Darwin Admitted The Theory of Evolution Could Not Be Proven!

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

To all you dyed in the wool evolutionists who think you can trounce into a discussion about the origin of the universe mocking the biblical world view without providing so much as a slither of 13.7 billion year old pond scum as evidence for your beliefs, you've got another thing coming! It's called the truth!

By all means mock the bible if it gives you your kicks. But don't quote it out of context. And, realise that your own doctrines of belief have produced NO PROOF 150 years after the origin of species, there is still no proof. Why you accuse a Christian of being illogical is unbelievable in light of these FACTS, when you yourselves must require more BLIND faith to believe what you believe than a Christian needs to believe.

Yes folks these are the words of Darwin himself, taken directly from the Origin of Species.

"We can not prove that a single species has changed."

[jetson]

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

[Gilgamesh]

I own a copy of On the Origin of Species. I've read it cover to cover and that quote is not in Darwin's publication. Could you provide the actual source for the quote or at least a bit of context to go with it?

[Maggie the Opinionated]

tsk, tsk!

To all you died dyed in the wool evolutionists who think you can trounce prance (?) into a discussion about the origin of the universe mocking the biblical world view with out without providing so much as a slither sliver of 13.7 billion year old pond scum as evidence for your beliefs, you've got another thing coming! It's called the truth!

This fellow thinks that he is going to get a rise out of the atheists here! Ours are much smarter than average, Bite You. I have taught them what they need to know, so they don't fall for creationist nonsense, easily. Shall I quote St. A again? Of course I should. One can never get enough of him:

From: The Literal Meaning of Genesis by St Augustine (died 430 a.d.)

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics ...

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

My work is never done.

[Cyberia]

You're right.  You caught us.  We made it all up, but you were a bit too smart for us.  Thanks for setting us straight.

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

tsk, tsk!

To all you died dyed in the wool evolutionists who think you can trounce prance (?) into a discussion about the origin of the universe mocking the biblical world view with out without providing so much as a slither sliver of 13.7 billion year old pond scum as evidence for your beliefs, you've got another thing coming! It's called the truth!

This fellow thinks that he is going to get a rise out of the atheists here! Ours are much smarter than average, Bite You. I have taught them what they need to know, so they don't fall for creationist nonsense, easily. Shall I quote St. A again? Of course I should. One can never get enough of him:

From: The Literal Meaning of Genesis by St Augustine (died 430 a.d.)

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics ...

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

My work is never done.

Sorry about the spelling. I don't rate St Augustine. He seems to be the atheist go to guy for all things Christian. Why is that? And what does your quote have to do with the OP? I have my doubts he actually was a Christian. You spell checkers are such a buzz kill. I think if your going to do that on all of my posts you will be a very busy wee atheist. Perhaps that's part of God's plan, to side track you with my appalling spelling and grammar. LOL     

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

I own a copy of On the Origin of Species. I've read it cover to cover and that quote is not in Darwin's publication. Could you provide the actual source for the quote or at least a bit of context to go with it?

It's a quote taken from a book by another man you love to hate, Ray Comfort. My garage is a bit of mess at the moment, but I will keep my eye out for you. If it turns out that Ray Comfort is lying about this, I will convert to atheism, deal? (at the very least I will start an "I hate Ray Comfort Campaign"

To be fair, I haven't read the On The Origin of Species. I suppose I should really bone up on it and start misinterpreting and making what is written in it barely recognisable as to the intended written meaning. Just for fun mind, like you guys do with the Bible. What a great idea. 

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

tsk, tsk!

To all you died dyed in the wool evolutionists who think you can trounce prance (?) into a discussion about the origin of the universe mocking the biblical world view with out without providing so much as a slither sliver of 13.7 billion year old pond scum as evidence for your beliefs, you've got another thing coming! It's called the truth!

Trounce - Rebuke or punish severely. I'm happy with my use of this word within the context. I'm also happy with slither "something that snakes do" but you're quite right, sliver is more correct - yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn!

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

You're right.  You caught us.  We made it all up, but you were a bit too smart for us.  Thanks for setting us straight.

Not another "US" and me fest is it?

[jawood]

To all you dyed in the wool evolutionists who think you can trounce into a discussion about the origin of the universe mocking the biblical world view without providing so much as a slither of 13.7 billion year old pond scum as evidence for your beliefs, you've got another thing coming! It's called the truth!

By all means mock the bible if it gives you your kicks. But don't quote it out of context. And, realise that your own doctrines of belief have produced NO PROOF 150 years after the origin of species, there is still no proof. Why you accuse a Christian of being illogical is unbelievable in light of these FACTS, when you yourselves must require more BLIND faith to believe what you believe than a Christian needs to believe.

Yes folks these are the words of Darwin himself, taken directly from the Origin of Species.

"We can not prove that a single species has changed."

I wouldn't use Darwin as my poster boy. In order to sell his book he originally sold it through slave owners who were fighting a losing battle against leftist Christians. His writing would be the foundation of the eugenics movement and white supremacy all the way to Germany. His works "proved" that non-whites were the inferior monkeys.
Again,  it has been liberal Christians who have called foul because "we are all God's children". However that changed once men and women who came after Darwin cemented the scientific facts,

So your rant is ill informed. Having been in your shoes you are an amateur Bible. If you want to keep your "faith" do not research or ask questions. Religion and dogma only survive in a vacuum. If you seek all evidence and ask every question you will become an atheist. Promise.

I asked too many questions. Woody.

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

To all you dyed in the wool evolutionists who think you can trounce into a discussion about the origin of the universe mocking the biblical world view without providing so much as a slither of 13.7 billion year old pond scum as evidence for your beliefs, you've got another thing coming! It's called the truth!

By all means mock the bible if it gives you your kicks. But don't quote it out of context. And, realise that your own doctrines of belief have produced NO PROOF 150 years after the origin of species, there is still no proof. Why you accuse a Christian of being illogical is unbelievable in light of these FACTS, when you yourselves must require more BLIND faith to believe what you believe than a Christian needs to believe.

Yes folks these are the words of Darwin himself, taken directly from the Origin of Species.

"We can not prove that a single species has changed."

I wouldn't use Darwin as my poster boy. In order to sell his book he originally sold it through slave owners who were fighting a losing battle against leftist Christians. His writing would be the foundation of the eugenics movement and white supremacy all the way to Germany. His works "proved" that non-whites were the inferior monkeys.
Again,  it has been liberal Christians who have called foul because "we are all God's children". However that changed once men and women who came after Darwin cemented the scientific facts,

So your rant is ill informed. Having been in your shoes you are an amateur Bible. If you want to keep your "faith" do not research or ask questions. Religion and dogma only survive in a vacuum. If you seek all evidence and ask every question you will become an atheist. Promise.

I asked too many questions. Woody.

You asked the wrong people Woody. I'm here to put that right. God is good like that, He never gives up on people.

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

To all you dyed in the wool evolutionists who think you can trounce into a discussion about the origin of the universe mocking the biblical world view without providing so much as a slither of 13.7 billion year old pond scum as evidence for your beliefs, you've got another thing coming! It's called the truth!

By all means mock the bible if it gives you your kicks. But don't quote it out of context. And, realise that your own doctrines of belief have produced NO PROOF 150 years after the origin of species, there is still no proof. Why you accuse a Christian of being illogical is unbelievable in light of these FACTS, when you yourselves must require more BLIND faith to believe what you believe than a Christian needs to believe.

Yes folks these are the words of Darwin himself, taken directly from the Origin of Species.

"We can not prove that a single species has changed."

I wouldn't use Darwin as my poster boy. In order to sell his book he originally sold it through slave owners who were fighting a losing battle against leftist Christians. His writing would be the foundation of the eugenics movement and white supremacy all the way to Germany. His works "proved" that non-whites were the inferior monkeys.
Again,  it has been liberal Christians who have called foul because "we are all God's children". However that changed once men and women who came after Darwin cemented the scientific facts,

So your rant is ill informed. Having been in your shoes you are an amateur Bible. If you want to keep your "faith" do not research or ask questions. Religion and dogma only survive in a vacuum. If you seek all evidence and ask every question you will become an atheist. Promise.

I asked too many questions. Woody.

You asked the wrong people Woody. I'm here to put that right. God is good like that, He never gives up on people. I'm thrilled to see an atheist who knows and admits that Darwin spawned the eugenics movement, that is very unusual.   

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

To all you dyed in the wool evolutionists who think you can trounce into a discussion about the origin of the universe mocking the biblical world view without providing so much as a slither of 13.7 billion year old pond scum as evidence for your beliefs, you've got another thing coming! It's called the truth!

By all means mock the bible if it gives you your kicks. But don't quote it out of context. And, realise that your own doctrines of belief have produced NO PROOF 150 years after the origin of species, there is still no proof. Why you accuse a Christian of being illogical is unbelievable in light of these FACTS, when you yourselves must require more BLIND faith to believe what you believe than a Christian needs to believe.

Yes folks these are the words of Darwin himself, taken directly from the Origin of Species.

"We can not prove that a single species has changed."

I wouldn't use Darwin as my poster boy. In order to sell his book he originally sold it through slave owners who were fighting a losing battle against leftist Christians. His writing would be the foundation of the eugenics movement and white supremacy all the way to Germany. His works "proved" that non-whites were the inferior monkeys.
Again,  it has been liberal Christians who have called foul because "we are all God's children". However that changed once men and women who came after Darwin cemented the scientific facts,

So your rant is ill informed. Having been in your shoes you are an amateur Bible. If you want to keep your "faith" do not research or ask questions. Religion and dogma only survive in a vacuum. If you seek all evidence and ask every question you will become an atheist. Promise.

I asked too many questions. Woody.

Hey Woody, what do you mean by "an amateur Bible"?

[Captain Luke]

I think he means: "You are an amateur, Bible".

Grammar IS important!

ps Maggie is a Catholic, not an atheist, although I'm sure it amounts to the same thing in your book. 

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

I think he means: "You are an amateur, Bible".

Grammar IS important!

ps Maggie is a Catholic, not an atheist, although I'm sure it amounts to the same thing in your book. 

Oh I beg your pardon Maggie please forgive me.

Hey Captain my captain, how are you?

Umm  Okay the comma is in, and its spelt right AWESOME. "You are an amateur, Bible".  I still don't know what it means, how can a man be a book? Also I haven't heard of the "amateur" version of the bible, would that be like when you have a crack at writing a version or what?

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

I think he means: "You are an amateur, Bible".

Grammar IS important!

ps Maggie is a Catholic, not an atheist, although I'm sure it amounts to the same thing in your book. 

Doh, I get it now, Woody is calling me "Bible" for short. Cool.

[Biblebashingfundy.biteme]

Sorry Maggie, I wrongly assumed you where an atheist. So tell me, was St Augustine a Catholic?

[jawood]

I think he means: "You are an amateur, Bible".

Grammar IS important!

ps Maggie is a Catholic, not an atheist, although I'm sure it amounts to the same thing in your book. 

Doh, I get it now, Woody is calling me "Bible" for short. Cool.

Yes, I have dubbed thee, "Bible". Unless others want to use BBFBM for short?

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

It's important to note that in Darwin's first draft he called it "evilution."

[Maggie the Opinionated]

tsk, tsk!

To all you died dyed in the wool evolutionists who think you can trounce prance (?) into a discussion about the origin of the universe mocking the biblical world view with out without providing so much as a slither sliver of 13.7 billion year old pond scum as evidence for your beliefs, you've got another thing coming! It's called the truth!

Trounce - Rebuke or punish severely. I'm happy with my use of this word within the context. I'm also happy with slither "something that snakes do" but you're quite right, sliver is more correct - yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn!

You can't rebuke into a discussion. You can't punish severely into a discussion. Is English not your first language? I don't normally play the grammar/spelling Nazi but I don't have any desire to try to respond to your ... what shall we call them? Oh, let's call them what they are ... flea droppings.

Still, it must be admitted that anyone with your energy is bound to be amusing. For awhile.

[jetson]

It's important to note that in Darwin's first draft he called it "evilution."

Are you mocking my god?   

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

No, just your evilution.

[Gnu Ordure]

Yes folks these are the words of Darwin himself, taken directly from the Origin of Species.

"We can not prove that a single species has changed."

Talkorigins has debunked this creationist quote-mining:

First of all, the quote is from a "P.S." to a letter to G. Bentham, May 22, 1863 [Darwin, F., ed. 1905. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10].

And:

As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that, based on the fossil record (the only evidence available at the time, before genetics), there wasn't enough detail to say that a particular species was the descendant of a particular earlier species. By the same token, then, it would be impossible to show from the fossils that any particular species had changed into another. This is a "problem" with all fossil evidence, at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of evolution only to those who are determinedly hopeful of one and willfully ignorant.

The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it is not necessarily possible to determine just what about a trait makes it advantageous, given the complexity of the interaction of the organism with the environment. In fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories" that Stephen Jay Gould would inveigh against 120 years later.

Source - scroll down to "Quote #2.7".

[Inertialmass]

...Prepare to be converted ye heathen, pagan, atheist, evolutionist, godless fools...

Doh, I get it now, Woody is calling me "Bible" for short. Cool.

You sound like the kinda guy who keeps and cherishes great-Grandpa's favorite whetstone in the garage.  Might wanna spend a little more time with it, honing a keener edge...

[Gill]

On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory...

???

[Gilgamesh]

Gill, here's pg. 463 to 466:

"On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world's history.

I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. It cannot be objected that there has not been time sufficient for any amount of organic change; for the lapse of time has been so great as to be utterly inappreciable by the human intellect. The number of specimens in all our museums is absolutely as nothing compared with the countless generations of countless species which certainly have existed. We should not be able to recognise a species as the parent of any one or more species if we were to examine them ever so closely, unless we likewise possessed many of the intermediate links between their past or parent and present states; and these many links we could hardly ever expect to discover, owing to the imperfection of the geological record. Numerous existing doubtful forms could be named which are probably varieties; but who will pretend that in future ages so many fossil links will be discovered, that naturalists will be able to decide, on the common view, whether or not these doubtful forms are varieties? As long as most of the links between any two species are unknown, if any one link or intermediate variety be discovered, it will simply be classed as another and distinct species. Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local,?both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration, I am inclined to believe, has been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. Successive formations are separated from each other by enormous blank intervals of time; for fossiliferous formations, thick enough to resist future degradation, can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the subsiding bed of the sea. During the alternate periods of elevation and of stationary level the record will be blank. During these latter periods there will probably be more variability in the forms of life; during periods of subsidence, more extinction.

With respect to the absence of fossiliferous formations beneath the lowest Silurian strata, I can only recur to the hypothesis given in the ninth chapter. That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree which I require, few will be inclined to admit. If we look to long enough intervals of time, geology plainly declares that all species have changed; and they have changed in the manner which my theory requires, for they have changed slowly and in a graduated manner. We clearly see this in the fossil remains from consecutive formations invariably being much more closely related to each other, than are the fossils from formations distant from each other in time.

Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory; and I have now briefly recapitulated the answers and explanations which can be given to them. I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. But it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are. We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs; it cannot be pretended that we know all the varied means of Distribution during the long lapse of years, or that we know how imperfect the Geological Record is. Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgment they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modification."

Does that provide the proper context?

[kevin]

[Gilgamesh]

TL;DR version for kevin: The fossil record was relatively weak in the 1800's. Many "intermediate" fossils that would bolster Darwin's theory were undiscovered at the time.

[Gill]

TL;DR version for kevin: The fossil record was relatively weak in the 1800's. Many "intermediate" fossils that would bolster Darwin's theory were undiscovered at the time.

Yes and that still seems to be the case does it not?

[Gnu Ordure]

No.

Try again, Gill.


Better still, why don't you tell us your alternative to evolution? If life did not evolve, then what did happen?