On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:09:28 -0800 (PST), the following
>On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 11:50:03 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:24:25 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <
r3p...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Monday, December 11, 2017 at 10:50:04 AM UTC-8, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:29:07 -0800 (PST), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <
r3p...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 11:50:02 AM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> >> >> The evidence for a young biblical creation is overwhelming.
>> >> >
>> >> >Show me any chapter, verse, statement, phrase, or word in the Bible that says earth is young?
>> >>
>> >> Show me one which says that God doesn't use evolution to
>> >> create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather
>> >> that *that* He does it..
>>
>> >What's written above conveys a very common and egregious misunderstanding and/or ignorance. When the Bible says "God created" the same means two things: by supernatural power, which in turn means, by miracle. The entire Bible exists within the context of Genesis 1:1----a declaration of miracle, that the world came into existence by the supernatural power of God. Ensuing verses are recognized by scholars to advocate what is known in relevant literature as the creation concepts: special creation, independent creation, separate creation. Living things in Genesis 1 come to exist in reality by intervention/miracle.
>> >
>> So there is no such written in the Bible, what you post is
>> your personal interpretation, and you pick and choose where
>> to demand written evidence and where to interpret as you
>> prefer.
>
>Total evasion/misrepresentation.
Nope. You do *exactly* that whenever you accuse someone of
being an "atheist" because they disagree with your
interpretation of the content and meaning of the Bible.
>What I wrote conveys the biblical view that almost all scholars and very many other persons accept including myself. It is not, as Bob asserts, a personal interpretation, but the interpretation that very many scholars accept to have been falsified by Darwin 1859. Created or creation always speaks of the supernatural power of God; Bob evades this rudimentary 101 fact.
No, Ray, it conveys *your interpretation* of the Bible,and
just as most biblical scholars disagree with you regarding
whether the Bible is to be taken literally (it's not), they
disagree with your interpretations of almost everything else
in it.
>> OK, but I think we all realized that long ago.
>>
>> >Darwin wrote the Origin as falsifying the above understanding of created.
>>
>> And yet he wrote of the Creator, and made it obvious he was
>> a believer, just not what *you* demand of a believer based
>> on *your* interpretation of the Bible.
>
>"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin Of Species" 1859:6).
Yep. And the fact that *your interpretation* of the Bible
means that by this statement he didn't believe in God, that
interpretation is flawed.
>"When he needed to, he spoke cautiously of the Creator, aware that his book [On The Origin Of Species] might otherwise be labelled atheistic. But he was careful not to allow the Creator any active role in biological proceedings" (Harvard Professor Janet Browne, "Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" 2002:60).
Yep again. And only *your interpretation* says that God
takes an active *ongoing* role in life. Nothing in the Bible
says that.
>Two scholarly quotations say that Darwin was arguing against the Creator causing new species to exist. Where, then, did Bob
If you're addressing me, do so; stop with the third person
bullshit.
>obtain the idea that Darwin was a Christian? If arguing against the Creator as causing species to exist supports Christianity then what doesn't? The fact that ALL Atheists accept the Origin the same means the Origin does not support Christianity.
Wrong *again*. Your repeated error is generally referred to
as "guilt by association".
>> I suspect Darwin was more religious, and a better Christian,
>> than you are. At least, he didn't lie about others or call
>> them atheists because they disagreed with his personal
>> beliefs.
>
>Imagine that! A person who argued against the Creator and special creation (Charles Darwin) was, and is, a better Christian than someone like myself who argues for special creation!
Yep. "Christian" is about both belief and actions, and your
actions here say that you're a poor Christian at best.
>I've ALWAYS said Evolutionists think illogically with no awareness of the fact. The above claim, or thinking, by Evolutionist Bob Casanova, supports my claim spectacularly.
Only in your own mind. You wouldn't know "logic" if it
barked in your face.
>"It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist)" (Ernst Mayr, "American Scientist" May 1977:323).
Oh, so now you use Mayr as a reference? Does that extend to
his other writing, about evolutionary biology? If not, why
not? Is this yet another of your well-known "cherry-picking"
escapades?
>> > But according to Bob's comments above, the Bible very well could remain scientifically correct.
>> >
>> Nope, Bob does not think either science or history has
>> anything to do with the Bible other than incidentally, as
>> window dressing on the actual intent and meaning of the
>> Bible, which is as a code for moral living.
>
>Bob suddenly backs away from his original claim:
>
>"Show me one [verse] which says that God doesn't use evolution to create new species; IOW, which says *how* He does it, rather that *that* He does it."
Correct. And I'm still waiting.
>Bob WAS arguing that the Bible COULD be scientifically correct as long as one interprets created to not having any meaning as to how.
Nope; learn to read for comprehension. And learn to think.
"Created" says *what* happened, not *how* it happened. That
means that God could have used *any* process He wished. The
fact that you dislike some of the possible processes (such
as unguided, but planned, evolution) is irrelevant; God
doesn't answer to you.
And I said the Bible is not a science or history text, not
that it contains nothing accurate.