did darwin start with the concusion...

[archaeologist]

and built his theory to fit the results ?

i made this point in another thread as mallon's thread accusing AIG on this very manuever got me thinking.

darwin examined all species from the end back, which leaves him, and others, plenty of room to mold or construct their alternative to scripture to fit what they wanted and not display what really happened.

your thoughts?

 

[KerrMetric]

A concussion?

I don't recall his personal medical history but I concede he may have had a knock on the head.

 

[KerrMetric]

and built his theory to fit the results ?

What results? He had observations.

 

[archaeologist]

sorry , hopefully the mods can fix it. i am not a great typist

He had observations.

how long was he in the galapegos? not long enough to see any real observations though i am sure you are giving him wide latitude in the meaning of that word.

 

[laptoppop]

and built his theory to fit the results ?

i made this point in another thread as mallon's thread accusing AIG on this very manuever got me thinking.

darwin examined all species from the end back, which leaves him, and others, plenty of room to mold or construct their alternative to scripture to fit what they wanted and not display what really happened.

your thoughts?

Maybe, but I doubt it. I think he was honestly deceived -- I have no data to support anything else, so I won't accuse him without evidence.

 

[KerrMetric]

how long was he in the galapegos? not long enough to see any real observations though i am sure you are giving him wide latitude in the meaning of that word.

He was on the Galapagos for about 5 - 6 weeks. The entire Beagle expedition was 5 years - spent about 3 years going up and down the coast of S. America.

 

[archaeologist]

so what observations are you referring to then? 5-6 weeks does not seem long enough to make the kind of observations you intimate.

 

[USincognito]

so what observations are you referring to then? 5-6 weeks does not seem long enough to make the kind of observations you intimate.

The observations he made during those weeks on the Galapagos and during his entire Beagle voyage. He wrote about them in a book you might have heard of - Origin of the Species.

 

[KerrMetric]

so what observations are you referring to then? 5-6 weeks does not seem long enough to make the kind of observations you intimate.

I never intimated a thing. I never mentioned any observations - I just mentioned he had observations.

5 -6 weeks on a few small islands seems quite a while to me by the way.

 

[Nooj]

I might also add that Darwin had a massive system of correspondence with naturalists and scientists all over the world. They brought him specimens, drawings, accounts, dissections of all sorts of animals. He did a lot of his observations from home, and Darwin also got a lot of ideas and inspirations from the discussions he had with his friends. Darwin's observations took the width and breadth of his entire adult life.

 

[archaeologist]

I never mentioned any observations - I just mentioned he had observations.

that is mentioning observations.

5 -6 weeks on a few small islands seems quite a while to me by the way.

i can just hear all the evolutionist holler and complain if creationists said they took only 5-6 weeks for observations. can't have it both ways, besides how could 5-6 weeks reveal millions of years of processing?

don't care what others wrote in no way to factually verify their results.

The observations he made during those weeks on the Galapagos and during his entire Beagle voyage. He wrote about them in a book you might have heard of - Origin of the Species

sarcasm ignored.

the more i think aboutit and considering the sparse replies, the more i feel that darwin started off with the conclusion first then built his throey in a manner which made him look right.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

that is mentioning observations.



i can just hear all the evolutionist holler and complain if creationists said they took only 5-6 weeks for observations. can't have it both ways, besides how could 5-6 weeks reveal millions of years of processing?

don't care what others wrote in no way to factually verify their results.



sarcasm ignored.

the more i think aboutit and considering the sparse replies, the more i feel that darwin started off with the conclusion first then built his throey in a manner which made him look right.

I don't think the poster was being sarcastic when he mentioned Darwin's book. An interesting and most pertinent question would be: have you read it?

 

[Nooj]

the more i think aboutit and considering the sparse replies, the more i feel that darwin started off with the conclusion first then built his throey in a manner which made him look right.

Since Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not the same theory of evolution we have today (the modern synthesis), it does not matter if Darwin stole his ideas or got his ideas in an unscientific manner. Darwin could have been a pedophiliac cannibal and that would not impact on the status of the modern synthesis as a scientific theory. Cheers.

 

[notto]

Why don't you read a book and find out?

 

[notto]

t
i can just hear all the evolutionist holler and complain if creationists said they took only 5-6 weeks for observations. can't have it both ways, besides how could 5-6 weeks reveal millions of years of processing?

His work is based on more than the Galapagos's. Maybe you should actually read the book.

the more i think aboutit and considering the sparse replies, the more i feel that darwin started off with the conclusion first then built his throey in a manner which made him look right.

Well, you would be wrong. Maybe you should actually read the book.

That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

I have read it and your characterization of his work is in error.

Your need to misrepresent the work of this man to support you own lame argument is noted.

You are a great creationist.

 

[USincognito]

I don't think the poster was being sarcastic when he mentioned Darwin's book. An interesting and most pertinent question would be: have you read it?

Why should he? Pithy dismissals are much easier when you don't have to include details.

For the lurkers though:
- Darwin had observed artificial selection in race horses and pigeons and wondered if natural selective pressures could bring about similar adaption.
- This hypothesis was put to the test with his observations in the Galapagos and the rest of the South Pacific.
- His observations, along with those of others were eventually given an explanation with the Theory of Evolution as written in Origin of the Species.
- Further observations (such as his prediction that hominid fossils would be found in Africa, not the Americas) have buttressed his original theory and it's developed to include genetics, unknown to him at the time, in the Modern Synthesis.

So no, he wasn't working with anything more than a hypothesis that selection might also take place due to changing environments, not the caprice of humans and he observed evidence of it in the finches and marine iguanas of the Galapagos.

 

[Mavros]

and built his theory to fit the results ?

i made this point in another thread as mallon's thread accusing AIG on this very manuever got me thinking.

darwin examined all species from the end back, which leaves him, and others, plenty of room to mold or construct their alternative to scripture to fit what they wanted and not display what really happened.

your thoughts?

id like to know what is conclusion of evolution theory. how can anybody guess in accident such thing

 

[kagol]

What is the problem with 'observations'?
Darwin looked at something and took note of them, that is an observation.

I don't think he started at the end and worked to come up with something that fitted what he wanted.

He spent many, many years studying, investigating and observing.

He was originally a strong believer in God being the designer of all things.

His views changed over time. The final push for him was the death of his daughter Annie in 1849, he then lost all faith in a benevolent God, coming to the point, when asked, where he said that agnostic would be the best description of his beliefs.

Given the time in which he lived, I think it was a mixture of his religious upbringing (unitarian,anglican), where science was at the time and the human mind reaching for answers to observed traits (for want of a better word) that he wanted to be able to explain in scientific terms.

His first book The Voyage of the Beagle published in 1839 was a travel memoir and also showed the great extent of his powers of observation in the fields of geology, biology and anthropology. It was from this publication that he became famous. Although I think that what he covered here was what came to be known as macro-evolution, there were hints in it that he would later develop into his theory published in 1859 in The Origin of the Species which would encompass micro-evolution.

In summing up, I think he really believed in the conclusions he came to and that it developed over time, not as has been suggested in the OP that he decided on a conclusion and sought things to back it up.

Would have been nice if that could have been proved as the case, but even if it had I think the whole common descent thing is too entrenched in the human psyche to be dented by it.

 

[archaeologist]

this:

Since Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not the same theory of evolution we have today (the modern synthesis), it does not matter if Darwin stole his ideas or got his ideas in an unscientific manner. Darwin could have been a pedophiliac cannibal and that would not impact on the status of the modern synthesis as a scientific theory. Cheers.

demonstrates that the theory has no divine origin nor has any hope of being initiated or created by God as God, the truth and His word do not change.
if they did, there would be no hope for the world and God would be a hypocrite, which would be sin and God does not sin.

this is another fatal flaw found in evolution, the ever changing theory, what it was 30 years ago is not what it is today and those who died believing the old ways are just S*O*L and that is not of God either.

God's word has stayed the same from the beginning so that all have the same opportunity for salvation and the same means to obtain said salvation--- freedom of choice.

{as for the rest of the posts, all insults are ignored as acknowledging them would lower me to their status and give credence to opinions which have no value.}

 

[notto]

demonstrates that the theory has no divine origin nor has any hope of being initiated or created by God as God, the truth and His word do not change.
if they did, there would be no hope for the world and God would be a hypocrite, which would be sin and God does not sin.

this is another fatal flaw found in evolution, the ever changing theory, what it was 30 years ago is not what it is today and those who died believing the old ways are just S*O*L and that is not of God either.

I'll assume you feel the same way about meteorology, relativity, gravity, cell theory, atomic theory, medical knowledge, well I guess any science.

You really have outdone yourself.

You are just one of those 'SCIENCE BAD!!!' people, aren't you?

Read a book.