As for the OP:

Evolution is a valid scientific theory which explains the diversity of life seen on earth today.

Science is a method for understanding the natural world.

God (in your meaning, I assume) is a supernatural being.

The supernatural cannot be addressed by science.

Beliefs in the ability of the scientific method to describe the natural world, and in the existence of a supernatural are not mutually exclusive nor do they need to be in conflict.

I hereby excommunicate everyone on this thread, save myself

quote:

---

Once you inject God into the equation and say that evolution was guided by the divine, you and I are no longer using the same definition of 'evolution'. My evolution is a scientific theory. If yours requires God to work, it is not a scientific theory.

---

kurt, I get what you are saying here, but it rubs me the wrong way for a few reasons. First, the idea that God and nature are incompatible. If I believe God created nature to be exactly as it is, then all nature requires God to work. Doesn't make it any less natural.

From a different angle, we talk about determinism and free will often. But what about before men existed? Is there any reason that the natural world without mankind (or sentience at all to be more general) should have any self-determination? From my perspective, the natural universe was playing out a script written from the very Beginning. When it comes to theological discussion of what happened before the mankind (sentience), it would be impossible to tell the difference between an interventionist God and a Deist God if both were omnipotent, omniscient Creators. If you don't believe in human free will, then it would be impossible to tell the difference at all.

Secondly, the idea that mutations are "random" and that evolution happened by "chance" are not theologically neutral statements. Randomness, luck and chance are philosophical constructs with huge theological implications. The idea that any number of outcomes could happen, only one does, and there is no reason for that specific outcome to happen is just a step down the road to nihilism. It would mean the "natural" events occur for no reason, and there is no overall greater purpose to either the existence of nature or natural phenomenon. It's fine if you believe that, but it is most certainly a very strong theological statement.

IMHO, science does just fine describing mechanisms, such as mutation and selection. When you start making "guided" or "random" an essential part of a scientific theory, then you are espousing philosophy and theology and not science.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let me be clear here. I just struck out the word unguided to provide the most extreme view point. I am not saying that's what I subscribe to at all. What I don't understand.is when a religious group denies evolution entirely...with or without intervention from god.

---

Because Genesis 1-2 (read as a narrative) teaches all created order was completed in 6 days by the word of God.

---

Again this is something I've stated I have an issue with. If mankind was created on the 6th day, then we would exist with every other species ever found in any fossils that have ever been dug up. A difference of 6 days isn't enough to separate those fossils.

Obviously, I think it took more than 6 days.

---

Your thread started out with whether or not a person could believe in evolution and God. The answer is sometimes depending on what evolution is and what God is. Now it seems your thread is to simply point out that you have an issue with a person rejecting evolution as a theory when it comes in conflict with 6 day creation.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let me be clear here. I just struck out the word unguided to provide the most extreme view point. I am not saying that's what I subscribe to at all. What I don't understand.is when a religious group denies evolution entirely...with or without intervention from god.

---

Because Genesis 1-2 (read as a narrative) teaches all created order was completed in 6 days by the word of God.

---

Again this is something I've stated I have an issue with. If mankind was created on the 6th day, then we would exist with every other species ever found in any fossils that have ever been dug up. A difference of 6 days isn't enough to separate those fossils.

Obviously, I think it took more than 6 days.

---

Your thread started out with whether or not a person could believe in evolution and God. The answer is sometimes depending on what evolution is and what God is. Now it seems your thread is to simply point out that you have an issue with a person rejecting evolution as a theory when it comes in conflict with 6 day creation.

---

Look, I'm not interested in the defining both. I think we all know what both of those topics are. I'm simply stating the places where the issues conflict. And yes, that happens around creation because in my eyes you can't have both options be true at that very instance. Science shows thousands of years of evolution, where as creationism tells you 6 days and places humans on the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. Please don't act like they are different stances. They are not.

Is your position that creation must be atemporal in order to be creation?

Must God create instantaneously in order to create ex-nihilo?

quote:

---

Is your position that creation must be atemporal in order to be creation?

Must God create instantaneously in order to create ex-nihilo?

---

Why would you not consider time if you were told the time? If you consider it atemporal, then there is a flaw with the scripture on this topic. Because it clearly tells you the number of days.

quote:

---

Look, I'm not interested in the defining both. I think we all know what both of those topics are. I'm simply stating the places where the issues conflict. And yes, that happens around creation because in my eyes you can't have both options be true at that very instance. Science shows thousands of years of evolution, where as creationism tells you 6 days and places humans on the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. Please don't act like they are different stances. They are not.

---

It's unclear what you're asking for. Some people take a figurative interpretation of scripture, and for them they don't see a problem with evolution. They might throw in some metaphysical baggage, like God had a guiding hand on evolution, but they don't have any problem with our scientific understanding of evolution. If you're looking for people rationalizing a literal interpretation of the Bible, there's always this behemoth of a thread.

You clarified your statement a bit with an edit. What you wrote seemed to imply that if it didn't happen instantaneously it was not creation. My position was just to point out that creating instantaneously and creating ex-nihilo are separate concepts that are not mutually exclusive or inclusive.

Considering time becomes a very involved topic because time has all kinds of implications, both philosophical and physical.

quote:

---

Look, I'm not interested in the defining both. I think we all know what both of those topics are. I'm simply stating the places where the issues conflict. And yes, that happens around creation because in my eyes you can't have both options be true at that very instance. Science shows thousands of years of evolution, where as creationism tells you 6 days and places humans on the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. Please don't act like they are different stances. They are not.

---

Your OP asks the opposite: is it possible to believe in evolution and God? The obvious answer is yes, it's possible (depending on what evolution is and what God is).

Then you ask how someone with a specific understanding of God (he created in 6 days) cannot believe in a specific understanding of evolution (presumably that all of creation evolved from a single ancestor over billions of years). The obvious answer is the Biblical account of creation. It has been in conflict with competing philosophies since antiquity (where Greek philosophers thought the earth's age was infinite).

Now you're claiming it's impossible to believe in evolution and 6 day creation. Again, it's possible depending on what evolution is. Universal ancestor I would agree considering the time it would take would be infinite.

This is part of a post from different thread...

quote:

---

I hope everyone is aware that the "young earth" stance is not one held by the majority of Christians.

If this is an issue keeping you from belief... please look into reading/watching/listening to Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Fazale Rana, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. Jeff Zweerink, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Norman Geisler... and many of others.

If you take all of the creation accounts in the bible (yes, there are more than just Genesis... look at Job 38-39, Psalm 104, Proverbs 8) into account you can pretty easily see that the bible lines up nicely with science and history.

The day issue: From Reasons.org... The biblical word for day, yom, has four different literal meanings: 1) the daylight portion of a day, 2) part of the daylight hours, 3) an ordinary day (now 24 hours), and 4) a longer but finite period of time (no other word in biblical Hebrew carries this meaning). Although many Christians argue that those days represent ordinary calendar days, the biblical text indicates they lasted much longer. Days 1-3 cannot be ordinary days as humanity defines them because the Sun does not become visible until the fourth day. On the sixth day, Adam tends the garden, names all the animals, undergoes divine surgery and marries Eve. These events seem too significant and long to happen in one ordinary day. The seventh day, in contrast to the first six, never closes with an evening and morning. In fact, Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4 indicate that we still live in the seventh day.

---

On the OP... Evolutionary Theory and Theism

quote:

---

quote:

---

Look, I'm not interested in the defining both. I think we all know what both of those topics are. I'm simply stating the places where the issues conflict. And yes, that happens around creation because in my eyes you can't have both options be true at that very instance. Science shows thousands of years of evolution, where as creationism tells you 6 days and places humans on the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. Please don't act like they are different stances. They are not.

---

Your OP asks the opposite: is it possible to believe in evolution and God? The obvious answer is yes, it's possible (depending on what evolution is and what God is).

Then you ask how someone with a specific understanding of God (he created in 6 days) cannot believe in a specific understanding of evolution (presumably that all of creation evolved from a single ancestor over billions of years). The obvious answer is the Biblical account of creation. It has been in conflict with competing philosophies since antiquity (where Greek philosophers thought the earth's age was infinite).

Now you're claiming it's impossible to believe in evolution and 6 day creation. Again, it's possible depending on what evolution is. Universal ancestor I would agree considering the time it would take would be infinite.

---

Yes, the discussion on the thread has evolved to show the particular conflict I have on the subject at hand. It's not a new stance. More specific questions? Yes. New stance? No.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Once you inject God into the equation and say that evolution was guided by the divine, you and I are no longer using the same definition of 'evolution'. My evolution is a scientific theory. If yours requires deliberate and specific intervention from a supernatural God to work, it is not a scientific theory.

---

kurt, I get what you are saying here, but it rubs me the wrong way for a few reasons. First, the idea that God and nature are incompatible. If I believe God created nature to be exactly as it is, then all nature requires God to work. Doesn't make it any less natural.

From a different angle, we talk about determinism and free will often. But what about before men existed? Is there any reason that the natural world without mankind (or sentience at all to be more general) should have any self-determination? From my perspective, the natural universe was playing out a script written from the very Beginning. When it comes to theological discussion of what happened before the mankind (sentience), it would be impossible to tell the difference between an interventionist God and a Deist God if both were omnipotent, omniscient Creators. If you don't believe in human free will, then it would be impossible to tell the difference at all.

Secondly, the idea that mutations are "random" and that evolution happened by "chance" are not theologically neutral statements. Randomness, luck and chance are philosophical constructs with huge theological implications. The idea that any number of outcomes could happen, only one does, and there is no reason for that specific outcome to happen is just a step down the road to nihilism. It would mean the "natural" events occur for no reason, and there is no overall greater purpose to either the existence of nature or natural phenomenon. It's fine if you believe that, but it is most certainly a very strong theological statement.

IMHO, science does just fine describing mechanisms, such as mutation and selection. When you start making "guided" or "random" an essential part of a scientific theory, then you are espousing philosophy and theology and not science.

---

Does the above edit in bold rub you any better? I am happy to concede that in a universe created by God, all of 'nature' would require God to work in at least an indirect way.

What I mean to say is this: Lets assume that there is a Creator of the universe. If life began without any further direction from this creator and if life evolved without the intentional intervention from this creator to create specific forums, such as human beings, then we are tempted to draw starkly different conclusions than if said creator specifically intervened in directing the path of evolution so as to intentionally create human beings.

I would agree that randomness is not a philosophically neutral statement, but would take exception to automatically tying the following view to theology. Maybe this is simply semantics. It is a strong philosophical statement for sure.

quote:

---

It would mean the "natural" events occur for no reason, and there is no overall greater purpose to either the existence of nature or natural phenomenon. It's fine if you believe that, but it is most certainly a very strong theological statement.

---

quote:

---

What I mean to say is this: Lets assume that there is a Creator of the universe. If life began without any further direction from this creator and if life evolved without the intentional intervention from this creator to create specific forums, such as human beings, then we are tempted to draw starkly different conclusions than if said creator specifically intervened in directing the path of evolution so as to intentionally create human beings.

---

I agree with you 100% and had no trouble with the overall point you were trying to make. Just nitpicking a minor statement is all

quote:

---

quote:

---

Look, I'm not interested in the defining both. I think we all know what both of those topics are. I'm simply stating the places where the issues conflict. And yes, that happens around creation because in my eyes you can't have both options be true at that very instance. Science shows thousands of years of evolution, where as creationism tells you 6 days and places humans on the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. Please don't act like they are different stances. They are not.

---

It's unclear what you're asking for. Some people take a figurative interpretation of scripture, and for them they don't see a problem with evolution. They might throw in some metaphysical baggage, like God had a guiding hand on evolution, but they don't have any problem with our scientific understanding of evolution. If you're looking for people rationalizing a literal interpretation of the Bible, there's always this behemoth of a thread.

---

Jason's speed of light segment is a little wacky.

All of their arguments are a little wacky. But nevertheless, that's how they try and justify it.

I didn't read the entire thread, so I apologize in advance, but in answer to the OP... absolutely.

Personally, it is perfectly reasonable to assume a God who created a dynamic universe also created life with the ability to change and adapt as that universe changed.

As an example, we create machines at which we can push software updates and change out hardware, but God created "machines" that can update its own software and change out its own hardware.

Is it possible to believe in Evolution and in God?

Absolutely. Let's take is a step further and define God as Jesus. A person can believe/Jesus died and rose again for their own sins and become a Christian and still believe that evolution happened. Evolution is a non-essential issue. Many people become aware of their own sinfulness and their need for a savior without understanding the deity of Christ, the doctrine of eternal security, the history of the Jews, etc.

I personally believe that God created the universe as detailed in the Genesis account. When the universe was 1 month old, I believe all of the animals, rocks, light, and man all had the appearance of age and different ages. The creation account doesn't record creating eggs and seeds, etc. Example: man may have appeared to be 25 years old while one type of tree may have appeared to be 400 years old and another 100 years old. The age of the rocks may have appeared to be 500,000 years old all after week 1.

Did Adam have a belly button?

quote:

---

As an example, we create machines at which we can push software updates and change out hardware, but God created "machines" that can update its own software and change out its own hardware.

---

Did God direct the software updates or just set it motion and let 'randomness' guide the process? If God directed evolution to humanity and intended humans to exist, then how can you say that his machinery had the ability to update its own software and change out its own hardware?

Why create a universe that appears billions of years old and provide a fossil record that supports evolution if Genesis is literally true?

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/05/18/new-dinosaur-species-discovered-in-american-southwest.html?intcmp=hpbt4


Beats believing this crap

quote:

---

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/05/18/new-dinosaur-species-discovered-in-american-southwest.html?intcmp=hpbt4


Beats believing this crap

---

Um what

He's a troll who believes a talking snake and a magic tree make more sense than Dinosaurs.

quote:

---

Every year, the non believers come up with a new monster from a few bones, not taking into account the pile of bones maybe a number of monsters. The scientist make assumptions and we are suppose to take it as truth, same idiots that think man controls worldwide weather.
Watson, u r a clown, and I giggle every time I see Dr in front of your screene name.
harmless but an idiot u r

---

Wait, so you don't even believe that dinosaurs were real? All the skeletons we have are a part of some grand conspiracy to create fake animals and a false narrative?

Which "pile of bones" is this? You don't know much about Paleontology, obviously. And your insults are tiring. Try harder.

More venom and name-calling. WinaGs, can I ask you an honest question? Do you believe you are known for your love of others? Is that something that people here, or in person, would recognize you for?

His emoticon is smiling, so I think that he means 'idiot' in a loving way.

Retired

I can't differentiate between you and the nonbelievers, birds of a feather

quote:

---

Retired

I can't differentiate between you and the nonbelievers, birds of a feather

---

Really? Because I talk about love and think that, as a Christian, we should engage others w/ a spirit of gentleness and kindness?

You didn't answer my question though. Would you say that you are known for your love of others?

quote:

---

Retired

I can't differentiate between you and the nonbelievers, Dinosaurs of a feather

---

FIFY

I said this to WinaGs before... and then the thread was killed.

1 Peter 3: 15... the last part is really important

quote:

---

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

---