Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: No Subject

  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    No Subject

    If the point of the writer is to discount the theory of evolution, he/she is not quite making it. In fact this letter is overlong, bungling, and just plain wierd. I can't imagine what the writer was thinking; maybe this is someone who writes for British tabloids. And where did all those strange symbols come from?

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest

    No Subject

    Wow, this is pretty ignorant stuff. Not only does this person seem to know almost nothing about Darwin, he knows little more about nineteenth-century science of the general history of the period.<br>

  3. #3
    J.R. Hughes
    Guest

    No Subject

    Darwinian Evolution: Allow me to begin at the<br>beginning of Mr. Darwin¡¯s life. Charles Darwin was born<br>February 12, 1809, (the birth date of Abraham Lincoln). <br>Charles Darwin was the son of a well to do physician in<br>England, Dr. Robert Darwin. It is reported that the Dr. was<br>6'6" and weighed 320 pounds and Charles¡¯ mom was from<br>the Wedgewood china family. Later, when Charles was<br>being groomed to follow father¡¯s profession, footsteps, it<br>was learned Charles didn¡¯t have the stomach for surgery.<br> <br> But when we read of his time and surgery practices,<br>one may better understand. This was not an enlightened<br>time. In the days Charles Darwin was training, surgeons<br>performed surgery in their street clothes. Cleanliness was<br>not known to be important. Although they usually wiped off<br>the surgical tools, they carried them from patient to patient<br>in a doctor¡¯s bag without sterilization or other cleansing.<br><br> One in five surgeries was an amputation performed<br>with very little and often no pain killer. Approximately one<br>half of the amputation patients died from infection,<br>secondary infection, shock or a combination of the three.<br><br> Other methods of medicine included bleeding<br>patients to rid them of their ¡°bad blood.¡± It was not<br>uncommon to bleed them of one half or more of their total<br>blood supply. There were generally no transfusions. <br>Dehydration was another method prescribed by physicians. <br>Doctors were prescribing blood sucking leeches for<br>infection. The leading cause of death was tuberculosis with<br>doctors often being the carriers. It was this practice of<br>medicine the young Charles had rejected.<br> <br> In 1825 Charles entered Edinburgh Medical school.<br>After his problems with surgery, in 1827, Charles<br>transferred to Christ¡¯s College, Cambridge. Most people<br>are shocked to learn that Charles Darwin was not trained<br>as any kind of scientist, but . . . as an Anglican (episcopal)<br>pastor at Christ¡¯s College Cambridge. Young Charles<br>completed his studies to be an Anglican pastor in 1831. <br><br> While at Cambridge, Charles met Professors John<br>Henslow (1796-1861) and Rev, Dr. Adam Sedgwick (17xx-<br>18xx). These two men were instrumental in encouraging<br>young Darwin to take an around the world cruise on the<br>H.M.S. Beagle as an unpaid naturalist, before taking his<br>first pastorate.<br><br> The H.M.S. Beagle, under Captain Robert Fitzroy,<br>set sail on 27 January, 1832. Although not scheduled to<br>take that long, the voyage took almost five years to<br>complete. When Charles boarded the Beagle, he would<br>quote the Bible as ¡°the¡± answer in matters of morals.<br>However, the sailors chided him for his narrow beliefs. <br>Slowly Charles Darwin abandoned his belief in the Bible<br>and became a racist. Darwin also read Lyell¡¯s Principles of<br>Geology while on the voyage. Based upon what Lyell wrote<br>and what Darwin believed he was observing, Darwin<br>became a uniformitarian (vast age believer) before he<br>arrived at the Galapagos islands in 1835. Charles believed<br>that Lyell¡¯s principals might be applied to what he saw on<br>these islands. Young Charles arrived back in England on 2<br>October, 1836. This decision to take the ocean trip before<br>beginning his career as a minister had markedly altered his<br>life. It would serve as a motivating factor leading to the<br>publication of his career defining Origin of Species.<br> <br> Twenty-three years later, in 1859, Charles Darwin<br>published the imaginative speculation: On the Origin of<br>Species, By Means of Natural Selection, Or The<br>Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For<br>Life. Pastor Darwin was only a self taught geologist. <br>When Mr. Darwin wrote Origin of Species he admitted he<br>had problems with the fossil [fn] record. He also wrote<br>that he hoped as more fossils were discovered, there<br>would be proof for his ¡°imagination.¡± Charles Darwin wrote<br>the following admitting the complete absence of fossil<br>evidence in the rocks (geologic record) for his imagined<br>transmutation. Darwin wrote:<br> In the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief<br> objections which might be justly urged against the<br> views maintained in this volume. Most of them have<br> now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness<br> of specific forms, and their not being blended<br> together by innumerable transitional links, is a very<br> obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links<br> do not commonly occur at the present day,... . . . <br> But just in proportion as this process of<br> extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so<br> must the number of intermediate varieties, which<br> have formerly existed on the earth, be truly<br> enormous. Why then is not every geological<br> formation and every stratum full of such<br> intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not<br> reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and<br> this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest<br> objection which can be urged against my theory. The<br> explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme<br> imperfection of the geological record. (Darwin,<br> Charles. On the Origin of Species, By Means of Natural<br> Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races, In the<br> Struggle For Life, Chapter 9, Online (6th?) edition, 1859)<br><br>Translation: I know there is no scientific evidence of<br>fossils (dead animals) linking one species to another. I<br>know this is a most serious (gravest) objection ¡°against my<br>theory.¡± (It was not really a theory, but only his imagined<br>ideas, ideas that as one can see, were in opposition to the<br>facts). One may rightly define Darwin¡¯s book as speculation<br>since when Darwin wrote he did not have any factual basis<br>for his imagined ideology (evolution). <br><br> A continued translation of Darwin would be: I do not<br>know why there is no proof, but the ¡°explanation¡± (I really<br>hope) is because of the ¡°extreme imperfection of the<br>geologic record.¡± (We have not dug up enough rocks yet to<br>see what the record will show). When we dig up enough<br>rocks, I really, really, really hope it will show what I am<br>writing here today.<br><br> Mr. Darwin spent part of another chapter in the book<br>apologetically naming great scientists of his day who<br>Darwin feared, would all (but perhaps one) reject his<br>theory. This is what Charles Darwin wrote. I quote: <br><br> ". . . We see this in the plainest manner by the<br> fact that all the most eminent paleontologists,<br> namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande,<br> Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest<br> geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, & c.,<br> have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained<br> the immutability of species. But I have reason to<br> believe that one great authority, Sir Charles<br> Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave<br> doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to<br> differ from these great authorities, to whom, with<br> others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who<br> think the natural geological record in any degree<br> perfect, and who do not attach much weight to<br> the facts and arguments of other kinds even in<br> this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my<br> theory. . . ." -Darwin, Charles On the Origin of Species,<br> chapter 9.<br><br>Darwin¡¯s contemporaries: Brother Hughes, didn¡¯t the<br>great majority of well known scientists of Darwin¡¯s day<br>support Darwin? Not on your life!<br> <br>I Laughed: Darwin¡¯s former geology professor, Rev. Dr.<br>Adam Sedgwick who had been department head at<br>Cambridge, a most prestigious British university read<br>Darwin¡¯s book. The professor wrote to Darwin that his<br>book was a joke. Sedgwick told Darwin the reports of what<br>Darwin had seen in various parts of the world were good. <br>However, Sedgwick said that about certain parts of the<br>work, ¡°parts I laughed at till my sides were almost<br>sore; . . . .¡± Sedgwick concluded Darwin¡¯s position<br>untenable and absurd. Sedgwick went on to condemn<br>Darwin for mischief with the facts. (He alleged Darwin had<br>been deceptive)<br><br> Another of the scientists referred to by Darwin in the<br>above quote in Origin of Species (and other places in that<br>work) was Louis Agassiz, a Harvard professor. Professor<br>Agassiz was Darwin¡¯s contemporary. He wrote there was<br>no ¡°factual basis¡± for Darwin¡¯s theory. Agassiz reported<br>that ¡°all¡± the scientific evidence was ¡°against¡± Darwin and<br>¡°his henchmen.¡± Agassiz said highly complex organisms<br>had been found in the oldest rocks. This clearly proved<br>there was no evolution of species. Why? It was because<br>Darwin argued life evolved from simple to complex. With<br>these complex fossil life forms in the oldest rocks, there<br>was no room for simple to complex evidence. Therefore,<br>the fossil findings of 1859 said, ¡°NO¡± to evolution. Do you<br>understand why?<br><br> If evolution had been true, you would not find highly<br>complex forms alone. They would be changing from a<br>simpler form to a more complex (evolved) form. Darwin<br>wrote we would find unnumberable (literally thousands or<br>more) of simple forms, slowly changing from simple to<br>complex. BUT what did the fossil record show? The fossil<br>record of Darwin¡¯s day revealed highly complex organisms<br>in the oldest layer of rocks in which there was evidence of<br>life, the Cambrian layer of rocks. There was absolutely<br>NOT ONE prior life form. NOT ONE! <br><br> As both Darwin and Professor Agassiz declared<br>evolution could not be true without these innumerable<br>fossils in the geologic (rocks) record. The only scientific<br>conclusion one could make is: highly complex life forms<br>suddenly and explosively appeared in the fossil record<br>without any prior simpler life forms in the fossil record. <br>This is evidence against simple to complex evolution. It is<br>in favor of the creation mandate: ¡°In the beginning God<br>Created the Heaven and the Earth . . . ¡± <br><br> All the scientists named by Darwin in his book, but<br>one, did reject the speculation in his publication about<br>transmutation or evolution. In spite of this rejection, Mr.<br>Darwin hoped his slow and gradual, simple to complex<br>speculation would be eventually revealed in the fossil<br>record. Was the fossil evidence found?<br> <br>20th Century Fossil Record: In the next one<br>hundred eighteen (118) years, hundreds of expeditions dug<br>and searched for fossil evidence to prove Darwin¡¯s theory. <br>At the end of that period, Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard<br>professor and Niles Eldredge, a curator of The American<br>Museum of Natural History, New York City, concluded the<br>fossil record did not support Darwin¡¯s evolution. These men<br>had been thorough Darwinian evolutionists. Yet, while<br>proposing another imagined theory, Gould made this<br>observation of the fossil record:<br> 2 Sudden appearance: In any local area, a<br> species does not arise gradually by the steady<br> transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at<br> once and ¡°fully formed.¡± [fn]<br><br> Hmm. Do I understand? Darwin admitted he<br>needed fossil proof. Darwin¡¯s esteemed contemporaries<br>rejected his imagination because the 1859 fossil record<br>was against Darwin. Evolutionists searched for fossil proof<br>for more than one hundred years. They found hundreds of<br>thousands of additional fossils. However, the additional<br>fossils supported the earlier conclusion that there was no<br>simple to complex record. All fossils appeared fully<br>formed, not evolving. Conclusion: Evolution has no proof!<br><br> Evolutionists claim some fossil finds are older than<br>the ones of Darwin¡¯s day. BUT none are transitional<br>fossils. Darwin wrote there would have to be innumerable<br>(hundreds of thousands, if not millions) of prior life forms<br>showing slow, gradual, incremental changes. There was<br>no such evidence in Darwin¡¯s 19th century. There was no<br>such evidence found by the end of the 20th century.<br><br> Jeffery H. Schwartz reported in his 1999 book,<br>Sudden Origins, that those who believe evolution, even if<br>they believe in rapid (punctuated) evolution, recognize that<br>a considerable number of generations would be required<br>for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex<br>kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number<br>of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils.<br>Schwartz noted there are billions of non-transitional<br>structures found But (with the exception of a very few,<br>very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered<br>dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales) there are no<br>transitional fossils. Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil<br>record with so-called missing links, honest, thinking<br>paleontologists discovered that the finds solidified the<br>¡°gaps¡± (absence of transitional forms) in the fossil record.<br>No transformational evidence of intermediates between<br>documented fossil species had been found. (Schwartz, Jeffery<br>H. Sudden Origins (New York. John Wiley, 1999)<br><br> Dr. Schwartz indicated that although billions of<br>fossils had been found, there was no such evidence of<br>transitional fossils. Certainly there were not prior multiple<br>transitional life forms in the fossil record that Darwin wrote<br>would be found. Gould, Eldredge and Schwartz thus<br>confirm Darwin¡¯s contemporaries were justified in declaring<br>the fossil record said, ¡°No¡± to Darwin¡¯s imagined evolution. <br>In like manner, the fossil record of today says ¡°No.¡± In short<br>Darwin¡¯s hoped for proof was not found. Darwin conceded<br>in Origin of Species that lack of fossil evidence was a<br>¡°grave¡± objection against his ideas. Darwin hoped it would<br>one day be found. It has not been found. Conclusion:<br>Darwin was wrong! (Not the book [fn] )<br> <br> We could stop our inquiry here and conclude that Mr.<br>Darwin had speculated improperly that all the species on<br>Earth had come forth in a natural manner. But Darwin tried<br>to overcome the question of ultimate origin or first<br>beginning. Mr. Darwin wrote in chapter 15 about a<br>Creator. Darwin confers on God a small ¡°walk on¡± role:<br> ¡°. . . powers, having been originally breathed by<br> the Creator into a few forms or into one;. . . ¡± <br><br> Darwin said perhaps a few or one had life breathed<br>into it. Thus he concluded that life had not spontaneously<br>arisen BUT proclaimed all other species came via random<br>chance and natural selection.[fn] Darwin imagined slow,<br>continual, gradual evolution which required unnumberable<br>slow incremental changes. Yet, by the end of the next<br>century (1999), there was no proof in the fossil record or<br>the live animal kingdom, that species evolved as <br><br> What was Darwin arguing? That after all was started<br>(probably by God) God was not relevant to creation of<br>species. He argues God is not needed. The Bible is at<br>odds with Darwin. It was very clear Darwin did not believe<br>God created man ¡°in His own image.¡± (Gen.1:27)<br><br> Sir Frederick Hoyle (1915-2001 A.D.), 20th century<br>astronomer, Cambridge University, left Christianity<br>because Gospel writers didn¡¯t agree on the number of<br>angels at the Resurrection. Hoyle became an agnostic. In<br>1984 Hoyle wrote of Darwinism and its failure: I quote:<br> "How the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural<br> selection managed, for upwards of a century, to<br> fasten itself like a superstition on so called<br> enlightened opinion? Why is the theory still<br> defended so vigorously? Personally, I have little<br> doubt that scientific historians of the future will find<br> it mysterious that a theory which could be seen to<br> be unworkable came to be so widely believed. The<br> explanation they will offer will I think be based less<br> on the erroneous nature of the theory itself and more<br> on the social changes and historical circumstances<br> that surround its development." (Hoyle, Sir Fred. The<br> Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rineheart & Winston, NY [1984] p.25)<br><br>Do You believe in Changing Truth ? Evolutionists have no<br>problem in reversing positions. They once falsely claimed<br>as proof or their ¡°truth¡± the fossil record. In the first half of<br>the 20th century up until 1960 Dr. Carl Dunbar, PhD, wrote:<br><br> Although the comparative study of living animals<br> and plants may give very convincing circumstantial<br> evidence, fossils provide the only historical,<br> documentary evidence that life has evolved from<br> simpler to more and more complex forms. (Carl O.<br> Dunbar, PhD (geology) Historical Geology, John Wiley & Sons,<br> Inc., New York, 1960, p.47)<br><br> However, by 1981, the view had radically changed.<br>It was no longer their ¡°truth.¡± The fossil record did not<br>support Darwin. Gould and Eldredge (1977) had already so<br>concluded. Thus zoologist Ridley, from Oxford, wrote:<br> In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist<br> or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence<br> in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to<br> special creation. [Mark Ridley (zoologist) Oxford Univ.;<br> Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June<br> 1981, p.831]<br><br> In twenty-one years they departed from professing<br>faith in the fossil record as ¡°the¡± basis for evolution in 1960,<br>to repudiating that so-called ¡°truth¡± by 1981. Dr. Ridley<br>then boldly states ¡°no real evolutionist¡± uses the fossil<br>record. Wow! What an example of changing... ¡°truth¡±? <br>As observed, Darwin hoped fossil record evidence would<br>be found. The fossil record did not then and does not today<br>support evolution. It never has supported Darwin. How<br>can we trust anything they tell us? Their ¡°truth¡± is in<br>conflict with the real truth and is ever changing.<br><br>BE NOT Conformed: Christians must not be conformed<br>to this ever changing evolutionary ideology. Why? It is in<br>opposition to the Bible. Today, many former evolutionists<br>do not pretend Darwin¡¯s evolution is true. Yet, public<br>school students for about five generations had been<br>propagandized, brainwashed with or filled with the fable:<br>darwinian evolution. It is ¡°the¡± belief system taught in<br>public schools. It is not testable, replicable science. It is<br>something contrary to the evidence. It is a belief system.<br><br> To better understand this is a belief system, to learn<br>of its fallibility, we need to meet and learn about the three<br>key men responsible. The three were: Darwin, who built<br>upon the uniformitarian ideas of Charles Lyell, who had<br>built upon James Hutton¡¯s complete fantasy.<br><br>Charles Lyell (1797-1875): Who was Charles Lyell?<br>Lyell is the man who links Darwin to Hutton¡¯s ideas of<br>uniformitarianism. Mr. Lyell was not a geologist. He was<br>not trained in any scientific field. Yet, Lyell wrote a three-<br>volume set entitled Principles of Geology (1830-1835). <br>What was his training? Lyell was educated as an attorney. <br>An attorney wrote geology books? Yes. Charles Lyell<br>was credited with ¡°making popular¡± the Hutton belief<br>system in geology labeled uniformitarianism (all Earth<br>geology results from slow, gradual, continual, virtually<br>eternal erosion). Although much could be written about<br>Charles Lyell and his life, it is sufficient for our purposes to<br>know that: 1) he was from Scotland. 2) He was educated<br>as an attorney, who apparently was more fascinated with<br>dirt and rocks than law. 3) Lyell wrote the 3 volume work<br>¡°Principles of Geology.¡± Young attorney Lyell believed<br>and advocated the Hutton ideas with great force and<br>believability. Lyell had a profound effect on a clergyman,<br>then acting as a ship¡¯s scientist (naturalist), named Darwin. <br>Mr. Darwin knew (but the world at large does not know) the<br>theory upon which evolution is based was the idea of a<br>man named Hutton.<br> <br>James Hutton (1727-1797) James Hutton is not known<br>by Christians. He is not well known except to those in<br>related areas of study. James Hutton should be known<br>widely, since his imagined ideas have ¡°held captive¡±<br>geology and other branches of science, for over a century. <br>His ideas were presented by Lyell then by Darwin for his<br>imagined evolution. Evolution spread widely throughout<br>society. It was challenger to Creator God. And indeed, it<br>was James Hutton who fathered this revolution.<br><br> James Hutton, a young Scottish man, was ever<br>learning. First he studied the law. When he was clerking<br>(apprentice in a law office), he spent much time helping a<br>friend invent a process, rather than on his duties. Hutton<br>was dismissed from his clerkship. Hutton went back to<br>school and earned a medical degree. After a short time at<br>the practice of medicine, (some report no practice of<br>medicine) Hutton, who had inherited a farm, became a<br>farmer. (Hutton and friend were developing the process).<br>As a farmer Hutton was more interested in studying the<br>rocks and the dirt of his land than in farming it. (Although,<br>admittedly, he enjoyed some farming success).<br><br> Soon Hutton began to speculate about how all dirt<br>and rocks came to be. Hutton decided that the key to the<br>past is the present. The thought of the era before Hutton<br>and the present era is the key to the present is the past. <br>Hutton believed the opposite and explained all of Earth in<br>a simplistic model of slow, gradual, continual. This was<br>contrary to the belief of Earth scientists of his day. It was a<br>reversed view of Earth geology. It denied the dominant<br>teaching of that day: catastrophism.<br><br> In the 1780s Hutton began to voice and publish his<br>ideology about Earth's surface. He probably built upon:<br><br> 1) the 1594 view of Loys leRoy, who taught that the<br> land and sea changed places through erosion and<br> catastrophe;<br> 2) the 1637 work of Rene Descartes (Discoures de<br> la Methode) (earth as a cooling fire ball); <br> 3) Robert Hooks (1705) lectures and discourse of<br> earthquakes that cast doubt upon the flood of Noah; <br> 4) Conte deBuffon in his work, Epochs of Nature<br> (1774) directly attacked the Biblical time records and<br> calculated the age of the earth to be 75,000 years.<br> 5) Jean deLuc in 1778 accepted the Bible, BUT<br> assumed the six days of Creation were l-o-n-g<br> periods. <br><br> Allow me to roughly explain Hutton¡¯s idea. <br><br><br><br>Slow, Continual Erosion: Hutton noticed dirt falling into a<br>creek. This was called erosion. Hutton speculated that<br>eventually all dirt and worn rock on Earth erodes into<br>streams. The streams carried it to the rivers. Rivers<br>carried this dirt to the ocean. This excess dirt was<br>deposited upon the ocean floor. The extra weight built up.<br>The pressure forced the ocean bottom downward. In<br>another spot, far away where there was weakness,<br>mountains thrust upward forming mountain ranges. This<br>was his hypothesis or belief.<br><br> James Hutton decided that then the new mountains<br>would erode their dirt and worn rock into creeks. Creeks<br>carried it to rivers. Rivers delivered the material to the<br>oceans. The extra weight of the continuing deposits<br>caused pressure that pushed down on the ocean floor. In<br>another weak spot new mountain ranges were thrust up. <br>Then the process begins and repeats, repeats and repeats,<br>over and over and over and over and over. Hutton wrote<br>he believed this had occurred over a massive period of<br>time. It was a slow, continuous, repetitive process. It<br>explained, Hutton asserted, everything we saw on Earth. <br>Does this sound familiar? Isn¡¯t it what you were taught in<br>elementary science? Isn¡¯t it now taught in the seventh, and<br>eighth grades? But, is it true? You thought they were<br>teaching you ultimate reality or fact. Not true. Hutton¡¯s<br>ideas were not based upon fact. Hutton¡¯s ideas were<br>contrary to the Earth¡¯s scientists of his day. It was just one<br>way of looking at things, a philosophy. And I bet they never<br>told you that in school!<br><br> The Hutton assumption or conjecture of geology<br>made little progress, however, against the teachings of the<br>school of Abraham Gottlob Werner, a German geologist.<br>Werner taught the long standing principle of<br>catastrophism. [fn]. Thus Earth scientists of Hutton¡¯s day<br>believed earth geology was explained by catastrophic<br>events including the world wide flood of Noah¡¯s day.<br> <br> Hutton reduced his mental inspiration and<br>speculation to writing in his ¡°Theory of the Earth¡± (1785,<br>1795). [fn] This was further expounded by another<br>Scotsman, John Playfair, in his Illustrations of the Huttonian<br>Theory (1802). Catastrophism was consistent with the<br>teachings of the Bible and most great thinkers, including<br>those of the greatest scientist: Isaac Newton.<br><br> Most people do not realize there was major<br>opposition to uniformitarianism (and later evolution) from<br>scientists of that time, including well known prominent<br>members of the scientific community. [fn] These men, and<br>many whom they influenced, believed the Biblical time<br>scale and catastrophism explained the geology of the<br>Earth. The uniformitarian view of Hutton did not receive<br>much acceptance in the scientific community until another<br>Scotsman and an attorney, Charles Lyell, wrote his three-<br>volume work : Principles of Geology (1830-1835).<br> <br> ¡°Uniformitarianism¡± was the name of the view from<br>the imagination of James Hutton (1726-1797). He<br>supposed a system of natural ongoing processes such as<br>river erosion and weathering. This he improperly contended<br>would explain all the surface of the Earth. Hutton wrote<br>Theory of Earth (1795). Hutton¡¯s ideas affected Lyell.<br>Lyell, building on James Hutton¡¯s Earth age conjecture of<br>1795, argued all Earth geology could be explained as<br>gradual, continual, slow: grain by grain, erosion. He<br>ignored and repudiated catastrophes: all catastrophes,<br>including Biblical explanations such as The Great Flood of<br>Noah. Lyell affected Darwin. These three men, who had<br>published after 1776 (American Revolution) were to turn<br>geology, biology and all scientific philosophy upside down.<br><br>Building on what Rock? Uniformitarianist Geology:<br> Darwin borrowed his slow, continual, gradual idea<br>from the uniformitarianism written of by Charles Lyell. <br>Lyell alleged everything on Earth is supposedly explained<br>by this speculated teaching of slow, gradual, continual<br>processes. This became a geological principal, only when<br>made popular by the attorney, Mr. Lyell in his three volume<br>publication entitled: Principles of Geology.<br> Soon it became a uniting principle of natural <br>philosophy, as science was then labeled. And an attorney<br>proclaimed ¡°uniformitarianism¡± as the geological<br>principal. Uniformitarianism, surprisingly, spread quickly<br>from geology (geo=Earth ology=study of) from Hutton to<br>Lyell, then from Lyell to Darwin. Everything on Earth is<br>supposedly explained by their speculated teaching of slow,<br>gradual, continual processes. Yet they ignore land slide,<br>flood, volcano, as factors in forming our mountains, valleys,<br>and canyons. It is now well accepted that the geologist who<br>ignores catastrophes does not have a credible explanation<br>of Earth geology. <br><br>Hutton-Lyell-Darwin: Who were these three men who<br>argued for this then new belief (slow, gradual) system, later<br>labeled uniformitarianism (everything is slow, gradual and<br>continual)? As mentioned: Hutton, Lyell and Darwin, were<br>not trained Earth scientists. Not one of them. Although<br>Hutton had been trained as a physician, that was in the<br>days when leeches, blood letting and non sterilized surgery<br>was the standard of practice. Yet, three, self taught, non-<br>geologists, reversed the geological belief system. What is<br>amazing and ironic is that today the three might not be<br>published. Why? They do not have the requisite academic<br>qualifications so they may publish or speak. <br> <br> When evolutionists debate, write to criticize or want<br>to exclude from publication, certain articles, they often cite<br>the lack of academic credentials as a reason to not believe<br>the author and to exclude them from having articles<br>published in any leading scientific magazine. Perhaps<br>farmer Hutton (only because of his medical degree) might<br>have a chance at publication. What do you suppose would<br>happen if an attorney with a new theory of geology (Lyell)<br>wanted to publish? We all know the result if a clergyman<br>(Darwin) wanted to publish a new belief in one of<br>evolutionist journals. NO CHANCE!<br><br> But, the farmer-attorney-doctor (Hutton), a second<br>attorney (Lyell) and a clergyman (Darwin), changed the<br>basic scientific philosophy. How ironic, when today their<br>imagined assumptions would likely not be published in<br>any enlightened scientific journals because of their lack<br>of academic credentials.<br><br>Not An Ancient Belief: This method of slow, incremental,<br>vast Earth age calculation, named uniformitarianism, has<br>been used by evolutionary geologists for ONLY the last<br>one hundred and seventy-five (175) years. Before Lyell¡¯s<br>publication (1830), which spread Hutton¡¯s theory, no<br>credible geologist believed uniformitarianism described<br>Earth geology. Did you hear me? NO CREDIBLE man of<br>science believed in this imagination; not until Lyell. <br>Brother Hughes, are you certain of that? Let us consult<br>professor, astronomer, theorist, author, vast ager, Sir Fred<br>Hoyle, PhD. (1915-2001A.D.) reports: I quote:<br> ¡°. . . The great geologist Charles Lyell (1797-1875)<br> repeated and extended Hutton¡¯s observations in the<br> field, and soon came to the conclusion that Hutton¡¯s<br> ¡°principal of uniformity¡±, as it became called, was<br> indeed correct. Lyell¡¯s ¡°Principles of Geology,¡± the<br> first volume of which appeared in 1830, was in<br> considerable measure responsible for the<br> disappearance of the Biblical time-scale from all<br> serious discussion. Indeed, Lyell¡¯s books were<br> largely responsible for convincing the world at large<br> that the Bible could be wrong, at any rate in some<br> respects, a hitherto unthinkable thought.¡± (Hoyle, The<br> Intelligent Universe, NY 1983, p. 29)<br> <br> In the 20th century (1985) Charles E. Merrill<br>Publishing Company, a textbook company, in Section 9,<br>Geologic Time and Earth History, p.211, declared:<br><br> ¡°Almost 200 years ago James Hutton recognized that<br> the earth is very old. But how old? Scientists tried<br> to date the earth for many years, but their attempts<br> were not very successful. Instead they had to rely<br> on techniques which helped them place events in<br> their proper order without knowing how long ago<br> each event occurred. . . .¡± (p. 211)<br> . . .<br><br> During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the<br> doctrine of catastrophism strongly influenced the<br> formulation of explanations about the dynamics of<br> the earth. Briefly stated, catastrophists believed that<br> the earth¡¯s landscape had been developed primarily<br> by great catastrophes. Features such as mountains<br> and canyons, which today [the textbook says] we know<br> take great periods of time to form, were explained as<br> having been produced by sudden and often<br> worldwide disasters produced by unknowable<br> causes [the textbook says] that no longer operate. This<br> philosophy was an attempt to fit the rate of earth<br> processes to the then-current ideas on the age of<br> the earth. . . . [the textbook says] (emphasis added) (Ibid.)<br><br> So as to a date when the vast ages became<br>accepted by the world at large, we would have to agree<br>with Hoyle, it was after attorney Lyell¡¯s publication of the<br>three volumes on geology in the early to mid 1830's. Thus<br>it was after 1830 when geologists contended for great<br>ages of the Earth. They based this upon calculations of<br>grain by grain uniformitarianism. Also we note these<br>geologists have designated the competing explanation (and<br>proper) catastrophism, a philosophy, not science. Thus<br>the textbook concludes that a way of looking at things is a<br>philosophy, not science. Please remember that. <br><br> Well, what in the world caused Darwin¡¯s imagination<br>to be accepted by so many seemingly intelligent persons?<br> <br> Darwinian Theory built upon <br> Made Up Evidence, Fraud, Error & Hoax<br><br> One of the reasons Darwin was believed was<br>because of those who Professor Agassiz labeled ¡°Darwin¡¯s<br>henchmen.¡± These would include British naturalist Thomas<br>Huxley and German professor Ernst Haeckel. The two<br>¡°evangelized¡± for Darwin when his ideas were under attack. <br>They defended Darwin in debate and then ¡°made up¡± false<br>proof that misled multitudes. <br><br><br> Made Up Evidence<br><br>Wanted: Early Life Form: Evolutionary followers knew<br>of the long standing problems and the attacks by<br>contemporaries of Darwin. The evolutionists could not<br>show any life forms, evolving below the Cambrian rock<br>layers. The millions of fossils in the Cambrian bed of rocks<br>was called the Cambrian explosion. These were complex<br>fossils fully formed. Opponents of Darwin took this as the<br>perfect expression of God¡¯s creation. (And it is). There<br>was no sign of (slow, incremental, continual) evolution, but<br>instead the explosion of complex fossilized life. This had<br>always been evidence for creation and of great concern to<br>evolutionists since and including Darwin. <br><br> This explosion of life was found not at the Earth¡¯s<br>lowest and oldest rocks, but about 5/6 of the way up to the<br>surface. There was not a trace of pre-Cambrian life when<br>Darwin wrote: Origin of Species. Since there were no<br>actual earlier life forms, how did the evolutionists react? <br>The evolutionists made up two phoney pre-Cambrian<br>forms and gave them names: Eozoon and Bathybius. The<br>only purpose for them was to support Darwin¡¯s fragile<br>theory. These were said to be part of the monera of life, a<br>term made up by Ernst Haeckel of Germany. Haeckel<br>made it his life¡¯s practice to create deceptions to bolster¡¯s<br>Darwin¡¯s fragile imagination.<br><br> Darwin was delighted with these new so-called pre-<br>Cambrian ¡°discoveries.¡± Eozoon (which was supposed to<br>closely resemble Bathybius) entered the 4th edition of<br>Origin of Species with Darwin¡¯s blessing. Darwin stated<br>¡°It is impossible to feel any doubt regarding its organic<br>nature.¡± Was Darwin correct? No.<br><br> When these two disciples of Darwin (British scientist,<br>Huxley and the German professor Haeckel) proposed false<br>gelatinous forms, with unusual names, there was more than<br>a little speculation. But, the disciples argued, primitive life<br>forms allegedly covered the floors of the seas.<br><br> The Challenger expedition of the 1870s set sail to<br>explore the world¡¯s oceans and hoped to find these life<br>forms. Great amounts of deep sea mud was dredged and<br>lifted onto the deck of Challenger. The so-called life forms<br>were not found. But, as they preserved samples for later<br>analysis by adding preserving alcohol to the mud, that B<br>word, Bathybius suddenly appeared. They found and<br>admitted the so-called early life form was a substance<br>created by adding alcohol to mud. It was not organic life. <br>It was a precipitate of calcium sulfate produced when deep<br>sea mud reacted to the alcohol.[fn]<br><br> Was Darwin correct in saying it was organic life? <br>No! It was not organic (alive, living). It occurred only upon<br>mixing deep sea mud with preserving alcohol. Again<br>Darwin and his disciples were without a pre-Cambrian form<br>of life. Evidence again exhibited and proved ONLY sudden<br>creation of complex organisms in the Cambrian rock layer. <br><br>Gemmules Anyone? Darwin¡¯s most colossal error, aside<br>from the imaginary evolution itself, was his false belief in<br>gemmules. Gemmules? What are gemmules?<br> <br> ¡°Gemmules¡± were presumed quite small and thought<br>able to carry ¡°acquired characteristics¡± through the blood<br>into the sperm of the male and the egg of the female to the<br>next generation. Darwin, in error, believed newly acquired<br>characteristics were passed through the blood of both<br>father and mother through ¡°gemmules¡± to their offspring. <br>The traits were supposed to be carried through these<br>reproductive cells via gemmules. Would we thus conclude<br>that a father who was a weight lifter, who had acquired<br>large muscles, who then had five daughters would have<br>five large strong muscular girls? Would a mother, who had<br>developed a very slim waist and had worked to have a<br>particularly feminine body, pass this onto her sons? <br>Fortunately for the girls of the muscle bound weightlifter<br>and the boys of the very feminine mother, this gemmules<br>imagination is as inaccurate as the other imaginations<br>written by Darwin. (Origin of Species and Descent of Man.<br>☻¢Ð☺☻¢Ð)<br><br> What proof did they have of these gemmules, other<br>than the imagination of their minds? None ! I.L. Cohen,<br>educated as an engineer, a lifelong researcher into<br>humankind¡¯s past and noted author, stated, and I quote:<br><br> We now know that gemmules did not exist outside of<br> Darwin¡¯s imagination. Many scientists defended this<br> theory, simply because they assumed it to be true. <br> Gemmules were taken quite seriously at the time -<br> they had been advanced by an authoritative scientist<br> and couched in ¡®scientific¡± terms.<br><br> With time, however, it was realized that heredity did<br> not work according to the fantasies of Darwin¡¯s<br> imagination. Instead Gregor Mendel¡¯s theory of<br> genes. . . proved to be scientifically correct...; in<br> those years Darwin¡¯s magnetism was much too<br> strong to overcome. The scientific community of the<br> 19th century preferred to continue theorizing with<br> Darwin¡¯s hypothetical pronouncements, rather than<br> evaluate the solid, factual data submitted by Mendel. <br> His significant laboratory results were brushed aside<br> by all the ¡°learned¡± scientists, as though they meant<br> nothing. Instead Darwin¡¯s illusory gemmules theory<br> was paid serious attention and subscribed to as<br> being established scientific fact. [fn]<br><br>Groundless Beliefs: Eozoon, bathybius and<br>gemmules, were humiliating errors, groundless beliefs.<br>These grave errors were first laughed off, then hidden.<br>Why? Darwin¡¯s notion was tenuous, at best. The Truth<br>shining in on it might destroy it as quickly as the noonday<br>summer Kansas sun melts butter left out on a dish near a<br>window. Evolutionists, rather than admit darwinism was in<br>serious trouble, allowed their misplaced faith in Darwin to<br>carry them deeper into error. When the errors became<br>apparent, evolutionists preferred to bury them or keep them<br>quiet. Why? Negative results and discoveries within a<br>decade and one half of the darwinian articulation caused<br>serious doubts about Darwin¡¯s announcements.<br> <br> Engineer, author I.L. Cohen, in 1984, wrote: I quote:<br><br> Unfortunately, . . . realistic carefulness and scientific<br> humility was not widely exercised during the 19th<br> century and Darwin¡¯s theory was virtually acclaimed<br> as the arrival of the scientific Messiah. Still more<br> unfortunately, we continue to consider that theory as<br> law, without having the intellectual courage to<br> question anew each aspect of it as if there were no<br> alternatives. Darwin¡¯s theory is not scientific law - it<br> still lacks conclusive proof in spite of its plausibility<br> and popularity. (I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong, . . . <br> New Research Publications, Inc. NY {1984} p.20)<br>

  4. #4
    My favorites: addae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    East Coast USA
    Posts
    6
    What an obnoxious post

Similar Threads

  1. No Subject
    By Rita in forum 1984
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 05:29 PM
  2. No Subject
    By Captain_Crystal in forum A Tale of Two Cities
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-29-2005, 03:09 PM
  3. No Subject
    By Luis Cesar Nunes in forum Lord Jim
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
  4. No Subject
    By Leslie in forum Huckleberry Finn
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM
  5. No Subject
    By brit in forum The Scarlet Letter
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2005, 06:07 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •