Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Darwin Didn't Know
http://www.cconembassyrow.com/rtb.html ^

Posted on 08/23/2008 8:21:11 AM PDT by truthfinder9

What Darwin Didn't Know an RTB conference in our nation's capital.

February 12, 2009 marks Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of his book, On Origin of Species. People worldwide will engage in Darwin Day celebrations honoring Darwin’s influence on science and culture.

The Reasons to Believe, Washington D.C, Network and Christ Church on Embassy Row are proud to announce an RTB Regional Conference addressing this all-important event. Hear RTB scholars Fuz Rana, Kenneth Samples, Jeff Zweerink and Hugh Ross present the latest evidence that challenges Darwinism and supports the Christian faith.

October 24-25 2008 Register at http://www.cconembassyrow.com/rtb.html

For more information on this and other events, visit www.reasons.org/events


TOPICS: Apologetics; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science; Theology
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; darwin; darwinday; design; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 08/23/2008 8:21:11 AM PDT by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Will the participants in the celebration be competing for the oft coveted Darwin Award?


2 posted on 08/23/2008 8:24:56 AM PDT by pipecorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Amazing...

February 12, 1809...

Darwin was born the same day as President Abraham Lincoln...

But Lincoln did so much more for humanity than Darwin ever dreamed of...


3 posted on 08/23/2008 8:35:33 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

A Darwinist has no logical basis to frame an argument against slavery.


4 posted on 08/23/2008 8:54:31 AM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

COMPROMISERS INTREP


5 posted on 08/23/2008 1:04:24 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Let’s see...evolution is false...the Bible is correct...Compromisers? The only compromising is on the part of YECs who reinterpret the Bible to adhere to the cultic rantings of people like Ken Ham. Didn’t his “creation” musuem get caught plagerizing? Who’s compromising?


6 posted on 08/23/2008 1:28:21 PM PDT by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Did I mention how inane it is to accuse the people who have been on the forefront of refuting evolution for over 20 years compromisers?


7 posted on 08/23/2008 1:33:37 PM PDT by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

Interesting stuff on the RTB website:

http://www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle/newsletters/200805/200805.pdf


8 posted on 08/23/2008 1:36:11 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

An index to hundreds of articles on the RTB website.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/


9 posted on 08/23/2008 1:42:16 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
Did I mention how inane it is to accuse the people who have been on the forefront of refuting evolution for over 20 years compromisers?

You misspelled insane.

10 posted on 08/23/2008 1:53:44 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946; medved

Not to mention, To: Ted Holden, under all his FR names.

We don’t need a logical basis to oppose slavery. Remember that Darwinis is a religion, and Darwin is our God. Do We accept whatever he says about slavery without question.

“I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place.” — Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313.

“While staying at this estate, I was very nearly being an eye-witness to one of those atrocious acts which can only take place in a slave country. Owing to a quarrel and a lawsuit, the owner was on the point of taking all the women and children from the male slaves, and selling them separately at the public auction at Rio. Interest, and not any feeling of compassion, prevented this act. Indeed, I do not believe the inhumanity of separating thirty families, who had lived together for many years, even occurred to the owner. Yet I will pledge myself, that in humanity and good feeling he was superior to the common run of men. It may be said there exists no limit to the blindness of interest and selfish habit. I may mention one very trifling anecdote, which at the time struck me more forcibly than any story of cruelty. I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless animal.” — Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle (1839), Chapter II

“A few days afterwards I saw another troop of these banditti-like soldiers start on an expedition against a tribe of Indians at the small Salinas, who had been betrayed by a prisoner cacique...Two hundred soldiers were sent; and they first discovered the Indians by a cloud of dust from their horses’ feet, as they chanced to be travelling...The Indians, men, women, and children, were about one hundred and ten in number, and they were nearly all taken or killed, for the soldiers sabre every man. The Indians are now so terrified that they offer no resistance in a body, but each flies, neglecting even his wife and children; but when overtaken, like wild animals, they fight against any number to the last moment. One dying Indian seized with his teeth the thumb of his adversary, and allowed his own eye to be forced out sooner than relinquish his hold. Another, who was wounded, feigned death, keeping a knife ready to strike one more fatal blow. My informer said, when he was pursuing an Indian, the man cried out for mercy, at the same time that he was covertly loosing the bolas from his waist, meaning to whirl it round his head and so strike his pursuer. “I however struck him with my sabre to the ground, and then got off my horse, and cut his throat with my knife.” This is a dark picture; but how much more shocking is the unquestionable fact, that all the women who appear above twenty years old are massacred in cold blood! When I exclaimed that this appeared rather inhuman. he answered, “Why, what can be done? they breed so!”

Every one here is fully convinced that this is the most just war, because it is against barbarians. Who would believe in this age that such atrocities could be committed in a Christian civilized country?” — Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle (1839), Chapter V

Darwin on race and slavery

In order to counter the smear and innuendo spewed forth by many antievolutionists on the subject of Darwin and racism, here are some of Darwin’s actual words on the subject of race and slavery.

“I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place.” — Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313

“While staying at this estate, I was very nearly being an eye-witness to one of those atrocious acts which can only take place in a slave country. Owing to a quarrel and a lawsuit, the owner was on the point of taking all the women and children from the male slaves, and selling them separately at the public auction at Rio. Interest, and not any feeling of compassion, prevented this act. Indeed, I do not believe the inhumanity of separating thirty families, who had lived together for many years, even occurred to the owner. Yet I will pledge myself, that in humanity and good feeling he was superior to the common run of men. It may be said there exists no limit to the blindness of interest and selfish habit. I may mention one very trifling anecdote, which at the time struck me more forcibly than any story of cruelty. I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless animal.” — Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle (1839), Chapter II

[Here Darwin notes the treatment of some Indians in So. America]

“A few days afterwards I saw another troop of these banditti-like soldiers start on an expedition against a tribe of Indians at the small Salinas, who had been betrayed by a prisoner cacique...Two hundred soldiers were sent; and they first discovered the Indians by a cloud of dust from their horses’ feet, as they chanced to be travelling...The Indians, men, women, and children, were about one hundred and ten in number, and they were nearly all taken or killed, for the soldiers sabre every man. The Indians are now so terrified that they offer no resistance in a body, but each flies, neglecting even his wife and children; but when overtaken, like wild animals, they fight against any number to the last moment. One dying Indian seized with his teeth the thumb of his adversary, and allowed his own eye to be forced out sooner than relinquish his hold. Another, who was wounded, feigned death, keeping a knife ready to strike one more fatal blow. My informer said, when he was pursuing an Indian, the man cried out for mercy, at the same time that he was covertly loosing the bolas from his waist, meaning to whirl it round his head and so strike his pursuer. “I however struck him with my sabre to the ground, and then got off my horse, and cut his throat with my knife.” This is a dark picture; but how much more shocking is the unquestionable fact, that all the women who appear above twenty years old are massacred in cold blood! When I exclaimed that this appeared rather inhuman. he answered, “Why, what can be done? they breed so!”

Every one here is fully convinced that this is the most just war, because it is against barbarians. Who would believe in this age that such atrocities could be committed in a Christian civilized country?” — Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle (1839), Chapter V

“I must here commemorate what happened for the first time during our nearly fiveeyears’ wandering, namely, having met with a want of politeness. I was refused in a sullen manner at two different houses, and obtained with difficulty from a third, permission to pass through their gardens to an uncultivated hill, for the purpose of viewing the country. I feel glad that this happened in the land of the Brazilians, for I bear them no good will - a land also of slavery, and therefore of moral debasement...On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil, I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating forever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master’s ears.

It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever-illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of you wife and your little children - those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own - being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin.” — Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle (1839), Chapter XXI

“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

“But I suppose you are all too overwhelmed with the public affairs to care for science. I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. N. America does not do England Justice: I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, & I am one, even and wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against Slavery. In the long run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in. Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God how I should like to see the greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished. “ — Charles Darwin to Asa Gray (June 5, 1861) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 9 1861 (1994), p.163


11 posted on 08/23/2008 2:50:14 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

inane
SYLLABICATION: in·ane
ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: in·an·er, in·an·est

One that lacks sense or substance: interrupting with inane comments; angry with my inane roommate.

ETYMOLOGY: Latin innis, empty, lacking sense.
OTHER FORMS: in·anely —ADVERB

USED IN A SENTENCE:
Your post mistakenly assuming truthfinder9 intended to write "insane" was itself inane.

12 posted on 08/23/2008 4:36:03 PM PDT by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God is, and (2) God is good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
As I have had occasion to do previously, I take you to task for your style of argumentation. I do so as RTB's biggest (and I might say, longest) supporter.

Erecting the straw man that all young-earthers operate with Ken Ham's lack of ethics and integrity is unworthy of you and RTB. They do not, as Hugh Ross would be the first to aver. He would tell you that there are sufficient arguments against the young earth position without resorting to mean-spirited efforts.

That said, I continue to appreciate your aggressive advocacy of the congruence between science and faith, as exemplified both by the Bible and RTB. I hope you will continue doing so, while refraining from falling for the bait that others toss in your path.

13 posted on 08/23/2008 4:43:12 PM PDT by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God is, and (2) God is good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
My I ask you to read two passages of Scripture?

Genesis 1

Exodus 20:11

How does a straight forward reading of those two passages constitute "reinterpreting" the Bible, and "cultic rantings?"

No, the museum has not been guilty of plagarizing.

Let's not even begin to get into the twisting of Scripture that Hugh Ross s guilty of...and even when confronted with gross misinterpretation, he refuses to answer his critics, dismissing them as unworthy of conversation because they don't possess his credentials.

14 posted on 08/23/2008 5:26:47 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hebrews 11:6

You do have a sharp eye for sarcasm, don’t you.


15 posted on 08/23/2008 5:39:50 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Do you believe the earth moves? Yes or no.


16 posted on 08/23/2008 5:40:47 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: js1138

When it’s presented properly, why, yes I do! But not, I’m afraid, when it’s presented inanely.


17 posted on 08/23/2008 5:50:29 PM PDT by Hebrews 11:6 (Do you REALLY believe that (1) God is, and (2) God is good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: js1138
What follows are two writing samples, one from the famous racist and evolutionist, Chuck Darwin, the other from the famous racist and evolutionist, Adolf Hitler; see if you can tell which is which:

Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world... "

18 posted on 08/23/2008 6:11:41 PM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: js1138

What does that question have to do with my last post?


19 posted on 08/23/2008 8:11:13 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

I want to know if you compromise on a strraightforward reading of the Bible.


20 posted on 08/23/2008 8:13:34 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Answer my question, and then, I will answer yours.


21 posted on 08/23/2008 8:17:23 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

I don’t think Ken Ham presents a straightforward reading of the Bible. He invents stuff that isn’t in the bible, such as his claim that Cain and others of his family married their siblings.


22 posted on 08/23/2008 8:25:48 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

More to the point, you waltz into the thread with cryptic comments — COMPROMISERS — that imply anything other than a strict literal reading of the Bible is a compromise.

Am I wrong, and if so, explain your post.


23 posted on 08/23/2008 8:29:08 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: js1138
such as his claim that Cain and others of his family married their siblings.

Who else could they have married!

And you still have not answered my question about Gen 1 and Ex 20...what does those two passages put together mean to you?

24 posted on 08/23/2008 8:34:07 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: js1138
waltz into the thread

This is an open thread, isn't it? "Waltz in"?

25 posted on 08/23/2008 8:35:17 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Who else could they have married!

I haven't ever seen an answer to that question in the Bible itself. Do you think it's OK to make stuff up that isn't in the Bible and use your made up stuff to teach children that God sometimes says incest is OK?

As for the meaning of your passages, it means to me that all religious leaders use fear and intimidation to discourage dissent. Some say they have stone tablets; some gold plates.

At least some of them are fibbing.

26 posted on 08/23/2008 8:41:13 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

I’ve answered your questions. Now answer mine. Does the earth move?


27 posted on 08/23/2008 8:42:04 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Your last post is total non-sense. This discussion is over. You obviously have no interest in conducting an adult debate, and are more interested in throwing stones.

I will not reply to any more comments on this thread.

28 posted on 08/23/2008 8:51:19 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: js1138

It’s taking a long time to type a yes or a no.


29 posted on 08/23/2008 8:51:46 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

That’s an amazing group of men and have done great work proving Creation. They are all highly educated scientist.


30 posted on 08/23/2008 8:55:35 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
such as his claim that Cain and others of his family married their siblings.

Who else could they have married!

Other females of the tribe who were evolving along with Adam and his family.

God forbidding incest coupled with Cain's marriage (as well as Seth's) is one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution in the Bible.

31 posted on 08/23/2008 9:06:36 PM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches
Incest is not instituted until Leviticus 17...and only to avoid genetic corruption. There is no proof for evolution in Genesis. Genetically, Adam and Eve, and their immediate offspring would have be pure. 2000 years later would have been a completely different story.

There is also no justification for "another tribe" in Genesis. God said that He created Adam and Eve, that they bore two sons, who are named, Cain and Abel, "other sons and daughters," and then Seth, as a replacement for Abel. The most straight forward reading can easily be reconciled as the best reading. Unfortunately, Hugh Ross does not seem to rely on the straight forward readings, and has "compromised" with naturalistic science to disallow the clear words of Scripture.

32 posted on 08/23/2008 9:31:08 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches
Unfortunately, Hugh Ross does not seem to rely on the straight forward readings, and has "compromised" with naturalistic science to disallow the clear words of Scripture.

I find it interesting that someone who disparages compromise with naturalism will not answer a simple yes or no question: does the earth move. I also find it interesting that someone who disparages compromise can accept a morality that shifts at the whim of authority. I thought morals were absolute.

33 posted on 08/23/2008 9:40:57 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

Aaaaaand, here’s the context:

“The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” - Darwin, Descent of Man

Which basically says as civilization continues to expand, it tends to eliminate or influence the “missing links” from which civilization came. He was using this as one explanation for the absence of living intermediate forms in his day. Life as competition, imagine that.


34 posted on 08/24/2008 3:10:48 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR

You’re claiming that Chuck Darwin saw Negroes as soon-to-be missing links??


35 posted on 08/24/2008 4:45:05 PM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Incest is not instituted until Leviticus 17...and only to avoid genetic corruption. There is no proof for evolution in Genesis. Genetically, Adam and Eve, and their immediate offspring would have be pure. 2000 years later would have been a completely different story.

So ... incest was permitted before Leviticus 17? God's morality changed at that point? Whatever the reason, genetic corruption is not stated as a reason. "It is a depravity" and "It is an abhorrence," are used several times.

Besides, it it was to avoid genetic corruption, 17:22 -- Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman -- wouldn't be necessary. Unless you're suggesting that homosexuality could have resulted in pregnancy, before God banned it. Which, frankly, would be about as sensible as the rest of your views on biology.

In any case if Adam and Eve were genetically pure, how could their descendants be genetically impure, except by mutation? Evolution, once again.

You are reading what you want into the Bible without any basis except what you wish it would be. At least, when I find references to evolution in the Bible, my reading into it is backed up by science.

36 posted on 08/24/2008 6:29:20 PM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Disgusting really that you call yourself “Litekeeper.” God protect the students who you try to keep in the dark.

Yeah, yeah, you’ll call the moderator and get this erased. But God knows you teach ignorance of His Creation. That God knows good enough for me.


37 posted on 08/24/2008 6:32:42 PM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

.


38 posted on 08/24/2008 6:36:22 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches; LiteKeeper
"In any case if Adam and Eve were genetically pure, how could their descendants be genetically impure, except by mutation?"

Exactly as the Bible states:

Genesis Ch 6
1: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Corruption by breeding with another 'species.' (angels)
39 posted on 08/24/2008 6:42:51 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"In any case if Adam and Eve were genetically pure, how could their descendants be genetically impure, except by mutation?"

Exactly as the Bible states:

Genesis Ch 6
1: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Corruption by breeding with another 'species.' (angels)

Wouldn't the Son of God be Christ?

In any case, the word is "Nephilim" which is, pretty unclear. Much of the commentary says they are the Children of Cain, which would be just as pure, where as Noah had no taint of Cain but was entirely descended from Seth.

Mind you, the Bible never mentions God creating the Nephilim. So were they someone God didn't create. Or if God did create them, they were created corrupt? Or... well, gee... God must have created corruption somewhere for it to sneak into humans....

40 posted on 08/25/2008 5:51:50 AM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
That was nearly a thousand years later. In earliest days, there would have been no corruption.

Bottom line: If Cain had not married a relative, there would have been no one to marry!

41 posted on 08/25/2008 7:53:56 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: onewhowatches

Baloney!


42 posted on 08/25/2008 7:54:55 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
You’re claiming that Chuck Darwin saw Negroes as soon-to-be missing links??

He was speaking more towards civilization itself tending to eradicate, replace, or influence less civilized societies. He noted that as this continues, the apparent "gap" will grow larger.

"It must not, however, be supposed that groups of organic beings are always supplanted, and disappear as soon as they have given birth to other and more perfect groups. The latter, though victorious over their predecessors, may not have become better adapted for all places in the economy of nature. Some old forms appear to have survived from inhabiting protected sites?, where they have not been exposed to very severe competition; and these often aid us in constructing our genealogies, by giving us a fair idea of former and lost populations. But we must not fall into the error of looking at the existing members of any lowly-organised group as perfect representatives of their ancient predecessors." - Darwin, Descent of Man

He was simply recognizing that civilization was out competing and will eventually replace "savage societies". This doesn't require the eradication of the savages themselves... but the hints yielded from those societies used to construct genealogies would be lost, effectively widening evolutionary gaps.
43 posted on 08/25/2008 12:48:12 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Baloney!

Olive Loaf!

44 posted on 08/26/2008 5:44:43 PM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

If you read those passages and get “young earth” then you are indeed “reinterpreting” the Bible, because, like most YECs, you ignore immediate context, Biblical context, the original languages, etc. All basic “straight forward reading” skills. Ross has answered his critics over and over. His written books about it, but YECs say “Don’t read the devil’s words!” They ignore his answers and spread fabrications about him. The YEC movement, what’s left of it, is so identical to the Darwinian/Atheist Fundies. Sad.


45 posted on 08/29/2008 6:34:38 PM PDT by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
If you read those passages and get “young earth” then you are indeed “reinterpreting” the Bible, because, like most YECs, you ignore immediate context, Biblical context, the original languages, etc. All basic “straight forward reading” skills. Ross has answered his critics over and over. His written books about it, but YECs say “Don’t read the devil’s words!” They ignore his answers and spread fabrications about him. The YEC movement, what’s left of it, is so identical to the Darwinian/Atheist Fundies. Sad.

1. how can you not get young earth from those passages?
2. Ross has not answered his critics.
3. YEC'ers have never said don't read Ross. They simply caution believers about the errors in his thinking and teaching.
4. YEC'ers have written a number of books and articles, including a book called, Refuting Compromise, calling into question much of what Ross teaches. It is compelling...and has not been answered. One of his worst failings is a complete inability to properly interpret Hebrew. He displays an amazing ignorance of the language, and refuses to acknowledge same, despite having his errors clearly pointed out to him.

Your answer makes it appear you really have not researched the YEC position very carefully. And your ad hominem attacks are unworthy of intelligent debate. If you are indeed open to the truth, wherever that might lie, I would invite you to do a little more research.

46 posted on 08/29/2008 8:05:14 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

It’s obvious you’ve never studied anything beyond what the YECs have allowed you to read. There’s virtually no YEC or OEC that I haven’t read. “Refuting Compromise” compelling?
It was about as compelling as something Richard Dawkins or Barack Obama wrote. One of the greatest flaws in YECism is that they think/act like Hugh Ross invented OEC and is the only one who believes it. Yet nearly of the design movment, the churches, and some of the most ardent defenders of the Bible have abandoned YECism. I know the YEC leaders ignore that and pretend Ross is the only one, but that’s the definition of fundamentalism: ignore everything except those who agree with you.


47 posted on 08/30/2008 6:06:12 AM PDT by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

First, you assume I have studied nothing of what OEC teaches. In that you are absolutely wrong.
Second, you assume that somehow I slavishly follow whatever Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, John Morris, et al, allow me. That I am like like a sheep, and can’t read or study anything on my own. Again, in that you are absolutely wrong.
Third, have you actually read “Refuting Compromise?” I find that hard to believe.
Fourth, you act as if YEC is the minority position. I don’t think that is true, but if even it is, that doesn’t make OEC right. It is not a matter of majority rules. Many churches are buying in to the Emergent Church movement/conversation. That in no way makes them right. To cite one Bible scholar who is a YEC, John MacArthur has written extensively on this subject, and he is a YEC’er.
Fifth, I can only surmise from what you have written that you are more willing to throw stones at YEC’ers than discuss the relative merits of the two positions.
And so, for me, I will take the most obvious sense of Genesis 1 and Ex 20, and continue to assert that the “days” can only be 24 hour days, and that there is no evidence to the contrary anywhere in Scripture.


48 posted on 08/30/2008 8:22:54 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
I have discussed at length the two positions here in the past, but from what I've heard from you, it at least sounds like you've already made up your mind.

Since you gave me the first two standard YEC talking points (Gen 1 and EX 20), I did assume that you followed them "like a sheep." Maybe I'm wrong on that, I hope so.

Exodus 20 (verse 11 in particular) is only YEC if you read it superficially, which some YECs seem to equate with "obvious" or "plain" reading. More:

"Exodus 20:11 is often held up as undeniable proof of 24-hour creation days. If that is true, what of Leviticus 25:1-4, which uses the creation week pattern in terms of years? Apparently the creation week is used as a pattern of “one out of seven” in both cases, not a real-time reference. A similar type of pattern is the eight day “Feast of the Tabernacles” in Leviticus 23:33-36. It celebrated God’s protection in the desert that lasted forty years — obviously eight days is not a one-to-one correlation with forty years."

YECs constantly ignore Hebrew patterns, here and with geneaologies, etc. You can't change the meaning or intent of the writers.

Genesis 1, plainly YE? Not even close. There is tons of refutations to this. To focus on the most basic: If the writer intended 24 hour days, why didn't he explicitly say so? Even hard core militant YECs like Ken Ham have had to admit that the Hebrew used for days in Gen 1 doesn't explicitly say 24 hr days. That undermines the whole YEC theory:

"The text only reads as day, so you have to look at the context. The New International Version (NIV) and some other translations set the days off differently, and more accurate to the Hebrew, than do other ranslations. The King James Version (KJV), or ones that over-simplify such as The Living Bible (TLB), are not as accurate to the Hebrew and make it sound as if these were 24-hour days. Compare and you will see the difference. KJV: “And the evening and morning were the first day.” NIV: “And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day.” The Hebrew matches the latter translation more precisely, which shows that a 24-hour day is not as obvious as some claim. If it were a 24-hour day, one would expect it to obviously say so. The text, however, seems to be indicating something else."

And they continue:

"The attaching of an ordinal (such as “first”) or other appendage (such as “long”) to day does not always indicate a 24-hour day. See Zechariah 14:7, which uses “one day” or “a day” depending on the translation and Hosea 6:2. Scholars have long interpreted the use of day in these prophetic verses as meaning years or longer periods. There is no good reason to dismiss these examples simply because they are considered prophecy."

and:

"Similarly, the Hebrew for the phrase “evening and morning” or “evening, and there was morning” has usages not limited to 24-hour days. In fact, there are numerous usages in the Bible that this phrase, or variants of it, refer to continuous processes or activities. Exodus 18:13, 27:21, Leviticus 24:2-3 and Daniel 8:14,26 all use this phrase in a context of something that occurs on a continual basis over more than one 24-hour day."

I quoted these from Is The Truth Out There? 2nd edition (2008), because there's no need for me to reinvent the wheel at this hour.

It was not my attention to offend you, but I've been down this road before and many YECs throw out the standard "proofs," don't listen to the response and move on to the next "proof."

The YEC has become, or is becoming, the minority position largely because of nonscholarly actions of some of their leaders like Ken Ham, who seems to want to be exempt from any review by other scholars. The focus on emotion instead of theology and science hasn't helped either.

49 posted on 08/31/2008 6:06:39 PM PDT by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: js1138

No, inane means: lacking sense, silly.


50 posted on 08/31/2008 6:08:22 PM PDT by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson