No, you make unsubstantiatable assertions, not provide any evidence. How is your chemtrail observation proceeding?
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Ironically, every one of those illustrations is wrong as literal depictions.
Dear The Barbarian,
I felt the same way. There's four scientists and only one creationist. How about those odds?! So how you been doing? Good, I hope. I know we may not agree on some things 2nite, but remember that I love you, in Jesus Christ, and it's not personal, okay?? You're all my family here, as I've mentioned in my slogan under my Avatar. We are all related from Noah and his family. We've got to get along. At least, we should try.
Tons Of Love From God And Me,'
Michael
:rapture: :guitar: :cloud9: :thumb: :angel: :angel:
Daniel1611
New member
You brought up chemtrails. I stated the fact that the clouds in the NASA video dont move. I'm suggesting that its not a video, but just one picture being rotated. I thought my implication was clear. Watch the video. You will see that the clouds don't move. But we see clouds moving in real time all day. What is the explanation? The only explanation is that the NASA video is fake.
I think everyone of those pictures is a misrepresentation.
Pretty good. Doing summer projects, just got my last daughter married off. She's been working her last semester as an actuary, and in May, they hired her full time. So maybe I'll be able to drop her car payment, soon.
Life is good.
I value bluntness. Don't worry about me; you have to be more than critical to offend me, and I'm coming to realize you don't have a mean bone in your body.
Dear The Barbarian,
I am just LOVIN' your post here. Thanks so much for understanding. You're on the precipice of something marvelous. Mark my words. You won't have to wait too long, either. God loves you TONS more than I do, so that's a pretty lot!! Yes, it is intricate and wondrous. Could we expect any thing different from Him? He magnifies Himself just by being there. By being. Hope you understand me.
Much Love, In Jesus Christ,
Michael
:rapture: :angel: :angel: :singer: :thumb: :cloud9:
Dear Jose Fly,
The word is 'sarcasm'. Also, I'm not writing to anyone who does not address their post towards me. It's too hard for me. This one doesn't count because it's so short.
God Be With You, Jose!!
Michael
:guitar: :cheers: :cloud9: :cloud9: :thumb:
Dear Daniel1611,
I know what you mean. You really have to watch out what you believe. I'd like to believe we actually had men land on the moon. Yes, it is hard to believe we are traveling that fast and spinning that fast, all because of strong gravity. Just the right amount of gravity so we can at least walk without our feet getting stuck to the ground. It's been an interesting life so far. Boy, the things that I could tell you!! And, to boot, it's all real and fact, and awesome.
Praise The Lord God, the Lord Jesus, and the Holy Ghost!!
Michael
:jawdrop: :cheers: :cloud9: :angel: :angel:
Dear Stan,
Thought I'd pop in to tell you that you do a wonderful job of cutting to the chase. I do hope your heart is full of joy. Do you know that the Bible says, "Pray that these things be not during the winter, neither on the Sabbath..." I think I am the only one in the world praying that. Please God, not winter. Eeeeek!! Thanks for listening to me.
Much Love, In Jesus Christ,
Michael
:angel: :angel: :singer: :rapture: :guitar: :cloud9:
Dear The Barbarian,
Yes, God gives us Theologians which really help us out learning about Him. Science would be okay if they would understand that God has a HUMUNGOUS ROLE in it. They almost act as if He's not there when coming up with their hypothesizes. It's just very bogue!
Praise God, Jesus and The Holy Ghost,
Michael
:cloud9: :cloud9: :rapture: :angel: :angel:
6days
New member
Darwin was wrong about so many things. Him being wrong about rudimentary organs is just one more thing on the list.
1. Darwin was wrong about God
Darwin turned his back on God, rejecting Him (a few months into the voyage of the Beatle) and blaming God for evil.
Darwin said "A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God...it revolts the understanding to suppose that his benevelonce is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time" . (Autobiography of Charles Darwin 'Religious Belief')
Darwin was influenced by evolutionary teaching of his grandfather, church and school to accept that there was death, pain, suffering and evil before the fall. Or, rather it is a rejection of the Bibles account of the fall.
2. Darwin was wrong about Science
Darwin was mostly a philosopher, not a scientist. Darwin was not an experimental scientist. (some experiments with worms and ants because he wanted to explain human behavior through naturalism). Darwins only degree was in theology and he was committed to philosophical naturalism...not the scientific method. He started with a pre-determined position. Darwins conclusions were usually based on extrapolations of huge amounts of time.
3. Darwin was wrong about Geology
Darwin wrote that the Santa Cruz river valley was formed by small amounts of water over vast amounts of time. He used this valley to support his belief in deep deep time. (He sort of took that belief and said humans evolved one mutation at a time, over almost endless time). But the Santa Cruz river valley leads down from the Andes Mountains, glaciers and glacial lakes and the valley was almost certainly a result of catastrophic flooding of a galacial lake at the end of the ice age.
4. Darwin was wrong about the fossils
Actually.... Darwin was at least partially correct about the fossil record because he said it essentially falsified the ToE
Darwin said...
Re Cambrian explosion "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrtian system I can give no satisfactory answer..." Darwin understood the sudden emergence of diversity of life did not fit his model.
Re Stasis, Darwin said that the most eminent paleontologists and geologists (Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande Lyell, Sedgewick and more) argue for the immutability of species.
That is not to say that animals don't change...but they remain the same kind. (See Marks thread on this in religion channel) Darwin admitted animals remain same kind by saying "Why then is not every geological stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
Darwin was wrong when he suggested that more time and more fossils would support his theory. Billions of fossils have now been collected to give us a fairly accurate picture. The transitionals Darwin hoped for are missing.
Stephen Jay Gould says "The extreme raity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret pf paleontology...."
Or from a couple other famous evolutionts...
Eldredge and Tattersall "...120 years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions..."
5. Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.
One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.
There is no tree of life. hundreds of different imaginary trees are in textbooks and journals all based on a belief system and similarities.
6. Darwin was wrong about Nature of Life.
Darwin thought life was simple..(.it 'ain't'. A single cell can be compared to a huge city with manufacturing plants, busy highways, side streets., workers etc. Its information system is like the internet. single cell has an energy system like a citys energy grid. And... This 'city' has a design that allows rapid duplication. ).... Darwin said "But if we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts (These are all over the world) light, heat, electricity ETC...that a protein (Ha, Darwin had no idea how complex a protein is) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"
Darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case"
Darwin was wrong because he didn't know anything about genetics or modern biology. (No one did 150+ year ago)
7.Darwin was wrong about natural selection
Darwin made the mistake of unbounded extrapolation. He said "Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I see no limit to the amount of change...by natures power of selection". (Breeders understand there are limits to selection) Funny and sad, but Darwin believed given enough time nature could change a bear into a whale.
Lynn Margulis, evolutionary biologist and one time wife of Carl Sagan explained that natural selection can elimininate...it can not creat.
Anyways... Darwin was wrong about what selection can do. It helps to preserve life forms but can't create.
Does it matter that Darwin, one of the most famous people in history was wrong?
Well...It mattered to Darwin. He seems to have literally sold his soul to obtain fame, and went to a Christless eternity.
It mattered to Darwins family (sons) who also rejected Christ and ended up leading a eugenics movement.
It matters that Darwin was wrong to the hundreds of millions of souls who rejected the gospel over a false belief system.
Darwinism is toxic to to faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ. Encourage your family and those you know to move away from the darkness that results from Darwinism, and accept the true light of the world.... Jesus.
Science has evolved significantly since Darwin's time. That science was built on the theories presented at the time. They have not been refuted, they have been improved.
Dear The Barbarian,
So your daughter is working with money? Congrats on her marriage! You must be so proud!! Yes, she might just well be able to afford her own car payment. My Dad co-payed on a car for me when I was 18 as long as I made the payments. I'm glad that finally life is blooming for you. I do see you value bluntness. Thanks so much for not seeing a mean bone in my body. There isn't one, I think. God and Jesus have taught me well. Everything here is going great. I am full of joy every day because my Master is returning soon. I know that sounds pretty unprofessional, but I can't help that. See, I'm blunt too, sometimes, no?? I don't know the day, hour, or month, and I can't say I'm even positive about the year. It is based on more than intuition, that's all I'll say. Good to chat with you again. I would answer 6days more often, but it's hard to answer posts that already have boxes in them. It's hard to explain. I mean 6days and another person, and then me crashing in there between two people's post. I'll try it soon and see what happens. I know there is some trick to getting one box inside another, inside another. I'll learn, sooner or later.
Well, God Bless You Tons,
Michael
:rapture: :guitar: :cheers: :cloud9: :cloud9:
I am not familiar with cosmology that postulates that the universe is cylindrical. Can you elaborate?
For My Friends Here:
Some physicists believe we're living in a giant hologram — and it's not that far-fetched
Updated by Joseph Stromberg on June 29, 2015, 9:00 a.m. ET @josephstromberg joseph@vox.com
(TU Wien) PART ONE
Some physicists actually believe that the universe we live in might be a hologram.
The idea isn't that the universe is some sort of fake simulation out of The Matrix, but rather that even though we appear to live in a three-dimensional universe, it might only have two dimensions. It's called the holographic principle. Related: The Large Hadron Collider is starting back up. Here's what scientists hope to find.
The thinking goes like this: Some distant two-dimensional surface contains all the data needed to fully describe our world — and much like in a hologram, this data is projected to appear in three dimensions. Like the characters on a TV screen, we live on a flat surface that happens to look like it has depth.
The laws of physics seem to make more sense when written in two dimensions than in three. It might sound absurd. But if when physicists assume it's true in their calculations, all sorts of big physics problems — such as the nature of black holes and the reconciling of gravity and quantum mechanics — become much simpler to solve. In short, the laws of physics seem to make more sense when written in two dimensions than in three.
"It's not considered some wild speculation among most theoretical physicists," says Leonard Susskind, the Stanford physicist who first formally defined the idea decades ago. "It's become a working, everyday tool to solve problems in physics."
But there's an important distinction to be made here. There's no direct evidence that our universe actually is a two-dimensional hologram. These calculations aren't the same as a mathematical proof. Rather, they're intriguing suggestions that our universe could be a hologram. And as of yet, not all physicists believe we have a good way of testing the idea experimentally.
Where did the idea that the universe might be a hologram come from? The idea originally came out of a pair of paradoxes concerning black holes.
1) The black hole information loss problem
In 1974, Stephen Hawking famously discovered that black holes, contrary to what had long been thought, actually emit slight amounts of radiation over time. Eventually, as this energy bleeds away from the event horizon — the black hole's outer edge — the black hole should completely disappear.
However, this idea prompted what's known as the black hole information loss problem. It's long been thought that physical information can't be destroyed: All particles either retain their original form or, if they change, that change impacts other particles, so the first set of particles' original state could be inferred at the end.
As an analogy, think of a stack of documents that are fed through a shredder. Even though they're cut into tiny pieces, the information present on the pieces of paper still exists. It's been cut into tiny pieces, but it hasn't disappeared, and given enough time, the documents could be reassembled so that you'd know what was written on them originally. In essence, the same thing was thought to be true with particles.
But there was a problem: If a black hole disappears, then the information present in any object that may have been sucked into it seemingly disappears, too.
Related Stephen Hawking's research is more accessible than you think. Here's a guide. One solution, proposed by Susskind and Dutch physicist Gerard 't Hooft in the mid-'90s, was that when an object gets pulled into a black hole, it leaves behind some sort of 2D imprint encoded on the event horizon. Later, when radiation leaves the black hole, it picks up the imprint of this data. In this way, the information isn't really destroyed.
And their calculations showed that on just the 2D surface of a black hole, you could store enough information to completely describe any seemingly 3D objects inside it.
"The analogy that both of us independently were thinking about was that of a hologram — a two-dimensional piece of film which can encode all the information in a three-dimensional region of space," Susskind says.
The entropy problem: There was also the related problem of calculating the amount of entropy in a black hole — that is, the amount of disorder and randomness among its particles. In the '70s, Jacob Bekenstein had calculated that their entropy is capped, and that the cap is proportional to the 2D area of a black hole's event horizon.
"For ordinary matter systems, the entropy is proportional to the volume, not the area," says Juan Maldacena, an Argentinian physicist involved in studying the holographic principle. Eventually, he and others saw that this, too, pointed to the idea that what looked like a 3D object — a black hole — might be best understood using only two dimensions.
How did this idea go from black holes to the entire universe? None of this was proof that black holes were holograms. But early on, Susskind says, physicists recognized that looking at the entire universe as a two-dimensional object that only looks three-dimensional might help solve some deeper problems in theoretical physics. And the math works just as well whether you're talking about a black hole, a planet, or an entire universe.
In 1998, Maldacena demonstrated that a hypothetical universe could be a hologram. His particular hypothetical universe was in what's called anti-de Sitter space {which, to simplify things, has a curved shape over huge distances, as opposed to our universe, which is believed to be flat}.
Thanks for checking this out. Hope you enjoyed yourselves. Can you believe I actually understand this easily enough. More to come.
Michael
:angel: :angel: :angel: :rapture: :thumb: :cloud9:
Daniel1611
New member
You don't feel yourself moving. You feel yourself standing upright. The horizon appears to be flat. All your senses tell you that you are on a flat stationary object. It should take monumental proofs to accept that your senses are wrong. A few composite pictures that NASA drew are no incontrovertible proof, IMO.
alwight
New member
The fact that the horizon remains as far away as it is, not further or nearer however much you may travel toward it should suggest, at least, to our own senses and reasoning that the Earth may not actually be quite as flat as it seems. :nono:
That the Earth, is indeed like the sphere of the moon that those who are not blind can see in all of its phases.
That the tides are still due to the gravitational pull of the moon, even when it is below the horizon.
Of course if you only ever stayed in one place, and never took on board other information, it may not be obvious and take some convincing that this apparent "flatness" does really only apply to the local context and that our unassisted senses don't function as well beyond it.
Should we then stick to only what we can personally experience or do we try to discern evidence from beyond our own locality and sensory perceptions?
If there were any reason for NASA to mislead us then they seem to have done so with the complete assistance of all the nations who put hardware and humans in space, including those from all around the world who spend long periods of time on the International Space Station.
So, what appears to be initially true to our rather limited localised individual human senses soon becomes overwhelmed with all kinds of information from countless different independent sources.
Should we then insist, before being reasonably convinced that all may not be quite as flat as it initially appears to be, that we will simply reject everything unless confirmed by our own perhaps limited senses?
Last edited:
(Barbarian, noting that Darwin predicted what we have learned about the appendix)
Darwin noted that vestigial organs can often evolve a different function. As you see, Darwin had it right. Look up his book and go to the section on "rudimentary organs." You'll be surprised.
We call them "vestigial" to day. And as you just saw, he got it exactly right. The appendix in humans no longer has the original function of digesting plant matter, but it has at least two others that are not found in the structure in other animals.
Darwin thought God created the first living things.
We'll just have to disagree about that. No matter how He did it, He created them.
Beagle. And he records in The Voyage of the Beagle, that the officers of the ship were amused at his Anglican orthodoxy, so you have that wrong, too.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.
Much later, the death of a much-loved daughter seems to have caused him to be an agnostic.
You've been misled about that, too. If he had never discovered the process of evolution by natural selection, he'd still be a much-respected scientist, for his work on the classification and natural history of barnacles, and for discovering the mechanism for formation of coral atolls.
He was a most careful researcher, gathering copious notes and evidence, before addressing a problem. It was his careful and meticulous technique that earned him the esteem of his fellow scientists. If you had bothered to read his works, you would find data in numbing detail.
You have that wrong, too. He was primarily an experimentalist, happiest when in the field gathering data. His experiments and studies of earthworms and their effects on soil showed that even late in life, he was ever the scientist.
The Origin of Species, mentions countless examples of his experiments with living things. You really need to find out things for yourself instead of falling for such foolish notions being peddled by creationist websites. Would you like a list from a single chapter of his book?
In his day, many, many English biologists were ministers of the church. It was called "natural theology." From Medieval times, there was a tradition of scientific inquiry by priests.
Wrong again...
Lyell. In this text Lyell argued against the cataclysmic geology that Darwin had been taught by his geology lecturers, in favour of a view that the earth is shaped by the slow processes which can be observed today. This view of geology, where small changes are summed up over long time periods is called gradualism. Seeing the world from this perspective would be one of Darwin’s most important lessons.
During the voyage, Darwin observed many of these processes for himself. He saw the effects of gradual uplifting of land in St. Jago. And in South America he saw a volcanic eruption at Mount Osorno, and lived through an earthquake in Valdivia. He made extensive notes on his observations of weathering, crystallisation of lava, measurements of raised beaches and many other sights which caught his interest.
His keen eye and rigorous note taking allowed him to formulate his geological theories. His first was on how coral reefs formed. Previously many geologists thought coral reefs grew on underwater volcanoes. Darwin didn’t see the logic in this, instead he applied what he had read and seen of gradual subsidence of rock to formulate a new theory. He suggested that corals grow around islands, but over long periods of time the sea floor can subside. The coral would continue to grow whereas the island would be washed away, so leaving the coral reef alone to be observed now. Darwin’s theory was instantly accepted by the geological community. In 1952 surveys by the US Atomic Energy Commission in Pacific coral reefs proved Darwin’s theory was correct.
Darwin’s second theory was also successful. He formulated a theory to explain how volcanic islands are formed. That is, volcanoes are usually formed when lava repeatedly erupts so layers of volcanic rock are laid down successively building up the cone. At the time, many geologists believed a volcano grew up because of pressure from below and the crater then subsided. Darwin’s idea was right. Darwin almost struck on a much bigger idea, his observations led him to believe the earth’s crust was moving, rising in some places and subsiding in others. A few more pieces of evidence or leaps of logic would have led him to the theory of plate tectonics which was proposed and accepted in the 1960s.
http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=c3
As you see, the "pre-determined position" was catastrophism. And as he observed and experimented, he gradually realized that this was incorrect. His findings remain unchallenged in geology.
That came later. The evidence came first, as you just learned.
See above. His discoveries are still valid and subsequent investigation has only confirmed them, and explained the forces behind them.
That's quite dishonest of you. That's not what he said at all. Shame on you.
As you should know, we now have numerous examples of complex Precambrian life in fossils, validating Darwin's prediction:
The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
In fact, Darwin noted that a well-adapted species in an unchanging environment should be kept from changing by natural selection. And that prediction has also been validated.
However, the supposed immutability of species has been shown to be false by among other things, direct observation of speciation.
But of course, no one can produce a testable definition of "kind", which is a religious belief, not a scientific term.
Many dishonest creationists have quote-mined that one, cutting off Darwin's explanations on why this would appear so. You're the last of a long line of them.
Many of his predictions on that point have been validated also. There is a huge list of transitional fossils found since I began studying biology. Darwin's discussion on the imperfection of the fossil record turns out to be spot on.
See above. Since his time transitionals for many, many taxa have been found. We're far from done; every month significant new discoveries are made. But let's see how far. Give me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can show you a transitional. There are still some yet to be found, so you might get lucky. Will you try?
Well, if you're up to it, we can test that assumption. Do you have enough faith in your doctrines to test them?
Gould writes:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory
Let's see what an honest creationist says:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27(between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28(between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29
(between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30(between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —
of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed
ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33the tetrapod series,34,35the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37
(for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapusprimate series, 38 and the hominid series.39
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-92
Turns out that DNA analysis confirms the tree first discovered by Linnaeus to a high degree of precision. What your article is referring to is lateral gene transfer which is rare in eukaryotes, but common in prokaryotes. And that part of the tree (unknown to Darwin and Linnaeus) has a lot of cross-branches.
6. Darwin was wrong about Nature of Life.
Darwin supposed that God just created the first organisms. Why do you think that's wrong?
Show us that. Sounds intriguing. I'm guessing there's a good reason you didn't do it.
7.Darwin was wrong about natural selection
The evidence shows that it changed ungulates to whales. Even your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise acknowledges this.
Barry Hall's bacteria surprised him by evolving a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Sound pretty good to me.
See above. You've been blind-side by reality again.
Every scientist is wrong about things. Problem for you, is that you didn't find the things Darwin was wrong about. Would you like to learn about those?
It might just be good for your soul to accept the truth about Darwin.
Darwin noted that vestigial organs can often evolve a different function. As you see, Darwin had it right. Look up his book and go to the section on "rudimentary organs." You'll be surprised.
We call them "vestigial" to day. And as you just saw, he got it exactly right. The appendix in humans no longer has the original function of digesting plant matter, but it has at least two others that are not found in the structure in other animals.
Darwin thought God created the first living things.
We'll just have to disagree about that. No matter how He did it, He created them.
Beagle. And he records in The Voyage of the Beagle, that the officers of the ship were amused at his Anglican orthodoxy, so you have that wrong, too.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.
Much later, the death of a much-loved daughter seems to have caused him to be an agnostic.
You've been misled about that, too. If he had never discovered the process of evolution by natural selection, he'd still be a much-respected scientist, for his work on the classification and natural history of barnacles, and for discovering the mechanism for formation of coral atolls.
He was a most careful researcher, gathering copious notes and evidence, before addressing a problem. It was his careful and meticulous technique that earned him the esteem of his fellow scientists. If you had bothered to read his works, you would find data in numbing detail.
You have that wrong, too. He was primarily an experimentalist, happiest when in the field gathering data. His experiments and studies of earthworms and their effects on soil showed that even late in life, he was ever the scientist.
The Origin of Species, mentions countless examples of his experiments with living things. You really need to find out things for yourself instead of falling for such foolish notions being peddled by creationist websites. Would you like a list from a single chapter of his book?
In his day, many, many English biologists were ministers of the church. It was called "natural theology." From Medieval times, there was a tradition of scientific inquiry by priests.
Wrong again...
Lyell. In this text Lyell argued against the cataclysmic geology that Darwin had been taught by his geology lecturers, in favour of a view that the earth is shaped by the slow processes which can be observed today. This view of geology, where small changes are summed up over long time periods is called gradualism. Seeing the world from this perspective would be one of Darwin’s most important lessons.
During the voyage, Darwin observed many of these processes for himself. He saw the effects of gradual uplifting of land in St. Jago. And in South America he saw a volcanic eruption at Mount Osorno, and lived through an earthquake in Valdivia. He made extensive notes on his observations of weathering, crystallisation of lava, measurements of raised beaches and many other sights which caught his interest.
His keen eye and rigorous note taking allowed him to formulate his geological theories. His first was on how coral reefs formed. Previously many geologists thought coral reefs grew on underwater volcanoes. Darwin didn’t see the logic in this, instead he applied what he had read and seen of gradual subsidence of rock to formulate a new theory. He suggested that corals grow around islands, but over long periods of time the sea floor can subside. The coral would continue to grow whereas the island would be washed away, so leaving the coral reef alone to be observed now. Darwin’s theory was instantly accepted by the geological community. In 1952 surveys by the US Atomic Energy Commission in Pacific coral reefs proved Darwin’s theory was correct.
Darwin’s second theory was also successful. He formulated a theory to explain how volcanic islands are formed. That is, volcanoes are usually formed when lava repeatedly erupts so layers of volcanic rock are laid down successively building up the cone. At the time, many geologists believed a volcano grew up because of pressure from below and the crater then subsided. Darwin’s idea was right. Darwin almost struck on a much bigger idea, his observations led him to believe the earth’s crust was moving, rising in some places and subsiding in others. A few more pieces of evidence or leaps of logic would have led him to the theory of plate tectonics which was proposed and accepted in the 1960s.
http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=c3
As you see, the "pre-determined position" was catastrophism. And as he observed and experimented, he gradually realized that this was incorrect. His findings remain unchallenged in geology.
That came later. The evidence came first, as you just learned.
See above. His discoveries are still valid and subsequent investigation has only confirmed them, and explained the forces behind them.
That's quite dishonest of you. That's not what he said at all. Shame on you.
As you should know, we now have numerous examples of complex Precambrian life in fossils, validating Darwin's prediction:
The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
In fact, Darwin noted that a well-adapted species in an unchanging environment should be kept from changing by natural selection. And that prediction has also been validated.
However, the supposed immutability of species has been shown to be false by among other things, direct observation of speciation.
But of course, no one can produce a testable definition of "kind", which is a religious belief, not a scientific term.
Many dishonest creationists have quote-mined that one, cutting off Darwin's explanations on why this would appear so. You're the last of a long line of them.
Many of his predictions on that point have been validated also. There is a huge list of transitional fossils found since I began studying biology. Darwin's discussion on the imperfection of the fossil record turns out to be spot on.
See above. Since his time transitionals for many, many taxa have been found. We're far from done; every month significant new discoveries are made. But let's see how far. Give me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can show you a transitional. There are still some yet to be found, so you might get lucky. Will you try?
Well, if you're up to it, we can test that assumption. Do you have enough faith in your doctrines to test them?
Gould writes:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory
Let's see what an honest creationist says:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27(between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28(between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29
(between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30(between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —
of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed
ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33the tetrapod series,34,35the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37
(for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapusprimate series, 38 and the hominid series.39
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-92
Turns out that DNA analysis confirms the tree first discovered by Linnaeus to a high degree of precision. What your article is referring to is lateral gene transfer which is rare in eukaryotes, but common in prokaryotes. And that part of the tree (unknown to Darwin and Linnaeus) has a lot of cross-branches.
6. Darwin was wrong about Nature of Life.
Darwin supposed that God just created the first organisms. Why do you think that's wrong?
Show us that. Sounds intriguing. I'm guessing there's a good reason you didn't do it.
7.Darwin was wrong about natural selection
The evidence shows that it changed ungulates to whales. Even your fellow creationist, Kurt Wise acknowledges this.
Barry Hall's bacteria surprised him by evolving a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Sound pretty good to me.
See above. You've been blind-side by reality again.
Every scientist is wrong about things. Problem for you, is that you didn't find the things Darwin was wrong about. Would you like to learn about those?
It might just be good for your soul to accept the truth about Darwin.
Guess you've never flown on an airplane high enough to see the curvature of the earth.
All these facts of been available to him, but I doubt reiterating them will have any positives.
- Status