Evolution is very obvious that is not true at all

[Mechanical Bliss]

Unfortunately, as I was typing a post a few days ago, my computer shut down and I lost it. Included in these were several quotes from Darwin demonstrating that he certainly was not a Christian. I don't know of any Christian who would refer to the New Testament as "a d***able doctrine," as he phrased it, or would say, as darwin did, that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred texts of the Hindus or the beliefs of any barbarian. Near the end of his life, he preferred to refer to himself as an agnostic.

Darwin definitely was a Christian at the time he wrote Origin of Speices. You apparently ignored the quotation I provided from the work that showed that he was not "overtly atheistic." However, at the same time, no one here has denied that Darwin was no longer a Christian later in life. However his formulation of the theory of evolution was not a matter of religious belief, but rather evidence. Here's the quotation again:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator 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.

How does that quotation, from the conclusion of Origin of Species, NOT "reveal a clear, actual belief in a Creator" as you put it?

I did not mean that the opinions of such men as Joule and Kelvin are more important than a true expert in the field of biology. However, numerous evolutionists often hurl around claims that science is impossible without evolution and that no scientist can reject evolution. Evolutionists have even made statements that are tantamount to saying that evolution is so important that all fields of scientific discipline are subject to it.

I'm not sure I've seen such a claim. The closest I've ever seen is that biology and paleontology do not make sense without evolution. It is more than obvious that not all scientific fields are relevant to evolution.

I disagree with the notion that rejection of evolution is due to a lack of knowledge. I would contend that the evidence actually fits better with the creationist model than with an evolutionist one.

When it comes to things like a young earth and a global flood, that's certainly not true. The evidence does not fit the creationist model at all. The evidence disproves it. If you want to elaborate, it might be best to start a new thread.

 

[jb-creation]

Darwin likely inserted that statement referring to a Creator in order to gain support from the clergy (which he most certainly got, unfortunately).

"[Evolution] is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow—this is what evolution is."—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, as quoted by Francisco J. Ayala (Source: Journal of Heredity, 68:3-10. 1977) (emphasis added)

Perhaps I will start a new thread to discuss which model the evidence best fits with and supports (though this thread was initially started for basically that purpose, and we have since then wandered far from the topic). The evidence certainly doesn't disprove a young earth/global flood, though. Rather, the evidence fits perfectly with this, after faulty, unproven assumptions are discarded.

 

[Arikay]

Darwin
Lets look at what he actually said,

"But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; -- I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeji or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine[2]"

2 Mrs. Darwin, "Nothing can be said too severe upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment for disbelief -- but very few now wd. call that 'Christianity,'"
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm​

So, Yes he wasn't a christian later in life, but he wasn't talking about the whole NT but about the doctrine of eternal punishment for non believers. He was however a christian when he wrote "origins"


Evidence
Many creationists claim that "the evidence fits better with creationism." Yet I have never had anyone actually back that up. I even started a thread asking for this evidence. In over a week and over 100 posts, I recieved 1 possible piece of evidence for creationism total.
Can you back up your claim? maybe start a new thread and show us how all the evidence (all the evidence, including the details of this evidence) fit better with creationism.

I can easily say, "The evidence fits better with a flat earth than a spherical one." But it doesn't make it true, especially if I can't back up my claim. And thus, empty statements, are well, empty.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Darwin likely inserted that statement referring to a Creator in order to gain support from the clergy (which he most certainly got, unfortunately).

That was not the only reference to a "Creator" in that work. Are you saying now that he wasn't a theist at the time and was doing it simply to gain support? This is the basic mode of thinking for creationism that tries to paint issues in science as lies made in some sort of cover-up/conspiracy, no matter how big or small.

"[Evolution] is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow—this is what evolution is."—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, as quoted by Francisco J. Ayala (Source: Journal of Heredity, 68:3-10. 1977) (emphasis added)

This is a common quotation thrown on creationist websites, so I guess I'm not surprised to see it here. Considering the source is the "Journal of Heredity" which is a biology journal, it's likely that the quotation refers to "all theories, all hypotheses" in the science of biology. You are throwing this quotation out there as if it has a generalized meaning that it does not.

Perhaps I will start a new thread to discuss which model the evidence best fits with and supports (though this thread was initially started for basically that purpose, and we have since then wandered far from the topic). The evidence certainly doesn't disprove a young earth/global flood, though. Rather, the evidence fits perfectly with this, after faulty, unproven assumptions are discarded.

Yes, the evidence does falsify a young earth and a global flood. There is no way around it unless you ignore the evidence. That has been known for almost 200 years now. Early geologists who held a young earth/global flood belief and were indeed Christians were the same ones that disproved such notions. And of course there are no "faulty, unproven assumptions" that warrant being discarded.

 

[Arikay]

I guess when you don't like it, just claim he was lying.

You can see, even from my earlier quote, Darwin was christian,

"During these two years[1] I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality"
-Darwin
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm​

I am starting to get suspicious if you have read Anything by Darwin.


I would very much like to see that thread.

Darwin likely inserted that statement referring to a Creator in order to gain support from the clergy (which he most certainly got, unfortunately).

 

[jb-creation]

Remember that the quote from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is quoted in the Jounral of Heredity, but this is not the origin of the statement.

There is a great deal of evidence against the evolutionary/old-earth view of history. There are many things which this view is incapable of explaining (and which must be explained for the evidence to fit). Would you prefer to see some of it in this thread, or shall I make a new one and go over this evidence point-by-point?

 

[Arikay]

I would say start a new thread, and start with a couple pieces of evidence that we can discuss, as to not shotgun. I would also recomend a forum search.

As far as the quote, can you show that a majority of scientists agree with it? Or are you assuming that he speaks for all scientists?

Remember that the quote from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is quoted in the Jounral of Heredity, but this is not the origin of the statement.

There is a great deal of evidence against the evolutionary/old-earth view of history. There are many things which this view is incapable of explaining (and which must be explained for the evidence to fit). Would you prefer to see some of it in this thread, or shall I make a new one and go over this evidence point-by-point?

 

[jb-creation]

I've heard similar assertions to Teilhard de Chardin's from a number of evolutionists.

All right, I suppose I'll start a new thread now. Looking forward to seeing you there.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Remember that the quote from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is quoted in the Jounral of Heredity, but this is not the origin of the statement.

And the quotation is used in the context of explaining that biology is only unified by the theory of evolution by that particular author. I don't see anyone in agreement that the theory of evolution affects all lines of thought. That statement is simply false. Furthermore, the original source of the quotation does not come from a scientist but rather a Catholic priest from the information I can find. That makes it even less relevant to trying to demonstrate that "evolutionists" maintain that evolution affects everything.

There is a great deal of evidence against the evolutionary/old-earth view of history.

And yet the scientific community does not have a shread of evidence indicating that the earth is not 4.45 Ga (which is actually a young age, relatively speaking) or that the earth is not greater than a few thousand years old.

There are many things which this view is incapable of explaining (and which must be explained for the evidence to fit). Would you prefer to see some of it in this thread, or shall I make a new one and go over this evidence point-by-point?

You could start by addressing evidence that falsifies your position because it doesn't matter how much evidence you present for your position if the falsifying evidence doesn't exist. There are numerous threads on young earth, global flood, and evolution topics throughout the forum that creationists rarely ever even attempt to address. But I suppose you could start a new thread with your arguments for evaluation, however I would recommend separating ideas of biology from geology rather than trying to tie them together (e.g., "evolutionary geology" as some creationists like to claim).

 

[datan]

You can't say that either creation or evolution is "very obvious that is not true at all" since we cannot witness either.

Just being pedantic.

 

[Arikay]

"Just being pedantic."

and also false.

 

[datan]

care to explain?

 

[Arikay]

-evolution (including macro) has been observed. For more information, see one of Lucaspa's recent posts.

-things in the past leave evidence behind, this can be studied.

care to explain?