Wow, evolutionist are so quick? Good job!?

Question

Now that your on the right page. Darwin's one sided development of his brain, and the wasting away of the rest of his brain and many finer qualities, Darwin was not fully capable
of making correct conclusions from the facts he collected. It is ironical that while Darwin himself confessed his doubts in his own theory, people later adopted his theory as a new religion. Darwin himself lamented about it, for during his life-time, people had already adopted him as their hero and had begun to think that there is no God or no Supreme Soul whereas Darwin himself, in the last days of his life, had begun to turn more and more towards God.---- Om shanti

Answer 1

What a load of crap.

Answer 2

Strictly speaking, this site is supposed to be for questions -- you haven't asked a question, but made a series of false statements.

No, Darwin didn't recant; that's a common lie told by people who hate reason and evidence.

The reason people accept much of what Darwin said is that he was right.

Scientists have found support for Darwin's main conclusion in a number of completely disperate fields -- biology, paleantology, morphology, genetics (the mechanism, which Darwin had no way of knowing anything about), and others.

What your side seems incapable of understanding is that we don't accept an idea because we FEEL like it, or mindlessly agree with someone because we WANT to, but that we respect reason and evidence over blind, unreasoning, false faith.

Where you get that gibberish about Darwin's brain I do not know, but, since it's unclear what you're saying, or how it's relevant, I'm not going to bother with it.

Science is not a religion. It's not based on such statements as "God did it. Because this book says so." but based on evidence and reason.

People who reject reason and evidence don't understand this, but that doesn't make ignorance and insanity right, it just makes it ignorant and insane.

Even had Darwin recanted, that's completely irrelevant to the TRUTH of his basic idea.

That idea has been very well-confimed.

If you have any desire to actually understand science (and I gather you don't), here's a link:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Answer 3

were you there watching him lament?

anyway darwin is just one guy. the theory stands whether or not darwin believed it. in fact, the theory would still make sense if darwin had never been born. do you think everyone should stop believing in God if a rumor starts up that George Jr. recanted his religion?

Answer 4

Actually, his family records that with each passing day, he became more and more a convinced atheist, and that he died an atheist.

Is lying acceptable in your religion?

Further, every good scientist doubts his every hypothesis with the utmost skepticism, looks for all the flaws in it, and admits them loudly and proudly, because those flaws are how the rest of the scientific community will test the hypothesis to see if it ultimately is true or not.

Palentology was a young science when Darwin wrote his text. He pointed out that there were very few if any fossils that supported his hypothesis. He predicted that if he was right, such fossils should be all over the place. Over years, as palentology grew, millions of such fossils were found... they were found all over the place.

Predictive power is the name of the game.

Answer 5

Darwin died an atheist actually, learn to google better, on the other side i can give you an advice so you can see why people belive in god or any other entity, watch The Seventh Seal, it is an old movie, but i assure you when its finished you will see clearly why people want to belive in god.

Answer 6

*sigh*
This evolution/atheist thing is getting so ridiculous.
Evolution does not disprove god, people.
Stop being so afraid of science.
It can only bring you closer to the truth.

By the way, Darwin was NOT an atheist, nor was the theory of evolution's purpose to disprove god. It is just a very rational scientific theory of how life evolved on this planet.

Answer 7

particular, the commonality of structures, organelles, or perhaps DNA sequences point out that animals (mutually with us) and flowers (mutually with tomatoes) did certainly at one time have someone-friendly ancestor, from whom we the two inherited those shared characteristics. the alterations, genetic distance, and fossil information point out that this person-friendly ancestor became a protracted, long, long term in the past, and became not extraordinarily equivalent to the two a tomato or a human itself. in fact it became likely a unmarried-celled organism, in all hazard equivalent to an amoeba or Euglena, and the chop up probable happened some 2 to 3 billion years in the past.

Answer 8

You realize there's a lot more evidence than what Darwin said?

Answer 9

Wow, theists are so confused!?! Where, in that entire rant was there a question? Or any facts? Or anything else resembling a source to cite?

Answer 10

First you criticise the man, then you say he believes as you do. Either you call him capable and use him to back up you claim, or you should reject him entirely. Any other approach is just hypocritical.

The other thing is, his religious beliefs are actually irrelevant in comparison to the findings of his work.

*Drinks*(Milk)

Answer 11

Nice try but you are wrong.Darwin did not recant on his deathbed and he did not turn to god in the last days of his life