[_ Old Earth _] Considerations about science

[turnorburn]

That is precisely my point. You said that evolution "doesn't attest to the fact that God speaks things into existence," but clearly even with evolution God would have spoken the essential building blocks into existence, so your argument is not correct.

My argument is that evolution isn't fact, its not as some have said its "the way God did it" everything was finished on the 6th day after that God rested 1 day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day 5th day 6th day 7th day God rested. i guess it depends on whether you believe in evolution "do you"

tob

 

[Edward]

My argument is that evolution isn't fact, its not as some have said its "the way God did it" everything was finished on the 6th day after that God rested 1 day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day 5th day 6th day 7th day God rested. i guess it depends on whether you believe in evolution "do you"

tob

Boy oh boy, it sure is good to hear someone see evolution as a theory once in awhile, that's very refreshing, lol! Evolution has been a "theory" since it's inception and it seems most people forget that. I guess Hitler was right about lies.

There may be loads of circumstantial evidence which can be purported to support the scientific theory so it can be latched upon as a possibility (whether true or not) since it is mere theory and only be discarded as a theory when new evidence or a better theory comes along which replaces it...

Well guess what? All sorts of new evidences and theories abound in our day and age! Scripture is coming to pass and knowledge is increasing very fast now. Much of it about God, and man. With even a modicum of research into almost any area of life now, one will find more support for God and creationism than ever before! It's past time to put that old tired evolution theory to rest. View attachment 6488

 

[Milk-Drops]

Boy oh boy, it sure is good to hear someone see evolution as a theory once in awhile, that's very refreshing, lol! Evolution has been a "theory" since it's inception and it seems most people forget that. I guess Hitler was right about lies.

Its both a theory and a fact. Those meanings aren't mutually exclusive. You've been told this before.

There may be loads of circumstantial evidence which can be purported to support the scientific theory so it can be latched upon as a possibility (whether true or not)

Except that the circumstantial evidence you speak of would be the equivilent to a man standing in the middle of the room clutching a blood soaked dagger, holding a note saying he killed several people, is covered in blood himself, there are recordings of the acts going on with his voice on them, and he had plenty of motive and was free each time a murder took place. Blindness would be the only excuse to not see a connection.

since it is mere theory and only be discarded as a theory when new evidence or a better theory comes along which replaces it...

This is less likely to happen then our theory of gravity being replaced.

Well guess what? All sorts of new evidences and theories abound in our day and age!

yet whenever I ask you guys to present this evidence or talk about it, you guys always bring up the same exact stuff that hasn't changed much since the 80s.

Scripture is coming to pass and knowledge is increasing very fast now. Much of it about God, and man. With even a modicum of research into almost any area of life now, one will find more support for God and creationism than ever before! It's past time to put that old tired evolution theory to rest. View attachment 6488

Once you actually present a theory, that isn't just an evolution bashing, then I'll listen to you. Until then you have nothing. You have proposed to explain a theory on several occasions, but every time we get to the nitty gritty you run off.

 

[brother Paul]

While this doesn't prove that all creationists accepted what their leaders preached, it is disturbing to note that not one creationist publicly called out Morris for his insults of black people.

They certainly do. Creationist strongholds like Bob Jones University would expel students if they even dated someone of a different race. It's gratifying to see that most creationists today have abandoned these ideas which were once touted as God's will. But the history remains.

No doubt! IMO none compares to the racist Anti-Semitism of the Middle-ages western church, but Darwin was a racist and his version of evolution gave scientific support (albeit pseudo-scientific) to the notion. When you say "all men" he was speaking of predominately white aristocratic Europeans. Ota's captors, for example, were scientists not social Darwinists and they all understood exactly what Darwin was implying (which moderns try desperately to slide around) as did Huxley and others. In fact I am proud of modern geneticists who have finlly PROVED that race is an illusion (we are after all one human race of ultimate variety).

Paul

 

[brother Paul]

Darwin’s version also promotes and gives scientific reasoning to his underlying sexism. In Darwin’s, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to the Sexes, (from the New York edition, 1879, pp. 563-565) he says and I quote “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well-illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

See if you can’t sense the racism and sexism rooted in his overall character, in this excerpt from a personal letter he wrote to a friend regarding his brother Erasmus’s possible wedlock to the fair Harriet Martineau, a French female of doubtful purity (as far as Charles was concerned).

In Letter 321 of the Darwin Correspondence Project, a publication of Darwin’s personal letters, he writes:

"Erasmus is just returned from driving out Miss Martineau…Our only protection from so admirable a sister-in-law is in her working him too hard. He begins to perceive, he shall be not much better than her 'nigger'… Imagine poor Erasmus a nigger to so philosophical & energetic a lady…How pale & woe begone he will look.. She already takes him to task about his idleness…She is going someday to explain to him her notions about marriage…Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine. I much doubt whether it will be equality in practice. We must pray for our poor 'nigger'.".

Acceptance of Darwin and his pseudo-science continues to enhance a subtle institutional racism and gives many support for their sexist views and it is unknowingly (in some cases) perpetrated through public school indoctrination.

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian cites racism inherent in creationism)
It's gratifying to see that most creationists today have abandoned these ideas which were once touted as God's will. But the history remains.

No doubt! IMO none compares to the racist Anti-Semitism of the Middle-ages western church, but Darwin was a racist

As was Abraham Lincoln. Pretty much everyone of that time was a racist to some degree. Darwin and Lincoln were less so than most because they believed that black people were human like the rest of us, and deserved rights and dignity.

and his version of evolution gave scientific support (albeit pseudo-scientific) to the notion.

No. In fact, Darwinists like Reginald Punnett and Morgan showed that the whole idea was scientifically flawed. On the other hand, anti-Darwinists like Agassiz denied that blacks were even human.

When you say "all men" he was speaking of predominately white aristocratic Europeans.

No. He says just the opposite in The Voyage of the Beagle, declaring that all races are human and worthy of freedom and dignity.

Ota's captors, for example, were scientists not social Darwinists

Not Darwinists at all. Darwin was appalled by any coercion of humans, and denounced it in his books. On the other hand creationists like Captain Fitzroy (the captain of the Beagle) declared that blacks were fit only to be slaves.

In fact I am proud of modern geneticists who have finlly PROVED that race is an illusion (we are after all one human race of ultimate variety).

Darwinists, all of them. I mentioned Morgan, whose genetic work added to Darwin's theory, produced modern evolutionary theory. And there is Francis Collins whose work leading the Human Genome Project, decisively refuted the Institute for Creation Research claims that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people. (Collins is, BTW, an evangelical Christian)

ICR founder and director Henry Morris continued blathering about how blacks are inferior, into the 1990s, long after Darwinists had shown that to be an unsupportable claim.

 

[turnorburn]

Its been said "not just here" but in other circles that creationist thinking creates atheists, here is a case where the opposite is true.. Jerry Bergman was an atheist, it was creationist thinking that led him to become a believer.. If anyone here is having a problem understanding all of this take a few minutes and listen to this presentation..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Its been said "not just here" but in other circles that creationist thinking creates atheists

Yep. It's a serious problem. Many people who have been brought up on the falsehood that creationism is an essential part of Christianity, lose their faith when they learn that it can't be true. This is the real danger of creationism.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.


"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"


That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Former YE creationist Glenn Morton

The opposite is true, as well:

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
Francis Collins
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops

If you think Bergman has something to offer, show us what you think is most compelling in your video.

 

[brother Paul]

(Barbarian cites racism inherent in creationism)
It's gratifying to see that most creationists today have abandoned these ideas which were once touted as God's will. But the history remains.

Barbarian did not say by this that "ALL"creationists are racist or that it is inherent in creationism (he did imply "most" creationists which is incorrect and unknowable unless he is omniscient)...but that some certainly were and are and he is correct (though I do not believe they have the Spirit of Christ in them as God is not a respecter of persons)....likewise I did not say (nor am trying to imply) that "ALL" Evolutionists are racist, or that it is inherent in the idea of or belief in Evolution (just in Darwin's conclusions regarding his own hypothesis).

Paul

 

[turnorburn]

Yep. It's a serious problem. Many people who have been brought up on the falsehood that creationism is an essential part of Christianity, lose their faith when they learn that it can't be true. This is the real danger of creationism.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.


"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"


That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Former YE creationist Glenn Morton

The opposite is true, as well:

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
Francis Collins
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops

If you think Bergman has something to offer, show us what you think is most compelling in your video.

Watch the video its that simple..

tob

 

[Edward]

Its both a theory and a fact. Those meanings aren't mutually exclusive. You've been told this before.

So fact is conjectural in nature now? Uhh, ok. Gotcha.

Except that the circumstantial evidence you speak of would be the equivalent to a man standing in the middle of the room clutching a blood soaked dagger, holding a note saying he killed several people, is covered in blood himself, there are recordings of the acts going on with his voice on them, and he had plenty of motive and was free each time a murder took place. Blindness would be the only excuse to not see a connection.

So I'm blind to worldly wisdom? Thank you, you compliment me. You do a good job of illustrating the problem for us in regards to the over educated types who only know the world. That God created the world and all that is in it in 6 days is a spiritual truth, ok? Spiritual truths can not be discerned through carnal knowledge because the carnal mind is at enmity with God. This is why we are instructed to not lean upon our own understanding, at all, but to become as a little child and look to our Father for revelation of truth.

That sort of carnal thinking goes all the way back to the fall of man in the garden. Once we ate of the tree of knowledge of good & evil, it gave man the propensity to see only evil...iow, we can only look for things that are wrong or bad now. To (blindly, lol) accept that the bloody man holding a dagger is the guilty party, simply because the first responder points him out and says there's our man as you arrive on scene (?!)... is to embrace the world and accept in faith what is presented to you by a man. It's also bad police work, lol. We've been warned that deception is the enemies primary tool, so a better response than that would be to listen to the first officer's (lol) theory and file it away for future consideration...then take a look at the scene himself and see if his conclusions match the others theory.

The scenario you describe is too perfect man. A mountain of evidence is there against the man! Too much in fact, lol. You don't smell frame up in that?!

You've convicted the man already! In a place where rule of law supposes that the man is innocent until proven guilty. So I reject the theory and circumstantial evidence until I do my own investigation starting from scratch. Who is that across the street that keeps looking over here, they seem distressed. Anyone go talk to them yet? No? Too busy looking at the bloody man? I will.

I'm back. They say they saw the whole thing. There was another man too but he ran out and is gone. Could that be significant? Of course not! Look at this bloody man holding a knife...LOL.

yet whenever I ask you guys to present this evidence or talk about it, you guys always bring up the same exact stuff that hasn't changed much since the 80s.

It's all talked about fairly regularly here on the forum. But you can't hear it because you're preoccupied with gazing at the bloody man so are resistant to considering other possibilities. Let those with ears hear.

Once you actually present a theory, that isn't just an evolution bashing, then I'll listen to you. Until then you have nothing. You have proposed to explain a theory on several occasions, but every time we get to the nitty gritty you run off.

Sure I have before. But when I have, you only seek to find something wrong with it, rather than consider it as a potential truth. So you say, "But look at the bloody man! He has a knife! Look at the fossils and the skulls"...so I learned to not waste my time with types that say "c'mon man, have some tunnel vision and look at the bloody man" Sorry man, I look at the big picture. In this world of CGA & CGI, nothing can be taken at face value. Truth is not always readily apparent. Nothing wrong with looking at a bloody tree for a moment, but unless one stops themselves from becoming so fixated on it that they can not see the rest of the picture...the forest...they'll prolly never become a decent investigator.

So I will leave you guys to ooh and aah over the latest fossil find which proves God doesn't exist...There's more to this world than meets the eye and most truth is spiritually discerned...

 

[brother Paul]

Once you actually present a theory, that isn't just an evolution bashing, then I'll listen to you. Until then you have nothing.

Sure, for example, when God made the original human kind (species) it obviously had within its design the propensity for all the lighter and darker variations. As time passed children with less melanin and more melanin began to emerge in cases where less Ms and more Ms mated the allele tendencies were reinforced (and so on) until over time, we ended up with all the variety we now see..."white" people and "black" people are just extremes (variety) not new or different "species" and certainly not new or different "races"....and even in that, one is not more or less superior

 

[brother Paul]

When you say "all men" he was speaking of predominately white aristocratic Europeans.

No. He says just the opposite in The Voyage of the Beagle, declaring that all races are human and worthy of freedom and dignity.

First, due to the fact that the book actually went through a few “revisions” (which could have been influenced by others) to which edition are you speaking?

And I am sorry and if it slips your mind I understand and am not making a demand but I cannot really see that….however, even if Darwin was not someone who supported slavery (which I never said) he still saw human “races” (first error) as being gradated along an evolutionary scale, the Caucasians on which are obviously the alleged highest and most evolved type.

Then you say “On the other hand creationists like Captain Fitzroy (the captain of the Beagle) declared that blacks were fit only to be slaves.” Not that I do not believe he may have been but can you provide some evidence for that (again not that it would surprise me there are people who call themselves creationists who are not actually God’s children)

ICR founder and director Henry Morris continued blathering about how blacks are inferior, into the 1990s, long after Darwinists had shown that to be an unsupportable claim. Again, not that I do not believe he may have but can you provide some evidence for that?

And you mean after Darwinians (Darwinist is a term referring to a specific brand) proved Darwin incorrect and a bigot? Cool! He was also incorrect on his whole "sexist" rant....

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. He says just the opposite in The Voyage of the Beagle, declaring that all races are human and worthy of freedom and dignity.

First, due to the fact that the book actually went through a few “revisions” (which could have been influenced by others) to which edition are you speaking?

I have a Harvard Press reprint of the first edition. But the second also had the same comments by Darwn. He was quite blunt about his arguments with creationists like the Captain, who thought blacks were fit only to be slaves.

And I am sorry and if it slips your mind I understand and am not making a demand but I cannot really see that….however, even if Darwin was not someone who supported slavery (which I never said) he still saw human “races” (first error) as being gradated along an evolutionary scale, the Caucasians on which are obviously the alleged highest and most evolved type.

He did not write things like that. In fact, he suggested that moving a population of primitive men to England would, in a few generations, result in Englishmen in color and intelligence.

Then you say “On the other hand creationists like Captain Fitzroy (the captain of the Beagle) declared that blacks were fit only to be slaves.” Not that I do not believe he may have been but can you provide some evidence for that (again not that it would surprise me there are people who call themselves creationists who are not actually God’s children)

It's in The Voyage of the Beagle. Darwin and the Captain had words as he told Darwin that blacks were so fit to be slaves they actually told him they liked it better than being free. Darwin suggested the fact that their owner trotted them out to tell this to the Captain might have some relevance to what they said. And that precipitated a serious falling-out for a few days.

ICR founder and director Henry Morris continued blathering about how blacks are inferior, into the 1990s, long after Darwinists had shown that to be an unsupportable claim.

Again, not that I do not believe he may have but can you provide some evidence for that?

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris The Beginning of the World 1991

And you mean after Darwinians (Darwinist is a term referring to a specific brand) proved Darwin incorrect and a bigot?

They assumed, as Darwin did, that blacks were human like the rest of us. They objected to eugenists, Nazis, and the ICR, who to varying degrees assumed that blacks were not fully human as the rest of us.

Darwin was like Lincoln, convinced that European men were superior to other humans. He and Lincoln were considered liberal for their time because unlike most of their fellows, they accepted blacks as fully human and deserving of freedom and dignity. As you see, many creationists of the time thought of them as subhuman. Not all of them; some actually joined forces with Darwin and his fellows. Samuel Wilberforce vigorously disagreed with evolution, but disagreed with his fellow creationists on the question of "lesser races", and sought to abolish slavery entirely.

 

[brother Paul]

deleted

 

[Barbarian]

The important thing is not whether or not all creationists were racists (they weren't all racists) or whether or not creationism is essentially racist (it isn't). The key is whether or not YE creationism has evidence to support it (it doesn't) and whether or not their new doctrine is compatible with the Bible. (in parts, it isn't)

 

[brother Paul]

It's in The Voyage of the Beagle. Darwin and the Captain had words as he told Darwin that blacks were so fit to be slaves they actually told him they liked it better than being free. Darwin suggested the fact that their owner trotted them out to tell this to the Captain might have some relevance to what they said. And that precipitated a serious falling-out for a few days.

ICR founder and director Henry Morris continued blathering about how blacks are inferior, into the 1990s, long after Darwinists had shown that to be an unsupportable claim.

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris The Beginning of the World 1991

They assumed, as Darwin did, that blacks were human like the rest of us. They objected to eugenists, Nazis, and the ICR, who to varying degrees assumed that blacks were not fully human as the rest of us.

Darwin was like Lincoln, convinced that European men were superior to other humans. He and Lincoln were considered liberal for their time because unlike most of their fellows, they accepted blacks as fully human and deserving of freedom and dignity. As you see, many creationists of the time thought of them as subhuman. Not all of them; some actually joined forces with Darwin and his fellows. Samuel Wilberforce vigorously disagreed with evolution, but disagreed with his fellow creationists on the question of "lesser races", and sought to abolish slavery entirely.

I could only find the 1839 edition (edited but no revisions) and could not find this discussion between Fitz Roy and Darwin but I already knew Darwin was not a slaver that was not my issue. His work was interpreted by his contemporaries, associates, and his cousin Francis to indicate (scientifically) exactly as I have been saying....you shall know them by their fruits.

I think Darwin would agree that any "Christian" who supported slavery was either selfish and a liar or else a serious hypocrite. So let me now ask you a question....are you a theistic evolutionist? Do you believe God created the Universe (at least initially)...

 

[Free]

My argument is that evolution isn't fact, its not as some have said its "the way God did it" everything was finished on the 6th day after that God rested 1 day 2nd day 3rd day 4th day 5th day 6th day 7th day God rested. i guess it depends on whether you believe in evolution "do you"

tob

You made a certain argument against evolution but I showed how it isn't true.

 

[Barbarian]

I could only find the 1839 edition (edited but no revisions) and could not find this discussion between Fitz Roy and Darwin but I already knew Darwin was not a slaver that was not my issue. His work was interpreted by his contemporaries, associates, and his cousin Francis to indicate (scientifically) exactly as I have been saying....you shall know them by their fruits.

Well, let's take a look...

Fitz-Roy's temper was a most unfortunate one. ...We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word, we could not live any longer together. I thought that I should have been compelled to leave the ship; but as soon as the news spread, which it did quickly, as the captain sent for the first lieutenant to assuage his anger by abusing me, I was deeply gratified by receiving an invitation from all the gun-room officers to mess with them. But after a few hours Fitz-Roy showed his usual magnanimity by sending an officer to me with an apology and a request that I would continue to live with him. ― Charles Darwin, Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (restored edition)(1958), Nora Barlow editor, pp. 73- 74

By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently; he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man. ― Charles Darwin, Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (restored edition)(1958), Nora Barlow editor, p.51

Now let's take a look at a "scientific creationist of the same period:
It was in Philadelphia that I first found myself in prolonged contact with Negroes; all the domestics in my hotel were men of color. I can scarcely express to you the painful impression that I received, especially since the feeling that they inspired in me is contrary to all our ideas about the confraternity of the human type (genre) and the unique origin of our species. But truth before all. Nevertheless, I experienced pity at the sight of this degraded and degenerate race, and their lot inspired compassion in me in thinking that they were really men. Nonetheless, it is impossible for me to repress the feeling that they are not of the same blood as us. In seeing their black faces with their thick lips and grimacing teeth, the wool on their head, their bent knees, their elongated hands, I could not take my eyes off their face in order to tell them to stay far away. And when they advanced that hideous hand towards my plate in order to serve me, I wished I were able to depart in order to eat a piece of bread elsewhere, rather than dine with such service. What unhappiness for the white race ―to have tied their existence so closely with that of Negroes in certain countries! God preserve us from such a contact." ― Louis Agassiz in a letter to his mother (1846), quoted in Gould, Stephen The Mismeasure of Man (1981) p. 44-45

Quite a difference, um? Which of these people do you think would accept the creationist notion of blacks being spiritually and intellectually inferior?

I think Darwin would agree that any "Christian" who supported slavery was either selfish and a liar or else a serious hypocrite.

More than that. I think he'd also take offense at the Morris' claim they they were inherently inferior.

So let me now ask you a question....are you a theistic evolutionist?

Let me ask you a question. What is a "theistic evolutionist?" I'm a Christian, who has been blessed to see a little more of God's creation than most.

Do you accept God's word in Genesis that He used natural means to created life? You seem to think that it only counts at the beginning. Are you not a creature of God? Did he not create the body in which you are located by natural means? Why would you think that should not count?

No creationist has ever been able to explain this to me.

 

[turnorburn]

You made a certain argument against evolution but I showed how it isn't true.

Are you referring to Hebrews 11:3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

tob