darwin's beliefs

[busterdog]

in all of these discussions on origins it would be wise to examine the source from which evolution spawned. now i titled this with darwin's name as it will be the starting point as most people refer to him and not any one else as the founder of the evolution 'movement'.

here are a couple quotes from darwin's own words to get this discussion rolling. taken from:

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

**note, that this quote contains the words quoted to me by a TE in hopes of confusing the religious origin of evolution. notice that it does not refer to God as being believed but argued against and does not support the contention that Darwin based his theory in God or was led by God to produce this line of thinking.




that should be enough to get started after discussing darwin's beliefs, we can go on to wallace's, lyell's, and others if you are not convinced that evolution is not of God by that time.

One cannot prove Darwin wrong by such methods, at least as far as natural selection is concerned.

But, it obviously is quite relevant that the man completely disses God's design. It means he has missed the ulitmate truth. That being said, it does seem to a number of folks here that some truths are so "ultimate" that they have no relevance to what is done in the laboratory. I understand that pushing the point can indeed prove too much, for some people. The guy fixes my car doesn't need to know God (most of the time). But, it helps.

So, the story goes, that there is enough laboratory evidence that what Darwin thinks is irrelvant.

Then we get to the question of whether there are underlying assumptions in said laboratory about ultimate issues. Extrapolating backwards thousands or billions of years, I say obviously we do and this is the nature of the origins question. That is where we become divided. Darwin tried to answer that question and failed. But, if we do take the YEC view of those underlying assumptions, we ask, isn't it rather important to have comprehension of what THE ultimate issues is, ie, who God is?

If anyone finds this post provocative or interesting enough to respond, I am quite mindful of well traveled ground and the apparent dividing line that I tried to describe. I don't know that we need to reiterate those points and I will avoid doing so.

Mr. Arch, I rather like this knotty question you have put before us.

 

[busterdog]

Wait a minute now, RH. If King James was off buggering people, he should have been stoned to death, not translating the Bible!

The King is dead, long live the King (Archie)!

Didn't he cooperate in trying to have Tyndale killed? Then, when the believers weren't going away, he commissioned a Bible drawing on Tyndale's earlier work? I like KJV, but it seems King Jams was a bit of a Constrantine.

 

[shernren]

But, it obviously is quite relevant that the man completely disses God's design. It means he has missed the ulitmate truth. That being said, it does seem to a number of folks here that some truths are so "ultimate" that they have no relevance to what is done in the laboratory. I understand that pushing the point can indeed prove too much, for some people. The guy fixes my car doesn't need to know God (most of the time). But, it helps.

Have you ever been able to show any scientific theory wrong solely because its discoverer did not know God?

 

[theIdi0t]

please provide proof for such a statement. in all my history classes, that has never come up besides if he was wanting things said ina certainway, why did he leave the homosexual passages alone?

The guy wore a dress, what more proof could you need?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

The guy wore a dress, what more proof could you need?

and had the first English settlement in the colonies named after him ....

 

[busterdog]

Have you ever been able to show any scientific theory wrong solely because its discoverer did not know God?

Yes. Every time I pray for someone and God heals them.

I substituted "diagnosis" for "theory."

Why is the diagnosis of origins necessarily different? It represents the same knowledge gap.

Well travelled ground, my friend.

 

[Dannager]

Yes. Every time I pray for someone and God heals them.

That doesn't show what you think it shows.

 

[shernren]

Yes. Every time I pray for someone and God heals them.

I substituted "diagnosis" for "theory."

Why is the diagnosis of origins necessarily different? It represents the same knowledge gap.

Well travelled ground, my friend.

And I'm sure that for every person healed after (and maybe not by - post hoc ergo prompter hoc?) your prayers there have been a hundred healed by plainly atheistic medicine.

And in fact your friends who have been healed could get their conditions certified by any doctor, couldn't they? Suppose a friend says he has been healed of diabetes and does not need any insulin. He goes to a Christian doctor who monitors his blood glucose levels over time, gets a good set of data, and tells him that he is indeed clean. Then he goes to an atheist doctor who monitors his blood glucose levels over another set of time, gets another set of data, and tells him that he's still heavily insulin-dependent.

Would you consider that person "healed"? And do cases like that even happen? It has pleased God to let nature treat man largely independent of his inclinations towards God:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
(Matthew 5:44-45 NIV)

The fact is, if only Christian doctors could verify the "healing" of a sick person, and in the office of doctors of other faiths this person showed every symptom of the ailment he supposedly lost, serious doubt would be cast on the person "healed" and every Christian doctor he visited. And rightly so. In the same way, there is no reason to expect that a Christian and a non-Christian will receive different data about past states of the physical universe when performing the same measurements. If Richard Dawkins and Simon Peter were both at the empty tomb of Jesus they would have both seen the same emptiness inside. And if Ken Ham and Charles Darwin were to overlay a map of ancient fossil distributions onto present animal populations they would have both seen the same uncanny match between ancestral fossils and living descendants.

Reality is impartial, and facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored.

 

[Dannager]

And I'm sure that for every person healed after (and maybe not by - post hoc ergo prompter hoc?) your prayers there have been a hundred healed by plainly atheistic medicine.

Just a nitpick - post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[busterdog]

And I'm sure that for every person healed after (and maybe not by - post hoc ergo prompter hoc?) your prayers there have been a hundred healed by plainly atheistic medicine.

And in fact your friends who have been healed could get their conditions certified by any doctor, couldn't they? Suppose a friend says he has been healed of diabetes and does not need any insulin. He goes to a Christian doctor who monitors his blood glucose levels over time, gets a good set of data, and tells him that he is indeed clean. Then he goes to an atheist doctor who monitors his blood glucose levels over another set of time, gets another set of data, and tells him that he's still heavily insulin-dependent.

Would you consider that person "healed"? And do cases like that even happen? It has pleased God to let nature treat man largely independent of his inclinations towards God:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
(Matthew 5:44-45 NIV)

The fact is, if only Christian doctors could verify the "healing" of a sick person, and in the office of doctors of other faiths this person showed every symptom of the ailment he supposedly lost, serious doubt would be cast on the person "healed" and every Christian doctor he visited. And rightly so. In the same way, there is no reason to expect that a Christian and a non-Christian will receive different data about past states of the physical universe when performing the same measurements. If Richard Dawkins and Simon Peter were both at the empty tomb of Jesus they would have both seen the same emptiness inside. And if Ken Ham and Charles Darwin were to overlay a map of ancient fossil distributions onto present animal populations they would have both seen the same uncanny match between ancestral fossils and living descendants.

Reality is impartial, and facts do not cease to exist simply because they are ignored.

Medicine is not God/prayer-neutral.

She said, "You don't know it boy, but you just blew it."
And I said, "Well that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

That's my story.
Oh, that's my story.
Well, I ain't got a witness, and I can't prove it,
but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it."

 

[metherion]

So, are ideas like germ theory (first written about in 36 BC by a Roman named Marcus Terentius Varro) and atomic theory (first conceived in the 6th and 5th centures BE by Indians and Greeks respectively)? ( I got the reference to the Indians off of wiki, but the Greeks are common knowledge)

Are those also evil? After all, their founders didn't believe in God.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

Yes. Every time I pray for someone and God heals them.

I substituted "diagnosis" for "theory."

Why is the diagnosis of origins necessarily different? It represents the same knowledge gap.

Well travelled ground, my friend.

So God healed you of having evolved?

 

[archaeologist]

Well, Archie, we appear to be at a bit of a standstill regarding sources, since that is what I was taught in the history classes at my college

i have come acrossthis topic before,or it has beenpresentedto me on another forum and givenfurther research, i found that revisionists went with the homosexual angle while real historians recorded it otherwise.

it falls to what your interpretation will be and as far as i am concerned the homosexual slant was added centuries later.

Or perhaps it was because it wasn't him doing the actual translating, just giving it guidelines. You'd have to ask him yourself

you are going to have to show some documentation as to how deep he was involved (no pun intended). i know he commissioned it and gathered the scholars but you are forgetting that God rules His word and guided the translations.

I could have sworn He said we would know Him via His creation

yes but not through unprovable theories which contradict His word. God also leaves no doubt, which evolution does, about who was responsible.

plus evolution is resorting to man's thinking & understanding which God says is not His way. you need to take all the verses into account not just the ones you want.

Are those also evil? After all, their founders didn't believe in God.

i think this type of argument is not discerning enough and means to cloud the issue providing justification to continue pursuing something not of God.

obviously germs are a result of the fall of man and are something real, evolution is not real nor exists.

 

[USincognito]

During the Apollo 8 mission, a passage was read from Genesis 1, but to the best of my recollection, no mention of God, Jesus or Christianity occured during the Apollo 11 landing, with the possible exception of Buzz Aldrin reading the plaque on the Eagle LEM which read:

"On this spot, men from Earth first set foot on the Moon. We came in peace for all mankind. July 20th, 1969 A.D."

Which would be a stretch. By archie's "logic", we never landed on the Moon.

Do you believe the Moon Hoax claims because Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins and Cernen didn't reference God constantly while the Apollo 11 mission occured?

 

[Psudopod]

I f you do, don't tell Aldrin. He's a bit touchy about that

 

[shernren]

Medicine is not God/prayer-neutral.

Medical diagnosis is. We do not dispute the mechanics of creation; but however God did it it certainly wasn't over six days and it certainly wasn't about six thousand years ago, unless we have been royally lied to by 150 years of contact with physical reality.

 

[USincognito]

I f you do, don't tell Aldrin. He's a bit touchy about that

Note to self, when you have more time on-line give Psudopod extra reps for being familiar with the "Bart Striebel Affair."

 

[archaeologist]

Which would be a stretch. By archie's "logic", we never landed on the Moon.

it is so amazing that people who believe in alternatives must resort to the insult, the personal attack, the midless assumptions to remain in their minds superior to someone who disagrees with them.

but however God did it it certainly wasn't over six days and it certainly wasn't about six thousand years ago, unless we have been royally lied to by 150 years of contact with physical reality.

guess what deception is?

you are basing your eternal soul on 150 years of secular research while we have over 6,000 years of God's word?

basically what you are saying then is that God lied in the Bible and it is up to the secular world to set the record straight?

WHY DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE the ability to choose (given to you by God), you can choose God and His words or secular man's and his.

it is up to you.

 

[metherion]

you are going to have to show some documentation as to how deep he was involved (no pun intended). i know he commissioned it and gathered the scholars but you are forgetting that God rules His word and guided the translations.

Like I said, once I get back to college and my library, I will do this. I will just need reminding if this thread has died by then.

you need to take all the verses into account not just the ones you want.

"Kettle, meet Pot. He says you are black."

I direct your attention to the whole Flat Earth deal. I also direct your attention to the letter to Titus.

Titus 3: 9
9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

Titus 1:10-14

0For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.
(emphasis mine)


I could go on, but again that is for another thread.

God also leaves no doubt, which evolution does, about who was responsible.

That is because evolution does not assume a guiding force behind it. It just says what happens. It isn't a theology, so it has no place putting a motivation behind anything.

plus evolution is resorting to man's thinking & understanding which God says is not His way. you need to take all the verses into account not just the ones you want.

So is saying Genesis must be interpreted literally. The words are God's words. The meaning we take out of it, literal or allegorical, is man's meaning. If God's waya are above our ways, and we are able to understand both literal meaning and allegorical meaning, it may actually mean neither. It is quite possible God intends Genesis in a way we haven't yet thought of. Again, kettle and pot.

i think this type of argument is not discerning enough and means to cloud the issue providing justification to continue pursuing something not of God.

You have not answered my question.

obviously germs are a result of the fall of man and are something real, evolution is not real nor exists.

Really.
1. Scripture? Or did they (gasp) EVOLVE? Or is there an unmentioned second creation in the Bible? How did they get there if they were never created in the first place? And how did the Fall result in them? What about the list of what the Fall did presented by God in Genesis 3?
2. What about symbiotes? Such as the bacteria in the human gut that help digestion, the ones in termites that do the same for the termites, and various other cases where germs are necessary for animals to survive but make them sick if they get in the wrong areas of the body?
3. Evolution exists, and is real, and no amount of denial will help that.
Remember this word: nylonase.

QED.

Metherion

 

[USincognito]

it is so amazing that people who believe in alternatives must resort to the insult, the personal attack, the midless assumptions to remain in their minds superior to someone who disagrees with them.

Can you quite whining and address my point.

Did we land on the Moon or not.