Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,218
- 7,482
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's like asking, "Since Nimrod's primary contribution was the building of a large empire, what went wrong?"
It could be -- (and this is just by way of example) -- that God had intended for Darwin to be the one to discover a cure for cancer.
What exactly do you think Darwin did that constitutes an evil empire?That's like asking, "Since Nimrod's primary contribution was the building of a large empire, what went wrong?"
It could be -- (and this is just by way of example) -- that God had intended for Darwin to be the one to discover a cure for cancer.
That's not for you to say though.
Please don't get me started on justified true belief as a kind of absolute meaning of 'know'. Its clearly ridiculous when it ends up with nonsensical statements like we certainly cannot even know that we exist.I generally agree with what you're saying, but then we get into the whole mish-mash of having to figure out what a justified true belief is, or what it can be, in relation to any one epistemological position, and whether or not any particular form of justification can actually take a person all the way to a state of claiming bona-fide knowledge.
We can come up with an operational definition of 'know' that works better for a scientific thinker.And since science doesn't have the last word on epistemology where Christianity is under scrutiny, then we're all sort of stuck with the overtures being played about the Problem of the Criterion where something like biblical belief and faith are the concern.
Its not about Darwin himself as far as I'm concerned .. its about the ToE that matters.Just for the record, though, I'm not here implying that Darwin was a fraud just because his theory doesn't accord with the Bible.
No, I don't think he was fraudulent at all.
What is your basis for saying that? Do we have any way of knowing whether Charles Darwin "believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved?" Unless he did, he won't be in heaven.On a better note, I do believe both Nimrod and Darwin are in Heaven.
You are correct.
What is your basis for saying that? Do we have any way of knowing whether Charles Darwin "believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved?" Unless he did, he won't be in heaven.
No one who has studied Epistemology (or Philosophy of Science) at the university level would say what you're now saying. And not every scientist is going to set epistemology to the side as it seems you're doing here based on a faulty and childish allusion to Cartesian method as if Descartes is all that the topic of epistemology has ever been about. ......It's moved on beyond Descartes.Please don't get me started on justified true belief as a kind of absolute meaning of 'know'. Its clearly ridiculous when it ends up with nonsensical statements like we certainly cannot even know that we exist.
Oh, really? Do tell! And who exactly are your scholars of choice who have influenced your opinion on this? I would love to know!! Thus far, I see nothing but opinion on your part. For me, I'll stick with a bit of Einstein as a starting point for my Philosophy of Science over and against whatever "working" definition that merely "working" scientists may hold individually (and usually hold aloof for other, more expansive and relevant philosophical (i.e. sometimes Ethical) considerations.We can come up with an operational definition of 'know' that works better for a scientific thinker.
That's way more practical than 'justified true belief' nonsense .. (that's for sure).
Its not about Darwin himself as far as I'm concerned .. its about the ToE that matters.
What is your basis for saying that? Do we have any way of knowing whether Charles Darwin "believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved?" Unless he did, he won't be in heaven.
The fact she waited until 30 years AFTER his death to say suggests someone else trying to commit fraud, and it's certainly not from Darwin...
Let's pray you're wrong.
Again: she waited 30 years to put out her story....
I don't care if she waited 50.
I pray it is a true story.
Lest Darwin went to Aitch.
If it's true, why wait until 30 years after he died? Why not a year? (I was going to say 'as soon as' but that would have been very distasteful by any standard).
And what would it matter? It doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution nor make Darwin's work on natural selection any more prominent and serious. It really only seems to affect you.
Actually, it affects many people. Folks need to stop holding onto the ToE like it's some sort of sacred cow.
I know that. But since much of today's modern medical advances essentially assume it with a humanistic and godless glee, then simply giving a nod to the ToE as a working scientific paradigm takes on the flair of a transhumanist ideation rather than one of only "pure understanding."Who holds the ToE like 'it's some sort of sacred cow'? Evolution does not hinge solely on Darwin, especially not now and especially not historically.
All the Lady Hope story is claim that Darwin decided to have a change of faith on his deathbed. It's validity, factual or otherwise, does not have any bearing on the science of evolution which is sound as a pound.
I know that. But since much of today's modern medical advances essentially assume it with a humanistic and godless glee, then simply giving a nod to the ToE as a working scientific paradigm takes on the ideal of a transhumanist flair rather than one of only "pure understanding."
I agree. It's a separate historical issue. But even so.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?