I don't believe anything you stated here.

    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.

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    The bible we hold in our hands and read from ... was initially put together (the holy books) 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.
  8. Rav Valued Senior Member

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

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

    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.
  10. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member


    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.
  11. arauca Banned Banned

    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.
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    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.
  13. arauca Banned Banned

    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.
  14. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    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?
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    It means that limiting evolution to small changes (what you are calling microevolution) is impossible.
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

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

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

    Good advice!

    Before what? The earth has certainly been populated for millions of years.
  17. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    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.
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    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.
  19. arauca Banned Banned

    I meant perhaps this is the second cycle of the planet earth
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    Where have I done this?

    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.

    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''.

    You've given me nothing to deny.

    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.

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

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

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    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.

  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Same applies to you.

  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

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


Share This Page