Who is Mr Darwin?

[AV1611VET]

That really old one. Y'know, the one that involves a lot of green foilage.

Perhaps she should clarify?

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's why I'm fond of asking:

"Would you even know the difference?"

Knowing and caring are two different things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Knowing and caring are two different things.

Confucius?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Confucius?

Stoker, actually. He pointed out that the two are separate but related.

"...but a stranger in a strange land, he is no one. Men know him not -- and to know not is to care not for." -- Dracula

 

[AV1611VET]

Stoker, actually. He pointed out that the two are separate but related.

"...but a stranger in a strange land, he is no one. Men know him not -- and to know not is to care not for." -- Dracula

"A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country." -- Jesus

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you take Paul seriously after that nonsensical
snake stoty?

Y'know, now that they've closed the Christian Apologetics section here on CF, I'm not quite sure which section would be the appropriate one in which to start a thread on an extensive subject like: "taking Paul seriously if he was a YEC, biblical literalist."

 

[Astrid]

Y'know, now that they've closed the Christian Apologetics section here on CF, I'm not quite sure which section would be the appropriate one in which to start a thread on an extensive subject like: "taking Paul seriously if he was a YEC, biblical literalist."

Go ahead if you wish.
For a quick yes or no, do you think the snake bite story is
believable?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Go ahead if you wish.
For a quick yes or no, do you think the snake bite story is
believable?

If you're referring to Acts 28 where Paul is bitten by a viper yet lives, I'd say ... yes, it's reasonable to think it's a believable statement.

However, if you're referring to Genesis 3 and the fact that Paul likely believed in its contents in a more literalistic kind of way (i.e. with a talking serpent), and that this liklihood thereby begs the question as to just how much credance we can give Paul on much of anything he's written since we now entertain the hindsight of also having Mr. Darwin now present in our scientific thought ...

... then I'd say that, yes, it's also reasonable but in a much different kind of way. And needless to say, that way of which I speak won't be one that AV1611VET agrees with.

 

[Astrid]

If you're referring to Acts 28 where Paul is bitten by a viper yet lives, I'd say ... yes, it's reasonable to think it's a believable statement.


However, if you're referring to Genesis 3 and the fact that Paul likely believed in its contents in a more literalistic kind of way (i.e. with a talking serpent), and that this liklihood thereby begs the question as to just how much credance we can give Paul on much of anything he's written since we now entertain the hindsight of also having Mr. Darwin now present in our scientific thought ...

... then I'd say that, yes, it's also reasonable but in a much different kind of way. And needless to say, that way of which I speak won't be one that AV1611VET agrees with.

Just the "viper bite".
Try going through it detail by detail
and see if you notice any cause for doubt.
I can spot an easy half dozen.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just the "viper bite".
Try going through it detail by detail
and see if you notice any cause for doubt.
I can spot an easy half dozen.

Well, that will derail this thread. Do you want to talk about this on the side, Estrid? PM maybe?

I'd like to hear about your "easy half dozen."

 

[Astrid]

Well, that will derail this thread. Do you want to talk about this on the side, Estrid? PM maybe?

I'd like to hear about your "easy half dozen."

As you like though we note theres been a lot of
bible- talk wholly unrelated to the thread topic.
So fair is fair; cease and desist the above.

I can pm later. Read the story and see if you
notice anything at all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As you like though we note theres been a lot of
bible- talk wholly unrelated to the thread topic.
So fair is fair; cease and desist the above.

I can pm later. Read the story and see if you
notice anything at all.

ok. PM at your leisure then and we can briefly chat about it.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Do you want to start answering my questions for me?

As Mr Spock put it, "The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining."

I answered

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

So a lot of creationists have an incredibly active fantasy life around Mr Darwin.
Some think he is even still alive.
Many seem convinced that he is some sort of god or deity.
A lot of creationists think we worship Mr Darwin, and they imagine all sorts of fantastic rituals being practiced by hooded priests who speak mysterious chants.
In fact, Darwin is not a religious figure. He is a historical figure.

An ordinary man, who was one of many people who stumbled upon the idea of sexual selection as the driver of evolution.

"A lot of creationists think we worship Mr Darwin"

Oh? Myself, I'm a creationist, and I rather think that Darwinists worship the word, "science". I mean, why else would they be so persistently offended when their Darwinism is called "Darwinism", by its critics, rather than called "science"?

 

[ottawak]

"A lot of creationists think we worship Mr Darwin"

Oh? Myself, I'm a creationist, and I rather think that Darwinists worship the word, "science". I mean, why else would they be so persistently offended when their Darwinism is called "Darwinism", by its critics, rather than called "science"?

Because for most creationists, it is an intended sneer. But it is also incorrect and betrays an ignorance about how science works. Darwin is remembered for the brilliance of his original insight, but he wasn't the ony one who had thought of it--he just published first and got most of the publicity. Since then, science has moved on and made discoveries about evolution which would have astonished Darwin. Insisting on calling the theory of evolution "Darwinism" makes about as much sense as calling modern physics "Newtonianism."

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Because for most creationists, it is an intended sneer. But it is also incorrect and betrays an ignorance about how science works. Darwin is remembered for the brilliance of his original insight, but he wasn't the ony one who had thought of it--he just published first and got most of the publicity. Since then, science has moved on and made discoveries about evolution which would have astonished Darwin. Insisting on calling the theory of evolution "Darwinism" makes about as much sense as calling modern physics "Newtonianism."

"But it is also incorrect and betrays an ignorance about how science works."

That is, what Darwinists choose to call "science" while cheerleading for their Darwinism. Hey, did you know that anyone and everyone can call anything and everything "science" that he/she would like to call "science"? So, yeah....calling Darwinism/evolutionism "science" is an essentially useless ploy for the Darwinist when they are talking to critics of Darwinism; the only use it might have in any creation vs evolutionism debate is as a sort of "high-five" to fellow evolutionists in the audience. IOW, it has merely whatever (if any) value there is in preaching to the Darwinist choir.

 

[ottawak]

"But it is also incorrect and betrays an ignorance about how science works."

That is, what Darwinists choose to call "science" while cheerleading for their Darwinism. Hey, did you know that anyone and everyone can call anything and everything "science" that he/she would like to call "science"? So, yeah....calling Darwinism/evolutionism "science" is an essentially useless ploy for the Darwinist when they are talking to critics of Darwinism; the only use it might have in any creation vs evolutionism debate is as a sort of "high-five" to fellow evolutionists in the audience. IOW, it has merely whatever (if any) value there is in preaching to the Darwinist choir.

Why do you think evolutionary biology is not science? How does it differ from other branches of science?

 

[Shemjaza]

"But it is also incorrect and betrays an ignorance about how science works."

That is, what Darwinists choose to call "science" while cheerleading for their Darwinism. Hey, did you know that anyone and everyone can call anything and everything "science" that he/she would like to call "science"? So, yeah....calling Darwinism/evolutionism "science" is an essentially useless ploy for the Darwinist when they are talking to critics of Darwinism; the only use it might have in any creation vs evolutionism debate is as a sort of "high-five" to fellow evolutionists in the audience. IOW, it has merely whatever (if any) value there is in preaching to the Darwinist choir.

It would be fascinating if Creationists had scientific evidence to support their ideas... but they are never able present it.

Evolution has fossils, genetics, observed speciation and applied science in other fields.

Creation only presents religious conviction and personal emotional preferences, at best.

But if I've missed actual scientific evidence for the Creation side, I'd be super happy to see it... ID and the supernatural is more interesting than known reality.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"A lot of creationists think we worship Mr Darwin"

Oh? Myself, I'm a creationist, and I rather think that Darwinists worship the word, "science". I mean, why else would they be so persistently offended when their Darwinism is called "Darwinism", by its critics, rather than called "science"?

You think people worship words?

 

[TLK Valentine]

"But it is also incorrect and betrays an ignorance about how science works."

That is, what Darwinists choose to call "science" while cheerleading for their Darwinism. Hey, did you know that anyone and everyone can call anything and everything "science" that he/she would like to call "science"?

You can call just about anything "peanut butter" -- but that doesn't make it so.

So, yeah....calling Darwinism/evolutionism "science" is an essentially useless ploy for the Darwinist when they are talking to critics of Darwinism; the only use it might have in any creation vs evolutionism debate is as a sort of "high-five" to fellow evolutionists in the audience. IOW, it has merely whatever (if any) value there is in preaching to the Darwinist choir.

Unless, of course, words like "science" have meanings that you might or might not know or care about -- and ignoring this fact in favor of pointless word games are characteristic of the Creationist side of the discussion.