Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Far Too Wondrous" --Darwin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by PureX View Post
    Except for that fact that's it's a lie. Darwin never wrote that "many creatures had features that were "far too wondrous" to have happened by mutation processes" because Darwin wasn't aware of the role of mutation in the origins of species. Darwin was only aware of natural selection as the origin of species.
    It's probably the old creationist canard of Darwin 'freely admitting' that the complexity of the eye was a daunting proposition for natural selection to explain...

    ...which rhetorical device he did use before going on to explain how complex things like eyes arise by natural selection.

    In other words, Interplanner is quote mining, but seems unwilling even to share the quote he mined.

    Stuart

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
      The flaw in evolution, that Darwin was aware of, was that many creatures had features that were "far too wondrous" to have happened by mutation processes.....
      Darwin had no idea how wondrous creation really is. Its a great time to be a Christian as we are beginning to understand just how "wonderfully and marvelously made" we really are. Science continues to discover the sophisticated and complex design within our bodies.

      Perhaps Darwin knew his beliefs didn't fit the evidence. Beauty and design seemed to make him sick. He said "The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!"

      In the beginning, God created...
      Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        It's probably the old creationist canard of Darwin 'freely admitting' that the complexity of the eye was a daunting proposition for natural selection to explain...

        ...which rhetorical device he did use before going on to explain how complex things like eyes arise by natural selection.
        And science has proven just how wrong Darwin was about the eye. Our eye has a design far superior to anything that 'evolution' could create.

        God's Word tells us that He created the seeing eye and the hearing ear.
        Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 6days View Post
          And science has proven just how wrong Darwin was about the eye. Our eye has a design far superior to anything that 'evolution' could create.

          God's Word tells us that He created the seeing eye and the hearing ear.
          good post

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
            The flaw in evolution, that Darwin was aware of, was that many creatures had features that were "far too wondrous" to have happened by mutation processes. But evolution was not about making scientific sense anyway. It was the wealthy English classes way of escaping the shame of human trafficking and of blasting the poor with white sugar diets, and of fighting back, ideologically, against the 'scandalous' US Constitution.

            The Constitution positioned a Creator as the basis for human rights for all. The racism inherent in evolution (right from the title page of OS) is why the residue of racism existed in America, but it was being eliminated. This is why the Left's claims of racism today run so late and so far off the mark. The Left needs to protect anti-religion as the answer to everything the Constitution created, which they see as a failure. Except Islam. The Left is still on a euphoric blind date with it.

            [This paragraph is the theme of my newest short novel DELUGE OF SUSPICIONS at Amazon.com].
            I don't know you well, Interplanner. But based on your post I can conclude that you're either badly misled or disinterested in reality. I hope it's the former and not the latter

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
              good post
              For something to be a good post, I normally require it to be true. But I'm old-fashioned like that

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Greg Jennings View Post
                For something to be a good post, I normally require it to be true. But I'm old-fashioned like that
                Your measly posts amount to drivel, 6DAYS knows his stuff

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
                  Your measly posts amount to drivel, 6DAYS knows his stuff
                  You're welcome to believe that. But just like the creation story in Genesis, belief doesn't make it true

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 6days View Post
                    And science has proven just how wrong Darwin was about the eye.
                    Citation of respectable journal please, otherwise you might withdraw that claim.

                    Our eye has a design far superior to anything that 'evolution' could create.
                    Unambiguous evidence of an eye not being produced by natural selection please, otherwise you might withdraw that claim.

                    God's Word tells us that He created the seeing eye and the hearing ear.
                    I can do that one for you: Proverbs 20:12

                    But these proverbs include this (KJV):

                    Proverbs 20:23 Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD

                    Stuart

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
                      Your measly posts amount to drivel, 6DAYS knows his stuff
                      No he doesn't. And if that wasn't tedious enough he is also lazy. He never references any of his claims.

                      Real professional scientists have a kind of social contract with the rest of society to only make conclusions based on the most rigorous, peer-reviewed analysis of as much relevant data as possible. Even then the conclusions they draw are only ever provisional.

                      What responsibility does the amateur young earth creationist have to society? None. Just think if the christian delusion hadn't diverted the brightest of the YECs from considering reality as it really is, we might have had all sorts of medical advances by now.

                      What a shower of ignoramuses or liars. Most don't have the first grasp on the thing they think they hate.

                      Lazy, lazy, lazy.

                      Stuart

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                        Meh.....details, details, details....why let little things like "truth" get in the way of a good, righteous rant against science?

                        But of course, the whole point is that it is not against science. It is against the idea that science cannot be subsumed inside a view with a living and personal Creator as found in Judeo-Christianity. It was Lyell and the Huxley in the background of Darwin who wanted to get rid of the 'physico-theologians' which meant the people who could satisfactorily merge physical science with theology, such as Psalm 104 or Charles Manley Hopkins in "The World Is Charged With the Glory of God." There were Christians from the period who specifically said that their knowledge of nature/creation made their knowledge of Christ stronger. Ie, there is no built-in, automatic, ipso facto conflict; but modern thinkers do not want accountability to God so they have made the physical sciences off-limits to Christians.
                        All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 6days View Post
                          Darwin had no idea how wondrous creation really is.
                          Demonstration of that claim with reference to something written by Darwin, please, or I suggest you withdraw the remark.

                          Darwin knew full well more than most the beauty of the diversity of life on earth, and the conflict between a creationist point of view and the reality that was unfolding before him.

                          “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

                          The Origin of Species
                          “The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.”
                          Charles Darwin was unquestionably one of the most insightful geniuses ever to walk the planet. He revolutionised all of biology, and has not been disproved by anyone in 156 years.

                          But I guess you would put the views of Ken Ham or Henry Morris or the convicted liar Kent Hovind ahead of him. Disgraceful.

                          Stuart

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                            Demonstration of that claim with reference to something written by Darwin, please, or I suggest you withdraw the remark.

                            Darwin knew full well more than most the beauty of the diversity of life on earth, and the conflict between a creationist point of view and the reality that was unfolding before him.



                            Stuart

                            Here's a similar one. I've seen so many, I've lost track.

                            Even Charles Darwin recognized that the eye was imminently complex and admitted that attempting to explain its origin through natural selection seemed absurd.
                            “ To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. [3] ”

                            Nevertheless, Darwin believed this absurdity was merely illusory, and proceeded to provide an explanation for its evolution in his book, The Origin of Species.
                            --creationwiki
                            http://creationwiki.org/Human_eye
                            All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The origin of all things is GOD

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Interplanner View Post
                                modern thinkers do not want accountability to God so they have made the physical sciences off-limits to Christians.
                                If you've got unambiguous evidence, then present it. Science is quite rude when it says 'put up or shut up'.

                                Have you anything to put up in favour of your fantasy conspiracy theory of gods running the universe that is anything more than 'what I reckon'?

                                Stuart

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X