Who is Mr Darwin?

[AV1611VET]

However, I do put a lot of stock in Hermeneutics and Exegesis ... I feel like I'm left with a coverless copy of an old MAD magazine, and I really really wanted to see what the rear cover page-fold was going to show me.

I don't care for "probably" that much, myself.

But the Bible is silent on things that, for some reason, matter to others; and when these others demand answers from us, lest they'll make their own assumptions, then I have no qualms with giving them at least SOMETHING to think about.

In short, my "probablys" prevent runaway science from steamrolling itself through the Bible unchecked.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't care for "probably" that much, myself.

But the Bible is silent on things that, for some reason, matter to others; and when these others demand answers from us, lest they'll make their own assumptions, then I have no qualms with giving them at least SOMETHING to think about.

In short, my "probablys" prevent runaway science from steamrolling itself through the Bible unchecked.

What's "runaway science"? Is that a kind of science that denies Methodological Naturalism and instead avers all too strongly for Philosophical Naturalism?

 

[AV1611VET]

[STAFF EDITED - DELETED QUOTE] Unbelievers don't like to hear that they worship God's creation ... since they don't believe in worship (except each other).

But the Bible indeed says they worship God's creation.

Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen

This is one of the reasons I think they attack Paul's writings so much.

Another principle I like to point out is where they invest their money.

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

People don't appreciate going through college, spending thousands of dollars learning science, only to be told by some uneducated Koine commoner the Bible says he's wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Netta prob!

The great thing is that by differentiating Philosophical Naturalism from Methodological Naturalism, this leaves open the possibility that I can believe the Theory of Evolution is cogent and (drum roll!!!) ... still be a Christian.

It's great for me how it works out like this. I get to have my MAD magazine and ... read it too!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

religion
noun


re·li·gion | \ ri-ˈli-jən \
Definition of religion


1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2a(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2b: the state of a religiousa nun in her 20th year of religion
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

You must have faith in science and scientists and research to accept it is true. They do not allow for dissent or questioning of it. Their belief in it revolves around their personal convictions. They have not witnessed the Big Bang, but believe it happened. They have never witnessed macro-evolution, but believe it to be true. They have not witnessed ANYTHING happening beyond what was recorded down in human history, certainly not millions and billions of years ago, but they have faith in what they were taught.

It is a religion.

You overstep your boundaries here and, by simply pasting from a dictionary, demonstrate that you know next to nothing about epistemology or language studies and how any of this relates to or plays into the overall philosophy and nature of science (or Christianity).

Moreover, I find your definition of "faith" to be semantically deficient.

 

[Astrid]

Are you offended because you have made science your religion? Should almighty science never be questioned or challenged? Sounds like a deity to me.

Scientific theory is a religion.

A person accepting such things as being correct without having actual knowledge of it being so is called faith. You have never seen it in action, but you believe it to be true. You sit together in a gathering with others while a teacher opens up a book and shares the tenants of those beliefs and people who choose to believe there is no God gobbles it up as their doctrine. It satisfied their craving to know where we came from. It is used to indoctrinate kids.

No, i am not offended. Its not personal. Calling someone
a Jap is offensive whether I am japanese or not.

I dont do religion. Science is far from " almighty",
and questioning is its essence. Opposite to religion.

A scientific theory has none of the characteristics of religion
or religious beliefs.

One cannot in any practical sense check for himself all details of, say,
the gas laws. They are simple and rather obvious though, and open to
simple testing at home.
Any theory in science is based in real data and is open to investigation anyone with
the time and interest.
It may be that youve never done this with any theory.

There is no way to do this with god or any religious- faith / belief.
See the huge difference between science and religion?

Gather children, open book and indoctrinate with
unquestionable "facts" that must be accepted on
faith is of course religion- why ctrticize it?


Or confuse it with a way of investigating the world around
us that is entirely reliant on observation, requires constant
challenge?

Science is not just done by atheists btw...so what is this
about not believing in god?

 

[AV1611VET]

A scientific theory has none of the characteristics of religion or religious beliefs.

1. Does science test science?

2. Does science test for science?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1. Does science test science?

2. Does science test for science?

What may be surprising is that the answers are: yes, and yes.

This is why the fields of the Philosophy of Science and the Nature of Science exist, Brother AV.

Just thought you'd want to be in the know.

 

[AV1611VET]

What may be surprising is that the answers are: yes, and yes.

This is why the fields of the Philosophy of Science and the Nature of Science exist, Brother AV.

Just thought you'd want to be in the know.

Thanks for the info!

 

[TLK Valentine]

No one thinks Darwin was a religious figure, but his fantasy became a religion for millions.

O, beware my lord of jealousy.
It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock
The meat it feeds on. '

-- Othello, III.iii

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure.

If you recall who Nimrod was, Nimrod was referred by his peers as ...

Genesis 10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

His God-given talent (and calling) was probably to hunt for food to help society fulfill the commission given to Noah after he got off the Ark.

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

But something went wrong, and Nimrod left his calling behind and instead, built an empire so evil that the Antichrist will resurrect it during the Tribulation period.

And his punishment has been that God, through His unexpected prophet Bugs Bunny, transformed the name "nimrod" into a synonym for "moron."

Nimrod - Wikipedia

The same for Darwin.

Called of God into the medical profession, he left it (and his family) and went in the opposite direction.

And yet Darwin's work has become the foundation for modern biology -- which has helped the medical profession greatly.

As did Jonah.

Jonah 1:1 Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,
2 Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.
3 But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

Jonah waffled his mission because he refused to accept a God who didn't hate who he himself hated.
Would you have done any different?

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet Darwin's work has become the foundation for modern biology -- which has helped the medical profession greatly.

Ain't that sumpun!?

Perhaps "Darwin's work" would be more effective if done God's way?

Medicine sans macroevolution -- who would come up with such a novel discovery?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ain't that sumpun!?

Perhaps "Darwin's work" would be more effective if done God's way?

Perhaps this was God's way... you need to learn to give God more credit.

Medicine sans macroevolution -- who would come up with such a novel discovery?

If you could, you'd have done it by now.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps this was God's way... you need to learn to give God more credit.

I somehow don't think God would document what He did, when He did it, how He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were ...

... then call someone to the Galapagos Islands to discover things that either contradict His documentation, or force said Documentation to be taken allegorically.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I somehow don't think God would document what He did, when He did it, how He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were ...

Good -- neither do I.

Oh, wait...

... then call someone to the Galapagos Islands to discover things that either contradict His documentation, or force said Documentation to be taken allegorically.

Unless, of course, parts of the Documentation were always meant to be taken allegorically, but Christians' pride kept them from admitting they've been getting it wrong all this time.

What say you, AV? Are you fallible when it comes to the Bible, or not?

 

[Mr Laurier]

What does ego have to do with who I think Charles Darwin is?

It doesnt. Try reading the words, not the spaces between them.

Did you start this thread to bait Christians?.

Of course not. and you already know this. So why ask...

How mature.

Random non-sequitur

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I somehow don't think God would document what He did, when He did it, how He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were ...

... then call someone to the Galapagos Islands to discover things that either contradict His documentation, or force said Documentation to be taken allegorically.

... who were these eyewitnesses who make Mr. Darwin superfluous, AV? And why is that important?

 

[AV1611VET]

... who were these eyewitnesses who make Mr. Darwin superfluous, AV? And why is that important?

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Those who shouted for joy when God created (and populated) the earth included:

1. Lucifer
2. Michael
3. Gabriel
4. the rest of the angelic realm

Adam and Eve, of course, were not eyewitnesses.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Those who shouted for joy when God created (and populated) the earth included:

1. Lucifer
2. Michael
3. Gabriel
4. the rest of the angelic realm

Adam and Eve, of course were not eyewitnesses.

Oh. I thought you'd say Moses.

But yeah. That Lucifer. He's a very reliable source ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh. I thought you'd say Moses.

Moses wasn't around when God spoke the earth into existence.

Neither were Adam & Eve.

But yeah. That Lucifer. He's a very reliable source ...

This would have been Lucifer before the Fall.

God assigned Lucifer a task in the Garden of Eden, and God said to him that he "sealest up the sum" -- meaning he had all the qualifications to do his job.

Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.