Was Darwin the Anti-Christ?

elone: “In the literally millions and millions of species on this earth that have been classified by science, there is not one, to my knowledge, that represents an in between species.”

Ok, how do you explain the idea that bacteria are able to become resistent to various antibiotics? This is an example of adaptation, which, in the long run leads to evolution. Evolution is the adaptation over a long period of time… ie, multiple adaptations as the environment changes. There are strains of bacteria resistant to penicillin, due to them evolving to produce enzymes which disable the ability of the antibiotic to break down their cell wall. Surely this is example enough? Others are resistant to ampicillin. Others still restistant to emoxycillin. Some bacterial strains have encorporated multiple drug resistences. These are all examples of “inbetween species” They have evolved from a common strain and have thus become new strains. The “inbetween species” that you’re looking for are now individually classed as seperate species. They have evolved from common ancestors. That is what evolution is. Also, who has disproved the theory of evolution?

“Actualy Darwin was a life long christian. its said he regreated that his theroy became a religion. It is a religion cause it requires you to believe in a unproven system”

Please show me where darwin said this?

The definition of religion: re·li·gion n.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

the definition of theory: the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I see no commonalities between these two definitions.

Religion has no evidence to support it and is completely unknowable. Evolution has mountains of evidence to support the theory. So much so that it is widely accepted as fact.

“Actualy Darwin was a life long christian. its said he regreated that his theroy became a religion. It is a religion cause it requires you to believe in a unproven system”

Please show me where darwin said this?

The definition of religion: re·li·gion n.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
5. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

the definition of theory: the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I see no commonalities between these two definitions.

Religion has no evidence to support it and is completely unknowable. Evolution has mountains of evidence to support the theory. So much so that it is widely accepted as fact.

He convinced millions of people to his way of thinking? And what he said to persuade them was found to be false.

No… it wasn’t…

You are right flossheal, but the question itself is anti-science, (and a ltitle anti-atheist), and I was just making the point that science and belief in god are not mutually exclusive. However, belief in creationism and science are. If you don’t believe in evolution, you might as well not believe in gravity either.

Actualy Darwin was a life long christian. its said he regreated that his theroy became a religion. It is a religion cause it requires you to believe in a unproven system

Jimahl: In the literally millions and millions of species on this earth that have been classified by science, there is not one, to my knowledge, that represents an in between species.

who said it turned people away from believing in a creator? maybe it turned them away from believing in the exact word of the bible, but thats about it…

Any scientist who seeks for the truth and honestly looks at the facts in order to form a theory is honouring God’s work in my opinion. I believe Darwin did that. The theory he began tells us more about how God created the species that populate(d) our world.

Anyone who tries to dictate ‘the truth’ and dishonestly uses distortions of facts in order to form a theory, or to disprove another theory, is not honouring God, in my opinon. Some scientists do that, and I’m afraid that some Christians do too.

“ It was his infamous ‘theory’ ,which turned out to be nothing more than mere speculation, that turned millions of people from believing in a Creator.”

Belief in a creator is, itself, pure speculation. So, you could say that the authors of the Bible have duped millions of people as well into believing their stories.

As for Darwin, the theory of evolution has changed greatly since his time, and we know things now that he did not. Even contemporaries of Darwin discovered things that would eventually change the theories of evolution and natural selection, such as Mendel’s work in genetics. His theory paved the way for future research that all of us, including yourself, benefit from.

“In the literally millions and millions of species on this earth that have been classified by science, there is not one, to my knowledge, that represents an in between species.”

Define “in between species”? The differences that happen in species through evolution occur of millenias. It is not something we can look at now and say, ohh this species is in the middle of changing to this.

Like a typical evolution denyer, you use supposition and not science to make your point. You make an observation and with no other evidence other than that observation. Then you make your hypothesis, but provide no actual evidence, other than your observation, to prove your point.

Still waiting for your bona fides on evolution that enable you to dismiss it so easily? Or atleast the source of your information?

amoeba: Not at all! I do a lot of research inside and outside of the context of the Bible and I have had this question on my mind for some time now and it appears that no one has asked it so, here it is.

If I had just asked the question without any qualifying statements, then it could be construed that way, but I didnt. I asked it in the context of what I have found to be the case and I am looking for non-confrontational yet informative responses, like yours. Thank you!

This is one ridiculous thread. Darwin was a scientist. Was Galilleo also the anticrist? He was persecuted for correctly explaining the positions and movements of the sun and planets.

Elone, please tell me what your expertize is in being able to completely dismiss the overwhelming evidence and consensus that evolution and natural selection actually do exist?

da nile aint just a river in egypt…

I don’t believe that the theory of evolution has been proven wrong- the evidence is in the fossil record, and it wasn’t darwin that turned me away from christianity- it was the belief itself that I couldn’t swallow, once I had thought hard about it- the creator theory makes no sense, and the theory of evolution and natural selection does. I don’t believe he should be considered an antichrist

no he was not he doesn’t fit the description and really, darwin didn’t do things such as scientific research to take people away from their religions he opened up a new idea and theory he wasn’t evil, he was incredibly smart and analytical anyways, not everybody believes in christianity in the first place they want real answers to real questions (im not putting the religion down, im just saying its ignorant to think that he turned a ton of “christians” away)

You should remember that Darwin started off believing in orthodoxy. And that he also started off studying as a medical doctor.

I think we are so now tied up in what our pastors tell us, and what politicians tell us that many of us can no longer even independently research things for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

Its one thing to believe in something. Its another thing to study and realize empirical evidence about that same thing. And of course, quite another thing to be willfully stupid, ignorant and close-minded that you’re unwilling to step out of the box that you’re cramped in to examine other points of view.

* I think you are very mistaken. You ask what We thought and I gave my opinion. . . Except it or not, But like you say “If all you have is name calling, ridicule and intimidation to offer, please dont bother responding.”

No, Darwin was not “the Anti-Christ”. That’s crazy talk.

I think you are very mistaken.

I do not think he was the Anti christ but a think he was a antichrist.

But on the other hand, if you didn’t believe in God, you wouldn’t even be inclined to call anyone the Anti-Christ, so I think that reference to God is relevant to this question.

“Anyone who tries to dictate ‘the truth’ and dishonestly uses distortions of facts in order to form a theory, or to disprove another theory, is not honouring God, in my opinon. Some scientists do that, and I’m afraid that some Christians do too.”

If a scientist tries to dictate ‘the truth’ and dishonestly uses distortions of facts in order to form a theory, or to disprove another theory, he is no longer engaging in science. Belief in gods has nothing to do with it.

elone - you want to know if darwin was the antichrist and then you state.. “If all you have is name calling, ridicule and intimidation to offer, please dont bother responding.” loaded questions deserve loaded answers. aren’t you really just looking for an argument?