ok,"smart scientific minds who love to name call" have you read chapter 6 of Origin of Species?

Question

Obviously not In chapter 6, he throws out doubts on his own findings, and he wasnt dying or talking to any lady or gentleman for that matter, so call me what you will, but large egos obvioulsy compensate for something. Even true science has no findings in this theory

I understand what you are saying, whozethere, and I agree, it could have been developmentally that way, but the animals were created to be that animal, not one species from another, adaptation is different.

Thank you, Ashley, so , let me clarify your words now, I am uneducated trailer trash, hmmm, I see, thank you for that theory, can you prove it.

EVEN SCIENCE ITSELF PROVES JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT DARWIN STATED. The fossil layers themselves prove that the primevil soup philosophy is not solid.
Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time. Their “belief” was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory. They were wrong! Exactly the opposite happened. After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better CHECK OUT THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens.

The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms. So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything. But wait, it gets even more interesting. To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct? This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact. A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence.

Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide.
“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every species known to man. Yes, dinosaurs, birds, reptiles, and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

First, evolutionists assume planets grew (evolved) by rocky debris falling from outer space, a process called gravitational accretion. Heat generated by a planet’s worth of impacts would have left the rocky planets molten. However, Venus was never molten. Had it been, its hot atmosphere would have prevented its subsurface rocks from cooling enough to support its mountains. So Venus did not evolve by gravitational accretion.

Secondly, evolutionists believe the entire solar system is billions of years old. If Venus were billions of years old, its atmospheric heat would have “soaked” deeply enough into the planet to weaken its subsurface rocks. If so, not only could Venus’ crust not support mountains, the hot mountains themselves could not maintain their steep slopes. Venus must be relatively young.
(a) Richard A. Kerr, “A New Portrait of Venus: Thick-Skinned and Decrepit,” Science, Vol. 263, 11 February 1994, pp. 759–760.

THE EARTH ITSELF CONTRADICTS EVOLUTIONISM http://searchwarp.com/swa43827.htm

Our space explorations have found the irrefutable answer: the process we call evolution simply does not work. The difficulty lies in understanding those who prefer to ignore the facts.
According to NASA, microorganisms were inadvertently taken to the moon by an unmanned spacecraft. When the equipment of this spacecraft was brought back to earth more than two and a half years later by our astronauts, it was discovered that an earth microbe had survived the lunar environment, which is harsher than the Martian environment. Obviously, for life to have thrived on extraterrestrial bodies there was no need for nature to even resort to biologically "strange" creatures. In spite of the hostile environments of these spheres, life forms with which we are familiar could have survived. Yet, these worlds show absolutely no signs of ever having been inhabited by any forms of life -- normal or strange. So, where does all this leave evolution? Not on very shttp://searchwarp.com/swa43827.htmolid groun

and, d chino, your comment would be posted in psychology, thank you for knowing my mind better than I do

thank you angel for your support, guess I have. You know what, tho, they have been rude I am supposedly uneducated trailer trash, but oh, well, so be it.

Answer 1

Wow.
Looks like you really rattled a few cages!
For me, the bottom line is...God did it.
How? Well, He didn't tell me that. Could He have set a system in motion that included evolution? Possibly. I don't know, He didn't tell me. The point is, God did it.
I like Jay's "evolving evolution" explanation, but I have to wonder...if science is forever discovering new ideas and new ways of explaining things, how do you know you have the ultimate answer in evolution? Who knows, somebody might make a discovery tomorrow that refutes everything that science has discovered so far...
But I have to say...Ashley's reaction made me roar with laughter! LOL! And then they want to talk about how rude CHRISTIANS are!

Answer 2

This chapter raises a number of objections that others might make to the theory and addresses them. It does not reflect doubt on the part of Mr. Darwin that his theory was correct, only an honest reflection on some of the difficulties in proving the new theory to skeptics. Some of his responses to the doubt have held up quite well over time. In the intervening century and a half a lot more evidence has been found which supports and fills out the theory. After all, at the time he wrote it he wasn't even aware of mendelian genetics. Genetics has answered a lot of the questions about the mechanism of evolution.
Darwin didn't speak with one hundred percent certainty. That's not how scientists view the world. They do the best with the limited information they have to develop the best answers that fit the facts but recognize that there are areas they need to know more about and newly learned facts may force modifications or abandonment of current views.
Religion, on the other hand, offers certainties because it doesn't worry about the data. If the data disagrees with the religious assertions then the data's ignored or ridiculed.

Answer 3

I have never read origin of species.

And in the end I don't care if Darwin rejected all of this theories. Whether Darwin accepts evolution or not has ZERO bearing on the validity of the theory. Especially today, where thousands of other more experienced and better trained scientists and biologists have continually validated and supported the theory.

Science is not religion. A theory does not become any less valid just because the individual who developed it later doubts it. Science does not hold scientists as infallible, and makes great efforts to maintain that all science is quite fallible.

Einstein called his theory about the cosmic inflationary force the biggest mistake of his life. Come to find out he was absolutely correct.

Does this mean we should abandon the General theory of relativity just because Einstein had doubts about cosmic inflation?

EDIT:

If you are so interested in this you would have posted this in biology. Or gone to talk.origins on usenet to ask your questions.

Of course the real reason you are posting this drivel is because you are not interested in knowledge, just trolling for responses. If you actually wanted to have an intelligent debate you would be discussing this with learned scientists and biologists not wasting time on YA.

Answer 4

Aye aye, cap'n.
Look, when Darwin first published his theories, he was on thin ice with the rest of the scientific community not to mention society in general. He himself had trouble reconciling his theories with the religion he and his wife were brought up in. Of course he throws doubts on his own findings, because that was a radical thing to publish and he wanted to cover all the bases, even if that meant questioning the reasoning his theories were based on. That is part of the scientific process- questioning and trying to find loopholes. I don't know what you mean by "Even true science has no findings on this theory". Which one? Natural selection? Or the entire theory of evolution? I'm glad you've read Darwin, but it isn't the "Bible" of science. There are many other works, including some more by Darwin, that expand on or refute parts of the theories. Science is ever changing.

Answer 5

Christians love to take things out of context to prove a point...do it with the bible, and now doing it with Darwin. My response to your "question" is, so?

What have you proved which your poorly phrased accusations??

What Darwin was proposing was a revolutionary idea, every author of a new paradigm will have misgivings, doubts and second thoughts. That is human nature, scientists publish theirs, christians don't admit to having any.

All scientific papers (good ones anyway) will write a section on possible errors in their data and other hypotheses that might also explain the data. Then other scientists try and repeat, and refine the ideas. Darwins name is still attached to the theory of evolution by natural selection, but it has evolved since his first attempt.

realizing the furor his ideas would cause, Darwin sat on what became Origin of Species for years, and only published when he realized Alfred Russell had come up with the same ideas and was about to announce his hypothesis of evolution by natural selection.

Answer 6

Darwin proposed a theory of evolution. That theory has some faults, and over time science has developed improved theories. Evolution is a fact, The theories address how it works.

Newton published a theory of gravity that was not entirely correct either. Scientists continue to improve our understanding of gravity and propose new theories, but gravity is no less a fact just because we cant explain it with absolute precision.

Answer 7

Any smart scientist will say he is not certain. It is called keeping an open mind. I know you don't like it, but we have evidence to back his theory. He said he may be wrong, not "oh Jesus, I believe". He only said that in you imagination. We have, DNA, fossil record, common traits, we have seen bacteria evolve (they do it in your body), and much more. I should not even bother with you, because as I said, you are just trying to convince yourself of your fairy tail called religion. You are not asking a question. You will not even look at the evidence, because you do not want to see it.

Answer 8

A day in the Lord's time is not our literal day . . . who knows how long the garden of Eden lasted before Eve ate the apple . . . how do we know the Lord didn't use some of the evolutionary process to create the Earth? I don't believe animals kept morphing from one type of an animal to another, but certainly development could taken some time.

Answer 9

Creationist "Liars For Jesus" (LFJ) web sites are very fond of taking quotations out of context. One of the techniques that they use quite frequently is to quote a sentence or a paragraph where an author expresses a problem with his theory... but they OMIT the next sentence or paragraph where the author explains why it IS NOT a problem.

I would suggest that you read Chapter 6 of Origin of the Species YOURSELF, so that you can LEARN FOR YOURSELF why LFJ resources cannot be relied upon.

Congratulations... you have just made a fool out of yourself.

Answer 10

Darwin was smart enough to know that there was still a lot of evidence needed to be found to solidify his theory. We aren't working off of his exact theory anymore...the theory itself has evolved. You read Darwin for the history of evolution science. Someone like Richard Dawkins is better for up to date knowledge....or read science journals.

Answer 11

Like Einstein who subsequently disproved the existence of God Darwin was mortified in many respects by the obvious conclusions of his work. It would have been difficult even for geniuses to overcome the deluded certainties of the 19th century.