Jump to content


Who Created Darwin?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
13 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 September 2005 - 12:49 AM

Before Darwin went on that boat journey, the Beagle. He was going to be a missionary. Had already done some training for this. Before the voyage, he believed in creation. That he was created by God. In 1827 he started theology studies at Christ's College, Cambridge.

When he took the voyage that change his mind about origins, was it his own decision, or did he have something to help convince him of the idea of evolution? Darwin brought a book called: Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology. This book set the foundations for Darwin's ideas. The book published in 1830, shook prevailing views of how Earth had been formed. His book was an attack on the common belief among geologists and other Christians that unique catastrophes or supernatural events -- such as Noah's flood -- shaped Earth's surface. According to this view, a once-tumultuous period of change had slowed to today's calmer, more leisurely pace.

Lyell argued that the formation of Earth's crust took place through countless small changes occurring over vast periods of time, all according to known natural laws. His "uniformitarian" proposal was that the forces molding the planet today have operated continuously throughout its history. He also wrongly assumed that these causes must have acted only with the same intensities, which would rule out asteroid impacts and the like.

So Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology book changed Darwin's mind from creation to evolution. Charles Lyell was a known atheist who hated the creation story, and hated God. His book has these overtones written all through it. If Darwin would not have taken this book along on that voyage, he may never have come up with the idea of evolution.

So it was another person's idea about origins that made Darwin lose his faith. And then pursue a replacement for the lost faith. So who created Darwin and his idea of evolution? Was it God, or Charles Lyell?

This is a perfect example of what has to happen to someone to believe in evolution. It takes you to lose your faith, if your a Christian. Even back from it's very beginning, where Darwin had to give up his own faith just to ponder the idea, and then write his book on it. And if you have never been a Christian, evolution requires you to take a stance against a God and His creation. Even though it is claimed that creation is not science, but a mere religion. So was fighting a mere religion taught in science 101? Or is the truth about science, and it's pet theory evolution, finally coming to light as a religion?

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 September 2005 - 07:38 PM

Like most ideas in science, they are built upon the ideas of those preceding, thus advancement in knowledge.

I was aware that Darwin’s theories were triggered by reading geology from Lyell, but was not aware of any anti religious sentiment contained within (other than opposition to a literal Noachian flood).

It should be noted that Wallace came to the same conclusions as Darwin independently and roughly at the same time.

It think the time was ripe to oppose the church without fear of persecution, and the theory of evolution inevitable, if not Wallace and Darwin then some other naturalist.

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 September 2005 - 01:19 AM

I have no problems with evolution opposing creation. Because those who choose no god will have to have something to replace this. But, to try and replace what those who choose creation instead, is what I have a problem with. For if creation were not a threat to evolution, then those who went to the courts to put it in our schools would have suggested that it be taught as an alternative to God. For those who choose no God. But, that was not the case. And is the reason that now everyone thinks that all references to God, on any building should be removed.

You want to know how close we are to sandblasting our past into nothing? One vote by the supreme court. Once it starts, books will be next. It is said that a government that burns books, will also burn it's people. I wonder who they will burn? The ones who wrote the books that are being burned of course.

#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 08 September 2005 - 01:46 PM

I have no problems with evolution opposing creation. Because those who choose no god will have to have something to replace this.


This group would also Include a different religions to Christianity, or versions of Christianity that does not accept the a literal biblical creation.


But, to try and replace what those who choose creation instead, is what I have a problem with. For if creation were not a threat to evolution, then those who went to the courts to put it in our schools would have suggested that it be taught as an alternative to God. For those who choose no God. But, that was not the case. And is the reason that now everyone thinks that all references to God, on any building should be removed.


This is a tricky problem for legislators, and why I think they have taken the rout of removing religious icons from schools/government buildings etc. What would be the repercussion of government support for religion X ?, would not religion Y immediately claim discrimination and demand that there religion be equally represented? America has always prided itself on religious freedom for all it’s citizens and realistically gives the choice of “all or nothing”. 'All' is an impossible position, 'nothing' is the only practical solution, IMO.

You want to know how close we are to sandblasting our past into nothing? One vote by the supreme court. Once it starts, books will be next. It is said that a government that burns books, will also burn it's people. I wonder who they will burn? The ones who wrote the books that are being burned of course.


I think this is an over pessimistic view of what the government is trying to do, the government is not banning a POV, it is just being fair by not allowing one view to prevail at the expense of others. Excluding religion from government is not endorsing atheism, IMO it is just minding it’s own business, and allowing private citizens the freedom of religion in there own time (not school or work time).

#5 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 10 September 2005 - 09:44 AM

Before Darwin went on that boat journey, the Beagle. He was going to be a missionary. Had already done some training for this. Before the voyage, he believed in creation. That he was created by God. In 1827 he started theology studies at Christ's College, Cambridge.

When he took the voyage that change his mind about origins, was it his own decision, or did he have something to help convince him of the idea of evolution? Darwin brought a book called: Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology. This book set the foundations for Darwin's ideas. The book published in 1830, shook prevailing views of how Earth had been formed. His book was an attack on the common belief among geologists and other Christians that unique catastrophes or supernatural events -- such as Noah's flood -- shaped Earth's surface. According to this view, a once-tumultuous period of change had slowed to today's calmer, more leisurely pace.

Lyell argued that the formation of Earth's crust took place through countless small changes occurring over vast periods of time, all according to known natural laws. His "uniformitarian" proposal was that the forces molding the planet today have operated continuously throughout its history. He also wrongly assumed that these causes must have acted only with the same intensities, which would rule out asteroid impacts and the like.

So Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology book changed Darwin's mind from creation to evolution. Charles Lyell was a known atheist who hated the creation story, and hated God. His book has these overtones written all through it. If Darwin would not have taken this book along on that voyage, he may never have come up with the idea of evolution.

So it was another person's idea about origins that made Darwin lose his faith. And then pursue a replacement for the lost faith. So who created Darwin and his idea of evolution? Was it God, or Charles Lyell?

This is a perfect example of what has to happen to someone to believe in evolution. It takes you to lose your faith, if your a Christian. Even back from it's very beginning, where Darwin had to give up his own faith just to ponder the idea, and then write his book on it. And if you have never been a Christian, evolution requires you to take a stance against a God and His creation. Even though it is claimed that creation is not science, but a mere religion. So was fighting a mere religion taught in science 101? Or is the truth about science, and it's pet theory evolution, finally coming to light as a religion?

View Post



Darwin was just a fallible man as we are, complete with fallible idea's, the only thing that sets us (Christians) apart from the ones who are incorrect is the fact we get our information from the infallible word of God, that has confirmed itself time and again.

Some parts of some of Darwins books, indicates he had some racist idea's, this already shows he had some pretty bad idea's as well as shows lack of inteligence.
Darwin had no degree in any sciences, therefore in modern time, he would not be considered worthy to speak of origins, please note, that there were other scientists before Darwins time who did have a degree in science related fields.

From much research on Darwin that I have conducted myself, my own opinion on him, is that he was just a confused man who had atheist idea's, and like many other people in the world, wanted to be his own god, so he tried to explain God away.

You can read about people like this in Romans 1:20 through 24.
You can't be a proper thinking person and believe in evolution, you must force yourself to blindly follow it.

Its an anti-god religion, one that allows you to think there will be no consequences for your earthly actions.
This is why its one of the most dangerous things around.

Many people who reject God, will jump on the evolution band wagon, just to support their sinful life-styles, they wish to reject God, so they cling to an idea that allows them to forget about him.

Countless times, I have talked with people, who sware that evolution is true, and when I ask a few questions, it turns up they really know nothing at all about God, or evolution for that matter.

Even the ones who are well versed in the evolution story, usually stumble on real facts, and it eventually boils down to , them telling me in the end, "Well its very likely". :o

One of my main thought patterns in life is, like what many other people think about , why is there life, why am I alive? when you really search your soul, you can feel there is a God.

Things just don't happen for nothing, as evolution might have you think, life does not, and cannot occur by chance.
The functioning mechanisms of Earth, such as cloud formation, the timing of the suns rotation, the sun itself that gives needed warmth and light, all these things and many other things are a clear evidence that inteligence was used in the creation of the universe/Earth.

Thanks for reading <><
My online journal

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 September 2005 - 01:55 PM

Darwin had no degree in any sciences, therefore in modern time, he would not be considered worthy to speak of origins, please note, that there were other scientists before Darwins time who did have a degree in science related fields.

Don’t let this worry you, it a common occurrence in science where an individual does not complete a degree and starts research by ones self. Having a degree does not make one a scientist, rather observing the principles of the scientific method is arguably more important. E.g the Wright brothers did not have scientific credentials, yet they did first rate science!

#7 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 September 2005 - 03:03 AM

This group would also Include a different religions to Christianity, or versions of Christianity that does not accept the a literal biblical creation.
This is a tricky problem for legislators, and why I think they have taken the rout of removing religious icons from schools/government buildings etc.  What would be the repercussion of government support for religion X ?, would not religion Y immediately claim discrimination and demand that there religion be equally represented? America has always prided itself on religious freedom for all it’s citizens and realistically gives the choice of “all or nothing”.  'All' is an impossible position, 'nothing' is the only practical solution, IMO.
I think this is an over pessimistic view of what the government is trying to do, the government is not banning a POV, it is just being fair by not allowing one view to prevail at the expense of others.  Excluding religion from government is not endorsing atheism, IMO it is just minding it’s own business, and allowing private citizens the freedom of religion in there own time (not school or work time).

View Post


Yes, it is allowing one view to prevail. So how does a view that claims to be not a religion prevail over one that is, unless your admitting to it being a religion? I also wonder what they will replace the ten commandments with? The ten steps to evolution? I can almost guess that they already have something to replace them.

#8 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 September 2005 - 01:48 PM

Yes, it is allowing one view to prevail. So how does a view that claims to be not a religion prevail over one that is, unless your admitting to it being a religion? I also wonder what they will replace the ten commandments with? The ten steps to evolution? I can almost guess that they already have something to replace them.

View Post


IMO, the view that has prevailed is one of not showing favouritism, not atheism. For example, if some Hindu equivalent of the 10 commandments was placed in the entrance to the supreme court I think the protests would be coming from all but Hindu (you, me included).

How else can a government that represents all equally behave? What would be a better solution?

If I were to pick a monument that typifies the law, it would be the “blind justice” (woman holding scales blindfolded). If one were to include the ten commandments I would use it in a walk-by showing the history of western law, along with other applicable displays, showing how we got from A to B.

#9 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 September 2005 - 08:55 PM

Don’t let this worry you, it a common occurrence in science where an individual does not complete a degree and starts research by ones self.  Having a degree does not make one a scientist, rather observing the principles of the scientific method is arguably more important. E.g the Wright brothers did not have scientific credentials, yet they did first rate science!

View Post


Yeah, it's only a problem if a creationist does it. Or if the evolutionist jumps ship to become a creationist. So don't let this worry you. One side is not required to have education as long as current views are agreed with. ;)

#10 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 08:31 AM

chance:
E.g the Wright brothers did not have scientific credentials, yet they did first rate science!


First rate engineering is more like it. Engineering based on the scientific knowledge of the day and the desire to apply what we know for a practical use.

#11 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 18 September 2005 - 08:59 AM

Like most ideas in science, they are built upon the ideas of those preceding, thus advancement in knowledge.

I was aware that Darwin’s theories were triggered by reading geology from Lyell, but was not aware of any anti religious sentiment contained within (other than opposition to a literal Noachian flood).

It should be noted that Wallace came to the same conclusions as Darwin independently and roughly at the same time. 

It think the time was ripe to oppose the church without fear of persecution, and the theory of evolution inevitable, if not Wallace and Darwin then some other naturalist.

View Post



Your correct, as fallible men, someone was bound to come up with a fallible way to try to explain away our God, in an attempt to justify their wanting to be their own god.

But the whole evolution idea is bankrupt, its disproved! And been found to have been writing checks commen sense refused to cash.

#12 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 18 September 2005 - 09:08 AM

Don’t let this worry you, it a common occurrence in science where an individual does not complete a degree and starts research by ones self.  Having a degree does not make one a scientist, rather observing the principles of the scientific method is arguably more important. E.g the Wright brothers did not have scientific credentials, yet they did first rate science!

View Post


Yes, but let me note that it was operational science"REAL science", thats why it was possible.
Scientists who deal with theory, are unable to apply scientific methods to test and observe anything in regards to evolution.

Also, note, that I was merely pointing out that there were scientists in Darwins day who held degrees even before his time, but take a look at today.
We have many Ph.D evolutionists, who still have no way to test and observe evolution, this being because it does not take place.

I'm about two years away from getting my Ph.D in biology, but I'll be a creationists with one. So you see, Having a Ph.D does not make you right or wrong, Gods word is the only thing that tells us whats right and wrong.



Louie Buren <><

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 September 2005 - 02:32 PM

Yeah, it's only a problem if a creationist does it. Or if the evolutionist jumps ship to become a creationist. So don't let this worry you. One side is not required to have education as long as current views are agreed with. ;)

View Post


Easily tested, do you have an example of a creationist or religious persons, putting forward ideas, (that have nothing to do with creation) and then having them rejected because of his beliefs?

#14 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 September 2005 - 02:42 PM

First rate engineering is more like it. Engineering based on the scientific knowledge of the day and the desire to apply what we know for a practical use.

View Post


I partially agree (top engineering, V/s Science is a little blurry).
However the rigour, inventiveness, and experimentation, during their wind tunnel tests, IMO puts them squarely in the realms of science.

book reference - On great white wings.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users