Is Charles Darwin a false, non-orthodox Christian?

[The Hammer]

I have mind, I use logic. Your definition can well be the definition of Knowledge,

This sentence doesn't make sense in English.

 

[questfortruth]

This sentence doesn't make sense in English.

So, you have lost the sense. So, without making sense from my opposers, I proudly declare my God the winner.

 

[The Hammer]

So, you have lost the sense. So, without making sense from my opposers, I proudly declare my God the winner.

No, what I said, is what you wrote. Doesn't actually mean anything.

So you're speaking "non-sense." ...

If you can't clearly convey a message, you're not using your "logic".

Edit: grammar

 

[questfortruth]

This sentence doesn't make sense in English.

The satan is god of the Church of satan of USA.
The satan is god, but not my god.

 

[rational experiences]

Dark matter?



Yes, but what would he have?

Have you thought about the implications were the theory falsified tomorrow? The existing evidence doesn't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of falsifying find.

What could that interpretation possibly be apart from a deceptive intelligent designer or race of designers existing that went to great pains to make it appear as if evolution had occurred, by planting the geological column, for example, with progressively less modern looking forms at deeper strata with radioisotopes carefully placed in the fossil remains in ratios such that deeper forms appear older. Giving man that fused chromosome was a nice touch. Very convincing, but if evolution were falsified, just another deception.

What's interesting to me here is the effort Christian creationists make to overturn evolution, never realizing that even if they are successful and correct about intelligent design, their god is already ruled out by this deception. The Christian god is said to want to be known, understood, believed, loved, obeyed, and worshiped. The trickster intelligent designer can't be that god. Nor need it/they be gods at all.

The satanic story science said our human brother would not listen to human spiritual intellect about God.

Produced his human version maths. Mother space zero maths.

Father said O God bodies in space were the fallen angels from the eternal that left and went to hell.

We all were still spirit in the eternal why we know.

He said O instant burst burnt produced light in mass O and space. All three instant subjects of human science.

A natural event only.

So how do you think you owned it brother,? By talking about it,?

Father said O as gods burnt space opened as self consuming opened space.

Space was created by cause.

Space allowed pressure cooling and O form owned rebursting burning.

How black energy burnt residue was left over as cooling allows for energetic conversions as a form ....
Control.

Applied outcomes of causes.

You know that advice yourselves in nuclear conversions

Space owns the same outcome itself.

The eternal natural was never designed.

Science invention imposes design.

Science human thesis imposes design by study. Not by owning natural.

Natural was never designed it owns cause effect outcomes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no idea what that means?

Don't worry. Neither does he.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

it can not be explained in simpler terms. It has irreducible simplicity.

To be honest............

It sounds more like "irreducible insanity".

 

[The Hammer]

The satan is god of the Church of satan of USA.
The satan is god, but not my god.

Doesn't matter if he is "your" God.

You still claim it to be a God. Which means it has control over an aspect of life you are living.

God
Noun
"a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity."

 

[blü 2]

I repeat: there are two gods in the Bible. Two gods in Old Testament.

There are many more than two ─ the Jewish culture was henotheistic until after the Babylonian captivity. That's why the commandment reads "no other gods before me" and not "ain't no other gods". Chemosh's god status is remarked in Judges 11:23-24. And more generally, note Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, , Psalms 82:1, Psalms 86:8, Psalms 95:3, Psalms 135:5 &c.

If you're planning to lecture us on the bible, might I respectfully suggest you first read it and second understand what you're reading, before you go on?

And the roll of Satan as supervillain is largely a Christian invention. Did you read the opening chapter of Job as I suggested?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The Jesus Christ in view of Darwin:

1. He used Death (one of the names of satan) to create the World and Nature.
2. Is not able to create humans, and by far - angels, but only animals.
3. He is not God, but a mammal (animal) only.

Hence, Darwinism is not true (it means "not faithful") to God. Shortly: Darwinism is not true.


No, I can not. Nobody can because it can not be explained in simpler terms. It has irreducible simplicity.

In my opinion, this is unexpected and highly dislikable.


How many theorems in Modern Darwinism? It is the most prominent theory of all science, most well-"proven" theory, but without any theorems with their proofs.


If there is 0.0000001 % poison in good food, all food is one big poison.

I do not know what a "false" Christian is and I do not know if "orthodoxy" is a proper measurement of what is or is not "true" Christianity.

 

[questfortruth]

I do not know what a "false" Christian is and I do not know if "orthodoxy" is a proper measurement of what is or is not "true" Christianity.

You know nothing of these terms. But I know.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As for attacking the modern theory of evolution, you haven't put even the tiniest scientific scratch on it, so I wonder why you bother.

I deeply suspect that accepting evolution, as set out by Darwin and further refined since, would force the Bible believer to have to explain why the Bible is wrong on the Creation Story. And I further suspect that that is an unthinkable venture for some -- that it would threaten to demolish the base on which their belief is built.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

You know nothing of these terms. But I know.

What a useless comment.

 

[blü 2]

I deeply suspect that accepting evolution, as set out by Darwin and further refined since, would force the Bible believer to have to explain why the Bible is wrong on the Creation Story. And I further suspect that that is an unthinkable venture for some -- that it would threaten to demolish the base on which their belief is built.

As far as I can make out, in practice the only way to keep the bible on its imaginary pedestal is to read only a few tiny parts of it and to ignore the invasive wars, massacres, rapes, human sacrifices, slavery, murderous religious intolerance and so on, and the internal politics and inconsistencies and the evolution of thought across the books.

Even though it's much more informative to include those things.

 

[Peter Stanley]

I don't think you can judge a person's work merit by what his faith is - that would be like saying only Christian scientist have credibility all other don't because they are not Christians. What his faith was is irrelevant - he proposed a theory that is still being expanded on today and is widely accepted with evidence its far from complete but that's what theories are until proven completely. What does his faith have to do with the theories credibility.People discredit his work because of its conflict with Genesis. Which was a story passed down by generations from Adam and then everyone died except Noah and his family so he put his version out there and finally Moses hundreds of years later wrote the Book of Genesis. I can see why the details are missing Yet it has more credibility then evidence of evolution in a fundamentalist view.

There really is no reason to judge Darwin you either believe the literal interpretation of Genesis or you look at the science the choice is yours.