If you ever quote "Answers in Genesis" or agree with anything on it, could you stop saying Darwin recanted

Question

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Even the biggest Christian Apologists don't think anyone should use this argument. Isn’t it time you quite too? It is a little embarrassing.

This is the only part you need to read:

Which arguments should definitely not be used?
“Darwin recanted on his deathbed.”
Many people use this story; however, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him—even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if it were true, so what? If Ken Ham renounced the Bible, would that disprove it? See Did Darwin recant? and Did Darwin Renounce Evolution on His Deathbed?

Way to get off topic David T. You missed the point again.

Answer 1

If you read the "Answers in Genesis" website more closely, you'll discover that they also DO NOT believe that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. Even AiG acknowledge this!

To creationists Darwin is a lost soul, to everyone else, he is an intelligent man who helped define the modern world.

Answer 2

I never knew Darwin recanted. So sad.

Despite that, Darwin spent almost 30 years THAT I KNOW OF on Evolution and other great Biology works. That alone makes him a hero of mine.

Besides, I'm not so presumptuous as to tell God how to make something. He can use whatever method he wants, including evolution. That's for science to work out, not Biblical Scholars. Would they like Science telling them continuously that the Bible was wrong, and then never actually giving them proof? They do the same to science over evolution. They say its not, they ask for proof, but they never give proof evolution isn't in fact not the truth. Sorry, mind was wandering...

Answer 3

I don't understand who is it embarrassing? By your avatar, i would think you would want creationists to embarrass themselves.

But, we sure wish he had recanted, for his own sake. I can't say for certain he didn't, because i don't know his heart. But he probably didn't out loud if that is what his loved ones say.

AdamKad... we can't give prove that they are wrong, for the same reason they can't prove they are right. Evolution is a belief system, NOT science. If it was science, it could be proved true or false.

Answer 4

If the fundies took any notice of the AiG "Arguments you shouldn't use" page then Y!A R&S would be a lot shorter.

Even better if they checked out the "No answers in Genesis" website. Use your search engine if you don't trust the link.

Answer 5

Bravo! Darwin did not change his mind.

Answer 6

interesting

Answer 7

Thanks for the great site. And I wholeheartedly agree with your points made.

Answer 8

OK....this uses none of those, not that you make the rules, but here you go!

DNA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity
The DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries.

DNA Double Helix: The "Basics"
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell.

The DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function.

Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.

We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the material base used to transmit it. Some current theories argue that self-organizing properties within the base chemicals themselves created the information in the first DNA molecule. Others argue that external self-organizing forces created the first DNA molecule. However, all of these theories must hold to the illogical conclusion that the material used to transmit the information also produced the information itself. Contrary to the current theories of evolutionary scientists, the information contained within the genetic code must be entirely independent of the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule.

DNA Double Helix: Its Existence Alone Defeats any Theory of Evolution
The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.

Answer 9

too much crap to read dear.....