did darwin start with the concusion...

[Nooj]

The thread seems to have gone off-topic. It doesn't matter what Darwin believed in. Attacking the personal beliefs of a person does not mean you have attacked the person's arguments.

Lets go back to the original post.

It is impossible for a scientist to not be influenced by other scientist's conclusions. Any given physicist would be influenced by Einstein's conclusions about special relativity and general relativity. An individual's scientific knowledge is not gained de novo, but by studying other people's works and building up from there. Similarly, Darwin was influenced by the scientific climate and other people's conclusions that existed at that time. Other people like Lamarck or Darwin's grandfather had suggested evolution, but by differing mechanisms. Darwin was aware of the conclusions of geologists like Lyell (whom he kept up correspondence with) who suggested that the Earth was very old. So it could be easily and correctly said that Darwin's theory was not made up on the spot or purely because of his genius, but partly formed because of the contributions of others.

He did not however start with the conclusion that evolution was a fact. He only came to agree with the 'transmutation of species' after he came back from the Beagle journey:

After he came home in 1836 he began speculating on transmutation (evolution), whilst confirming his reputation as a geologist. It seems fairly clear that his belief in evolution, and invention of the ideas of natural selection, arose at this time and not before or during his voyage. He lived in Gower Street � near to Robert Grant whom he apparently never went to see.

More from Wikipedia:

By mid-March, Darwin was convinced that creatures arriving in the islands had become altered in some way to form new species on the different islands, and investigated transmutation while noting his speculations in his "Red Notebook" which he had begun on the Beagle.

I think that is enough to succinctly show that Darwin did not start from a conclusion and worked backwards.

 

[Assyrian]

Koko not liking evolution because why evolution not making giant banana for Koko?

Giant banana not fit Koko hands.

How Koko holding giant banana?

[move]

......

.....................................

. . . . . . . . . . .
......

......

[/move]

 

[CaptPorridge]

and built his theory to fit the results?

Uhm, of course he built his theory to fit the results.

If he had built a theory that didn't fit his results, everyone would have justifiably considered him a loony.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

Giant banana not fit Koko hands.

How Koko holding giant banana?

Assyrian can cutting giant banana for Koko?

 

[archaeologist]

The thread seems to have gone off-topic. It doesn't matter what Darwin believed in. Attacking the personal beliefs of a person does not mean you have attacked the person's arguments

i didn't attack his beliefs, (and this is a typical misrepresentation) i provided evidence and proof that evolution was not grounded, rooted or founded in God or divine inspiration and that it is purely a secular construct meant to provide an alternative to God's creative act and words.

besides, why would God inspire darwin to construct a theory, wholly separate from the Bible, when for thousands of years God used the Genesis account to reveal to all His work in the beginning?

Keep moving those goalposts.

He was studying to become a priest. Not really a profession that a non-Christian would seem to gravitate towards.

you obviously do not believe scripture when it talks about the 'wheat and tares...' there are many non-believers among the ranks of the ministerial staffs in many, many denominations.

the point was, he lost his faith then wrote his theory and books, studying to be a minister does not gaurantee that one is a christian. oneof my best friends from undergrad scchool , who went on to take his masters at regent college, decided one day that he was a homosexual and has been living in sin ever since.

don't get idealistic about studying to be a priest or a minister.

Of course this is all off topic from your original OP and discssion which contained more ignorant judgment of a man who's book you refuse to read.

you have no idea what i have or haven't read and according to many it wouldn't matter if i did or didn't, as His theory is no longer what evolution is now.

It is impossible for a scientist to not be influenced by other scientist's conclusions. Any given physicist would be influenced by Einstein's conclusions about special relativity and general relativity. An individual's scientific knowledge is not gained de novo, but by studying other people's works and building up from there

right. thus the claim to objectivity is thrown out the window.

Similarly, Darwin was influenced by the scientific climate and other people's conclusions that existed at that time. Other people like Lamarck or Darwin's grandfather had suggested evolution, but by differing mechanisms. Darwin was aware of the conclusions of geologists like Lyell (whom he kept up correspondence with) who suggested that the Earth was very old. So it could be easily and correctly said that Darwin's theory was not made up on the spot or purely because of his genius, but partly formed because of the contributions of others.

and what does this prove? that what i have been saying about discernment is correct. no one practices discernment to determineif the what one scientist is saying is inline with God's word or not and immediately assume secular science and scientists are on the right track and adopt their work and follow it instead of God.

He did not however start with the conclusion that evolution was a fact.

never said he did. i said, darwin did what mallon criticized the AIG scientists for doing; starting with the conclusion, {in this case the variety of animals within the same species} and built a false theory, flexible enough to be adapted to just about any twist or turn that science or the truth would throw at it.

in fact, evolutionists do thisall the time. there was a lecturer at miller college, {i believe the lecture was placed in this forum} and allexamples given by the scientist stated they started wit the conclusion. i believe he said it inthis manner:

"if evolution were true...such and such would take place..."

well the problem with that is, he is already excluding all other possibilities that could contain the same results and immediately limited those result to only evolution as a possibility.

he started with the conclusion (evolution) and directed the results to meet that assumption and declared that that result only proved evolution.

sorry but that is dishonest and every person who believes in alternatives would immediate fly into an insane rage and rant against any creationist who would dare attempt such a thing.

I think that is enough to succinctly show that Darwin did not start from a conclusion and worked backwards

i will disagree but everything you have quoted shows that it is purely a secular construct which means those that say they believe in God need to remove it from their belief systems.

 

[notto]

"if evolution were true...such and such would take place..."

That is called a prediction and it is used to validate an already existing theory and is based on evidence and additional observation. It is a statement of a hypothesis (not a conclusion - notice the IF). That you don't understand and that you feel the need to misrepresent the scientific method is not surprising. Evidence to support the prediction and support or falsify the hypothesis is collected. That is called science.

The theory of evolution put forth by Darwin came after he had collected a lot of evidence and observation and he sat down to put together a theory to explain them.

Then he went about the work of stating predictions that should continue to be true if the theory is correct.The conclusions followed the evidence and continued predictions that can falsify the theory were put forward. This is good science. This is very different than AIG who says that if their conclusion or hypothesis is shown to be wrong, then it is the evidence that is in error (not the conclusion). They claim by default that their hypothesis cannot be wrong. Very different than Darwin or your example.

Continuously generating and testing predictions is part of science.

That is how the scientific process works.

That you propose this is some type of weakness is kind of funny.

You are again demonstrating that you don't understand evolution or science.

Way to go! You are on a roll.

Of course a lot of your misconceptions about his work could be cleared up if you just read the book.

 

[Atheuz]

 

[laptoppop]

There is some truth to your cartoon, although there are other aspects which are totally offensive. For a Christian, TE or YEC or whatever, we must deal with the reality of the Scriptures, and a loving omniscient God who has revealed Himself to us. However, since this is a Christian theology forum, it is perfectly reasonable to assume God's existence and that the Scriptures are very important (although we might differ on how we interpret different parts).
If this were an apologetics forum, then we could get into other discussions. Here, at least some of the presuppositions are clear. This is important to limit discussion reasonably.

The offensive part is the implication that creationists do not want the truth, etc., and filter evidence. It is also incorrect to assume that somehow secular science is free of presuppositions. One of the difficulties of looking at the geologic strata is that one group looks at it expecting millions of years, and the other looks at the same strata as rapidly deposited. Same physical evidence, different interpretational frameworks.

 

[Atheuz]

The offensive part is the implication that creationists do not want the truth, etc., and filter evidence.

Doesn't AiG say to ignore Scientific evidence if it contradicts the Bible? How is that not filtering evidence and not wanting the truth?

 

[notto]

The offensive part is the implication that creationists do not want the truth, etc., and filter evidence.

How can it be offensive if they claim it in statements of faith? They define the filter for their evidence. They claim truth and filter fact.

It is also incorrect to assume that somehow secular science is free of presuppositions. One of the difficulties of looking at the geologic strata is that one group looks at it expecting millions of years, and the other looks at the same strata as rapidly deposited. Same physical evidence, different interpretational frameworks.

No - one group looked at the evidence and then concluded millions of years while the other had a preexisting conclusion of rapidly deposition and filtered evidence to fit the conclusion.

Claiming that scientists concluded millions of years before the geologic strata was examined objectively is simply revisionist history

It is simply not the way it happened or continues to happen.

You should not resort to such tactics. It is transparent and demonstratively false.

 

[KerrMetric]

There is some truth to your cartoon, although there are other aspects which are totally offensive. For a Christian, TE or YEC or whatever, we must deal with the reality of the Scriptures

The problem is that "reality of the Scripture" has as many variations are their are denominations.

The offensive part is the implication that creationists do not want the truth, etc., and filter evidence. I

That's not offensive - when directed to the "professional Creationists" at ICR and AIG it seems their modus operandi. Why else do some of their travelling speakrs get caught telling lies, repeatedly I might add. And don't even get started on our favourite prison candy Kent Hovind.

t is also incorrect to assume that somehow secular science is free of presuppositions. One of the difficulties of looking at the geologic strata is that one group looks at it expecting millions of years, and the other looks at the same strata as rapidly deposited. Same physical evidence, different interpretational frameworks.

Absolutely NOT. This is the biggest problem in the entire debate. There is not some democracy of opinions that lend them all equal weight. We are not picking a favourite ice cream flavour here. The geological strata were initially looked upon as recent and it was found to be bogus. Science determined this was crap and move on. Rapid deposition except in certain isolated occurrences is pure nonsense. Geology knows what rapid deposition looks like and 99% of deposits were not rapidly deposited.

 

[archaeologist]

That is called a prediction and it is used to validate an already existing theory and is based on evidence and additional observation. It is a statement of a hypothesis (not a conclusion - notice the IF). That you don't understand and that you feel the need to misrepresent the scientific method is not surprising. Evidence to support the prediction and support or falsify the hypothesis is collected. That is called science.

ha haha haha ho ho ho ho ho hahahaha {repeated long,loud and hystericallly}

that isn't a predeiction, that is like me saying: 'i predict i will post at christian forums today. oh look, my comuter is already loggerd in at that website.'

what a joke. again i repeat my refutation, that kind of thought is eliminating any other option which could produce the same result and solely stating only evolution is true. that is hogwash and if you call that science then there is no hope for you.

A REAL PREDICTION GOES LIKE THIS: i predict that the Tampa Bay Devil Rays will turn it around and win the world series in Oct.

all you have done is narrowed the scope so that you get your desired results without any honesty, objectivity, or consideration of other possibilities.

no wonder God says in his word that His foolishness is wiser than man's wisdom. when they come up with crap like that.

hahahahahahaha--- thanks for the laugh, i needed it.

The theory of evolution put forth by Darwin came after he had collected a lot of evidence and observation and he sat down to put together a theory to explain them

he was already on his way when he was on the beagle, and what observations? did he see species evolve from a common ancestor? did he see birds cme from reptiles or vice a versa? and soon.

no, he had no real observations, everything he said was pure conjecture and he could not prove one iota of what he said.

is good science. This is very different than AIG who says that if their conclusion or hypothesis is shown to be wrong, then it is the evidence that is in error (not the conclusion). They claim by default that their hypothesis cannot be wrong. Very different than Darwin or your example.

but they are right. the evidence is subject to whomever is doing the interpretating. the conclusion that God created all things is correct despite what secular scientists state is for the simple reason God does not LIE and secular scientists are subject to the workings of the evil one who DOES.

there is more at work here than you are willing to admit or consider. if God lied about creating and making then what stopped Him from lying about heaven or salvation?

you just don't get it, this is not a scientific issue, it is a spiritual one and if you follow secular science or scientists then you are not following God and that is sin.
i do not care how often they get it right, they still do not credit God nor include God in their work seeking natural alternatives to what was a supernatural act of God's will and denying that declaration of God.

believers can have no part of that.

 

[KerrMetric]

but they are right. the evidence is subject to whomever is doing the interpretating.

Not if they are professionals and above board. Trouble is AIG are neither.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

There's that "secular science" again. What does it mean?

 

[notto]

no, he had no real observations, everything he said was pure conjecture and he could not prove one iota of what he said.

Considering you refuse to read his books it is hard to take your claims about them seriously.

You have no real observations to support them and everything you said about his work is pure conjecture and you can not prove one iota of what you say.

Until you actually read his book and understand evolution you are not going to be able to put forth a convincing argument about either.

Do you understand why?

 

[KerrMetric]

There's that "secular science" again. What does it mean?

It means "the stuff I want to ignore" and not "the stuff I use everyday in the devices I take advantage of".

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

if God lied about creating and making then what stopped Him from lying about heaven or salvation?

That Archie core thinking thing!

 

[USincognito]

The offensive part is the implication that creationists do not want the truth, etc., and filter evidence. It is also incorrect to assume that somehow secular science is free of presuppositions. One of the difficulties of looking at the geologic strata is that one group looks at it expecting millions of years, and the other looks at the same strata as rapidly deposited. Same physical evidence, different interpretational frameworks.

Which is where Creationism borders on insanity. It is the ultimate in post-modernistic thought to claim that two people can look at a mountain and one can "interpret" it to be 75,000,000 years old and the result of known, gradual, natural processes while the other looks at it and "interprets" it to be 4,000 years old and the result of ad hoc, rationalized miracles and say that both positions are valid.

Forget varves, tree rings, ice cores, etc. We know that chalk and salt beds take incredibly long times to form so there's no way they could be the result of Noah's flood 4,000 years ago. The Christian, and largely ministerial geologists understood the geological processes that formed the surface of the Earth as we know it took millions of years 200 years ago... one has to wonder why it's so hard for people to understand that now.

Perhaps the appeal of SDA theology is just irresistable.

 

[USincognito]

{snip}A REAL PREDICTION GOES LIKE THIS: i predict that the Tampa Bay Devil Rays will turn it around and win the world series in Oct.

Hey, does all that laughing I snipped from your post mean you're a recipient of the Toronto Blessing?

Anyway, as Notto has repeatedly pointed out, you need to read the book. Also, as has been mentioned repeatedly, Darwin predicted that hominid fossils would be found in Africa - which they were, and that finding hominid fossils in the Americas would falsify that prediction - which has never occured.

You really need to read the book or at least familiarize yourself with at least a few facts before engaging in a discussion about Darwin.

 

[archaeologist]

Not if they are professionals and above board. Trouble is AIG are neither.

well i don't know. that would be a matter of opinion. i have my problems with AIG as well as I.D. as i see where they go astray as well.

Forget varves, tree rings, ice cores, etc. We know that chalk and salt beds take incredibly long times to form so there's no way they could be the result of Noah's flood 4,000 years ago.

this is the point, you are looking at things from the secular perspective and not God's. man says one thing and it isn't always accurate or true.

then if you lookat what you are using as corroborration, who developed those systems? do you see a common thread there?

Hey, does all that laughing I snipped from your post mean you're a recipient of the Toronto Blessing

no, i just thought that sounded very funny. it isn't even a real prediction, it was so narrow in scope, biased and funneling towards a pre-supposition that has basically a 100% chance of being declared true even though other options could produce the same result.

at least my prediction has an element of chance to it. the one given inthe lecture was like giving the answer before the question was even asked.

Anyway, as Notto has repeatedly pointed out, you need to read the book. Also, as has been mentioned repeatedly, Darwin predicted that hominid fossils would be found in Africa - which they were, and that finding hominid fossils in the Americas would falsify that prediction - which has never occured.

let's see, thebook was published in 1859-9 approx. hominoids were found when? in the 20th century...hmmm how hard is that to figure out.

the, the lucy scenario is based upon a skull and not a good one at that, with no remaining skeleton how hard is it to conjure up a theory that fits with darwin's words? ...hmmmm.... not very.

sorry don't buy it and stop assuming what i have or haven't read.

You really need to read the book or at least familiarize yourself with at least a few facts before engaging in a discussion about Darwin.

see above.

Which is where Creationism borders on insanity

again, you are looking at it from a secular viewpoint and not with theunderstanding of what God said His followers are to do. i have stated this here in another thread and other websites andi will repeat here so you know.

you will not find the answers you seek through science because God has made a requirement which limits what science can do, analyze, investigate and so on.

you have a choice and one option is faith, with which God says you cannot please Him without it. so He will not provide any evidence that would destroy that requirement. the continual looking at the 'scientific evidence' is not what is going to get you in God's good graces.

at some point you either have to stop following the world and choose faith or choose the world and not please God.

doesn't meanyou stop doing science, it just means you do it differently.