Thread: Happy 200th birthday Darwin!

Originally Posted by Tony Bennett

The Neanderthals were fully human, but many of them had a deforming bone disease. This is now accepted by secular and Christian palaeontologists alike. A creationist website like Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics will give you an update including both secular and Christian sources.

Type the word 'Neanderthal' into their search box in the top right hand corner and you should be taken to a wealth of articles on Neanderthals. Come back to me if not.

Eleanor, I have to agree with you, the notion that the world could be just a few thousand years old seemed ludicrous to me at one time, brought up as I was, like most of us, on the theory of evolution.

Can I ask you one thing?

Does it not strike you as very odd (to say the least) that the evolutionists who constantly assert that we evolved and denounce anyone who dares to disagree as 'hostile to science', 'naive' or worse, has not the foggiest idea how we descended from non-living cells to man and woman?

Ask an evolutionist to tell you the ancestry of man and he will be forced to retreat to something like this:

"Er, non-living cells became, er, living cells, around 4.5 million years ago. I don't know how, but it happened, just believe me, maybe a bolt of lightning on a warm ocean or something like that [look in any basic evolution text-book and you'll see what I mean]. Then, er, those cells became amoeba, then, er, those amoeba changed into something else (not leaving any fossils), then that something else became, er, something else (again not leaving any fossils), and so on for nearly 4.5 million years until we get to a 'common ancestor' of apes and men, which, er, we haven't found yet, and then we descended from half-ape, half-man creatures like australopitchecines, and here we are".

I can confidently predict that no-one on this thread, nor any evolutionist, nor Professor Jones nor Richard Dawkins will give you a better explanation than that.

They will be totally unable to tell you if man descended from worms, mice, frogs, insects, birds, reptiles...or anything.

It's a fairy story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are committing a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The same fallacy would apply to the statement:

"There is no evidence of God, therefore God does not exist."

Only assumptions can be made on available evidence. The ability to supposedly 'answer' every question is not a proof of anything. What is important is that the answers are acceptable.

These scientists, although not knowing the exact answer to every single question about the evolutionary tree, would still be able to claim that there is enough evidence to show that the theory of evolution itself is valid, despite not knowing every answer. Cosmology is still a valid science despite the fact that it cannot answer every single question about the universe.

Originally Posted by Tony Bennett

No, you have mis-read what I said - and not for the first time on this and other threads, words have been put into my mouth.

I am not suggesting that you did this deliberatley by the way.

I was documenting with two key quotes from Charles Darwin that he was, very clearly. both a Bible-hater and an *active* Bible-hater, as is clear from his venomous comments. The relevance is that he had an agenda. His approach was not scientific, moreover his mentor, geologist Charles Lyell, was spirited into the Royal Society in 1826 at the age of 29 with no formal science background whatsoever. Not surprising perhaps, as the Royal Society was the product of the occultic Lunar Society, which used to meet in Birmingham every full moon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't put any words in your mouth at all. It is you who are making things up here. I asked you a question and you did not answer it, except gave me an answer that was completely unrelated.

You were talking of 'Bible haters'. I asked if you thought I was also one. I never once claimed that you said I was one.