Can you believe in evolution and in god?

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

So you have evolved! 

Haven't we all? Despite our beliefs.

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Haven't we all? Despite our beliefs.

I prefer lack of belief as a cause... 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I prefer lack of belief as a cause... 

I prefer we stick to the topic, but shit happens...

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

I prefer we stick to the topic, but shit happens...

Then we are in agreement, the answer to the OP is obviously yes... 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

Then we are in agreement, the answer to the OP is obviously yes... 

Surprisingly, we are.

[Bender]

4 hours ago, DrP said:

Is that not what they do? Change the definition of god when it suits them - it's all true and the unfailable word of god when they are preaching, but you can pick and choose bits when they run into trouble with contradictions with reality.

 

It seems to work for them, and they no longer have any influence on science and scientific education, so why not.

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

Thank you for the troll, It will make me think a bit before engaging someone who just wants to be contrary...  

Ok...

So being on-topic and offering a solution to the original question that seems to work fine for a lot of people is contrary and trolling? I would think that trolling is blocking any response and crying that you are right because you know best how all Christians should experience their religion.

Perhaps you are less tolerant to moderate interpretations because you live in a less secular country such as the US?

3 hours ago, MathGeek said:

What is problematic for me is that I have yet to hear any theistic evolutionist articulate a clear demarcation criteria for which chapters to exclude (or interpret as metaphors) and which to take literal historical accounts. 

A line between the old and new testament is pretty clear. Not that I support it, but I see how one could hold such a position which doesn't contradict evolution. In my opinion it is the position which requires the least cognitive dissonance, but I may be biased because it is the position I am most familiar with.

[Moontanman]

29 minutes ago, Bender said:

It seems to work for them, and they no longer have any influence on science and scientific education, so why not.

Why not? How do make sure they stay gelded? 

Quote

Ok...

So being on-topic and offering a solution to the original question that seems to work fine for a lot of people is contrary and trolling? I would think that trolling is blocking any response and crying that you are right because you know best how all Christians should experience their religion.

No not at all, you asked me why I thought the way I did, I gave you reasons then you dismissed me by saying I was off topic. 

Quote

Perhaps you are less tolerant to moderate interpretations because you live in a less secular country such as the US?

Perhaps but the stated goal of christianity as well as many other religions is to convert the world. Only in recent times has the goal stopped being at convert the world at any cost. one tiny religious sect who rejects this "sort of" is not a reason to not be suspicious. 

 

Quote

A line between the old and new testament is pretty clear. Not that I support it, but I see how one could hold such a position which doesn't contradict evolution. In my opinion it is the position which requires the least cognitive dissonance, but I may be biased because it is the position I am most familiar with.

Well it might be pretty clear to you but I would suggest that rejecting the old yanks the rug out from under the new and ignoring that doesn't make for anything but a blasphemous version of christianity that will tow the line if the the other sects win out. 

The bible clearly states that both the old and new are the word of god, jesus clearly stated the old was still to be followed and who decides which parts to cherry pick? 

It's just more dishonesty to claim your version is somehow different when to be different it has to reject the main points of the religion. it would be more honest to simply drop it all... 

Edited August 2, 2018 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

35 minutes ago, Bender said:

It seems to work for them, and they no longer have any influence on science and scientific education, so why not.

 

You really believe that?

[Bender]

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You really believe that?

In a secular country such as Belgium: yes.

When our King refused to sign our very liberal abortion law on religious grounds, he was simply dethroned for a couple of days to resolved the issue. That was 30 years ago.

48 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

No not at all, you asked me why I thought the way I did, I gave you reasons then you dismissed me by saying I was off topic. 

Let's shake hands and forget about the mutual accusations. 

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Bender said:

In a secular country such as Belgium: yes.

When our King refused to sign our very liberal abortion law on religious grounds, he was simply dethroned for a couple of days to resolved the issue. That was 30 years ago.

History would seem to indicate you are being bit less than critical... 

[Bender]

50 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

It's just more dishonesty to claim your version is somehow different when to be different it has to reject the main points of the religion. it would be more honest to simply drop it all... 

It is different, since there is no (or very little) falsifiability left. I agree completely that it would be better to drop it completely, but I definitely prefer a flavour that does not interfere with science.

It might have been a survival strategy. 

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

History would seem to indicate you are being bit less than critical... 

Could you name a precedent? 

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Bender said:

It is different, since there is no (or very little) falsifiability left. I agree completely that it would be better to drop it completely, but I definitely prefer a flavour that does not interfere with science.

It might have been a survival strategy. 

Let us hope so... 

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, Bender said:

In a secular country such as Belgium: yes.

I think you are being optimistic even as you narrow the scope of your claim.

 

Quote

In the rest of Europe, the topic has been taken up by the Council of Europe. This organization has a broader membership than the European Union, and its resolutions are non-binding. But it has had significant influences on policy; its European Convention on Human Rights has served as the foundation for the European Court of Human Rights, which produces binding decisions. The Council's Committee on Culture, Science and Education has taken up the question of creationism and science education, and produced a draft resolution entitled "The Dangers of Creationism in Education" for the full council's consideration. 

As implied by the title, the resolution does not use diplomatic phrasing, declaring that "creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design,' is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes." It notes that there are some clear differences between science and non-science and hammers traditional creationism for promoting an "'all things are equal' attitude, which may seem appealing and tolerant but is actually disastrous." The draft also emphasizes that more recent formulations of creationism, such as ID, are equally lacking, scientifically: "The intelligent design theory annihilates any research process. It identifies difficulties and immediately jumps to the conclusion that the only way to resolve them is to resort to an intelligent cause without looking for other explanations." 

The draft resolution was sent to the full council in a nearly-unanimous vote. Unfortunately, the council voted to send it back to committee. Reading the floor debate, it appears that the resolution's return was prompted by a Belgian representative, who called the resolution "unbalanced." Attempts to get him to clarify his problems with the resolution were blocked when the vote on returning it to the committee passed without debate. It's unclear whether the resolution will ever re-emerge.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2007/06/attempts-to-introduce-intelligent-design-in-europe-spark-backlash/

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think you are being optimistic even as you narrow the scope of your claim.

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2007/06/attempts-to-introduce-intelligent-design-in-europe-spark-backlash/

 

Religion will only give up power when it is pulled from it's cold dead hands... 

[Bender]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I think you are being optimistic even as you narrow the scope of your claim.

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2007/06/attempts-to-introduce-intelligent-design-in-europe-spark-backlash/

Nice find. We do have some politicians who are way too politically correct. I wonder whether I can find which one it was to judge whether it was religion or political correctness which inspired the vote.

[Moontanman]

31 minutes ago, Bender said:

Nice find. We do have some politicians who are way too politically correct. I wonder whether I can find which one it was to judge whether it was religion or political correctness which inspired the vote.

I would almost bet money it has to do with the slow infiltration of your docile sect by the fundies who will stop at nothing to ge their cohones back.. 

[Bender]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I would almost bet money it has to do with the slow infiltration of your docile sect by the fundies who will stop at nothing to ge their cohones back.. 

I haven't had any luck finding the name of the representative. It has been a decade.

Since creationism wasn't even a thing here back then, I would still put my money on exaggerated political correctness caused by the wording, which can be perceived to be derogatory.

Creationism still isn't really a thing here, except for some propaganda aimed at the Muslim population (which does worry me). The mainstream reaction to creationism is still smug ridicule.

[DrP]

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The bible clearly states that both the old and new are the word of god, jesus clearly stated the old was still to be followed and who decides which parts to cherry pick? 

The Holy Ghost  - you pray to the Holy Ghost for wisdom and guidance before reading the bible. It guides you and you get the meaning from it what god wants you to take from it for that time.   That's the idea anyway.

[Itoero]

On ‎31‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 5:32 PM, Moontanman said:

While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying I'm not sure I understand the idea of the BB being somehow part of evolution. Sounds a bit like the creationist 7 steps of evolution. Can you clarify a bit? 

Why do you limit evolution to the Earth?  'evolution' is just a word that implies how stuff changes over time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution 

This is what mr. Wikipedia says about the big bang: "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution"

 

On ‎31‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 5:34 PM, zapatos said:

First, I don't know what you mean when you say "the evolution that started at the Big Bang".

Nowhere in Evolution does it say you cannot believe in anything supernatural. How would believing in ghosts make it impossible for me to believe in Evolution?

Same question, why do you limit evolution to Earth?  Many of them acknowledge 'evolution' but they don't think it's a scientific theory.. They think god made evolution possible. Many deny abiogenesis (including all related science) and believe in progressive creationism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism 

On ‎31‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 6:24 PM, Strange said:

Nonsense. That would only be true the "supernatural stuff" included contradictions of evolution. As the Church officially supports (*) and accepts the science, that can't be true.

You are, in effect, saying that because they believe some supernatural things that they can't believe anything non-supernatural. That is completely illogical. You seem to be letting your dislike of religion cloud your thinking. Again

Liar.  Many of them believe all science related to abiogenesis is wrong and don't think abiogenesis happened, many believe in progressive creationism and don't think nature can cause the variation of species. The term 'natural selection' looses it's meaning since they think God does the selection. Many don't think evolution theory is scientific. They acknowledge observable evolution and mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth but that doesn't mean they acknowledge the scientific value of the evolution theory.

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Why do you limit evolution to the Earth?  'evolution' is just a word that implies how stuff changes over time.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution 

This is what mr. Wikipedia says about the big bang: "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution"

I do not limit evolution in the broadest use of he word to the Earth, I was, and apparently mistakenly, thinking of biological evolution. My encounters with creationists have clouded my perception of language... Change over time is a basic part of the universe and some would say change is a basic result of time. 

Here is the creationist table of evolution...

https://creationtoday.org/six-meanings-of-evolution/

 

Quote

Six Meanings of Evolution

by Eric Hovind on August 24, 2010 in Blog

I read with great dismay the May 24, 2010 article by Karl Gilberson in USA Today entitled “Atheists it’s time to play well with others.” I could not believe this author is a professor anywhere, let alone at a supposedly Christian college! The complete lack of common understanding of what science is stands out clearly, so I will try, as patiently and gently as possible, to explain his lack of understanding.

In Mr. Gilberson’s article he continually alludes to “science” and “religion” and marvels that those who hold to “religion” cannot “accept” science which he insists must include the evolution theory and the big bang. Obviously no one explained to him that science means knowledge. Modern science is a collection of all the things we know in various fields. As a fifteen-year-veteran high school biology teacher, I always feel compelled to speak out when someone such as Mr. Gilberson, tries to sneak in the evolution theory as part of scientific facts. The word evolution has six different and unrelated meanings or stages. One definition is scientific fact, but the other five are not. Therein lies the problem.

Quote

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

Quote

Only the last one, micro-evolution, has anything to do with real science. For all of human history we have observed variations within the kinds such as 400± varieties of dogs coming from a dog-like ancestor such as a fox or a wolf. Dogs produce dogs and corn produces corn. There may be great variations within the basic kind but that is NOT evidence that dogs and corn are related! Every farmer on planet earth counts on micro-evolution happening as he develops crops or herds best suited for his area, but he also counts on macro-evolution NOT happening. Anything other than minor changes within the kind is not part of science. Evolution as defined as macro-evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. People are welcome to BELIEVE the first five types of evolution, but they are not part of science or common sense.

 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

Same question, why do you limit evolution to Earth?  Many of them acknowledge 'evolution' but they don't think it's a scientific theory.. They think god made evolution possible. Many deny abiogenesis (including all related science) and believe in progressive creationism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism 

Guess you are not going to answer my question.

[MathGeek]

On 8/2/2018 at 12:56 PM, Bender said:

A line between the old and new testament is pretty clear.  [as a demarcation criterion]   Not that I support it, but I see how one could hold such a position which doesn't contradict evolution. In my opinion it is the position which requires the least cognitive dissonance, but I may be biased because it is the position I am most familiar with.

The problem with a line between the OT and NT as a demarcation criteria is the dozens (maybe hundreds) of times the NT refers to specific events and people originally occurring in the OT narratives.  For example,

The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
John 8:48-58

So, how would a proponent of an OT/NT demarcation line handle this reference to Abraham?  Jesus seems to be referring to Abraham as a real historical figure.  Does this provide warrant to bring in the entire OT narrative relating to Abraham (Genesis 12-25) or only the absolute minimum required by this NT passage?  In all, there are 76 NT references to Abraham spread over 11 different NT books. 

Also consider that Jesus said:

“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”
John 5:45-47

So, here we have Jesus upholding both the real historical figure of Moses as well as his writings.  Does this warrant bringing in all of the writings attributed to Moses in the OT or only the minimum required by this NT passage?  In all, the NT refers to Moses 85 times in 12 different NT books.  The NT gives Moses a lot of support both as a real historical figure and as a source of authoritative writings. 

So, I don't think there is a neat line between the OT and NT solving the demarcation problem for Christians providing a clear path on what Scriptures may be regarded as metaphorical relating to creation.  I seem to recall there are also a number of NT references more directly to the Genesis material "theistic evolutionists" often distance themselves from, but I have not had time to look these up and refresh my memory yet.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, MathGeek said:

The problem with a line between the OT and NT as a demarcation criteria is the dozens (maybe hundreds) of times the NT refers to specific events and people originally occurring in the OT narratives.  For example,

The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
John 8:48-58

So, how would a proponent of an OT/NT demarcation line handle this reference to Abraham?  Jesus seems to be referring to Abraham as a real historical figure.  Does this provide warrant to bring in the entire OT narrative relating to Abraham (Genesis 12-25) or only the absolute minimum required by this NT passage?  In all, there are 76 NT references to Abraham spread over 11 different NT books. 

Also consider that Jesus said:

“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”
John 5:45-47

So, here we have Jesus upholding both the real historical figure of Moses as well as his writings.  Does this warrant bringing in all of the writings attributed to Moses in the OT or only the minimum required by this NT passage?  In all, the NT refers to Moses 85 times in 12 different NT books.  The NT gives Moses a lot of support both as a real historical figure and as a source of authoritative writings. 

So, I don't think there is a neat line between the OT and NT solving the demarcation problem for Christians providing a clear path on what Scriptures may be regarded as metaphorical relating to creation.  I seem to recall there are also a number of NT references more directly to the Genesis material "theistic evolutionists" often distance themselves from, but I have not had time to look these up and refresh my memory yet.

The trouble is it's all about interpretation, just consider what Jesus/NT was trying to teach; imagine Jesus, in his enlightenment, understood what the OT was trying to teach (through the fog of time) and it was the same. So if someone rocked up and said "why should I believe you over what I've been taught" the natural answer is "because it's the same thing, so you don't need too".

[Bender]

1 hour ago, MathGeek said:

The problem with a line between the OT and NT as a demarcation criteria is the dozens (maybe hundreds) of times the NT refers to specific events and people originally occurring in the OT narratives.  For example,

The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
John 8:48-58

So, how would a proponent of an OT/NT demarcation line handle this reference to Abraham?  Jesus seems to be referring to Abraham as a real historical figure.  Does this provide warrant to bring in the entire OT narrative relating to Abraham (Genesis 12-25) or only the absolute minimum required by this NT passage?  In all, there are 76 NT references to Abraham spread over 11 different NT books. 

Also consider that Jesus said:

“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”
John 5:45-47

So, here we have Jesus upholding both the real historical figure of Moses as well as his writings.  Does this warrant bringing in all of the writings attributed to Moses in the OT or only the minimum required by this NT passage?  In all, the NT refers to Moses 85 times in 12 different NT books.  The NT gives Moses a lot of support both as a real historical figure and as a source of authoritative writings. 

So, I don't think there is a neat line between the OT and NT solving the demarcation problem for Christians providing a clear path on what Scriptures may be regarded as metaphorical relating to creation.  I seem to recall there are also a number of NT references more directly to the Genesis material "theistic evolutionists" often distance themselves from, but I have not had time to look these up and refresh my memory yet.

What dimreepr said.

Obviously, I don't know what individual believers think of individual passages, but whether Abraham or Mozes really existed is not important for Jesus' message and teachings. Referring to them helps to convey it.

[Itoero]

On ‎31‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 5:34 PM, zapatos said:

First, I don't know what you mean when you say "the evolution that started at the Big Bang".

Nowhere in Evolution does it say you cannot believe in anything supernatural. How would believing in ghosts make it impossible for me to believe in Evolution?

Because they think those ghosts play a role in evolution. Evolution is ghostfree. Most of them acknowledge 'evolution' but they don't acknowledge all science related to evolution.