[_ Old Earth _] A question in PM

[Barbarian]

The only surprise is you appear to be trying to float the notion that Darwin was a Christian

In The Voyage of the Beagle he mentions how his orthodoxy as an Anglican was cause for amusement among the officers of the ship. Based on his writings, he was a theist until late in life when he said he was leaning toward agnosticism. But he was a Christian when he wrote The Origin of Species.

And many evolutionists, including those who most affected the modern theory, such as Theo Dobzhansky, Thomas Hunt Morgan, and others, were Christians.
The truth remains – the vast majority of evolutionary scientists today are atheists and many (Dawkins, et al) have an agenda to destroy the faith of Jesus Christ.

Dawkins and who else? Notice that evolutionists like Francis Collins, (evangelical) Kenneth Miller,(Roman Catholic) and many others are confirmed Christians.

What is the differenbce between your version of evolutionism and the evolutionism preached by Richard Dawkins?

I've read one book by Dawkins, and it was technical. So I'm not very familiar with his religious views of evolution. I don't buy into the hyperselectionism sometimes found in the "selfish gene" thinking, but that isn't really of consequence to the issue of God.

Bottom line, evolution is completely compatible with God's creation. How could it be otherwise? You might as well declare gravity at odds with creation.

 

[Barbarian]

There's a difference between Evolution and Newton's work. Evolution isn't even near the scale of importance as Special Relativity.

It's like asking whether antibiotics or the green revolution were of greater impact. Weird.

Evolution will make or break EVERY SINGLE RELIGION in the world.

Horsefeathers. It is of no consequence to religion at all.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Suggesting that God purposely put errors in his design is borderline blasphemous.

But God did not put errors into His design

Couldn't. There was no "design." God is not an inferior creature Who must design. In creation, as Aquinas notes, even contingency can be used by God to effect divine providence.

 

[MarbleShooter]

There's a difference between Evolution and Newton's work. Evolution isn't even near the scale of importance as Special Relativity. Evolution will make or break EVERY SINGLE RELIGION in the world. That's a huge issue.

You just contradicted yourself. You said evolution isn't that important, and that then it could destroy all religion. That is false and a contradiction.

 

[Damascus]

I'd wager to say that the Lord doesn't care if you are a young earth creationist, a theistic evolutionist, amillenialist, dispensationalist, preterist, orthodox, or any of these other titles that we like to ascribe to ourselves and believe in. The ways and thoughts of God are above us. Trying to discern the mind of God is like trying to catch a cloud.

In that day, there isn't a pop quiz. You won't be rewarded for knowing the right answer. Knowing this, why continue getting your blood pressure up and allowing your emotions to get the better of you? I believe the commandment to "love one another" takes precedence to this endless debate. The methods of Genesis are for God to know. We should humble ourselves when reading it and simply acknowledge that we are creation, and we have a Creator. This is a point that we all can agree on.

 

[Barbarian]

I'd wager to say that the Lord doesn't care if you are a young earth creationist, a theistic evolutionist, amillenialist, dispensationalist, preterist, orthodox, or any of these other titles that we like to ascribe to ourselves and believe in.

A wise man (or woman) wrote that.

 

[zeke]

Darwin died believing in God, but with his research and the publishing of The OoS, he expressed his views on how life was formed.

Darwin attempted to destroy faith in a Creator-God - this was his plan 'from the beginning'. The practitioners of evolutionism for the past 150 years have created a secular religion as a substitute for Christianity - 'a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality'.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist/atheist​

 

[zeke]

I'd wager to say that the Lord doesn't care if you are a young earth creationist, a theistic evolutionist, amillenialist, dispensationalist, preterist, orthodox, or any of these other titles that we like to ascribe to ourselves and believe in.

And I would wager to say that God would care if a believer promulgated the leading naturalistic/atheistic creation myth of evolutionism---aka, Darwinism.

 

[jasoncran]

he doesnt care, so if we pervert the word and compromise it doesnt matter?

abortion? gay rights? marrying gays? is that ok with god? after all science says them gays are made that way. so if its scripture sub scienca one could justify it all.

making a point and not a red herring.

i have known of catholics that are priests and dont live the live at all, one denies god, the other was a drunk. thus in a sense a perversion of the gospel. God choose words to communicate, commen sense reading means those words meant something.

when a number is in front of yom it means a literal day.

i could take it all the way and say lets make all the yoms in the ot eons. so the sabbath day is an eon?

 

[MarbleShooter]

Darwin attempted to destroy faith in a Creator-God - this was his plan 'from the beginning'.

Darwin wrote no such drivel. I'm sorry someone tricked you into believing that. Repeatedly saying it, dosen't make it true.

The practitioners of evolutionism for the past 150 years have created a secular religion as a substitute for Christianity - 'a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality'.

False, there is not such religion. If you claim there is, prove it. What do I mean by proof? Where is the holy book? What are its tenets? What the afterlife like? Where is the place of worship? What are the rituals? If you can't name those, then there is no religion called evolutionism. Period.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

​

Sorry, baseless assertions and quotemines don't convince me. Evidence dose.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist/atheist

Yeah, that's why all evolutionary papers are submitted to peer review and many claims have been thrown out or changed based on new evidence right? That sounds like science and not a religion. Unless you can solidly state what exactly evolutionism is and explain its tenements, then I won't respond to anymore of your claims.

 

[jasoncran]

hmm some say otherwise.


http://www.icr.org/article/455/

 

[MarbleShooter]

hmm some say otherwise.


http://www.icr.org/article/455/

Yeah, those "some" tend to want the theory of evolution labeled as a religion so they can have it thrown out of schools or try to make false claims about science in general. Though none of the groups can actually define and then show Evolutionary biologists doing anything religious when it comes to the theory. So its nothing but hot air. I deal with real claims, not hooey used to lie to people about what evolution really is. ;)

 

[jasoncran]

dawkins lied when he said evolution makes a fulfiled athiest?

if so i didnt now science could give someone meaning like that.i guess he was confused.

so why would it matter to you all if theres no god and even though he did it or not ?


oddly for someone so sure on athiesm he doesnt say that theres no god only that theres probably no god. but actions speak louder then words.

 

[jasoncran]

Another writer who follows contradictory illogic is Brian Leith, who shows there is reason to be skeptical of Darwinism but nevertheless remains a firm believer in evolution and is its unflinching apologist. Darwinism cannot necessarily be considered science, he says, because it cannot be currently tested. Yet, he announces that it "passes muster" as science even though it is not falsifiable by ready observation. Leith, like Ruse, is thinking of how evolutionists can theorize about what they would find in the past if evolution was true and then test their theories by observing, among other things, the fossil record. (Leith cites philosopher Popper for defense and a murder trial for an example of gathering evidence as science without a "scientific" test.) Yet, when he discusses creationism he says that creationism has no scientific merit. For proof, he asks us to consider how a creationist might falsify creationism through experiment. Leith forgets that he has already said Darwinism cannot be falsified through experiment, but has contended that it "passes muster" as science. Yet, when Leith needs to lash out at creationism, he insists that it must "pass muster" as science by being falsifiable through experiment. Apparently evolution can achieved favored status and pass the test of the liberalized standard of "science" while creationism must pass a more rigorous standard. (43)

http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/foolsus.HTM

 

[MarbleShooter]

dawkins lied when he said evolution makes a fulfiled athiest?

if so i didnt now science could give someone meaning like that.i guess he was confused.

Do you wish to link me to his words. I've learned to not trust your hearsay. ;)

so why would it matter to you all if theres no god and even though he did it or not ?

To me personally, if a God exists and I can see demonstratable and reliable proof that he exists then I would consider following him. Outside of that, I just go by what we can observe. ;) Hence why I'm an agnostic Atheist.

oddly for someone so sure on athiesm he doesnt say that theres no god only that theres probably no god. but actions speak louder then words.

Yeah, I guess being accurate that there is no way to disprove an undemonstrative claim ( such as proving/disproving God) is bad science right?

 

[MarbleShooter]

http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/foolsus.HTM

Yep, Darwinism as a religion is unfalisfiable because no creationist or person has ever set down a working definition for this "religion" they speak of. Now the theory of evolution that is used to unify Genetics, ecology, and phylogeny is definitely falsifiable and many aspects of it have changed that not even Darwin himself would fully recognize the theory we have today. Its nice having this process called science that corrects errors and dosen't have any dogma forcing it to keep non working theories and explanations.

 

[jasoncran]

so why then act like their isnt. and lie of being an athiest.

so what is dawkins and athiest or agnostic?

but then again knowing that came from fluke gives you meaniing how?

ultimately good or bad we die and that its from your world view.

 

[MarbleShooter]

so why then act like their isnt. and lie of being an athiest.

If you are talking about me, I haven't lied about anything about my religous standings. I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a God, but if I can be shown that there is with demonstrable evidence, then I'll look into it. So far nothing has convinced me, so its not like I can add something I'm not aware of in an equation. ;)

so what is dawkins and athiest or agnostic?

I think he personally believes there is no God, making him a Strong gnostic atheist, but he admits that there really is no way to proove tht there is no God.

ultimately good or bad we die and that its from your world view.

You tend to have this obsession with trying to tell me what my world view is. My world view is that I don't know everything and I will figure it out as I go along hopefully. I may not get a reward or punishment at the end, or heck it could never end. I'm just going to enjoy the time I have and make it the best experience I can while I can. have a good day.

 

[zeke]

False, there is not such religion.

Sure there is - evolutionism is a religion - try to keep up. Evolutionism came into being as a secular religion - a substitute for Christianity just and Michael Ruse admits.

Yeah, that's why all evolutionary papers are submitted to peer review and many claims have been thrown out or changed based on new evidence right? That sounds like science and not a religion.

You once again fail to distinguish between biological evolution (science) and Darwinian lore (naturalistic pseudo-science). Where is your proof that man and chimp have a common ancestor (4th request). Have you misplaced it?

 

[Damascus]

And I would wager to say that God would care if a believer promulgated the leading naturalistic/atheistic creation myth of evolutionism---aka, Darwinism.

I don't know, Zeke. But I hope not. I happen to believe in theistic evolution and I don't believe it will or has hindered my relationship with the Lord. I'd also note that I don't buy into every detail of evolution, as we all know science is mostly composed of hypothesis; I just believe that the earth has been around a lot longer than 6,000 years.

I'm not saying that's the bonafide, bet your life on it truth. It's my personal opinion. I'm just saying that I don't understand why it's a shame and scandal for someone to believe that God is the author of evolution, and that Genesis is as allegorical as Revelation.