Darwin's Illegitimate Brainchild

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh alright. Let's say he was a complete liar, took false credit and so on. If anything, that means we should think about renaming the theory, but that doesn't make the theory itself any more or less true about the world.

So if he is willing to take credit for the hypthesis that wasn't his, what does that tell us about how we should view any subsequent research?  If he is so dishonest at such a fundamental level, should any of his claims of observation be taken as truthful? 

[alphaparticle]

 

shiloh alright. Let's say he was a complete liar, took false credit and so on. If anything, that means we should think about renaming the theory, but that doesn't make the theory itself any more or less true about the world.

So if he is willing to take credit for the hypthesis that wasn't his, what does that tell us about how we should view any subsequent research?  If he is so dishonest at such a fundamental level, should any of his claims of observation be taken as truthful? 

 

We don't have to trust him or his research. We can do it ourselves.  I don't think anyone really relies on Darwin's original research to establish evolution. It's referenced sure, but everything has been redone in a much more rigorous fashion.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

shiloh alright. Let's say he was a complete liar, took false credit and so on. If anything, that means we should think about renaming the theory, but that doesn't make the theory itself any more or less true about the world.

So if he is willing to take credit for the hypthesis that wasn't his, what does that tell us about how we should view any subsequent research?  If he is so dishonest at such a fundamental level, should any of his claims of observation be taken as truthful? 

 

We don't have to trust him or his research. We can do it ourselves.  I don't think anyone really relies on Darwin's original research to establish evolution. It's referenced sure, but everything has been redone in a much more rigorous fashion.

 

And to no avail.

[alphaparticle]

And to no avail.

 

Alright. Suppose you are right, and that evolution is, at the end of the day, a terrible theory and ought to be dismissed. What does that have to do with the OP? Whether or not Darwin was an idiot, a thief, an all around terrible person with stupid ideas, what does *that* have to do with contemporary formulations of evolution which are based on new research and new understandings about how biology works? (whether or not correct)

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Everyone,

               Wow,I think that is quite an interesting article & you would think that anyone that holds to the "theory of evolution" would want to give credit where it is due.......I think this type of exposure makes the entire hypothesis really appear to be hogwash, more than ever, that given the time that this speculation was suggested by Darwin was indeed"the age of enlightenment" & it was a perfect "time "for his attempt to discredit the Word of God  and would be accepted without reprocussions......I would imagine in an earlier time this kind of heresy could cause some heat(like being burnt at a stake)

                   I am not even discussing  the validity of natural selection because I do not think that is the OP point......very interesting,the man was a complete fraud & a fake.....again,nothing to do with "evolution"...but who was Charles Darwin really?

                                                                                                                                            With love,in Christ-Kwik

[Guest shiloh357]

 

And to no avail.

 

Alright. Suppose you are right, and that evolution is, at the end of the day, a terrible theory and ought to be dismissed.

Well first off, it is NOT a theory.  It is an untested hypothesis.  There are no transitional fossils.  There is no evidence of one animal evolving into another animal, no common ancestor between human and apes has been or ever will be found.   Evolution is just a hypothesis and bad one at that.   I would have to commit intellectual suicide to subscribe to it, but I respect myself  too much to be an evolutionist.

 

What does that have to do with the OP? Whether or not Darwin was an idiot, a thief, an all around terrible person with stupid ideas, what does *that* have to do with contemporary formulations of evolution which are based on new research and new understandings about how biology works? (whether or not correct)

 

It has everything to do with  it.   Evoution was first introduced at a time when science was in its infancy, when nothing was known about the cell and it was considered to be "simple."

 

Over time, scientists have discovered that the cell and DNA are far more complex  than anyone previously could have known,   One reason people believe in an old earth today is because the more complex we discover life to be, the more time is needed for Evolution to have occurred. Had evolution been proposed in our day and age for the first time, and not some 200 years ago, it would not have been accepted by anyone.

 

Evolution was proposed NOT on the basis of science, but on the basis of rejecting the Bible's claim that God created the world.  There is no science behind it.  It was an assumption that the scientific world, needing an alternative to Genesis has been vigorously trying to prove and intimidate everyone into accepting as established fact.   They call it a "theory" but it is not a theory on the basis of how science defines a theory.  Essentially, Evolution is assumed to be true and scientists are trying to prove what they are assuming.  The evidence is interpreted through the filter of an assumption that has not been proven to be true.

 

If you build a house on a bad foundation, everything built on that foundation will be faulty. 

[alphaparticle]

 

 

And to no avail.

 

Alright. Suppose you are right, and that evolution is, at the end of the day, a terrible theory and ought to be dismissed.

Well first off, it is NOT a theory.  It is an untested hypothesis.  There are no transitional fossils.  There is no evidence of one animal evolving into another animal, no common ancestor between human and apes has been or ever will be found.   Evolution is just a hypothesis and bad one at that.   I would have to commit intellectual suicide to subscribe to it, but I respect myself  too much to be an evolutionist.

 

What does that have to do with the OP? Whether or not Darwin was an idiot, a thief, an all around terrible person with stupid ideas, what does *that* have to do with contemporary formulations of evolution which are based on new research and new understandings about how biology works? (whether or not correct)

 

It has everything to do with  it.   Evoution was first introduced at a time when science was in its infancy, when nothing was known about the cell and it was considered to be "simple."

 

Over time, scientists have discovered that the cell and DNA are far more complex  than anyone previously could have known,   One reason people believe in an old earth today is because the more complex we discover life to be, the more time is needed for Evolution to have occurred. Had evolution been proposed in our day and age for the first time, and not some 200 years ago, it would not have been accepted by anyone.

 

Evolution was proposed NOT on the basis of science, but on the basis of rejecting the Bible's claim that God created the world.  There is no science behind it.  It was an assumption that the scientific world, needing an alternative to Genesis has been vigorously trying to prove and intimidate everyone into accepting as established fact.   They call it a "theory" but it is not a theory on the basis of how science defines a theory.  Essentially, Evolution is assumed to be true and scientists are trying to prove what they are assuming.  The evidence is interpreted through the filter of an assumption that has not been proven to be true.

 

If you build a house on a bad foundation, everything built on that foundation will be faulty. 

 

Right, I agree with you that the science is much different than it was during Darwin's day. This is where I'm confused about your line of reasoning. Shouldn't the focus be on evolution as founded on modern understandings of genetics etc, rather than Darwin's initial research and ideas?

[jerryR34]

 

Right, I agree with you that the science is much different than it was during Darwin's day. This is where I'm confused about your line of reasoning. Shouldn't the focus be on evolution as founded on modern understandings of genetics etc, rather than Darwin's initial research and ideas?

 

 

Great point.  We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory.  Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

[Enoch2021]

 

Great point.  We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory.  Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

 

 

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis

 

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

 

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

And to no avail.

 

Alright. Suppose you are right, and that evolution is, at the end of the day, a terrible theory and ought to be dismissed.

Well first off, it is NOT a theory.  It is an untested hypothesis.  There are no transitional fossils.  There is no evidence of one animal evolving into another animal, no common ancestor between human and apes has been or ever will be found.   Evolution is just a hypothesis and bad one at that.   I would have to commit intellectual suicide to subscribe to it, but I respect myself  too much to be an evolutionist.

 

What does that have to do with the OP? Whether or not Darwin was an idiot, a thief, an all around terrible person with stupid ideas, what does *that* have to do with contemporary formulations of evolution which are based on new research and new understandings about how biology works? (whether or not correct)

 

It has everything to do with  it.   Evoution was first introduced at a time when science was in its infancy, when nothing was known about the cell and it was considered to be "simple."

 

Over time, scientists have discovered that the cell and DNA are far more complex  than anyone previously could have known,   One reason people believe in an old earth today is because the more complex we discover life to be, the more time is needed for Evolution to have occurred. Had evolution been proposed in our day and age for the first time, and not some 200 years ago, it would not have been accepted by anyone.

 

Evolution was proposed NOT on the basis of science, but on the basis of rejecting the Bible's claim that God created the world.  There is no science behind it.  It was an assumption that the scientific world, needing an alternative to Genesis has been vigorously trying to prove and intimidate everyone into accepting as established fact.   They call it a "theory" but it is not a theory on the basis of how science defines a theory.  Essentially, Evolution is assumed to be true and scientists are trying to prove what they are assuming.  The evidence is interpreted through the filter of an assumption that has not been proven to be true.

 

If you build a house on a bad foundation, everything built on that foundation will be faulty. 

 

Right, I agree with you that the science is much different than it was during Darwin's day. This is where I'm confused about your line of reasoning. Shouldn't the focus be on evolution as founded on modern understandings of genetics etc, rather than Darwin's initial research and ideas?

 

The point is that the notion of an animal evolving over time into a completely different animal would never have been proposed today, had it not been proposed during a time when the science of how complex the single cell really is, didn't exist.

 

The notion that man or any other creature evolved from completely different animals is an assumption that was never proven.  Scientists, instead of trying to disprove Evolution eagerly sought to prove the assumption.  They ineterpret the evidence to fit the assumption.  The assumption predates the evidence and serves as the filter for how the evidence is interpreted and presented to the public. 

 

Even today, the assumption is presumed true and any evidence presented is presented in a manner to make it fit the assumption that evolution actually happened.