Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I saw this claim being brought up several times, but I never saw conclusive evidence for this claim. So my questions are - did Darwin convert to Christianity toward the end of his life, and if so did he die as a creationist? More importantly - why and how does that effect the theory of evolution and why we should believe in it?

Stupid topic.

Whatever was going through Darwin (the man's) private head is irrelevant.

This is the kind of annoying crap that religious apologists try to bring up to discredit his ideas, but it does nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Stupid topic. Some people really believe that Darwin's personal views are important compared to scientific facts. I created this topic so that they can tell us why we should trust Darwins personal views more than those facts. And I want to see basis for the xlaim that Charles died as christian.

@the rest of your post, though.

Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCXhBYAeio8

Rumors of deathbed conversions are insanely popular in our cultural rumor mill, because it allows us to call into question revered figures in any tradition, thus bolstering our own worldview.

I hadn't heard the Darwin one, but I've heard about a dozen others, and Darwin's inclusion is hardly surprising.

The religious crowd isn't solely responsible for this phenomenon, granted. I've actually heard this about religious adherents too (Aquinas, for one). They're just as vacuous. So this isn't a skeptical slap on the wrist to religious people perpetuating these unsubstantiated claims; it's more a slap on the wrist to the practice in general.

In conclusion, this:

Originally posted by Ursumeles
I saw this claim being brought up several times, but I never saw conclusive evidence for this claim.

...provides all the answer you need.

And to perhaps address your question another way: F*** Darwin's personal views. His contribution to science is why he has a legacy, and those results are verifiable. Musings on his opinion at a specific point in his life are not.

Originally posted by Digi
And to perhaps address your question another way: F*** Darwin's personal views. His contribution to science is why he has a legacy, and those results are verifiable. Musings on his opinion at a specific point in his life are not.

But what if Darwin was resurrected the third day after his dead? biscuits

Originally posted by Ursumeles
Is there any evidence that Darwin died as Christian?

I hope not! I don't want to see that ape-worshiping heathen in heaven when I get there!

Seems like a safe way to play it. lol Know it's crazy talk until the very end, and then convert real quick just in case you were wrong. Genius.

It is Halloween. We could hold a seance to find out.

Seances are not Christian friendly are they?

Originally posted by socool8520
Seances are not Christian friendly are they?

We could ask Saul....

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

I hope not! I don't want to see that ape-worshiping heathen in heaven when I get there!
Satan swallowed the "a". Just sayin.

Originally posted by socool8520
Seances are not Christian friendly are they? Perfect for us Satanists

Lol

Originally posted by socool8520
Seems like a safe way to play it. lol Know it's crazy talk until the very end, and then convert real quick just in case you were wrong. Genius.

I realize this post is likely with tongue in cheek, but I've seen it used seriously. It seems disingenuous, and reveals more about the person saying it than any historical figure they're talking about, as though to them, faking belief or doing it "just in case" to make sure they get to heaven is a valid, moral goal. I'd like to think that if their God does exist, cheap tricks like this wouldn't work on a supposedly omniscient being, and that doesn't even dig into how flatly evil and self-serving it seems to me.

Most people realize this whether they admit it or not, though, which is further reason to ignore claims of deathbed conversion.

I think it was either Dakwins or Harris who said that he'll request a recorder by his bed to prevent rumours of last minute revelations because it's getting really annoying.

Originally posted by SamZED
I think it was either Dakwins or Harris who said that he'll request a recorder by his bed to prevent rumours of last minute revelations because it's getting really annoying.

Dawkins, I think. I've seen that crew discuss it a couple times, usually with a bemused tone. Dan Dennett once joked to Dawkins that if he ever fell on hard times, a "sudden conversion" could yield him a huge financial windfall from religious organizations. But whether or not they actually have the recorder, they're familiar with the deathbed nonsense that we allow to spread. I don't doubt we'll see such claims after they die; though, surprisingly, I don't remember any for Hitchens, so maybe that's a good sign (or maybe I just missed them).

Originally posted by Digi
I realize this post is likely with tongue in cheek, but I've seen it used seriously. It seems disingenuous, and reveals more about the person saying it than any historical figure they're talking about, as though to them, faking belief or doing it "just in case" to make sure they get to heaven is a valid, moral goal. I'd like to think that if their God does exist, cheap tricks like this wouldn't work on a supposedly omniscient being, and that doesn't even dig into how flatly evil and self-serving it seems to me.

Most people realize this whether they admit it or not, though, which is further reason to ignore claims of deathbed conversion.

yeah, it was definitely in jest. I agree, you are a hypocrite and if the Judgement scenario were true, you should be seen as such.

And everything rotates on the idea that Creation and Evolution fight each other! What a wrong concept of science.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
And everything rotates on the idea that Creation and Evolution fight each other! What a wrong concept of science.

Yeah, because these are compatible ideas:

1. All the diverse lifeforms appeared as they are in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

2. All the diverse lifeforms evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years.

Right?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, because these are compatible ideas:

1. All the diverse lifeforms appeared as they are in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

2. All the diverse lifeforms evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years.

Right?

What?

The 2nd. One.

What are you confused about?

They are incompatible claims.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What are you confused about?

They are incompatible claims.

They are. So what's your point exactly?

^ That Creationism and Evolution do not sync up as you suggested

Nevermind, wow.


https://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg

Originally posted by socool8520
^ That Creationism and Evolution do not sync up as you suggested

And what makes you believe that?

Are you serious? For the reasons that Leech just went over. This is the Omniscient argument all over again man.

Lol. Don't take the bait. Let him make a cogent argument explaining himself before attempting to engage him.

We tried that in the Sam Harris thread. He just asks more questions.

It reminds of the David Duchovny scene in Zoolander.

HONESTLY!

I don't understand what you guys mean by Evolution vs Creation.

Creation is the theory that a supreme being created everything.

Evolution is the theory that states that creatures adapt to their environment which results in physical and mental modification in the long term.

Where do this theories collide exactly? That's what i don't understand.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
HONESTLY!

I don't understand what you guys mean by Evolution vs Creation.

Creation is the theory that a supreme being created everything.

Evolution is the theory that states that creatures adapt to their environment which results in physical and mental modification in the long term.

Where do this theories collide exactly? That's what i don't understand.


Timelines for one. Creationism says what 6000 years or so while evolution says billions. That's a huge discrepancy.

If you take the Bible literally it was 6 days.

Originally posted by socool8520
Timelines for one. Creationism says what 6000 years or so while evolution says billions. That's a huge discrepancy.

If you take the Bible literally it was 6 days.

I'll base my argument on the Christian concept of Creation since it's the one am most familiar with:

God created the Earth in 6 days according to the Genesis.

However, we must analyze. Are 6 days literal? No. Not really.

The bible is a very metaphorical book. Furthermore, if we see it in a Godly perspective, time isn't a thing.

God isn't affected/influenced by time.

For him 14Billion years mean nothing.

Now, i see it this way:

How would you explain a being whose rationality isn't that great that the Earth was created along with everything in 4 billion years?

The first humans weren't even familiar with the concept of time. They only saw the sun going up and down. So how do you expect them to understand that Earth was created in BILLIONS OF YEARS?

Now, where is it stated in the Bible that evolution isn't a thing exactly?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I'll base my argument on the Christian concept of Creation since it's the one am most familiar with:

God created the Earth in 6 days according to the Genesis.

However, we must analyze. Are 6 days literal? No. Not really.

The bible is a very metaphorical book. Furthermore, if we see it in a Godly perspective, time isn't a thing.

God isn't affected/influenced by time.

For him 14Billion years mean nothing.

Now, i see it this way:

How would you explain a being whose rationality isn't that great that the Earth was created along with everything in 4 billion years?

The first humans weren't even familiar with the concept of time. They only saw the sun going up and down. So how do you expect them to understand that Earth was created in BILLIONS OF YEARS?

Now, where is it stated in the Bible that evolution isn't a thing exactly?

We always run back to the "it's not literal, it's a metaphor" if it has been proven bogus by science. If this is just a book of metaphors, then why not just read Aesop's fables and be done with it?

Originally posted by socool8520
We always run back to the "it's not literal, it's a metaphor" if it has been proven bogus by science. If this is just a book of metaphors, then why not just read Aesop's fables and be done with it?

You take it as if people from back then had the mental, technological, and rational level as we do.

Try explain a kid about how earth was created in 4 billion years and he won't even understand what a Billion is.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
You take it as if people from back then had the mental, technological, and rational level as we do.

Try explain a kid about how earth was created in 4 billion years and he won't even understand what a Billion is.

This is arrogant imo. There were geniuses back then just as there is now. Without going into specifics, you could get a person to understand a longer span of time than six days.

Originally posted by socool8520
This is arrogant imo. There were geniuses back then just as there is now. Without going into specifics, you could get a person to understand a longer span of time than six days.

Considering they didn't had Carbon 14 testers back then I don't see how they could imagine Billions of years.

Even so, the Bible is clear when saying that 1 day is 1000s of years for God, and 1000s of years is 1 day.

God isn't affected/limited by time. Which makes it obvious that 6 days must not be taken literal.

Arrogance would be to think that an Omnipotent being sees time the way you do.

So he's subbing "creation" for "creationism"? Lol

Originally posted by Digi
So he's subbing "creation" for "creationism"? Lol

Do you know what creationism means?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Do you know what creationism means?

Not really. I was just searching for platypus porn and stumbled into this thread.

Originally posted by Digi
Not really. I was just searching for platypus porn and stumbled into this thread.

*Goes to look up platypus porn...*

Originally posted by Ursumeles
I saw this claim being brought up several times, but I never saw conclusive evidence for this claim. So my questions are - did Darwin convert to Christianity toward the end of his life, and if so did he die as a creationist? More importantly - why and how does that effect the theory of evolution and why we should believe in it?
TBH I guess we can go on historical records like his last will, eyewitness testimonies, maybe? I don't know of any of those.

To the second question: this does not effect the truth of Evolution and Creationism.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
*Goes to look up platypus porn...*

Lol. Poor Perry.

Originally posted by Stigma
TBH I guess we can go on historical records like his last will, eyewitness testimonies, maybe? I don't know of any of those.

To the second question: this does not effect the truth of Evolution and Creationism. It seems like a Lady Hope says that Darwin told her that he was a christian, but his Children say otherwise, and claim that Darwin never even met her.

Originally posted by socool8520
Timelines for one. Creationism says what 6000 years or so while evolution says billions. That's a huge discrepancy.

If you take the Bible literally it was 6 days.
BTW If I may interject. This is exactly what is the problem with Protestant denominations. They tend to read the Biblle literally exclusively.

Originally posted by Ursumeles
It seems like a Lady Hope says that Darwin told her that he was a christian, but his Children say otherwise, and claim that Darwin never even met her.
I see.

Well then....we will probably never know for sure.

I personally trust his family far more, tbh. Edpecially as Hope only told the story 30 years after Darwin's death, and as Darwin's family was christian.

Well who cares if Darwin died a Christian or not?

It's not like it's gonna change anything. I believe in the Evolution theory although am a Christian.

Why should Evolution fight with Religion? That's being ignorant.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Why should Evolution fight with Religion? That's being ignorant. So ignorant.

https://us.v-cdn.net/5020794/uploads/FileUpload/fb/627a713897660dc8166cb567ef8122.jpg

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So ignorant.

https://us.v-cdn.net/5020794/uploads/FileUpload/fb/627a713897660dc8166cb567ef8122.jpg

?