Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Popular opinion isn't my 'god'. Deduce whatever you wish. Cheers!

1 Corinthians 4:1-5 NKJV
"Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.

For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God."

Hans said nothing about popular opinion. All you did was post and run and you've refused to engage with anyone on the very topic you posted about. It's cowardly.

 

[Joseph G]

Hans said nothing about popular opinion. All you did was post and run and you've refused to engage with anyone on the very topic you posted about. It's cowardly.

Thanks again for the blessings, W! Take another shot and I'll let you have what you think is the coveted last word.

Reality? God has the last Word in all things.

Matthew 5:11-12 NKJV

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Pssst... the challenge remains open. You take care!

Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

Further to my post #717, @River Jordan made the claim (underlined): There's a difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The former is the method science is conducted under, the latter is a philosophical view. The two are not the same. So, when the first two...

www.christianforums.com

biblegateway.com

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks again for the blessings, W! Take another shot and I'll let you have what you think is the coveted last word.

Reality? God has the last Word in all things.
Matthew 5:11-12 NKJV

"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Pssst... the challenge remains open. You take care!

biblegateway.com

You mean the challenge for you to admit that you were caught putting out a lie and refuse to acknowledge what anyone in this thread has told you about it? Yes, that challenge does indeed remain open. And you'd be a better Christian to accept that challenge.

 

[AV1611VET]

Warden,

As a deist, do you believe in God:

1. ... with respect to science?
2. ... in spite of science?
3. ... apart from science?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Warden,

As a deist, do you believe in God:

1. ... with respect to science?
2. ... in spite of science?
3. ... apart from science?

I don't care to answer your question in the slightest.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes.

Ok .. explain the difference excluding claims based on untestable truths.

Yes .. I'm pretty sure you don't.
Its about logical presuppositions vs testable assumptions.
One is logic, the other is science.
Science's models never start from untestable logical presuppositions (or logical imperatives) .. including the model of the scientific objective method.

We shall see from your explanation above, just how you're distinguishing between philosophical and methodological naturalism.

I provided, on your request, several citations/links to philosophical and scientific sources that are consistent with what I've posted. I suggest you give those a read.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't care to answer your question in the slightest.

Roger that.

 

[River Jordan]

Good to know that lying is perfectly all right as long as you're a Christian. How wonderful.

It's not. Joseph posted that he struggles with pride, and I think we're seeing that in real time here.

@Joseph G why can't you just admit the video you posted isn't accurate? Are you so full of pride that you can't admit to even to that small of an error?

 

[River Jordan]

In sum, it's the same controversy it has always been historically since Paul the Apostle fell off his horse. It's just that after Darwin, secular assumptions that are common within all of the sciences have taken the ascendancy in Western Culture, throwing cognitive dissonance into the public discussion and causing a lot of more 'literal' Christians to feel that their entire Worldview is threatened, not just their faith.

Add to this the additional layer of Eschatological and Prophetic readings of the Biblical Theology, and we can see a heightened onset of fear and suspicion that further drives the intensity and convictions in the ToE controversy.

In other words, some Christians see the ToE as a work of the Devil. I don't. But they do.

Well yeah, when one's interpretation of Scripture isn't consistent with reality science will likely eventually expose that (indirectly). But the problem isn't with science, it's with the interpretation and pride (thinking one's interpretive abilities are infallible).

 

[SelfSim]

I provided, on your request, several citations/links to philosophical and scientific sources that are consistent with what I've posted. I suggest you give those a read.

.. and I suggest you read my post #171 for my critique on the links you posted and on your claim.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well yeah, when one's interpretation of Scripture isn't consistent with reality science will likely eventually expose that (indirectly). But the problem isn't with science, it's with the interpretation and pride (thinking one's interpretive abilities are infallible).

Right. That's what I think as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You say you went to Bible school, how did they try to sell it to you?

(Sorry, I seem to have missed this question earlier that you tagged to the end of your previous post.)

They sold it to me via the I.C.R. approach of Duane T. Gish, Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker (as opposed to sheer biblical literalism or the approach of Answers in Genesis).

 

[River Jordan]

.. and I suggest you read my post #171 for my critique on the links you posted and on your claim.

Then I suggest you take your arguments to Stanford, the ASA, and all the other sources I cited.

 

[BCP1928]

Warden,

As a deist, do you believe in God:

1. ... with respect to science?
2. ... in spite of science?
3. ... apart from science?

I'll answer it. My belief in God and the fundamental truths of the Chrsitian faith is apart from science and is in no way challenged by it.

 

[Joseph G]

It's not. Joseph posted that he struggles with pride, and I think we're seeing that in real time here.

@Joseph G why can't you just admit the video you posted isn't accurate? Are you so full of pride that you can't admit to even to that small of an error?

The challenge remains...

Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

Your cowardice and pride is noted.

 

[SelfSim]

Then I suggest you take your arguments to Stanford, the ASA, and all the other sources I cited.

.. and I suggest you reconsider your fallacious appeal to authority of philosophy departments' perspectives, in order to support your own beliefs in a matter which challenges the role of philsophical beliefs masquerading under the alternate set of scientifically meaningless words: 'Methodological Naturalism'.

 

[River Jordan]

The challenge remains...

Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

I don't know if you appreciate what you're doing here. You're interacting with non-Christians and, in a way, trying to minister to them. But while you're doing that you've posted a number of things that aren't true and when confronted about them you do everything but admit your error and apologize.

Why? Do you think you're infallible?

And do you not understand how behavior like that damages your credibility, as well as the credibility of Christians and Christianity as a whole?

We are to be truthful in all things. Posting things that aren't true and dancing around being held accountable is the opposite of that. Please try and learn some humility.

 

[Elongated]

I'll answer it. My belief in God and the fundamental truths of the Chrsitian faith is apart from science and is in no way challenged by it.

Heard that!

 

[River Jordan]

.. and I suggest you reconsider your fallacious appeal to authority of philosophy departments' perspectives, in order to support your own beliefs in a matter which challenges the role of philsophical beliefs masquerading under the alternate set of scientifically meaningless words: 'Methodological Naturalism'.

I don't know if you've forgotten, but I posted all those links because you asked me to.

Please don't ask me to look up and post references and then complain when I do.