Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
News Feeder

On evolution and fraud

Recommended Posts

Why is evolutionary theory so full of deliberate frauds? And is this the major creationist argument against evolution?

 

More...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how so many forget the entire title of Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"

 

This speaks volumes of the true intent of the study.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frauds in evolutionary biology? I can think of two or three.....Piltdown Man, Haeckel's embryos, and archaeoraptor (which while it was a fraud, was never accepted by the paleontological community). Unless I missed something, that's at most 3 in over 150 years.

 

*shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's funny how so many forget the entire title of Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"

 

This speaks volumes of the true intent of the study.

 

In 19th century natural sciences "races" was a term used to describe different species or varieties within species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By definition the word, "Race , noun [Latin radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides in origin with rod, ray, radiate, etc.]," means, "

 

1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, etc.

 

Hence the long race of Alban fathers come.

 

2. A generation; a family of descendants. A race of youthful and unhandled colts.

 

3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of sheep.

 

Of such a race no matter who is king.

 

4. A root; as race-ginger, ginger in the root or not pulverized.

 

5. A particular strength or taste of wine; a kind of tartness.

 

" (Noah Webster 1828, American Dictionary of the English Language)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By definition the word, "Race , noun [Latin radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides in origin with rod, ray, radiate, etc.]," means, "

 

1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, etc.

 

Hence the long race of Alban fathers come.

 

2. A generation; a family of descendants. A race of youthful and unhandled colts.

 

3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of sheep.

 

Of such a race no matter who is king.

 

4. A root; as race-ginger, ginger in the root or not pulverized.

 

5. A particular strength or taste of wine; a kind of tartness.

 

" (Noah Webster 1828, American Dictionary of the English Language)

 

Right, and it's clear from the actual book, Darwin used the term "race" to refer to different varieties of organisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right, and it's clear from the actual book, Darwin used the term "race" to refer to different varieties of organisms.

 

Darwin used race in various ways. Ironically, the same side that endorses Darwinian Evolution would find his racist beliefs unacceptable today.

 

From “On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man”:

 

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 (p. 521, emp. added).

 

And from Darwin's close friend Thomas Huxley:

 

It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest (emp. added).

 

But I must say, the side that endorses him cares not about these things. After all they propagate the eugenic beliefs of Margaret Sanger that leads to the murder of their very own people.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Darwin used race in various ways. Ironically, the same side that endorses Darwinian Evolution would find his racist beliefs unacceptable today.

 

From “On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man”:

 

 

 

And from Darwin's close friend Thomas Huxley:

 

 

 

But I must say, the side that endorses him cares not about these things. After all they propagate the eugenic beliefs of Margaret Sanger that leads to the murder of their very own people.

 

God bless,

William

 

I've never really understood this "Darwin was a racist" creationist talking point. Even if true, it has absolutely no bearing on the scientific validity of what he proposed. And more importantly, it's not like the enemies of Christianity don't have an almost endless supply of Christians being blatantly racist and justifying their racism through scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never really understood this "Darwin was a racist" creationist talking point. Even if true, it has absolutely no bearing on the scientific validity of what he proposed.

 

Actually, I am not talking from a Creationist point of view. But someone disgusted with anyone calling themselves Christian and siding with the ideology of this man or his followers which leads to the destruction of innocent lives.

 

You seemingly are disconnected and believe that presuppositions have no bearing on science?

 

And more importantly, it's not like the enemies of Christianity don't have an almost endless supply of Christians being blatantly racist and justifying their racism through scripture.

 

Obviously, they probably consider liberals actual Christians. But more on tract, we do not follow Christians but Jesus Christ. Our founder nowhere made a racist remark, nor an apostle a discriminatory one, that is, unless you actually take time to consider liberal nonsense.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I am not talking from a Creationist point of view. But someone disgusted with anyone calling themselves Christian and siding with the ideology of this man or his followers which leads to the destruction of innocent lives.

Not sure what "ideology" you think Darwin championed, or how you think he has "followers". He proposed a scientific hypotheses that has proven to be quite useful.

 

Obviously, they probably consider liberals actual Christians. But more on tract, we do not follow Christians but Jesus Christ. Our founder nowhere made a racist remark, nor an apostle a discriminatory one, that is, unless you actually take time to consider liberal nonsense.

 

God bless,

William

 

Your obsession with liberals is noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your obsession with liberals is noted.

 

Not quite. Lemme express that I only tolerate liberalism on this board. And my tolerance grows short, that's why I left it to moderators to decide who to keep and to ban. There is nothing more destructive to young minds and Christianity than liberalism. And I do not believe for one second that a liberal is a born again believer.

 

Now, we're perfectly clear.

 

God bless,

William

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not quite. Lemme express that I only tolerate liberalism on this board. And my tolerance grows short, that's why I left it to moderators to decide who to keep and to ban. There is nothing more destructive to young minds and Christianity than liberalism. And I do not believe for one second that a liberal is a born again believer.

 

Now, we're perfectly clear.

 

God bless,

William

 

You're more patient than I would be, William. I salute you. Evolution is not something that the Missouri Synod endorses, although I happen to believe that over the centuries, we've adapted to our environments in small ways. All the same, God's Word is how life and the Universe got started and Moses recorded those events rather well in the Pentateuch. " Evolution" has been used as an excuse to perpetrate the most horrible crimes, from today's abortions to the Holocaust during World War II. I have little patience with liberal mindsets myself, as we are called to be separate from the world and not enthusiastic participants in some of its worst excesses.

Edited by ConfessionalLutheran
Clarification
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" Evolution" has been used as an excuse to perpetrate the most horrible crimes, from today's abortions to the Holocaust during World War II.

 

So has Christianity.

 

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." --Aldof Hitler 1936

 

Meanwhile the writings of Darwin were banned in Nazi Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So has Christianity.

 

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." --Aldof Hitler 1936

 

Meanwhile the writings of Darwin were banned in Nazi Germany.

 

Your ignorance is appalling.

 

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So has Christianity.

 

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." --Aldof Hitler 1936

 

Meanwhile the writings of Darwin were banned in Nazi Germany.

 

Hitler was not actually a Christian, though, was he? In fact, he was really rather contemptuous of the Christian faith http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/was-hitler-a-christian.html. Here's another link speaking of how Darwinism influenced Hitler's mindset: http://www.faithandevolution.org/debates/did-darwinism-influence-the-nazis.php. This article addresses the question of Darwinism being Banned in Germany: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/was_darwinism_b/. Liberal attempts to fob the crimes of secularists on to Christians is a major reason for the tension between the two groups today. Historical revisionism is never a good idea..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitler was not actually a Christian, though, was he?

Of course not. He claimed to be, but obviously his actions showed otherwise.

 

Here's another link speaking of how Darwinism influenced Hitler's mindset: http://www.faithandevolution.org/deb...-the-nazis.php. This article addresses the question of Darwinism being Banned in Germany: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/was_darwinism_b/. Liberal attempts to fob the crimes of secularists on to Christians is a major reason for the tension between the two groups today. Historical revisionism is never a good idea..

 

You're missing the point. Horrible people justify their horrible actions however they can....by appealing to Darwinism, Christianity, racial animosity, economic stress, nationalism.....whatever. Even if Hitler was a committed Darwinist and justified his atrocities by appealing to Darwinism, that's no more a reflection on Darwinism than that Hitler did the same with Christianity is a reflection on our faith.

 

Make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course, Martin Luther was an old man by then and he expressed great frustration that the Jews rejected the Gospel. He said some things that were quite appalling by today's standards ( maybe they were softly spoken words for a sixteenth century Saxon churchman), but Catholics and other Reformers have written some pretty bad things about the Jews, too. We should beware of trying to apply twentieth and twenty- first century standards of morality and conduct to events that have happened a century or more in the past. That kind of thinking is partly why historical statues are being torn down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course, Martin Luther was an old man by then and he expressed great frustration that the Jews rejected the Gospel. He said some things that were quite appalling by today's standards ( maybe they were softly spoken words for a sixteenth century Saxon churchman), but Catholics and other Reformers have written some pretty bad things about the Jews, too. We should beware of trying to apply twentieth and twenty- first century standards of morality and conduct to events that have happened a century or more in the past. That kind of thinking is partly why historical statues are being torn down.

 

Um......I'm pretty sure calling for burning Jewish homes and synagogues, and stealing all their things is appalling by any standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Make sense?

 

More than I think you can fathom. Push comes to shove the side you take speaks volumes.

 

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Um......I'm pretty sure calling for burning Jewish homes and synagogues, and stealing all their things is appalling by any standards.

 

From a twenty- first century perspective, of course. To put it in context, Luther's beef with the Jews was religious, not racial as it was for Hitler. If they were to convert to Christianity, there would be no problems. To speak of powerful words, Luther called the papacy Anti- Christ and spoke ill of the Calvinists as well. If he saw a person ( like King Henry VIII) or a group ( like the Calvinists or the Anabaptists) as an opponent, they were fair game for his polemic. He had to be hidden and protected from his enemies for the greater part of his life because Pope Leo X excommunicated him and Emperor Charles V outlawed him. He managed to work with a group of fellow Reformers to try to return the Church to its Biblical base, while refuting people like Zwingli and Grebel who took Reformation too far in the other direction.

 

Martin Luther was genuinely concerned for the souls of the people he encountered. He wrote " Jesus was born a Jew" with a sympathetic tone, just like he originally wrote in cautious support of the peasants before their Revolt. When his message was rejected or ignored, he became more strident. Luther didn't achieve his accomplishments by being conciliatory, despite appeasers such as Philip Melanchthon, who very nearly ruined Lutheranism after Martin Luther's death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From a twenty- first century perspective, of course.

So would you afford Darwin the same consideration? And by that I mean, would you also consider Darwin's views on race in the context of commonly held views in the mid-1800's as opposed to "a twenty-first century perspective"?

 

To put it in context, Luther's beef with the Jews was religious, not racial as it was for Hitler. If they were to convert to Christianity, there would be no problems. To speak of powerful words, Luther called the papacy Anti- Christ and spoke ill of the Calvinists as well. If he saw a person ( like King Henry VIII) or a group ( like the Calvinists or the Anabaptists) as an opponent, they were fair game for his polemic. He had to be hidden and protected from his enemies for the greater part of his life because Pope Leo X excommunicated him and Emperor Charles V outlawed him. He managed to work with a group of fellow Reformers to try to return the Church to its Biblical base, while refuting people like Zwingli and Grebel who took Reformation too far in the other direction.

 

Martin Luther was genuinely concerned for the souls of the people he encountered. He wrote " Jesus was born a Jew" with a sympathetic tone, just like he originally wrote in cautious support of the peasants before their Revolt. When his message was rejected or ignored, he became more strident. Luther didn't achieve his accomplishments by being conciliatory, despite appeasers such as Philip Melanchthon, who very nearly ruined Lutheranism after Martin Luther's death.

 

Thanks for explaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you afford Darwin the same consideration? And by that I mean, would you also consider Darwin's views on race in the context of commonly held views in the mid-1800's as opposed to "a twenty-first century perspective"?

 

 

 

Thanks for explaining.

 

Of course. Darwin worked with the tools he had, as do we all. I won't damn the man for holding racial views that were not all that uncommon in those days. Obviously I disagree with the conclusions he drew nearly two hundred years ago, but I have information available to me that he did not, or if he did ( such as the information contained in the Bible), he didn't avail himself of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is evolutionary theory so full of deliberate frauds? And is this the major creationist argument against evolution?

 

 

Pretty much. And they don't like it, so it can't be true, can it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy