Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Astrid]

I think you are assuming too much. I was primarily trying to get a clarification of BCP1928's statement.

Ok

 

[BCP1928]

I think you are assuming too much. I was primarily trying to get a clarification of BCP1928's statement.

It was in response to Mountainmike's suggestion thate there were many forms of the theory of of evolution. My response was that we were primarily speaking of the theory of evolution as it is understood to have to do with morphological evolution and speciation within the biosphere.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is no single theory.
that is a myth,

You keep making this claim but you've never once shown that there are multiple theories of evolution.

 

[Jerry N.]

It was in response to Mountainmike's suggestion thate there were many forms of the theory of of evolution. My response was that we were primarily speaking of the theory of evolution as it is understood to have to do with morphological evolution and speciation within the biosphere.

Thank you. I understand.

 

[Astrid]

It was in response to Mountainmike's suggestion thate there were many forms of the theory of of evolution. My response was that we were primarily speaking of the theory of evolution as it is understood to have to do with morphological evolution and speciation within the biosphere.

I’ve not thought it through but it seems to me that any
theory involves sebtheories.
An older book on North American mammals.
shows five species of grizzly bear in Yellowstone Park.

Illustrating that we have lumpers and splitters in taxonomy.

Amusing sport for those who are inclined to so indulge, no doubt.

Our friend @Mountainmike find deep meaning in b.ding some soft of
splitter.

Weve noted that as one of the common creationists attacks
on evolution.
I doubt any scientist would find multiple ways
to define / describe evolution constitutes disproof..
No more than there being multiple strands of evidence.

As usual our heroes of the defense against evolution have never
come up with a Cambrian bunny.

 

[mindlight]

Is this true, folks?

Biblical Creation Evidence | We know evolution is a lie, no proof period, well guess what not only is the theory of evolution a lie, it's supposed author is also a liar. | Facebook

We know evolution is a lie, no proof period, well guess what not only is the theory of evolution a lie, it's supposed author is also a liar.

www.facebook.com

Darwin was a serious scientist who allowed his eyes and observations to distract him from the big picture. He observed the process of microevolution ( or adaptation) and then speculated that he could reach further than the evidence allowed into a longer view of our origins. He was not alone in that era: Marx, Freud & Nietzsche were all prominent deceivers from that moment in history when too many people thought that they had become smarter than God.

What is a liar? The most convincing liars sound authentic. Sometimes they are honest men who go that one step too far and then do not have the humility to confess that now they are in unknown territory and should not be filling in the gaps with speculations.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwin was a serious scientist who allowed his eyes and observations to distract him from the big picture. He observed the process of microevolution ( or adaptation) and then speculated that he could reach further than the evidence allowed into a longer view of our origins. He was not alone in that era: Marx, Freud & Nietzsche were all prominent deceivers from that moment in history when too many people thought that they had become smarter than God.

What is a liar? The most convincing liars sound authentic. Sometimes they are honest men who go that one step too far and then do not have the humility to confess that now they are in unknown territory and should not be filling in the gaps with speculations.

Funnily enough (even though your assessment is very much wrong), that's not what the video is saying. It's saying that Darwin's family had someone else do the work for him and let Charles Darwin take credit for it.

 

[mindlight]

Funnily enough (even though your assessment is very much wrong), that's not what the video is saying. It's saying that Darwin's family had someone else do the work for him and let Charles Darwin take credit for it.

I answered the question. The video required I log onto Facebook and I was not prepared to do that.

This link seems to repeat the same theory.

Darwin plagiarism

Darwin, plagiarize, evolution, natural selection

creation.com

Regarding the claims there, plagiarism undermines his credibility I suppose and there is some credibility that his theories were not exactly 'new under the sun.' I guess the ambition here is a character assassination of a secular Messiah and I do not have a problem with that.

Darwin did some solid research and work to confirm theories that were just words in the mouths of those who came before him. Christians copy Jesus and the great theologians all the time without worrying too much about being sued for plagiarism.

1Cor 1:12.13

What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

It does not matter how many or how few people have spoken an idea it matters whether or not it is true. We either repeat truths or lies and our credibility is really about whether or not we honestly consider the words we pass on. Darwin was on a downward trajectory which he followed with deep methodical sincerity towards the darkness of doubt, unbelief, and deceit about origins

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I answered the question. The video required I log onto Facebook and I was not prepared to do that.

This link seems to repeat the same theory.

Darwin plagiarism

Darwin, plagiarize, evolution, natural selection

creation.com

Regarding the claims there, plagiarism undermines his credibility I suppose and there is some credibility that his theories were not exactly 'new under the sun.' I guess the ambition here is a character assassination of a secular Messiah and I do not have a problem with that.

Darwin did some solid research and work to confirm theories that were just words in the mouths of those who came before him. Christians copy Jesus and the great theologians all the time without worrying too much about being sued for plagiarism.

1Cor 1:12.13

What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

It does not matter how many or how few people have spoken an idea it matters whether or not it is true. We either repeat truths or lies and our credibility is really about whether or not we honestly consider the words we pass on. Darwin was on a downward trajectory which he followed with deep methodical sincerity towards the darkness of doubt, unbelief, and deceit about origins

You don't need to sign into Facebook to watch the video. Just refresh the page and you'll able to watch the video.

The rest of the post I'm not even going to address since it's the same standard PRATT.

 

[mindlight]

You don't need to sign into Facebook to watch the video. Just refresh the page and you'll able to watch the video.

The rest of the post I'm not even going to address since it's

1 Timothy 6:20-21 "O Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called;

21 which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you.

This refers to knowledge of the scriptures whether he was speaking of those who claimed special gift knowledge, like the apostles had, or the Gnostics. Both of these groups were guilty of claiming knowledge they didn't have and misleading Christians if they could. Teaching a false gospel.

Claims going back billions of years about processes that cannot be verified by the scientific method surely qualify as vain prattling. Maybe Darwin was demented rather than just a plagiarist and a liar. He read the book of nature in the manner of a man who thought he was smarter than God. That is either funny or desperately sad.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Claims going back billions of years about processes that cannot be verified by the scientific method surely qualify as vain prattling. Maybe Darwin was demented rather than just a plagiarist and a liar. He read the book of nature in the manner of a man who thought he was smarter than God. That is either funny or desperately sad.

Though evolution CAN be verified by the scientific method, which is more intricate than people like to imagine it is.
And no, Darwin didn't think he was smarter than God. He just studied God's creation and wrote about what he found in it.

 

[Astrid]

Though evolution CAN be verified by the scientific method, which is more intricate than people like to imagine it is.
And no, Darwin didn't think he was smarter than God. He just studied God's creation and wrote about what he found in it.

It’s easy to be smarter than those who prattle on about things
they know nothing about

 

[Mountainmike]

I’ve not thought it through but it seems to me that any
theory involves sebtheories.
An older book on North American mammals.
shows five species of grizzly bear in Yellowstone Park.

Illustrating that we have lumpers and splitters in taxonomy.

Amusing sport for those who are inclined to so indulge, no doubt.

Our friend @Mountainmike find deep meaning in b.ding some soft of
splitter.

Weve noted that as one of the common creationists attacks
on evolution.
I doubt any scientist would find multiple ways
to define / describe evolution constitutes disproof..
No more than there being multiple strands of evidence.

As usual our heroes of the defense against evolution have never
come up with a Cambrian bunny.

One of these days you , warden and others will take an interest in the science not scientism

If ever you do you will discover there is no single “ theory of evolution” , which is an atheist myth,

I deal in science.
I have challenged all of you to give me the precise succinct hypothesis that is confirmed by experiment which is how it gets to become a theory. Or point to the paper in which it was postulated

You can’t because it “ the theory of evolutin” doesn’t exist. It never has,

I seemingly know more than most of you!

What there really is is a ragbag of ideas from pure speculation ( darwin, origin) to laws ( take Mendel laws of inheritance, essentially proven on recent bredding ) and even a few theories ( although in scientifuc terms the use of the word is a stretch) like the endosymbiotic theory of mitochondria. Ever heard of it? . There are dots , that so far do not join up as a cohesive picture. The rest is scientism overreach .

What I can say is all of the above only even attempt to cover recent life - comprised of modern cell structure , of which the minimum cell is hideously complex self evolving , replicating and repairing chemical factory of thousands of biochemiCals, and every attempt to backwards engineer it has failed, at less than hundreds of genes using a DNA genome.

before that is a total blank, nothing, nada , so nobody knows where life came from.

What we can say is the question of life has now moved on from scientism, it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the essence of life - consciousness - is separable from the body and can survive clinical body death. Therefire life cannot be chemistry , so at best evolution, even if ever solved, is just a bit part in determining where life came from. It does not deal with the bigger question of the soul at all.

And that is the view of science.
Faith based scientism that pretends evolution explains all life development is an illinformed sceptic myth. For them it’s the only game in town , so they have to pretend it can explain. It can’t.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

One of these days you , warden and others will take an interest in the science not scientism

You can begin by telling us what these other theories of evolution are for starters.

Faith based scientism that pretends evolution explains all life development is an illinformed sceptic myth. For them it’s the only game in town , so they have to pretend it can explain. It can’t.

And that's not what any theory of evolution I've seen says at all. That's what I've seen people claim about it, but the actual theory itself? Nope, not at all.

 

[Astrid]

One of these days you , warden and others will take an interest in the science not scientism

If ever you do you will discover there is no single “ theory of evolution” , which is an atheist myth,

I deal in science.
I have challenged all of you to give me the precise succinct hypothesis that is confirmed by experiment which is how it gets to become a theory. Or point to the paper in which it was postulated

You can’t because it “ the theory of evolutin” doesn’t exist. It never has,

I seemingly know more than most of you!

What there really is is a ragbag of ideas from pure speculation ( darwin, origin) to laws ( take Mendel laws of inheritance, essentially proven on recent bredding ) and even a few theories ( although in scientifuc terms the use of the word is a stretch) like the endosymbiotic theory of mitochondria. Ever heard of it? . There are dots , that so far do not join up as a cohesive picture. The rest is scientism overreach .

What I can say is all of the above only even attempt to cover recent life - comprised of modern cell structure , of which the minimum cell is hideously complex self evolving , replicating and repairing chemical factory of thousands of biochemiCals, and every attempt to backwards engineer it has failed, at less than hundreds of genes using a DNA genome.

before that is a total blank, nothing, nada , so nobody knows where life came from.

What we can say is the question of life has now moved on from scientism, it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the essence of life - consciousness - is separable from the body and can survive clinical body death. Therefire life cannot be chemistry , so at best evolution, even if ever solved, is just a bit part in determining where life came from. It does not deal with the bigger question of the soul at all.

And that is the view of science.
Faith based scientism that pretends evolution explains all life development is an illinformed sceptic myth. For them it’s the only game in town , so they have to pretend it can explain. It can’t.

A gish of creationist boilerplate.


Here’s twov obvious facts:

1. You are no scientist.

2. You've no facts to disprove ToE

Make it three facts.

3. You never will.

Respond as it may please you.
I won’t grace it with my attention.

 

[Frank Robert]

Darwin was a serious scientist who allowed his eyes and observations to distract him from the big picture. He observed the process of microevolution ( or adaptation) and then speculated that he could reach further than the evidence allowed into a longer view of our origins.

Not sure what you are claiming. You appear to be equating speculation with lying because of lack of evidence which we can all agree. As it turns out though, "Darwin got the core concept of macroevolution right by proposing that large-scale evolutionary changes, like the emergence of new species, occur through the gradual accumulation of small, heritable variations over long periods of time via natural selection, essentially viewing macroevolution as a cumulative process of microevolutionary changes across generations, which is now widely accepted as the basis for understanding how new species arise."

What Darwin got wrong was Earth’s age and the mechanisms of variation among individuals.

 

[mindlight]

Not sure what you are claiming. You appear to be equating speculation with lying because of lack of evidence which we can all agree. As it turns out though, "Darwin got the core concept of macroevolution right by proposing that large-scale evolutionary changes, like the emergence of new species, occur through the gradual accumulation of small, heritable variations over long periods of time via natural selection, essentially viewing macroevolution as a cumulative process of microevolutionary changes across generations, which is now widely accepted as the basis for understanding how new species arise."

What Darwin got wrong was Earth’s age and the mechanisms of variation among individuals.

The jump to large-scale evolutionary changes from the evidence for adaptation is speculation. There is no way to verify such a claim with the scientific method. Uniformitarianism and a lack of supernatural intervention cannot be assumed, a naturalistic methodology cannot verify itself. The model can be comprehensive and indeed quite exhaustive in detail and still wrong.

This would not be the first time that scientists have made such bold claims. The scientific consensus at the time of the black death was that planetary alignments caused the plague. Scientists in Europe clung to the Ptolemaic system for many years, which was also able to predict the movement of planets and stars and yet was conceptually flawed. They sounded so convincing that parts of the church even allied themselves with this scientific consensus much as many have done today with evolution. That scientists now think that they are immune from such monumental errors is merely hubris.

 

[mindlight]

A gish of creationist boilerplate.


Here’s twov obvious facts:

1. You are no scientist.

2. You've no facts to disprove ToE

Make it three facts.

3. You never will.

Respond as it may please you.
I won’t grace it with my attention.

This comment was devoid of content. You read like a snarky fan girl defending her team with ad hominem and fallacious dribble.

There are no facts to prove ToE. The scientific methodology runs it course in proving adaptation. The rest is joining the dots into an impressive model built on probabilities and assumptions.

Of course to admit this opens up all sorts of unpleasant questions. If science cannot explain origins what can? If Darwin was false to speculate in this manner what drove him and indeed you over that precipice to a faith in science that was not scientific. Why idolise something that cannot save, that offers no redemption from sins it does not accuse you of? Something which if true may excuse those sins and make any feelings of guilty pathos irrelevant.

 

[Jerry N.]

I have been following this thread for some time, but I’m still a little confused. Darwin’s micro-evolution seems to answer many questions about adaptation, but his macro-evolution is just speculation without evidence. The confusing part is The Theory of Everything. As far as I can tell, it is a whole host of very elegant mathematical attempts to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics that either don’t work or can’t be proven. They are useful in writing academic papers, getting published and retaining research grants, which I’m not against within limits. I understand that emergent laws might be used to explain macro-evolution, but it seems to be at the stage of hypothesis and not a refined theory. Do I understand this correctly?

 

[Astrophile]

The jump to large-scale evolutionary changes from the evidence for adaptation is speculation. There is no way to verify such a claim with the scientific method. Uniformitarianism and a lack of supernatural intervention cannot be assumed, a naturalistic methodology cannot verify itself. The model can be comprehensive and indeed quite exhaustive in detail and still wrong.

How do you account for the evidence from biogeography, palaeontology, embryology and morphology that Darwin used to support his theory? In particular, the fossil evidence shows beyond doubt that terrestrial life in earlier geological era was very different from present-day life.

When you say that 'a lack of supernatural intervention cannot be assumed', you are both begging the question and shifting the burden of proof. A lack of supernatural intervention can, and indeed should, be assumed until evidence of supernatural intervention is presented. Remember Occam's razor; 'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity'.

This would not be the first time that scientists have made such bold claims. The scientific consensus at the time of the black death was that planetary alignments caused the plague. Scientists in Europe clung to the Ptolemaic system for many years, which was also able to predict the movement of planets and stars and yet was conceptually flawed. They sounded so convincing that parts of the church even allied themselves with this scientific consensus much as many have done today with evolution. That scientists now think that they are immune from such monumental errors is merely hubris.

The Ptolemaic system was eventually replaced by an entirely naturalistic theory of planetary motions governed by natural laws, not by religious beliefs. Why do you think that if the present theory of evolution is disproved it will be replaced by creationist doctrines based on the book of Genesis rather than by another naturalistic theory of biology?