Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Astrophile]

Charles Darwin was to evolution what Isaac Newton was to gravitation. By Newton's time everybody knew that the Moon revolved around the Earth, that Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto revolved around Jupiter, and that all the planets revolved around the Sun. However, it took Newton's genius to explain these well-known facts. By the way, Newton was a heretic who denied the doctrine of the Holy Triniity and probably a closet homosexual as well, but nobody denies the validity of his scientific work.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you admit that him discovering the theory of evolution was a good thing then?

Yes -- to a point.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes -- to a point.

I'll take it either way.

 

[Mountainmike]

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

Posts written in such emotive terms are never useful.

But it is objective to say:
1/ He knew nothing of genotype so at best his progressive small change was a Conjectured experimental law.
2/ it was a very limited data set, so not useful in the context of all life,
3/ he knew nothing of genotype - Mendel knew about him, but he knew nothing of mendel . But had he known about genotype he would know small changes of genotype can make big changes in phenotype so demonstrating his underlying assumption of all life from progressive small change is false. So his experimental law is thereby false
4/ since he attempts to apply it to all life, he cannot test the hypothesis by any meaningful experiment so it cannot be a hypothesis or a theory

of course atheists jumped on it and blew it out of all proportion. They wanted anything that would challenge the theist narrative and most do not care about scuentific rigour,

The reality is Abiogenesis is pure conjecture , there is neither a process nor a structure to test for first life, despite all the money wasted on it. There is nothing wrong with looking, but it is at best conjecture.
And
there is no known living structure Simpler than the massively complex dna genome cell - all attempts to reduce complexity have failed, so there is no evolutionary explanation for life.

And
the mind is not a process of the brain. Too much evidence against,
So chemistry cannot explain life Anyway

But atheists clutch to Darwin as the only game in town for them.
none Of them get close to explaining ethical evolution either.

 

[stevil]

-
​

The Bible

Does the bible talk about Darwin, that's amazing!

 

[dlamberth]

But atheists clutch to Darwin ...

I'm having a hard time seeing where that puts someone like myself who is a Lover of God and someone who sees Darwin opening the door into how God creates new life forms. For me, that's been a huge blessing but I'm most certainly not an atheist.

 

[Lost4words]

Then why is Darwin venerated so highly?

1. Buried in a prominent cemetery.
2. Capital city named after him.
3. Face on a unit of legal tender.
4. Titled: The Father of Evolution.

Because thats how it evolved?

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Let's cool it with the petty personal comments. We're adults here.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Gene2memE]

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

No. Almost all statements in that video are untrue. Some of them are wild lies.

Darwin did write about evolution and he did write On the Origin Of Species By Means of Natural Selection. We know this because a portion of his original letters, notes and drafts have been preserved. These span a period of more than 20 years before the publication of the book.

There are also copious notes from Darwin of his revision of Origin of Species between various editions. Darwin also wrote extensively about evolution in a number of other books over the next 20 years, primarily in two major works: The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.

The Darwin family did not finance Alfred Russell Wallace. Wallace received some financial help from Darwin in the 1880s (more than 20 years after Origin of Species was published), when Darwin supported him in receiving a Crown pension. That's it. Wallace self funded his expeditions by selling specimens, doing illustrations and writing articles for journals and periodicals. He was quite successful doing so - at one point it was estimated he was employing more than 100 people to support his work.

Also, Wallace wasn't "the guy who was travelling around the Caribbean". Wallace spent some time in California and nearly five years in the interior of Brazil, but most of his field work from the 1850s onwards was conducted in Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific - particularly what is now Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia.

Yes, Wallace took plenty of notes. He was a publishing Naturalist and Fellow of the Royal Society afterall. He and Darwin met in the early 1850s and exchanged letters in the mid to late 1850s about their thinking on the immutability (or otherwise) of species. But, Wallace never accused Darwin of plagiarism and vocally defended and expanded on Darwin's ideas about Natural Selection, both in print and in public debate.

Darwin didn't "come over" to visit Wallace when he was close to death and get all his books and papers. Wallace didn't die until 1913 - at which point Darwin had been dead for nearly 30 years. Darwin also didn't take credit for any of Wallace's thinking when it came to evolution - the two published jointly on natural selection in 1858. Wallace just happened to be living in Southeast Asia when Origin of Species was published and didn't come back to England until 1862.


All in all, I'd give it a 0/10 for truth and accuracy.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@Joseph G do you have anything to say to the points raised in the thread so far?

 

[Blaise N]

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

Well maybe or maybe not,now I will state for the people who aren’t devout Christians like most of us for a compliment, Charles Darwin no doubt was a very intelligent man with a very intelligent mind and no doubt incredible at seeking to bring about more scientific discoveries to the world.

However(skip this part if you don’t agree), I personally believe he used his gifted intellect for the wrong reasons, and we the world got his evolutionary hypothesis’ instead of a potential defensive, apologetic stance for the Bible and the Lord God almighty.

As for Fraud; not so much, mind you he did create illustrations and record info on, at the time, previously undiscovered wildlife which further expanded the fields of zoology-Zoography, biology, ornithology, marine biology, botany, etc. so he wasn’t entirely non-resourceful. No doubt if you research the wildlife of the Galápagos Islands, you’ll see the wildlife is among the most exotic on earth.Its a place among the many small islands and regions of the world that hold earths most vibrant and rich wildlife, similar to the wildlife found in places like Madagascar or Tanzania

But nonetheless it saddens me personally he did in fact bring about the theory of evolution instead of taking a chance to make a case for God.

But overall, fraud maybe 60% yes 40% no-PERSONAL OPINION

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well maybe or maybe not,now I will state for the people who aren’t devout Christians like most of us for a compliment, Charles Darwin no doubt was a very intelligent man with a very intelligent mind and no doubt incredible at seeking to bring about more scientific discoveries to the world.

However(skip this part if you don’t agree), I personally believe he used his gifted intellect for the wrong reasons, and we the world got his evolutionary hypothesis’ instead of a potential defensive, apologetic stance for the Bible and the Lord God almighty.

As for Fraud; not so much, mind you he did create illustrations and record info on, at the time, previously undiscovered wildlife which further expanded the fields of zoology-Zoography, biology, ornithology, marine biology, botany, etc. so he wasn’t entirely non-resourceful.

But nonetheless it saddens me personally he did in fact bring about the theory of evolution instead of taking a chance to make a case for God.

But overall, fraud maybe 60% yes 40% no-PERSONAL OPINION

So he only sort of, kind of, maybe committed fraud because he did the science that God's given gifts to him allowed him to do so, and that he didn't venerate God in a way that you personally liked.

I'm sorry, but that's hilarious.

 

[Blaise N]

So he only sort of, kind of, maybe committed fraud because he did the science that God's given gifts to him allowed him to do so, and that he didn't venerate God in a way that you personally liked.

I'm sorry, but that's hilarious.

Not at all! Im simply saying he had potential, but was he useless? Absolutely not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not at all! Im simply saying he had potential, but was he useless? Absolutely not.

But you don't get to decide what counts as potential or not. That's for God to decide.

And also, just saying he didn't have potential in your opinion doesn't count as fraud as that claimed by OP's video.

 

[Astrid]

Well maybe or maybe not,now I will state for the people who aren’t devout Christians like most of us for a compliment, Charles Darwin no doubt was a very intelligent man with a very intelligent mind and no doubt incredible at seeking to bring about more scientific discoveries to the world.

However(skip this part if you don’t agree), I personally believe he used his gifted intellect for the wrong reasons, and we the world got his evolutionary hypothesis’ instead of a potential defensive, apologetic stance for the Bible and the Lord God almighty.

As for Fraud; not so much, mind you he did create illustrations and record info on, at the time, previously undiscovered wildlife which further expanded the fields of zoology-Zoography, biology, ornithology, marine biology, botany, etc. so he wasn’t entirely non-resourceful. No doubt if you research the wildlife of the Galápagos Islands, you’ll see the wildlife is among the most exotic on earth.Its a place among the many small islands and regions of the world that hold earths most vibrant and rich wildlife, similar to the wildlife found in places like Madagascar or Tanzania

But nonetheless it saddens me personally he did in fact bring about the theory of evolution instead of taking a chance to make a case for God.

But overall, fraud maybe 60% yes 40% no-PERSONAL OPINION

Of course, every single relevant data point in the universe
is consistent with the theory. ( “hypothesis” is your falsification)

if the theory were false, it would be wrong in
a million obvious ways.

Anyone with the most basic science background knows that
and could disprove it.

But nobody in the world has ever
produced one single datum point, not one
fact, to disprove it Anymore than the flat
Earth folks can prove the earth is not
round, like an orange.
Or demo “ fraud”.
You sure can’t.

Sad is self deception.
Nobody. really knows more than
every researcher on earth.
Sad is disbelieving what one lnows nothing about
Sad is denying the actual works of
God.

Edited to add-
the truth bites and stings

 

[Blaise N]

Of course, every single relevant data point in the universe
is consistent with the theory. ( “hypothesis” is your falsification)

if the theory were false, it would be wrong in
a million obvious ways.

Anyone with the most basic science background knows that
and could disprove it.

But nobody in the world has ever
produced one single datum point, not one
fact, to disprove it Anymore than the flat
Earth folks can prove the earth is not
round, like an orange.
Or demo “ fraud”.
You sure can’t.

it should better sadden you the
time and effort to mislead to your
personal opinion based on- what, infallible
bible interpretation?


AND, deny the truth of what such god as there may be really has done.

You know, in this response I did something I haven’t done before, and that was give Darwin some credit and also PRAISE his zoological scientific achievements! yet here you are responding in the most blunt, harsh, and borderline abusive manner.

Astrid, explain to me where exactly did I come across in my response as attacking you or the scientific community, am I not allowed to provide a personal opinion? Did you even take the time to consider my tone in which I presented my opinion? Not an ounce of hostility or criticism. You know what I did? I gave the man credit on his religious -challenging theories/or in your personal words,Facts pertaining to the scientific world and the furthering of scientific knowledge and education.

Did you not see I presented my statement in a manner that provided gentle/Peaceful disapproval?

Where once did I speak in a manner remotely hostile against Darwin?

at least consider these things I’ve said here before responding in another blunt and harsh way.I have the man credit on his impressive works that DO NOT challenge religion, which I myself admire considering I am very passionate about wildlife.So no I am not against studies on wildlife if you think I am.All I did was provide an opinion both Praising his work and the things he could’ve done better,

Was he a fraud? in some ways yes, but in others? No

That’s all

 

[Astrid]

Posts written in such emotive terms are never useful.

But it is objective to say:
1/ He knew nothing of genotype so at best his progressive small change was a Conjectured experimental law.
2/ it was a very limited data set, so not useful in the context of all life,
3/ he knew nothing of genotype - Mendel knew about him, but he knew nothing of mendel . But had he known about genotype he would know small changes of genotype can make big changes in phenotype so demonstrating his underlying assumption of all life from progressive small change is false. So his experimental law is thereby false
4/ since he attempts to apply it to all life, he cannot test the hypothesis by any meaningful experiment so it cannot be a hypothesis or a theory

of course atheists jumped on it and blew it out of all proportion. They wanted anything that would challenge the theist narrative and most do not care about scuentific rigour,

The reality is Abiogenesis is pure conjecture , there is neither a process nor a structure to test for first life, despite all the money wasted on it. There is nothing wrong with looking, but it is at best conjecture.
And
there is no known living structure Simpler than the massively complex dna genome cell - all attempts to reduce complexity have failed, so there is no evolutionary explanation for life.

And
the mind is not a process of the brain. Too much evidence against,
So chemistry cannot explain life Anyway

But atheists clutch to Darwin as the only game in town for them.
none Of them get close to explaining ethical evolution either.

A scientist is a person who knows abio and ethics are not part of the
ToE.

 

[Mountainmike]

A scientist is a person who knows abio and ethics are not part of the
ToE.

But then you are not a scientist, so you cannot judge.

And there is no ( single) ToE so say “ your personal ToE not “The ToE “
A definition of your purely personal ToE, with a clear statement of yiur hypothesus and how it was confirmed for ALL life, woukd explain why you think - probably wrongly - your personal ToE is a theory Of life.
in science, No definiton = no hypothesis = no exoeriment possible = no theo
so what is your hypothesis with sufficient rigor it can be tested?

Yet your personal ToE clearly cannot account for consciousness or indeed anything prior to the present hideously complex modern cell, which is a replicating, self evolving, self repairing, self powering chemical factory way more complex than man has ever produced, so your personal ToE certainly can account for life. so it isn’t a theory ot life,
So development prior to that is not even a valid hypothesis, let alone a theory.

Nor does your personal pure guess of abiogebesis account for anything. You have no structure even conjectured, for the first cell,

Meanwhile in the land of critical thinking ,( my world as a scientist ) a narrative that assumes that life is solely a product of evolution is forced to consider that all life characteristics are developed by evolution.
Which is why others - (better informed than you ) discuss ethical evolution and the origin of morals in a way that tries to avoid defying survival of fittest.

Yet there is no way to reconcile some common ethical traits with survival of the fittest.
so that is a fail too.

 

[Astrid]

But then you are not a scientist, so you cannot judge.

And there is no ( single) ToE so say “ your personal ToE not “The ToE “
A definition of your purely personal ToE, with a clear statement of yiur hypothesus and how it was confirmed for ALL life, woukd explain why you think - probably wrongly - your personal ToE is a theory Of life.
in science, No definiton = no hypothesis = no exoeriment possible = no theo
so what is your hypothesis with sufficient rigor it can be tested?

Yet your personal ToE clearly cannot account for consciousness or indeed anything prior to the present hideously complex modern cell, which is a replicating, self evolving, self repairing, self powering chemical factory way more complex than man has ever produced, so your personal ToE certainly can account for life. so it isn’t a theory ot life,
So development prior to that is not even a valid hypothesis, let alone a theory.

Nor does your personal pure guess of abiogebesis account for anything. You have no structure even conjectured, for the first cell,

Meanwhile in the land of critical thinking ,( my world as a scientist ) a narrative that assumes that life is solely a product of evolution is forced to consider that all life characteristics are developed by evolution.
Which is why others - (better informed than you ) discuss ethical evolution and the origin of morals in a way that tries to avoid defying survival of fittest.

Yet there is no way to reconcile some common ethical traits with survival of the fittest.
so that is a fail too.

Not able to judge? Perhaps you are unable to
judge whether someone is really what they say, and
are a helpless victim of scams. I’m not.

Sometimes we put someone to the test, and
quickly “ smoke them out” as per homourable
American idiom.


So -disprove the ToE and get your Nobel, if youre
such a ”scientist”, who knows so much.

Standard issue yec boilerplate -making things up,
not even knowing what is or is not part of ToE, sprinkling in
news of the obvious to sound authoritative, and presenting
( pretending) to know more than any actual researcher
on earth, even pretending to be a scientist, is all common
as dirt.

Only the clueless are impressed.

So you will want to avoid doing any of that.

Talking about how ToE “ can’t account for” something
as if “ hasnt yet” means some fatal “ can’t”, or,
cannot account for something irrelevant is also an obvious
type “tell” so be sure to avoid those in the future application
for credibility before the Nobel people.


It won’t impress educated people, not even if delivered with
full measure of bombast, and bold font.


Certainly not the Nobel committee.

A fact or two contrary tovToE would.

So be sure to have at least one datum point.