Skip to comments.Darwin’s bulldog—Thomas H. Huxley (ironically, he had no patience for Christian evolutionists)
Posted on 11/04/2009 8:25:01 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Darwins bulldogThomas H. Huxley
Huxley, although an unbeliever, was thoroughly familiar with the gospel, and had little time for Christians who compromised their position by supporting the anti-biblical belief of evolutionary naturalism. He wrote: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
POP! - CORN! Who wants popcorn? POPCORN HERE! .......
(sorry. this is always an energetic topic. fun to watch)
When you post such useless excerpts, why don’t you provide a summary of the article or the point you’re trying to make?
I think it is somewhat obvious what the article is about, even from the standpoint of a short excerpt.
A non-believer is of the opinion that ‘Christians’ should hold to what their Holy Bible says. Evolution, as a theory of life genesis and diversity, is a non-starter.
Genesis is the cornerstone, the first book of the Bible, and as such is under attack by those that would love to discredit the entire Bible. The Bible is the Word of God, and God does not lie.
Those who profess to believe in Jesus and God, but who dismiss what the Bible says need to re-examine their faith. You are playing into the hands of liberals as well as the prince of this world. The Bible is to be accepted in its entirety, not cherry-picked for thos things you agree with or don’t cause ‘conviction’ in your heart.
How on earth could you call the excerpt useless? It tells you exactly what you are about to read!
Thanks for sharing :o)
Do you believe you can drink deadly poison and live as the Bible states?
Why couldn't you tack it onto one of the thousand threads you've already done about Darwin?
The basis of atheism isn’t “great scientific knowledge” or “an understanding of evolution”... It’s hatred of being judged. The atheist hates the judge and despises the righteousness of Christianity.
And that goes for everything else too. Basically, and I mean no offense to my atheist buddies, atheism is a cop out. And, by default, atheists are quitters.
Not all, though. Many atheists are actually reprehensible criminals, caught and uncaught. Some are like the people who abduct then rape and murder teenage girls. Some are like the people who work at abortion clinics. Some are political opportunists and activists.
But, in general, atheists are empty people.
We should pity them.
Your concern is touching...LOL!
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites."
(Thomas Huxley, 1871, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews, Chap. ii)
Just about the most succinct if not damning statement one of Darwin's own contemporaries and acolytes could have possibly uttered. It is what Darwinism is ultimately all about -- the dehumanizing and exploitation of masses of perceived "lesser humans" by an elite. Little wonder Marx himself was so intrigued by the concept.
I beleive also as Jesus told Satan when tempted to step off the roof of a tall building, that Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Could Jesus have stepped off that building without harm? I do believe so, but why put God to the test? What makes you think any earthly being is worthy to put his Creator to the test?
Neither would I tempt the Lord by handling a venomous snake bare handed. Though I do rather enjoy their non-venomous brothers.
Here’s a case for ya. I have an almost 8’ Yellow Anaconda. Near his tail are two spurs, that, if you were to see a bare skeleton are what could very well be vestigial legs.
Aha!! See? Evolution!!! Evidence!!!! But wait......
In Genesis, that wily serpent lied, just enough to get Eve to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. When she told God why she had eaten....
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Reading that, it would appear God removed the serpents legs for his part in this original sin. Not only that, but there does indeed seem to be ‘enmity’ between the seed of the serpent and the seed of that woman.
IOW, lumpen-bibliliteralist bigotry. Ill pass.
Will you, now?
Will you also pass on Huxley's view of Catholisim too?
"In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind--the Catholic Church"
- T.H Huxley, Darwiniana.
SO who's the real bigot there, Od?
It doesn't come close to what Martin Luther said about Jews.
Evolutionary biology is the truth observed in nature. How some people may misinterpret it, doesn't make it any less true.
“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”
Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.
Darwin has said stuff just as damning, but it’s all good to the evos because he opposed slavery.
Why would any of your atheist buddies be offended by your references to them copping out, quitting, comparable (in many cases) to reprehensible criminals, child rapists and murderers, and empty people?
Why that would be like Christians being offended if someone were to reference them as arrogant, bigoted, self-righteous people totally full of themselves. And we know that never happens either.
That’s why I said, “No offense intended to my atheist buddies.”
But the rest of my post is after years and years of careful study and, albeit gently, I’ve informed my buddies of the findings I found.
The best of atheists just wants to deny the judge. The rest are incorrigible.
What did your studies turn up?
What did Martin Luther say about the Jews?
Evolution has NOT been observed. There are NO intermediary life forms shown. Adaptation has been observed. This is what Darwin observed, and the basis for his THEORY that adaptation would lead, over time to a change from one type of animal into another.
But that form change is NOT what can be found. Eohippus was a horse, small though it may have been. The descendants of Eohippus are STILL horses to this day, not pigs, or platypi.
I have yet to perfect what you have obviously overcome with your years of careful study on the subject - how to get colleagues and acquaintances, much less complete strangers, to discuss their atheism, and then have enough time to delve deeply into their heads to determine whether they want to deny the judge or are simply incorrigible.
I have known two people (both worked for the CIA incidentally) who are absolutely expert at getting others to open up about things they ordinarily would not discuss.
I admire that you have this quality as well, such that it has given you enough of a sample size to determine that only these 2 possibilities exist - deny the judge or incorrigible. It’s quite impressive.
You are applying the simplest mistake in definitions. Darwin was right in his basic premise. Note the title of his work “Origin of Species.” He discerned that speciation was the result of niche, isolation and competition. Key in here closely - darwinian evolution examines changes in a SPECIES over time. You Eohippus to modern horse is a nice example. Thank you for bringing it up. Note his book is not titled “Origin of Genus” or “Origin of Phylum.”
Thank you for the compliment.
It’s only with sadness that I report my findings. I like to think that atheists are basically like you and me but that they do not believe in any God.
I had a friend who proclaimed his atheism and he was a very funny guy. I trusted him too. But he somehow got ahold of my banking information and decided to help himself to the acct balance then he left. I never heard from him again.
So, I continued my studies. And I’m still studying.
But don’t you notice the pattern? The absence of belief certainly frees up man’s worst instincts and leaves those instincts free to do as they please. Notwithstanding the callous, vicious sociopathic murderer, but even the ordinary man who renounces his belief (and by default his allegiance) to doing the right thing.
For whatever reason, I have tons of atheists friends and they all find me to be an amusing and cool guy.
You just reminded me of one of my old professors many decades ago. He once told the class the dangers of generalization. He said that you can determine the worth of a paper by the breadth of it’s conclusion. Usually the smaller the sample size the broader the conclusion. Any thesis including a single broad generalization went straight into the trash.
The parents of a hybrid species would be intermediary, or transitional by definition.
Of course, what you mean by an intermediary is probably a strawman anyway.
Yet evolution backers insist that those early horses could change species. That is my point, there is no evidence of one species changing to another. Adaptation is not evolution.
“For whatever reason, I have tons of atheists friends and they all find me to be an amusing and cool guy.”
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 1 Corinthians 5:11
Who ever said horses didn’t change species? Of course they did. But they remained the genus Equus.
A hybrid is not a transitional animal. I can breed my striped california kingsnake with my florida king and get hybrids. Not only are these hybrids still kingsnakes, they are still snakes, with no characteristics leading them to be anything else except kingsnakes.
No strawman here
I said the parents of the hybrid species are transitional. And not all hybrids are new species.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
It does not say that the animals were brought forth to change into things not of their kind. SOmething that was not a horse did not change into a horse.
So a three-toed cat sized forest dwelling animal turning into my 16 hand 1200 lb 1 hoof quarter does not represent a change (read evolution) in your mind?
Man has provided for the adaptation of all kinds of animals (see dogs, from Chihuahua to the Mastiff, from wild stock. ALL are still dogs/canines, NONE are now cats.) This is adaptation, not evolution. Show me a horse turning to a whale. A fish changing to a bird. Or perhaps even the liberal panacea of an ape changing to Man. No such population of ‘transitory’ animals existed, as evidenced by lack of fossil evidence.
Again, I must say that you are not properly applying the term evolution. The term adaptation is a synonym of evolution. By your statements you are professing a belief in evolution. You’re trying to say since there are no fish-lizards or monkey-men then evolution doesn’t exist. Your statement in light of proper use of the definitions is absurd.
Adaptation says that an existing life form can adapt, without changing WHAT IT IS. A fish is not going to adapt its way into a praying mantis. However, a fish can adapt to new er environment (Provided the change is not too extreme for the animal) and IT REMAINS A FISH.
Where did the existing life forms come from to do this adaptation? See Genesis.
your attempt to equate adaptation with evolution is not honest.
You really have no idea what is in “Origin of Species” do you?
I would suggest to you that you read the original treatise before you continue. Your examples are ludicrous only because you don’t understand the basis. I would also suggest you look up adaptive traits - you’ll find it included in the definition of evolution.
Here. I will link it for you.
Honestly, I do not NEED to know what Darwin wrote. Darwin is but a small protion of the entire issue.
Did life start spontaneously, a mixture of dead organics that miraculously combined in a very specific way that enabled it to ‘live’.
Following that, did that new life, over millenia change from single cell status to the life we see today.
I say NO to this. I say the life forms wew see today (as well as those that are since extinct) were called into being in an act of creation.
Having said that, again, in regards to the larger issue, adaptation is NOT evolution. Mankind did not ‘evolve’ from some small primitive animal that ‘might have’ lived millions of years ago.
To echo your question, You really have no idea what is in Genesis and WHY it is so important to liberals and such that it be ‘proven’ untrue, do you?
Quite the opposite. I’m very familiar with both works. It’s the ‘head in the sand’ attitude you’ve taken that makes this discussion so cathartic. Your don’t “need to know what Darwin wrote” statement is very telling about the level of discussion that you’re capable of. If you were going to write a book critique about Tom Sawyer would you also expect full credit for saying that since Samuel Clements used a pen name (a sure sign of a fraud) you can just guess at what’s in the book and not have to read it.
You’re suffering from willful ignorance. The only cure for which is to read what you are in opposition to so you can “intelligently design” your response.
While you may have a point on the surface, I am also opposed to socialism/communism. I have not read the works of Marx nor Mao, nor do I really intend to, I know, based on world experience their teachings are false and destructive.
It is not willful ignorance on my part to decline to read that which is false. I willfully choose to believe what is written in the Bible.
There is an ever increasing load of material that is beginning to refute the THEORY of Evolution. If you choose to continue to subscribe to the idea that life today is the result of millions, or billions of years of evolution, that is your call. You do yourself no favors.
I for one choose the bible as my truth. And Genesis, being the first book, the beginning of all, is under attack by those that would discredit the whole. As is the same within Conservatism, incremental compromise yields only disastrous results.
There is no compromise for this. Genesis is actually very specific. And is true.
While I agree with your defense of our values I hope that you would at least familiarize yourself with the material so that you can make solid arguments in support of your position. It will save you from making statements that would otherwise invalidate your very real concerns.
All the best.
Values aside, Adaptation is not Evolution. Apples and Oranges so to speak. I do know that Darwin wrote of how animals changed based on environmental pressures.
Case in point was a population of Finches whose beaks changed based on weather causing changes in seed characteristics.
Yet in the final analysis, the Finches were still Finches, not new animal forms.
Evolutionists have, at the core of their argument, the desire to refute Genesis by linking the ‘evolution’ of humans from apes. Were that to be true, the rest of the Bible just becomes a book of morality.
I stand by the requirement to PROVE evolution beyond a Theory. Until then, that is all it is. At least I can see the Theory of Gravity by dropping an apple. I’ve not seen nary a sliver of proof of animals changing beyond the minor adaptation. Surely there would be proof of some transitional form during the diversification that is theorized.