tipofthespear
Senior Member
- May 13, 2013
- 393
- 47
- 51
This is intended for the person who was discussing evolution vs. creation with me. I do not remember your SN, so can't address it properly.....sorry for that.
INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION:
(I am unable to post the picture of the Original Cover of Darwin's Book, and the Poster it gave birth to that became a part of our Public Education Systems kit for teaching Darwin's Theory, sorry for that. However, if one is honest, they will acknowledge the picture displayed from left to right............ape.....three evolving creatures growing closer to the last depiction of modern man.)
Here are some excerpts from Darwin’s Original Writings on the Origins of the Species, and the Photo that was initially the Book cover which has now been replaced with other pictures. However, for many years, both the Book and Poster replicas were distributed throughout our Public Education System, and are a matter of Record.
I am approaching this from an Ethical view, and not a Religious view, for I believe it is unethical for the Scientific Community to promote this flawed theory of evolution throughout our Public Education System. Especially when the Public Education System accepts this flawed Theory as the ONLY material they will teach………..Now, were they to ALSO teach the Belief of Creative Design, then I would be far more likely to simply say “to each his own, and at least they are teaching BOTH sides of the argument.” However, this is not what is happening, and in my opinion this is why it rises to the level of being unethical.
The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
Excerpt from Darwin’s Book:
Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.
Natural Selection
Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.
These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.
To sum up, I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of varying and intermediate links: firstly, because new varieties are very slowly formed, for variation is a very slow process, and natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur, and until a place in the natural polity of the country can be better filled by some modification of some one or more of its inhabitants. And such new places will depend on slow changes of climate, or on the occasional immigration of new inhabitants, and, probably, in a still more important degree, on some of the old inhabitants becoming slowly modified, with the new forms thus produced and the old ones acting and reacting on each other. So that, in any one region and at any one time, we ought only to see a few species presenting slight modifications of structure in some degree permanent; and this assuredly we do see.
My question directly stated “Where are they?” That is the partially evolved species that should be visible throughout the World. At least Darwin addressed this issue in his writings, although his explanation created more doubt of his Theory than dismissal of the question in my opinion. Darwin used the same argument that many of his disciples used today……..In short…….”These partially evolved, or not as superior species died off and were replaced by the more superior we know and see today. As well, the evolution of one species to another distinct species takes a very long time…”
WELL, YES, THAT IS MY POINT EXACTLY!
Darwin admits that he cannot explain/prove the connections of the transformation of one species to another distinct species, and BLAMES this inability on the “lack of fossil records.” Problem with that is, it would INDICATE that the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS has ceased, and whatever species now exist must surely be the highest form of their kind. Otherwise we would STILL have ongoing visual/scientific evidence of the evolutionary process today to view and study.
While Darwin attempts to dismiss any possibility of “creation” of specific individual species, he contradicts himself to a degree, for he DOES NOT dismiss CREATION. In honest reading of his statement regarding this, it should be apparent to all.
DARWIN: “Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.
Note the last part of this statement: “into which life was first breathed.” This one short excerpt reveals that Darwin either knowingly or unknowingly admits that CREATION OCCURRED, and that LIFE WAS CREATED…….Otherwise how does one explain his “into which life was first breathed” statement/conclusion? For LIFE to have been BREATHED INTO something, there had to be some being/force TO BREATH THAT LIFE INTO the species.
For those who say that Darwin did not suggest man evolved from the lesser life form of ape is intellectually dishonest in my opinion. Any honest reading of Darwin’s Theory certainly confirms that this is exactly what he believed and was attempting to prove. And, in the end, realizing that HE COULD NOT prove this……….he dismissed his failure as “A LACK OF FOSSIL RECORDS.”
Not for nothing, but that appears to be a “convenient” way to excuse his failure to prove the evolution of one life form into a higher and distinctly separate life form in my opinion.
My opinion on all of this has always been and remains that there is nothing in all of Darwin’s writings, or in any publications since that cannot be better explained by replacing “EVOLUTION” with “CREATED ADAPTATION.” In that the Creator endowed His creations with the specific ability to ADAPT to whatever environment they found themselves in/subject to. Darwin himself often credits “adaptability for changes in a particular species……….and yet, cannot LINK the EVOLUTION of one life form into a HIGHER AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT LIFE FORM. For that reason alone, “Created Adaptability” is far more logical in my opinion than “Evolution.”
An Article Worth Reading:
Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution
Excerpt:
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION:
(I am unable to post the picture of the Original Cover of Darwin's Book, and the Poster it gave birth to that became a part of our Public Education Systems kit for teaching Darwin's Theory, sorry for that. However, if one is honest, they will acknowledge the picture displayed from left to right............ape.....three evolving creatures growing closer to the last depiction of modern man.)
Here are some excerpts from Darwin’s Original Writings on the Origins of the Species, and the Photo that was initially the Book cover which has now been replaced with other pictures. However, for many years, both the Book and Poster replicas were distributed throughout our Public Education System, and are a matter of Record.
I am approaching this from an Ethical view, and not a Religious view, for I believe it is unethical for the Scientific Community to promote this flawed theory of evolution throughout our Public Education System. Especially when the Public Education System accepts this flawed Theory as the ONLY material they will teach………..Now, were they to ALSO teach the Belief of Creative Design, then I would be far more likely to simply say “to each his own, and at least they are teaching BOTH sides of the argument.” However, this is not what is happening, and in my opinion this is why it rises to the level of being unethical.
The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
Excerpt from Darwin’s Book:
Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.
Natural Selection
Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.
These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties. As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.
To sum up, I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of varying and intermediate links: firstly, because new varieties are very slowly formed, for variation is a very slow process, and natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur, and until a place in the natural polity of the country can be better filled by some modification of some one or more of its inhabitants. And such new places will depend on slow changes of climate, or on the occasional immigration of new inhabitants, and, probably, in a still more important degree, on some of the old inhabitants becoming slowly modified, with the new forms thus produced and the old ones acting and reacting on each other. So that, in any one region and at any one time, we ought only to see a few species presenting slight modifications of structure in some degree permanent; and this assuredly we do see.
My question directly stated “Where are they?” That is the partially evolved species that should be visible throughout the World. At least Darwin addressed this issue in his writings, although his explanation created more doubt of his Theory than dismissal of the question in my opinion. Darwin used the same argument that many of his disciples used today……..In short…….”These partially evolved, or not as superior species died off and were replaced by the more superior we know and see today. As well, the evolution of one species to another distinct species takes a very long time…”
WELL, YES, THAT IS MY POINT EXACTLY!
Darwin admits that he cannot explain/prove the connections of the transformation of one species to another distinct species, and BLAMES this inability on the “lack of fossil records.” Problem with that is, it would INDICATE that the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS has ceased, and whatever species now exist must surely be the highest form of their kind. Otherwise we would STILL have ongoing visual/scientific evidence of the evolutionary process today to view and study.
While Darwin attempts to dismiss any possibility of “creation” of specific individual species, he contradicts himself to a degree, for he DOES NOT dismiss CREATION. In honest reading of his statement regarding this, it should be apparent to all.
DARWIN: “Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.
Note the last part of this statement: “into which life was first breathed.” This one short excerpt reveals that Darwin either knowingly or unknowingly admits that CREATION OCCURRED, and that LIFE WAS CREATED…….Otherwise how does one explain his “into which life was first breathed” statement/conclusion? For LIFE to have been BREATHED INTO something, there had to be some being/force TO BREATH THAT LIFE INTO the species.
For those who say that Darwin did not suggest man evolved from the lesser life form of ape is intellectually dishonest in my opinion. Any honest reading of Darwin’s Theory certainly confirms that this is exactly what he believed and was attempting to prove. And, in the end, realizing that HE COULD NOT prove this……….he dismissed his failure as “A LACK OF FOSSIL RECORDS.”
Not for nothing, but that appears to be a “convenient” way to excuse his failure to prove the evolution of one life form into a higher and distinctly separate life form in my opinion.
My opinion on all of this has always been and remains that there is nothing in all of Darwin’s writings, or in any publications since that cannot be better explained by replacing “EVOLUTION” with “CREATED ADAPTATION.” In that the Creator endowed His creations with the specific ability to ADAPT to whatever environment they found themselves in/subject to. Darwin himself often credits “adaptability for changes in a particular species……….and yet, cannot LINK the EVOLUTION of one life form into a HIGHER AND DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT LIFE FORM. For that reason alone, “Created Adaptability” is far more logical in my opinion than “Evolution.”
An Article Worth Reading:
Debunking Evolution - problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution
Excerpt:
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
Last edited:
