Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Loudmouth]

Your efforts to "re-imagine history" for us -- noted.

But those 3 are on video tape explaining just how their blind faith in evolutionism destroyed their faith in the Word of God - so also did Darwin document his own rejection of the Bible in favor of his faith in evolutionism.

Where did Darwin ever say that he had faith in evolutionism? Where?

On the contrary - I have "faith in Christ" - the evidence of things not seen.

Ahh, yes. Your blind faith in Christism and Biblism blinds you to the facts of the world. See? I can do it too?

When you are ready to discuss simple facts, such as the source for energy found on the Earth, let us know.

 

[BobRyan]

Where did Darwin ever say that he had faith in evolutionism? Where?

Blind faith in evolutionism?

Or did you mean to ask "where did Darwin ever claim that his belief in evolution destroyed his acceptance of Christianity"?

(I.E. the Point of the thread - given the OP)



======================= DARWIN

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.

But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

===============================

So then why are there some atheist evolutionists going out on the limb to argue that T.E's are right to marry blind faith evolutionism to the Bible when even their own buddy - Darwin knows that is bunk??

 

[BobRyan]

BobR, in that you label evolution as blind-faith fiction, you have convinced me you have no real idea how the academic world of science works. Universities follow a legalistic model where everyone is like an attorney making their case and talking it to court. Nothing is ever blindly accepted. .

To the contrary -



Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:



Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."


================================================


Patterson (the diehard evolutionist right to the end ) -- at that same meeting -

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

 

[BobRyan]

The issue, Spinner981 is not whether the Bible is wrong or God is wrong or science is wrong or anything like that. The issue is whether the creation-science theory of God's relationship to Scripture is an accurate account of how God is related to Scripture. .

so then - no physical reality described in the bible is actually "true" in your world.

Not the 7 day creation week.
Not the world wide flood
Not the fall of mankind
Not the virgin birth
Not the bodily resurrection of Christ and ascension into heaven.
Not the miracles in the Bible.

Nothing that an atheist would reject - would be acceptable to you at that point.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
That is simply your factless accusation. Did you ever have the intent of demonstrating that it had an ounce of truth to it? I think we all would prefer you to post an actual fact on that point rather than more hollow accusations.

That is as easy as looking up the original source that quote is taken from. Why don't you do that yourself, and see if it is out of context or not? There is a way to type in a word or phrase so that your computer will mark each instance that it occurs, but I forget which function key it is DX

The "hope-against-hope" among some here is that "bad news" or at least "all inconvenient news" is simply "news taken out of context". -- but in the real world that simply is not true.

Another interesting quote - that is also linked to that meeting.


"I was sitting in the front row next to an AMNH (American Museum of Natural Hist) curator of mammals, Karl Koopman, who, obviously very agitated kept slamming his pencil down in front of him. Niles Eldredge in the Department of Invertebrates at AMNH was standing by the left wall (as one looks toward the speaker). Beside Eldredge stood a high school biology teacher, Roy Slingo, from the prestigious Scarsdale NY district.

Slingo later informed me that at one stage of the talk Niles Eldredge (well known for his anti-creationist perspective) grabbed his forehead and slid down the wall proclaiming, "My G__, how can he be doing this to us."

==========================

So in answer to the un-asked question "hey - if we look into the details here - doesn't it all just come up as - more good news for blind-faith-evolutionism?" -- the answer is "No!"

Still - evolutionism IS the sort of junk-science "fluff" that some are willing to trade in their bibles for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then whether theistic evolution is true or not is not a matter of faith in God or the Bible, but rather a matter of accepting or not accepting an evolutionary worldview as well as God and the Bible. Personally, I believe the Bible when it says God created a multitude of different kinds of organisms within a few days.

No, faith is believing without knowing. If you know something you can demonstrate that it is correct. People that understand evolution can demonstrate how life evolved. Believers in various forms of creationism have to date not been able to do this. They cannot find any scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Does accepting or not accepting God affect your view on gravity? If not then accepting or not accepting evolution should have nothing to do with your theistic beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Blind faith in evolutionism?

Yes, that is what I said. You clearly stated that Darwin said he had blind faith in evolutionism. Now, where is the quote where Darwin actually said this?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, that is what I said. You clearly stated that Darwin said he had blind faith in evolutionism. Now, where is the quote where Darwin actually said this?

Agnostics may not think much of the OP - but in the OP the question is asked by a Christian regarding the conflict between the Bible and blind-faith-evolutionism.

Patterson noted this --


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:



Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."


================================================


Patterson (the diehard evolutionist right to the end ) -- at that same meeting -

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

 

[PsychoSarah]

BobRyan said: ↑
That is simply your factless accusation. Did you ever have the intent of demonstrating that it had an ounce of truth to it? I think we all would prefer you to post an actual fact on that point rather than more hollow accusations.

Sorry, quote mines are so common in debates, be they intentional or not, I didn't consider the idea that you would think that such a thing was so improbable that I would need to demonstrate it myself before you would be willing to do any reading on your own.

But, since I am using a tablet right now, and I have messed up hands, I won't be doing that.

However, consider this: even if your quote wasn't a quote mine, why should I care? There are always people that disagree with the mainstream science, and some even build up decent reputations. The words of a handful of people are irrelevant.

The "hope-against-hope" among some here is that "bad news" or at least "all inconvenient news" is simply "news taken out of context". -- but in the real world that simply is not true.

Another interesting quote - that is also linked to that meeting.


"I was sitting in the front row next to an AMNH (American Museum of Natural Hist) curator of mammals, Karl Koopman, who, obviously very agitated kept slamming his pencil down in front of him. Niles Eldredge in the Department of Invertebrates at AMNH was standing by the left wall (as one looks toward the speaker). Beside Eldredge stood a high school biology teacher, Roy Slingo, from the prestigious Scarsdale NY district.

Slingo later informed me that at one stage of the talk Niles Eldredge (well known for his anti-creationist perspective) grabbed his forehead and slid down the wall proclaiming, "My G__, how can he be doing this to us."

But is this taken out of context as well? What site are you getting these quotes from? I can imagine tons of situations that would get a response like that out of a person that wouldn't even be related to the topic of this thread.

If you get these quotes second hand, you always run the risk that they are being put into a misleading context. If that is not the case, I apologize, but also remind you that quote mines are exceedingly common in these debates, so personal experience makes that concern very legitimate.

Also, I know evolutionary theory is not perfect. I could probably debate against it more effectively than most creationists (also, take that out of context, and it makes me sound like I am saying the theory is flawed severely, which it isn't. The reason I could debate against it better than most creationists is thanks to a biomedical sciences major). Yet, the biggest reason I am not a creationist isn't because evolution exists. Rather, it is because I have yet to find a single peer reviewed source on creationism that supports it. Even if evolution was disproven entirely, without viable evidence for creationism, it won't take its place. And that isn't me being stubborn, in fact, unless an alternative was proposed for evolution in the act of disproving it, I probably would personally become a creationist. But, it wouldn't be justified.

So in answer to the un-asked question "hey - if we look into the details here - doesn't it all just come up as - more good news for blind-faith-evolutionism?" -- the answer is "No!"

Still - evolutionism IS the sort of junk-science "fluff" that some are willing to trade in their bibles for.

Since when would all information have to support evolution for the theory to be valid? Aside from observations that would outright disprove it, data that doesn't flow perfectly with the theory as it is just implies adjustments need to be made in practical applications or small details. After all, we used to think that intelligence evolved before bipedal movement did in the human evolutionary line, when it turns out, evidence supports the other way around.

 

[Loudmouth]

Agnostics may not think much of the OP - but in the OP the question is asked by a Christian regarding the conflict between the Bible and blind-faith-evolutionism.

I will ask again.

Now, where is the quote where Darwin actually said that he had blind faith in evolutionism?

 

[BobRyan]

And w.r.t OP issue for Christians asking if the Bible can be married to blind-faith-evolutionism - Darwin noted this -



======================= DARWIN

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.

But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

===============================
(Which is all perfectly fine for atheists and agnostics - but "this thread" is specific to the Christian asking about the blunder of trying to marry the Bible to evolutionism - (evolutionism: the junk science that turns out to be a bit of a religion)


So then why are there some atheist evolutionists going out on the limb to argue that T.E's are right to marry blind faith evolutionism to the Bible when even their own buddy - Darwin knows that is bunk??

 

[Loudmouth]

And w.r.t OP issue for Christians asking if the Bible can be married to blind-faith-evolutionism - Darwin noted this -

No mention of having blind faith in evolutionism. Why is that?

 

[BobRyan]

On a side note the "shocking discovery" that false factless accusations do not become 'true' simply because they are made - is a bit of a reality shock for some.

Sorry, quote mines are so common in debates, be they intentional or not, I didn't consider the idea that you would think that such a thing was so improbable that I would need to demonstrate it myself before you would be willing to do any reading on your own.

I have read the material -- others here have not - rather they make their factless false accusation then expect me to do their research for them and then post it to try and help support their 'resort to false accusation when you have no data' solutions for blind faith evolutionism.

However, consider this: even if your quote wasn't a quote mine, why should I care? There are always people that disagree with the mainstream science

I was not quoting anti-evolutionists or creationists - these are all diehard evolutionists. Your implied argument that nobody should notice any inconvenient or less-than-flattering-details in evolutionism ... is "instructive".

But is this taken out of context as well? What site are you getting these quotes from? I can imagine tons of situations that would get a response like that out of a person that wouldn't even be related to the topic of this thread.

No one here... least of all me... is questioning your ability to imagine things.

I can also restrict myself to "posting things that I imagine" - but I choose to post things that your own atheist diehard evolutionist scientists are saying.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[PsychoSarah]

On a side note the "shocking discovery" that false factless accusations do not become 'true' simply because they are made - is a bit of a reality shock for some.



I have read the material -- others here have not - rather they make their factless false accusation then expect me to do their research for them and then post it to try and help support their 'resort to false accusation when you have no data' solutions for blind faith evolutionism.




I was not quoting anti-evolutionists or creationists - these are all diehard evolutionists. Your implied argument that nobody should notice any inconvenient or less-than-flattering-details in evolutionism ... is "instructive".



No one here... least of all me... is questioning your ability to imagine things.

I can also restrict myself to "posting things that I imagine" - but I choose to post things that your own atheist diehard evolutionist scientists are saying.

in Christ,

Bob

I am not saying that we should ignore inconvenient details by any means. Not in the slightest, I find the iffy bits of evolution to be the most interesting aspects of it.

However, unless there is actual confirmed data that disproves evolution, or confirmed data that supports creationism that isn't a matter of interpretation, I frankly could not care less what any evolutionary scientist has to say on the matter.

Dawkins could go in front of a crowd, say evolution is a lie and the bible was right all along, and then proceed to shoot himself, and I would only say "huh, I always thought that if he died by gunshot, someone else would be firing the gun".

 

[Subduction Zone]

On a side note the "shocking discovery" that false factless accusations do not become 'true' simply because they are made - is a bit of a reality shock for some.




I have read the material -- others here have not - rather they make their factless false accusation then expect me to do their research for them and then post it to try and help support their 'resort to false accusation when you have no data' solutions for blind faith evolutionism.




I was not quoting anti-evolutionists or creationists - these are all diehard evolutionists. Your implied argument that nobody should notice any inconvenient or less-than-flattering-details in evolutionism ... is "instructive".



No one here... least of all me... is questioning your ability to imagine things.

I can also restrict myself to "posting things that I imagine" - but I choose to post things that your own atheist diehard evolutionist scientists are saying.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, you still need links. But it seems that in the above you are admitting that you are lying if just one of your quotes was used dishonestly. Is that what you are saying? By the way if you want to claim that anyone has made false accusations against you then the burden of proof is yours again.

If I find one example of where your posts were dishonest will you promise to never do so again? Of course before I do so you need to go on the record and explain exactly what the quote that you used means. That seems more than reasonable to me. Does it seem reasonable to you?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have read the material -- others here have not - rather they make their factless false accusation then expect me to do their research for them and then post it to try and help support their 'resort to false accusation when you have no data' solutions for blind faith evolutionism.

And there it is again. You can't deal with the evidence, so you cast aspersions about blind faith and evolutionism.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And there it is again. You can't deal with the evidence, so you cast aspersions about blind faith and evolutionism.

And baseless ones, at that.

 

[BobRyan]

On a side note the "shocking discovery" that false factless accusations do not become 'true' simply because they are made - is a bit of a reality shock for some.

Sorry, quote mines are so common in debates, be they intentional or not, I didn't consider the idea that you would think that such a thing was so improbable that I would need to demonstrate it myself before you would be willing to do any reading on your own.

I have read the material -- others here have not - rather they make their factless false accusation then expect me to do their research for them and then post it to try and help support their 'resort to false accusation when you have no data' solutions for blind faith evolutionism.

However, consider this: even if your quote wasn't a quote mine, why should I care? There are always people that disagree with the mainstream science

I was not quoting anti-evolutionists or creationists - these are all diehard evolutionists. Your implied argument that nobody should notice any inconvenient or less-than-flattering-details in evolutionism ... is "instructive".

But is this taken out of context as well? What site are you getting these quotes from? I can imagine tons of situations that would get a response like that out of a person that wouldn't even be related to the topic of this thread.

No one here... least of all me... is questioning your ability to imagine things.

I can also restrict myself to "posting things that I imagine" - but I choose to post things that your own atheist diehard evolutionist scientists are saying.

But it seems that in the above you are admitting that you are lying if just one of your quotes was used dishonestly. Is that what you are saying? By the way if you want to claim that anyone has made false accusations against you then the burden of proof is yours again.

Why?? Because --no proof is needed for false accusations to be acceptable to atheists and agnostics???????

You seem to be admitting that the principles of evolutionism pervade your entire thinking - in general. Are you saying that such a transparent MO on your part would be acceptable to Christians?? Ever??

 

[BobRyan]

And there it is again. You can't deal with the evidence, .

Here is evidence from one of your own atheist scientists - a high priest in the religion of evolutionism.

=====================================================

Agnostics may not think much of the OP - but in the OP the question is asked by a Christian regarding the conflict between the Bible and blind-faith-evolutionism.

Patterson noted this --


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:



Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."


================================================


Patterson (the diehard evolutionist right to the end ) -- at that same meeting -

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff fortwenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
On a side note the "shocking discovery" that false factless accusations do not become 'true' simply because they are made - is a bit of a reality shock for some.

I have read the material -- others here have not - rather they make their factless false accusation then expect me to do their research for them and then post it to try and help support their 'resort to false accusation when you have no data' solutions for blind faith evolutionism.

I was not quoting anti-evolutionists or creationists - these are all diehard evolutionists. Your implied argument that nobody should notice any inconvenient or less-than-flattering-details in evolutionism ... is "instructive".

No one here... least of all me... is questioning your ability to imagine things.

I can also restrict myself to "posting things that I imagine" - but I choose to post things that your own atheist diehard evolutionist scientists are saying.

I am not saying that we should ignore inconvenient details by any means. Not in the slightest

Yet you argue in favor of factless accusations -- merely because those accusations are "against' inconvenient details in the many-storied book of evolution"-- statements that do not appear to be flattering to blind faith evolutionism??

, I find the iffy bits of evolution to be the most interesting aspects of it.

Then you have a gold mine of a religion - it provides an endless supply of that sort of thing.

I frankly could not care less what any evolutionary scientist has to say on the matter.

Correction -- You could not "care less about any non-positive statements , unflattering to belief in evolutionism - that might be made by any evolutionary scientist".

You have free will - if the lake of fire is so wonderful - so enticing that not even the "revelations" from your own atheist evolutionists are sufficient wake-up calls. Far be it from me to dissuade you from your free will choice. I respect your right to make that choice. But I would hate to have you do so - totally uniformed about the fact that even your own atheist scientists are known to admit to a few 'non-flattering details' -

And I think you will agree with me - the the guy posting in the OP -- may not be all that excited about also leaping into the Rev 20 lake of fire.

But a great many on this board - prefer eternal life that comes with acceptance of the Bible.