darwin's beliefs

[Assyrian]

how, according to most people here Gen. 1-11 is all allegory so you can't say this without committing hypocrisy or cherry-picking.

You didn't answer the question I asked you and metherion a couple of pages back.

metherion, do you believe Jesus when he said the bread was his flesh?
architect, what about you, do you believe Jesus turned the bread being his own flesh?

Why is it cherry picking and hypocrisy to take parts of Genesis figuratively but not Jesus statement that the bread was his flesh?

If you think it is cherry picking and hypocrisy to take part of Genesis figuratively because we know from science that the literal interpretation is wrong, why isn't it cherry picking and hypocrisy to take the pillars of the earth non literally, or statements saying the earth does not move and the sun hurries around to the place it rises? The only reason not to take these statements at face value is because we know what science says.

It is not cherry picking and hypocrisy for people who believe the bible contains metaphor and allegory to interpret a passage allegorically. However you are condemning people for doing something you do yourself.

 

[metherion]

no i don't, you need to show from scripture that his theory and him were inline with God. i know what i want to expose and i will concentrate on that.

What it appears you want to expose is that because Darwin stopped believing in God his ideas must similarly be against God. However, to do that you will have to show:
a) that Darwin stopped believing in God. (which has been done).
b) that Darwin actively wanted to lead people away from God.
c) that Darwin specifically thought up evolution to do so.
d) that evolution actually does.

or

a) same as above
b) some supernatural entity decieved Darwin into creating evolution to lead people away from God
c) that evolution alone does lead people away from God. Not the problem of evil, not problems with other messages in the Bible, but evolution and evolution alone.

Metherion

Edit: Come to think of it, to show what you call 'secular science' against God, you'd have to show that for every scientific idea. Ever. And double for ideas like a round earth, an orbiting earth, a non-solid sky, and several others.

 

[theFijian]

well you have joined 'the club'--assyrian, fijian, uscognito,kerrmatic and a few others-- who are great at misrepresenting what someone says.

I'm still waiting to to tell me in what way I misrepresented you in this thread. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes.

 

[archaeologist]

again meterion goes to the extreme and absurd to make sure he has an excuse to keep following that which is not o God.

i do not have to meet your requirements, God's word has already said it.

I'm still waiting to to tell me in what way I misrepresented you in this thread. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes

well now we have an admission that he has done it.

 

[metherion]

I am not being absurd at all. I am asking two things. I am asking that you apply your own rules to yourself before you condemn people to the fires of Hell for not doing the same. I am also asking that you actually back up your claims. And I still haven't seen you show me where Scripture says we need to believe a literal Genesis to be saved.

well now we have an admission that he has done it.

No. We don't. He wants you to say EXACTLY how what he said is misrepresenting you. You said that Darwin was being decieved by a supernatural being. Which isn't God. He said you said Darwin was decieved by the Devil. Now, unless one of the 'good' angels decieved Darwin, who else might you be referring to?

Metherion

 

[theFijian]

well now we have an admission that he has done it.

I think you need to actually read the post. It demonstrates that I did not misrepresent you and also demonstrates that you are not humble or gracious enough to apologise when shown to be in the wrong. Why don't you do the Christian thing?

 

[archaeologist]

you are being absurd and extreme and i am not condemming anyone to hell. this is a thread toexplore the religious beliefs of the originators of a theory you hold onto despite what God's word says.

i am not going to participate until your side starts framing good responses with credible quotes and links. heresay evidence means nothing.

You said that Darwin was being decieved by a supernatural being. Which isn't God. He said you said Darwin was decieved by the Devil

who said i was referring to that point? i wish your side would actually respond honestly instead making things up as you go.

 

[theFijian]

who said i was referring to that point? i wish your side would actually respond honestly instead making things up as you go.

I'm afraid you are the one acting dishonestly when you pretend that you have not said the things you did indeed say. It is also dishonest not to apologise when you cannot substantiate false accusations against someone. I refer you again to this post. Do the Christian thing, withdraw your false accusations and apologise.

 

[archaeologist]

i am not responding to derailments of a thread--get used to it.


here is a question that all evolutioists need to answer honestly and correctly;

why would God use a non-believer, and subsequent non-believers (those who do not believe in Him), to tell the world how He did something when He is capable of doing that Himself and has done so in His word?

 

[KerrMetric]

i am not responding to derailments of a thread--get used to it.


here is a question that all evolutioists need to answer honestly and correctly;

why would God use a non-believer, and subsequent non-believers (those who do not believe in Him), to tell the world how He did something when He is capable of doing that Himself and has done so in His word?

LOL - you just derailed the thread after saying you won't respond to such.

Hilarious stuff.

 

[theFijian]

i am not responding to derailments of a thread--get used to it.

In other words, I've never apologised for anything in my life and I'm not about to start now.

 

[metherion]

and i am not condemming anyone to hell.

Really. Because, you see, I was quite sure that a while back you wanted to tell me and us other TEs that because we accept evolution we're not real Christians, are living in a way not of God and therefore are not saved. And I could swear that what happens to those that aren't saved is that they burn in Hellfire.

who said i was referring to that point?

Well, since it was the only point he spoke of in his post it seems kind of hard for you to be referring to anything else, now, doesn't it?

why would God use a non-believer, and subsequent non-believers (those who do not believe in Him), to tell the world how He did something when He is capable of doing that Himself and has done so in His word?

Easy. He sould use them in the exact same way Jesus used Samaritans in the parable of the good neighbor: to show that that which the believers steadfastly hold to may not always be what God really wants. The priest put ritual cleanliness above human life, the other passerby didn't actually stop to help. Only the enemy lifted a hand in aid. While science is not the enemy of faith, the parable holds true. The literalists hold to their view above all, those who don't care just don't care, and those who don't necessarily believe in the literal view see the true beauty even if they don't always realize the cause.

Now, you need to honestly and correctly answer a question of your own.

Why would God include but not tell us about a requirement of salvation ( a literal Genesis) and yet expect us to believe a creation story of the Bronze Age nomads as scientifically true while making the world not appear to be the way described and also giving several other scientific errors?

You know, that was really a bad run on sentence. Let me break it down so that I can make sure I got all the question I wanted in it.
1. Why would God include literally believing in Genesis as a requirement of salvation without telling us?
2. Why would God make the world in such a way that the methods He KNEW we would use in the future would tell a different story?
3. Why should we believe the creation myth of one tribe of bronze age farmers to be literally and scientifically true simply because it was in a collection that contained several other scientific errors (flat earth, moving sun, solid sky, bats are birds, locusts have 4 legs, verses available upon request)?
There. That's what I wanted to ask.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

Because, you see, I was quite sure that a while back you wanted to tell me and us other TEs that because we accept evolution we're not real Christians, are living in a way not of God and therefore are not saved.

stating that certain alternatives are not scriptural, telling people that they need to shed such thinking, IS NOT condemming one to hell. 'condemming' means giving them no options, you still have choices so i have not condemmed anyone to hell, that is God's job.

He sould use them in the exact same way Jesus used Samaritans in the parable of the good neighbor

big difference between the two. darwin didn't believe and thought up a whole new idea for the origin of the world, Jesus used a samaritan as He was the best example of making His point which didn't eliminate or contradict the old testament as does evolution..

your stretching of the passage to give credence to a theory which has no foundation in God.

Why would God include but not tell us about a requirement of salvation

did i ever say it was? i am saying you are following the wrong direction, thinking, etc., which is quite contrary to what God says to do. just because a person accepts Christ as their savior does it give them licence to adopt and adapt whatis contrary to God's word.

you use salvation as a safety net, now that you are saved you get to do what you want, believe what you want and so on. well it doesn't work that way. when you enter God's kingdom, you do what He wants, not what tickle's your fancy.

yet expect us to believe a creation story of the Bronze Age nomads as scientifically true while making the world not appear to be the way described and also giving several other scientific errors?

you have to shed the idea of what the secular world declares as 'scientifically true'. they have no conception of many , many factors nor include them in their data, partially for the reason of their unbelief, so they cannot have a 'scientifically true' anything.

2. Why would God make the world in such a way that the methods He KNEW we would use in the future would tell a different story

because people have a choice to follow his criteria---faith---or follow evil's deceptions. it is up to you.

Why should we believe the creation myth of one tribe of bronze age farmers to be literally and scientifically true simply because it was in a collection that contained several other scientific errors

how many times have you said, the 'suns set', the 'sun rose' (or similar phrases)? are you teaching that the sun moves around the earth?

there are no scientific errors in the Bible, it is just those who lack understanding who cannot see the real purpose for all such items being mentioned in scripture.

 

[KerrMetric]

there are no scientific errors in the Bible, it is just those who lack understanding who cannot see the real purpose for all such items being mentioned in scripture.

Bullcrap. That is complete utter BS that can only ring true to someone like you who knows little to no science.

 

[archaeologist]

Bullcrap. That is complete utter BS that can only ring true to someone like you who knows little to no science.

you are assuming secular science is right...

 

[theFijian]

I love how your posts are devoid of logic, are self-refuting and you don't even have the insight to see this.

why would God use a non-believer, and subsequent non-believers (those who do not believe in Him), to tell the world how He did something when He is capable of doing that Himself and has done so in His word?

So why does God allow secular non-believing doctors and nurses to heal people when he's quite capable of doing it himself?

 

[theFijian]

Bullcrap. That is complete utter BS that can only ring true to someone like you who knows little to no science.

In a roundabout way I'd say he's right. There are no scientific statements in the Bible so there can't be any scientific errors... kinda

 

[metherion]

stating that certain alternatives are not scriptural, telling people that they need to shed such thinking, IS NOT condemming one to hell. 'condemming' means giving them no options, you still have choices so i have not condemmed anyone to hell, that is God's job.

con·demn [kuhn-dem]
–verb (used with object)
1.(not relevant)
2.
to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment: to condemn a murderer to life imprisonment.

Telling us that our beliefs will send us to Hell is a condemnation.

But anyways, that's besides the main point, which is continued below.

big difference between the two. darwin didn't believe

As of 1851. The Beagle was back in '39. So he did believe when he was making all of his observations.

and thought up a whole new idea for the origin of the world,

Nope. He thought up how species change. The origin of the world and even the origin of life are completely different areas of science. If you remember, his book was the Origin of SPECIES. Not the Origin of Life, or Origin of the World, or the Origin of Leading People from God, but the Origin of Species.

Jesus used a samaritan as He was the best example of making His point which didn't eliminate or contradict the old testament as does evolution.

We do not eliminate or contradict the Old Testament as it was meant to be. We contradict what it was never supposed to be. Big difference.

did i ever say it was? i am saying you are following the wrong direction, thinking, etc., which is quite contrary to what God says to do. just because a person accepts Christ as their savior does it give them licence to adopt and adapt what is contrary to God's word.

And we don't. We adapt what you are erroneously convinced is contrary to His word. We listen to the ideas of the early Church Fathers, like St. Augustine, and many of the people who received the story itself, the Jews.

you use salvation as a safety net, now that you are saved you get to do what you want, believe what you want and so on. well it doesn't work that way. when you enter God's kingdom, you do what He wants, not what tickle's your fancy.

I do not assume that I am saved. I do not believe in one single salvation event that guarantees it. But that is another matter.
As for believing what I want, I don't believe anything that contradicts Jesus being the Savior of all Mankind. Nor His being the Christ. Nor His existence, nor the Father's, nor the Holy Ghost's. Etc. Etc. Etc.

you have to shed the idea of what the secular world declares as 'scientifically true'. they have no conception of many , many factors nor include them in their data, partially for the reason of their unbelief, so they cannot have a 'scientifically true' anything.

By 'they' I'm going go assume you mean scientists, believers or not. So all science is one huge conspiracy theory to deny God's Word? Including those of us who believe in the God of Abraham, those who specifically believe in Christ, and everybody else? Including me personally? Pffft.

because people have a choice to follow his criteria---faith---or follow evil's deceptions. it is up to you.

You still haven't answered my question.
Last I saw, it was God who made the world in the way He did. And He is all-knowing, so He would know what we would find later. So why would He tell us we would know Him through what He created and then make the world and His Word disagree? Or, if He did make the world ~6000 years ago, why would He tell us we'd know Him by His creation and then let other forces change His creation to tell a different story?

how many times have you said, the 'suns set', the 'sun rose' (or similar phrases)? are you teaching that the sun moves around the earth?

there are no scientific errors in the Bible, it is just those who lack understanding who cannot see the real purpose for all such items being mentioned in scripture.

I don't teach them when I say that.
On the other hand, a literal translation of the Bible certainly would. And that is not the only thing I am talking about.
Again, would you like verses to talk about, or would you just like to talk about the general idea without actually getting anywhere?


Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

1.(not relevant)

that is funny, when i get to school i will have to lookup the word and see what you omitted.

Telling us that our beliefs will send us to Hell is a condemnation.

telling and sentencing are two different things (the word 'pronounce' indicates the same meaning as 'sentence')
i am telling you you are believing the wrong things, i am not sentenceing you to anything.

As of 1851. The Beagle was back in '39. So he did believe when he was making all of his observations

if you read the link i posted way, way back in the original post, you would see darwin's own words describing how little he did believe if at all. please provide a link to back up your statement (a credible link)

Nope. He thought up how species change. The origin of the world and even the origin of life are completely different areas of science

play your word games, we know better. he could not come up with a original ancestor which started it all so his whole premise is false.

from his introduction;

No one ought to feel surprise at much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species and varieties, if he makes due allowance for our profound ignorance in regard to the mutual relations of all the beings which live around us. Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numerous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they determine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and modification of every inhabitant of this world. Still less do we know of the mutual relations of the innumerable inhabitants of the world during the many past geological epochs in its history. Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained — namely, that each species has been independently created — is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.

We do not eliminate or contradict the Old Testament as it was meant to be. We contradict what it was never supposed to be. Big difference.

you change it to fit what you want it to say and yes, if you disagree we the global flood then you do contradict it. if you change gen. 1 to allegory, then you contradict it.

like St. Augustine, and many of the people who received the story itself, the Jews

i think you are very selective of what you listen to and do not apply understanding to the words they are talking about an dusing.

So all science is one huge conspiracy theory to deny God's Word?

you say that, i don't. but given what scientists are doing and requiring, the conclusions are basically pre-determined. was it random guy who said, 'only natural evidences...' science was stifled right from the beginning by your own people not creationists.

Or, if He did make the world ~6000 years ago, why would He tell us we'd know Him by His creation and then let other forces change His creation to tell a different story?

we still can but that doesn't include evolution or natural selection, just because corruption entered into the world does it mean we can't see partially who He is.

but when you allow secular thinking which contradicts the words of God to be part of your belief system, then you are not getting the correct image.

a distorted view is not a clear picture which is why The Holy Spirit leads us and not secular science.

I don't teach them when I say that

you are but the point is you say it. does that mean the sun revolves around the earth?

On the other hand, a literal translation of the Bible certainly would

i disagree. that is your interpretation of what a literal translation would teach. i have never thought that the earth was flat by the mentioning of the words 'corners of the world' in the Bible.

never crossed my mind and the Bible doesn't teach it.

 

[metherion]

to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

Since you don't disapprove someone to Hell, I didn't think it was relevant. I used www.dictionary.com and looked up 'condemn'.

if you read the link i posted way, way back in the original post, you would see darwin's own words describing how little he did believe if at all. please provide a link to back up your statement (a credible link)

Okay. How about his online autobiography? Using his own words, even.

DURING THESE two years1 I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I 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.

site:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

I believe the correct phrase is 'owned'.

play your word games, we know better. he could not come up with a original ancestor which started it all so his whole premise is false.

Wait. Wait wait wait. Because Darwin wasn't able to hypothesize or discover or quantify the very first life-form, all his ideas are false?! Okay, you need to explain this to me, because it makes no sense at all. By this logic, all the prophets who predicted Jesus were wrong because they couldn't come up with Him either.

you change it to fit what you want it to say and yes, if you disagree we the global flood then you do contradict it. if you change gen. 1 to allegory, then you contradict it.

No. We would contradict it if it said "this is not an allegory". Which it doesn't.

i think you are very selective of what you listen to and do not apply understanding to the words they are talking about an dusing.

I wonder, then, how I do not understand this:

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

But there are others, such as Justin Martyr and Origen who say similar things. I would go to wikipedia and take a look at the sources cited there for further inquiry. Wiki can be trusted when it is actively quoting books.

you say that, i don't. but given what scientists are doing and requiring, the conclusions are basically pre-determined. was it random guy who said, 'only natural evidences...' science was stifled right from the beginning by your own people not creationists.

Yes. Only natural evidences. However, the earth is natural, and if it were 6000 years old it would reflect that it was only 6000 years old. If it suffered a global flood it would reflect that it had suffered a global flood. While science can not outright say that there is or is not a god of any kind, if the stories of Genesis were true science would confirm them.

but when you allow secular thinking which contradicts the words of God to be part of your belief system, then you are not getting the correct image.

I've still to see where it says we can't view Genesis allegorically.

you are but the point is you say it. does that mean the sun revolves around the earth?

Nope, but I'm not a Holy Book who is supposed to be literally true and scientifically correct unless I specifically say otherwise. Well, let me rephrase that.
Nope, but I'm not a Holy Book who is supposed to be literally true and reflect the truths of reality with 100% accuracy unless I specifically say otherwise.
I put the rephrase in there to pre-empt the mention of "The Bible isn't scientific because science is secular" deal.

i disagree. that is your interpretation of what a literal translation would teach. i have never thought that the earth was flat by the mentioning of the words 'corners of the world' in the Bible.

never crossed my mind and the Bible doesn't teach it.

So, would you like to just keep denying it or would you like to take out Scripture and throw down? Because a literally taken scientifically correct (or accurately detailing reality) Bible can only teach a flat earth.

Metherion