Can you believe in evolution and the bible at the same time?

[xwill112x]

Too many philosophy classes has led to a very skeptical point of view.

same for me as well. i dont really have a religion of my own, i tend to reject the traditional religions. i just live life day by day.



as for believing anything in the bible word for word, yes your an idiot. but i do believe it is a good starting point for people that need guidance in their life, and its also good for moral life lessons. nothing else.

[fryerfighter94]

The bible is not to be read from a literalistic point of view; rather, many of the stories are symbolic. God did not create the world in 7 days. The symbolism of that story is that ancient priests percieved the lord to have led a systematic and organized lifestyle.

Yes you can believe both if you dont read it word for word. Its meant to be a book of guidance and faith.

[regnu]

Whom is to say that the Intelligent Designer did not modify his projects to be better suited for the task he had intended them for?

Bam.

You just blew my mindz

[Be30mer]

I believe in both to a degree. I believe that species can evolve, but I dont believe that somehow over time a retarded rat can grow wings and reproduce to form other retard wing rats, today known as bats. I can see from mammoth to elephant, but not rat to bat and things like that. I believe there has got to be some intelligent design to create species that adapt to their environments.

[Turf1600]

you don't seem like "reader" type to me...

When you read Tom Clancy or Michael Crichton, even though it's science fiction, do you disregard massive amount of research that was put in their book to be scientifically informative? There's a lot to be learned, and lot of it is based on reality, yet it's plot is fiction.

The nice thing about religon is that you can interperate it anyway you want to and still appy yourself to any group you please.

Take for example the crazy white supermacists that say "god tell us to hate these other people" or some other crazy shit like that. The fact is that in thier eyes they are correct, and here in the US no one has the authority to tell them if they are right or not.


This way I think you CAN beleive in both at the same time, or none at all. If you deceide to adhere to a higher power, it is up to you to interperate how you do so.

The bible is not to be read from a literalistic point of view; rather, many of the stories are symbolic. God did not create the world in 7 days. The symbolism of that story is that ancient priests percieved the lord to have led a systematic and organized lifestyle.

Yes you can believe both if you dont read it word for word. Its meant to be a book of guidance and faith.

So basically it's cool to cherry pick what makes you happy and comfortable? Also, someone said 90% of it isn't supposed to be taken literally - where is this 10%? And who said it was binding?

Whom is to say that the Intelligent Designer did not modify his projects to be better suited for the task he had intended them for?

Bam.

That isn't paralell with the idea of a perfect god or an intelligent creator. Why would this creator have to go back and change something that was designed "intelligently"? The most I think about the more I realize that the precedent of this argument is overwhelming. If we are a work in progress but were also created in god's image - what does that make god? If god is evolving, by what mechanism is he doing so?

Also, will someone answer my question? Do animals go to heaven?

[Be30mer]

\
Also, will someone answer my question? Do animals go to heaven?

No....? They dont have souls [insert ginger joke here], so they shouldnt go to heaven or hell, right?

[Turf1600]

No....? They dont have souls [insert ginger joke here], so they shouldnt go to heaven or hell, right?

Do you believe in evolution?

[E30Kaiser]

So basically it's cool to cherry pick what makes you happy and comfortable? Also, someone said 90% of it isn't supposed to be taken literally - where is this 10%? And who said it was binding?

The 10% is people's names, places, and historical events that are supported by historical evidence. You can literally accept that some of the people in the Bible did exist, because we have evidence to support it.

[Be30mer]

Do you believe in evolution?

like I already stated, to a degree

[Turf1600]

like I already stated, to a degree

Here's my fault with all of this:

If you believe in evolution and you believe animals don't go to heaven:
When did humans evolve a soul? What fundamentally separates us from animals in that sense? At what point did having a soul become more likely to make us reproduce? Is the lack of a soul a recessive gene? Or is it inherent in all humans?

If you believe that animals do go to heaven, by which religion are they bound? Do they have moral stadards that they must adhere to? If this is a question of free will or self awareness? If so, what of those humans who do not have the intellect to practice free will?

Where is the line drawn between creatures who go to heaven and those who do not? Also, who put it (the line) there - evolution or god? If god, is this paralell with evolution - or another interjection or a supposedly perfect being? If evolution, for what purpose?

[Turf1600]

The 10% is people's names, places, and historical events that are supported by historical evidence. You can literally accept that some of the people in the Bible did exist, because we have evidence to support it.

So, if I wrote a fiction novel but inserted real names would it become 10% true? What if I mentioned cats, dogs, flowing rivers or magnets? Does my novel gain credibility because I've referenced things that are real?

[E30Kaiser]

So, if I wrote a fiction novel but inserted real names would it become 10% true? What if I mentioned cats, dogs, flowing rivers or magnets? Does my novel gain credibility because I've referenced things that are real?

If 10% of your book is true than yes? If you wrote a book and the first 10% is the history of the world and then you started to write about an Ork invasion, I would definitely say that 10% of your book is true. I am of course using 90 and 10 percent as general bullshit numbers, but I am sure you guessed that. It is like if someone wrote an autobiography, and half of it is bullshit or made up, or embellished, it wouldn't really be wrong or "cherry picking" to say that the story is only half true.

[Bill 84 318i]

Here's my fault with all of this:

If you believe in evolution and you believe animals don't go to heaven:
When did humans evolve a soul? What fundamentally separates us from animals in that sense? At what point did having a soul become more likely to make us reproduce? Is the lack of a soul a recessive gene? Or is it inherent in all humans?

If you believe that animals do go to heaven, by which religion are they bound? Do they have moral stadards that they must adhere to? If this is a question of free will or self awareness? If so, what of those humans who do not have the intellect to practice free will?

Where is the line drawn between creatures who go to heaven and those who do not? Also, who put it (the line) there - evolution or god? If god, is this paralell with evolution - or another interjection or a supposedly perfect being? If evolution, for what purpose?

I know you're asking the other guy, but my take:

There was no "point" that humans got a soul.

I think that if you look at our evolutionary past, you can see how things like reciprocal altruism and groupthink started. Primates have been observed doing conflict resolution and they've been observed sharing. These are examples of qualities that stuck around because they made life better (in this case), and those with better lives generally were more successful in terms of reproduction.

I don't know what to make of your "did evolution put heaven there." There's no more proof for evolution than there is for creationism.

[Bill 84 318i]

I believe in both to a degree. I believe that species can evolve, but I dont believe that somehow over time a retarded rat can grow wings and reproduce to form other retard wing rats, today known as bats. I can see from mammoth to elephant, but not rat to bat and things like that. I believe there has got to be some intelligent design to create species that adapt to their environments.

I disagree. Look at all the species that have failed, and are extinct.

There have been some interesting studies recently on bats and wings - it's a fascinating question mark because it happened so quickly. Science hasn't yet explained it, but it's taking steps in the right direction. I suggest googling it and reading blogs that review the articles though - the really technical articles are over my head, at least.

[Bill 84 318i]

Whom is to say that the Intelligent Designer did not modify his projects to be better suited for the task he had intended them for?

Bam.

I hate to triple post, but I succumbed to your "Bam."

Nobody can say that the designer didn't do that. Nobody can say that Glenn Beck didn't rape and kill a young girl in 1990, either. That's a terrible way to debate.

Even though I'm echoing my previous post, what did he do about all the species that failed and died off? Didn't care enough about those?

I'm done for now, fellas. Sorry about the triple - didn't feel like separating all of the quotes out into something so long nobody read it.