What exactly do you believe?

[thorens]

1. Yes
2. Old.

 

[BobRyan]

http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/

Worldviews: God Explains it All
Dr. Paul Dean

What do you believe and why do you believe it?


Let me take it a step further. The evolutionist says there is no God.

Ian

That is true if you are talking about the leading atheist darwinists like Darwin, Huxley, Dawkins, Gould, Provine etc.

Their claim is that the atheist principles basic to Darwin's dogma dictate an atheist conclusion.

They are right. They make good Darwinists because they are consistent about the methods, principles and conclusions in DarwinISM.

Evolution has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. Evolution is about how organisms change over long periods of time. You can be an evolutionist and believe in God. In fact you can be an evolutionist and believe in the whole of the Bible.

The sticking point is on a literal interpretation. Not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally.

This is the primrose path of wishful thinking.

The REAL issue is "Exegesis" and whether you will simply "BEND the text" (eisegete) as your atheist darwinists doctrines dictate -- OR will you EXEGETE the text -- using accurate objective methods that apply ALL THROUGH scripture letting it speak.

Take the books of Daniel and Revelations for example, or perhaps even the book of Job.

Again this is a Bible-at-a-distance wishful thinking model -- it uses "daniel as an excuse" to do whatever evolutionISM dictates to Genesis AS IF that was what was done to Daniel -- it was not!

Step one -- embrace an objective honest model for interpreting scripture APART from the bending-and-wrenching needed when reading it through the LENSE of atheist darwinist dogma. (Let's call it - Exegesis for now)

Darwin did this and eventually found that he would have to CHOOSE between the two.

It was a logical fork in the road.

The following thread is about that very debate.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943


Bob

 

[Deep Thought]

That is true if you are talking about the leading atheist darwinists like Darwin, Huxley, Dawkins, Gould, Provine etc.

Bob, how many times do you need to be told that Darwin wasn't an atheist?

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed he was as was Huxley. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" as a way to avoid discussions on the matter of "proving God did not exist" -- but "avoiding the discussion" is not the same thing as "believing God exists". They simply were not "militant Atheists" as Dawkins points out.

As Dawkins admits - the discussion beween Darwin and Huxley summarized the issue as

Atheist -- a term for there "is no God" spoken militantly
Agnostic -- a term for "there is no God" spoken softly so as not to offend.

Bob

 

[Deep Thought]

At the time of writing "On the Origin of Species" Darwin was a theist and later on in life, he was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an atheist".

 

[BobRyan]

Let Darwin speak --

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that [b]the Gospels cannot be proved[/b] to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details///

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete.[/b] The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

Huxley was the first to "invent" the term Agnostic as a convenient corner for Darwin and Huxley meet that did not get them caught in the wildfires of those who called themselves atheists.

Darwin and Huxley simply denied God -- they did not want get tangled up in arguments trying to PROVE there is no God.

In the movie Expelled Dawkins explicitly affirms that Darwin was in fact an atheist but "atheist spoken nicely" was what Huxley meant to create in his term "Agnostic".

Bob

 

[Geth]

1. No
2. Old

Greetings
Geth

 

[BobRyan]

Some athiest darwinists have been quick to state their faith and belief in darwinism.

Evolution AS FAITH

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution)

A 1981 lecture presented at New York City's American Museum of Natural History

[quote:85710]
Colin PATTERSON:

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view,well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

Patterson - again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

[/quote:85710]

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Let Darwin speak --

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that [b]the Gospels cannot be proved[/b] to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details///

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete.[/b] The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

Huxley was the first to "invent" the term Agnostic as a convenient corner for Darwin and Huxley meet that did not get them caught in the wildfires of those who called themselves atheists.

Darwin and Huxley simply denied God -- they did not want get tangled up in arguments trying to PROVE there is no God.

In the movie Expelled Dawkins explicitly affirms that Darwin was in fact an atheist but "atheist spoken nicely" was what Huxley meant to create in his term "Agnostic".

Bob

Are you redefining atheism to be a disbelief in Christianity, or did you even read the quote?

You fail at quote mining even.

 

[BobRyan]

Reading will help your argument "more" -

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete.[/b] The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Reading will help your argument "more" -

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete.[/b] The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

Bob

Thats what I am doing Bobby. Any informed reader who doesn't want to add to it what is not there sees that as disavowing Christianity.

Now I ask you again, do you define the disbelief in Christianity as Atheism, or are you not reading what you quote mine?

Anyone who reads that in context sees that he is stating he does not believe the Bible to be perfect or God inspired. As you well know, there were many many men of that time who were not atheist that believed the same way as Dawrin.

Look at the USA fathers, a bit before Dawrins time. Though not atheist, many certainly did not believe in Jesus Christ as God, nor much of the Bible.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

1. No
2. Old earth

 

[Gabe]

By that I mean:

1. Are you a Christian?
2. Do you believe in a young or old earth?

1) Yes
2) Undecided

 

[Caroline H]

1.Yes
2.young, 6-7 thousand years old

I believe that evolution is a lie generated by Satan to corrupt the authority of God's word and His sovereignty, and to deceive people from believing the truth.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Yes
Old

 

[BobRyan]

People are answering "2. Old" without stating if they believe in "Old ROCKS but young LIFE on earth" or Old-Life (Billions of years).

Bob

 

[carbon]

1. Yes
2. Old earth.

2 expanded: Evolution is the best scientific theory in its field - it's the only scientific theory in its field. I think it is quite a valid theory. I just don't think I can take it as absolute fact as of now. As a scientist, I should question theory. Personally I would not be surprised if, in a hundred years, quantum mechanics was replaced by something else. And I would also not be surprised if Newton's Three Laws, yes I said laws, were replaced by other laws.

But if evolution was proved absolutely to me...I would not say that there is no God. Evolution does not state how the very first thing came about. Even abiogenesis...There's still the Big Bang. What if God clapped and there was a Big Bang? Evolution and religious beliefs do not have to contradict.

Having said all of the above, it is difficult for me to discount Creation as a theory. The 6 literal days of Creation mentioned in Genesis, I cannot believe are true. But what if days meant something else, like "eras"? And Genesis itself is extremely WEIRD to be taken literally IMHO. Some people are over 900 years old...All of a sudden other people appear out of nowhere....I'm not sure it's meant to be taken literally. But I see it being Divinely inspired.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

Christian? Yes, saved by God's Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone.
Young Earth? Yes - You either believe God's word, or man's.

 

[B.A.C.]

1. Yes
2. Young as per the literal reading of the Book.

God Bless.

 

[Kilomech]

1. No.

2. Old, around 4 - 6 billions years.