Did Darwin have proof?

Question

Scientists come up with a theory and then they try to prove that theory. So did Darwin ever find any major scientific proof of evolution. How do we know that the finches that had their beeks grow because of a draught, and they needed to be able to crack larger nuts and get them into deeper, larger areas, aren't the work of God. The bible says that a thousand of our days is like one day to God. So how do we know that when God created the earth, it took alot longer than a 6 day week. We dont know. But if scientists would find the truth first and then back it up with facts, instead of creating a theory and trying to back it up with facts, I think our society would be alot further along. Tell me what you guys think. About the THEORY of evolution, and Darwin, and all this coming about in just the past century.

Answer 1

Darwin found a naturally-occuring laboratory with the Galapagos Islands. There he collected specimens and took notes. What he observed there led him to begin his work on the evolution of species.

You cannot say that what he observed wasn't the truth. He BEGAN with facts. The theory came years later.

Now how about you quit arguing from the end and do the same?

Answer 2

OK, here's the thing. Darwin was not an evolutionist as such. He reasonably proved the nature will select the best suited species and help it to adapt to its surrounding environment. This is change within a species. That is verifiable through study. He could not, nor has anyone ever "proved" change from one species to another species.

As far as the 6 days, day is a thousand years thing... Why do people put these two section from different parts of the bible together. it's like saying "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" and "Jesus wept" so therefore jesus didn't want the heavens and earth created... easy to take different verses out of context.

AS far as theorys are concerned. All theories are posed before evidence is gathered based on some observation and some guess work. They try to explain what seems correct and then find proof. How they interpret the evidence is sometimes biased. For instance, the Second law if Thermodynamics is considered to be absolute irrefutable fact. It states that as time progresses, all organized systems break down into simpler forms. So all things are in a constant state of decay to some degree. This is easy to see. Steel rusts, mountains crumble and break, even societies grow corrupt and fall apart. Yet, for evolutionists, htis means nothing. All scientific laws are ignored in explaining their theory. For some reason evolutionists think creatures develop into more complex creatures over time. This flies in the face of fact and they trust in it completely as true. Even charles darwin himself said that the idea of something as complex as the dozens of muscles controlling the human eye developing through evolution seemed preposterous. i personally know a number of science professionals who are actively trying to disprove evolution based on evidence who have no religious beliefs and are working from the idea of extraterrestial intervention of some kind. They studied and believed evolutionary theory and rejected it based on their findings. If we continue to ridicule and marginalize these people, evolutionist theory will continue to cloud the search for truth through real science.
personally I'm sticking with miraculous six day creation as I have seen no "evidence" strong enough to change my mind.

Answer 3

Darwin had evidence, not proof. Darwin observed the finches and numerous other animals aboard the Beagle. This knowledge plus the findings of others led to his hypothesis. It became a theory when is was tested and its ability to predict future observations was demonstrated.

Answer 4

No, he was very uncertain about his theories, and he openly admitted this. The interesting thing is as you stated at the end of your statement, having the substance of true science would indeed be the wise course.

But rather what evolutionists wish people to do can be compared to the 2 tricky tailors in the story "The Emperor's New Cloths"--
If you remember the claim was that they had an invisible cloth that they would make a great set of cloths for the emperor. While as time progressed and they revealed their creation, nobody could see any cloth. What then did the 2 tailors say to cover their backs. They said it is only the intellectual ones that can see the marvelous cloth'--Well the emperor then went about either totally naked or with his underwear on.
How does that apply to the pseudo-science, evolution? It does in that the cloth, fabric or substance(true science) to their theories--does not exhist , it is as "invisible"--to the ignorant class, but they as intellectuals 'see' it---to their utmost embarrassment or it should be.

Please note some timely comments from the science world:

*** ce chap. 2 p. 14-23Disagreements About Evolution—Why? ***

When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution”a

7 A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”—Italics added***

Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.--The Star, Johannesburg, “The Evolution of a Theory,” by Christopher Booker, April 20, 1982, p. 19.*

Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”9
The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, 1902 edition, Part One, p. 250.

15 Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin “was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.” In fact now, after more than a century of collecting fossils, “we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time,” explained the Bulletin.

23 Thus, in Harper’s magazine, writer Tom Bethell commented: “Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. . . . One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another . . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . . It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea.” Bethell added: “As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse.” --. Harper’s, “Darwin’s Mistake,” by Tom Bethell, February 1976, pp. 72, 75.

There is indeed no substance to any of the evolutionary theory process, none of their teaching have ever passed the 4 or 5 steps of "The Scientific Method"

Good question.

Answer 5

I think you're ignorant and should read 'On the Origin of the Species' before you open your yap. Darwinian natural selection is a fact. There is no dispute in this.

How would you have scientists arrive at the truth if not through observation and experimentation? If you think that scientists just make up theories and try to prove them, then you don't understand science at all and I think you should perhaps take a remedial chemistry or biology class.

Answer 6

Darwin expended a lot of time and money(other peoples) and in desperation made his ridiculous theory fit every question as most desperate scientists have done, and still there is no concrete evidence to support evolution except for a lot of sad disgruntled people who have not got the humility to admit it is fantasy, the only reason left to hang onto this theory is so that they can use it to disprove God, as if this could ever happen.
Do not forget that evolution was the brainchild of Athestic communism

Answer 7

Yes we talk about the theory of evolution. Just as scientists talk about the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity or the theory of thermodynamics.
There are NO laws of these forces by the way (no, there is no law of gravity, there are Newton's laws but they are not widely accepted in the scientific field) so DO try and learn what the word Theory means in a scientific context before you try this inane argument again.
Honestly all this does it demonstrate to the world how ignorant you really are...

Answer 8

What I read about a broad study that was by a group of scientists, was that they could find nothing that supported Darwin`s theory because there have been no fossils or remains of living creatures that show one species evolving into another species the way he tried to say it was. There is an evolution process that does show a species changing as the need for certain physical features when it was no longer needed for survival and gradually eliminated from the species or the elimination of the species altogether as it became extinct.

Answer 9

Calling something a truth and another thing a theory doesn't always make it so.

A theory may well end up being a truth, but a truth may well end up being a lie.

Answer 10

Have you even bothered at all to research evolution? Probably not.
You know god is really the biggest THEORY ever created over 4000 years later and there is not even a single respectable piece of evidence.