Skip to comments.Darwin's arguments against God
Posted on 03/11/2009 8:26:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Charles Darwin grew up embracing the ‘intelligent design’ thinking of his day—William Paley’s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator.1 Concerning this, Darwin wrote, ‘I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s “Natural Theology”.2 I could almost formerly have said it by heart.’3
Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
A man is on trial for the sins he has committed. The judge finds the man guilty and he is sentenced to death for his transgressions. Jesus, as the mans lawyer, asks the judge to set the man free and let Him pay the penalty for the mans sins.
That is what Jesus did for us on the cross. I wish I could say I thank him everyday for it. Unfortunately I get caught up in my own life and take advantage of the gift he gave us all. Thankfully we have forgiveness through His name.
PS The fact that Darwin formulated arguments against God is news to a lot of people, and would be of special interest to the Christian Right, one of the main pillars of the Reagan Coalition (which many in the Darwin/Country Club wing of the Republican Party are foolishly pushing into the
“none of the above” category).
You are quite the spammer. Darwin’s personal views are maybe interesting to historians. But we have the theory of evolution, not a theory of Darwin. You might find some horrible thing Isaac Newton once wrote, yet gravity still exists. So it goes for evolution.
It’s called a theory and this one is backed by reproducable experimental facts.
Creationism is just wishfull thinking going taliban.
Everything all happened by accident ping.
New fossil discoveries? All kinds?
Think nothign of his statement- it’s just another generalization without any evidnece to back it up- There was plenty of room for hte original kinds- sickoflibs will have to show Noah infact must have forgotten some kinds IF he’s to make his case, but I’m sure he’s got Noah’s checklist handy to show us. My bet is that sickoflibs is only goign to throw out examples of MICROEVOLUTION in his ‘discovery of “NEW” species claim- same old same old argument- Macroevolutionists can’t cede that creationism is NOT averse to speciation which is MICROEvolution- kinds beget kinds.
The young earth theory combined with rapid changes due to catastrophic event as described in "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood " by Dr.Walt Brown blows the evolution theory out of the water and has far more "proofs" to the theory than evolutionary theory ever will.
His offer still stands for evolutionists to try disprove any of his theory.
Such as the radio carbon method.
Anyhow - if you have to ask you probably will not be able to understand.
Except that the THEORY of evolution can’t explain the simplest and most obvious observations, like where is the river delta from all the silt that should be at the outlet of the Colorado river where it empties into the gulf of California after carving out the grand canyon for millions of years?
Evolution does geography?
The Genetics of Plate Tectonics.
You mean the radio carbon formula that was formulated to meet a pre-conceived conclusion? There are a lot of problems associated with that FARCE.
And I have them on videotape.
Back in the 1700s is was possible to group all known history life into groups (Kinds) and fit them on the Ark. But as more digging took place they found so many different types of life fossils, mostly layered by complexity, there was no way they could be on the Ark. In fact the writers of Genesis had never seen life outside of local Biblical area.
After Darwin's ideas took hold a new group of phony Creationists cropped up and completely ignored the problems the serious ones tried to deal with in the 1980s. They only had one theory “Darwin and anyone that listened to him burns in hell forever” . Then they act outraged they are not allowed to teach that theory in science class.
[[Back in the 1700s is was possible to group all known history life into groups (Kinds) and fit them on the Ark. But as more digging took place they found so many different types of life fossils, mostly layered by complexity, there was no way they could be on the Ark. In fact the writers of Genesis had never seen life outside of local Biblical area.]]
This is al ie- IF you bothered to actually check out your claim further, you would note that there was plenty of room on the ark with room to spare- the estimates have been done, and it would NOT have been impossible as you claim- EVEN IF more species are found- which isn’t likely concidering we have documented most known species kinds already- sorry, but your claim doesn’t wash
Ah Ha! Maybe that’s why the Colorado doesn’t make it to the gulf because it deposited too much silt. Is it even true that he river doesn’t make it to the gulf? Maybe Baja California is the delta!
Evolution DOESN’T INCLUDE geography? Why is that? Surely the earth “evolved” too.
And as far as plate tectonics go, you better brush up on your schooling. It’s a very flawed THEORY, like al theories put together to support another flawed theory are.
shhhh- don’t mention that radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about.... 10,000 or so years- beyond that, it’s all nothign but speculation and assumptions- but alas, we creationists ‘don’t understand’. We ‘don’t understand’ for instance that ALL the dating methods have SERIOUS problems associated with htem such as the following major dating methods:
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.
Very little info on this method
Luminescence Dating Methods
Amino Acid Racemization
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating
Wayne Ranney, Carving the Grand Canyon: Evidence, Theories, and Mystery (Grand Canyon, Arizona: Grand Canyon Association, 2005), back cover.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.