…from: “having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one”?
Welcome all after vacation!
I have been reviewing many different articles recently and it hit me like a bolt of lighting: How did materialist who promote the Darwinian theory of evolution get to spontaneous emergence of life from what Darwin himself wrote in the Origin of Species:
“There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved”
One would think that scientific, experimental evidence convinced Darwinists to change their mind… Unfortunately, just like many of my posts and comments have revealed, no such evidence has emerged…. So, my question is: what prompted the Darwiwnists to change the fundamental idea about the origins of life originally written by Darwin himself, if no evidence for such a change exists?
Sex with Democrats. Eew.
Presenting my favorite evolutionary biologist, Dr. Olivia Judson.
She wrote this book:
Why not look for yourself? They’re available online.
She certainly had a close call.
The phrase “by the creator” was added in the second edition but the passage was otherwise unchanged from the first edition. Unless your professor has some documentation of Darwin making a statement to the effect, there seems no basis to consider Darwin’s reasons.
Can you back that up? I can see why you get a chilly reception from “darwinist” Christians. You might consider what sort of reception you would give to a flat earther who gave a talk to your church or other organization.
Does that book factor into your reasons for rejecting the truth of biological evolution? Of course it does, and you’re not afraid to milk the fallacious appeal to emotional revulsion as much as you can.
When reason fails, make them feel disgust and shock to seal the deal.
If there are biologists who oppose canibilism, bestiality, and necrophilia, would it not then be true to say that you are actually guilty of the fallacy of cherrypicking when you choose instead to focus on those who advocate forms of it? Yes, yes it would.
Looks like we have a kinky designer at work
As usual, Sal fails to make his point explicitly, leaving you to speculate. You could be right, or you could be wrong.
Just saw this, made me laugh. No offence, Sal! 🙂
Sal loves to talk about bestiality.
She dumped him.
How long before she’d have been telling Sal that she’s a lesbian?
David Salvador Cordova performing “Jaweh is my warrior”
It made me laugh too.
No offence taken old friend. 🙂
No, that book had nothing to do with anything we’re talking about except that when I talked about a pretty Darwinist I once really liked, it reminded me of a pretty Darwinist like Judson.
I mentioned Judson’s book because that one of the books she was famous for which obviously referred to the strange things that go on in the world of insects, lizards, etc.
The OP was about the word “Creator” in Darwin’s book and it reminded me of the Christian Darwinists who think Darwin is some sort of God send, and it naturally reminded me of a pretty face from way back, which also reminded me of Judson.
Did you know that there are a couple of searchable variorum editions of the Origin online? You could have found that out yourself with a couple of mouse clicks.