British naturalist Charles Darwin sets out from Plymouth, England, aboard the HMS Beagle on a five-year surveying expedition of the southern Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Visiting such diverse places as the Galapagos Islands and New Zealand, Darwin acquired an intimate knowledge of the flora, fauna, and geology of many lands. This information proved invaluable in the development of his theory of evolution, first put forth in his groundbreaking scientific work of 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
Darwin’s theory argued that organisms gradually evolve through a process he called “natural selection.” In natural selection, organisms with genetic variations that suit their environment tend to propagate more descendants than organisms of the same species that lack the variation, thus influencing the overall genetic makeup of the species. Most scientists quickly embraced the theory that solved so many puzzles of biological science, but orthodox Christians condemned the work as heresy. Controversy over Darwin’s ideas deepened with the publication of The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), in which he presented evidence of man’s evolution from apes.
By the time of Darwin’s death in 1882, his theory of evolution had become generally accepted. In honor of his scientific work, he was buried in Westminster Abbey beside kings, queens, and other illustrious figures from British history. Subsequent developments in genetics and molecular biology led to modifications in accepted evolutionary theory, but Darwin’s ideas remain central to the field.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
The older I get the more I question Darwin’s theory. I have no doubts that DNA modifies and various species gain characteristic changes. But the sheer number of ‘coincidences’ that had to have taken place for the evolution of simple life forms to complex seems unbelievable even with a timeline of several billion years as part of the equation..
We’re missing something, just as the acknowledged history of civilizations on this planet is full of holes and filled with assumptions by the academic elites.
100% agreement.
Complete and utter bullshit (a common theme in “History” articles). The History assholes should have qualified that ridicules comment — “Generally accepted” by WHOM???
===============================
Darwin married his cousin. Incest … a family game.
=====
He washed his feet only once a month.
https://www.livescience.com/1551-letters-reveal-young-darwin-stinky-feet.html
=====
He is NOT the first to postulate ideas about evolution!
=====
What motivated him to come up with this theory? It was his family’s hatred of slavery. He wanted to prove the error of the idea that the human races were fundamentally different.
=====
He did NOT originate the phrase “survival of the fittest”. Herbert Spencer did. What Darwin did say —-> ““It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
=====
Many Christians hate Darwin for his negative effect on Christianity. This is misplaced anger. The “discovery” of evolution was inevitable, especially as the sciences progressed. This is especially true regarding Geology … which would prove the earth is many millions of years old, perhaps billions … which sort of negates the prevailing view at the time, that the earth was just a few thousand years old, according to Genesis.
======
There is no universal consensus regarding Darwin’s views on religion. Was he ever a Christian? If he was, did he remain generally committed to the faith after his discoveries? Did he become an agnostic? Atheist? Video below are his own words from his letters. You decide. I think he became an atheist.
Which is patently false…
Another either/or situation. God clearly tells us the earth is right at 6000 years old. Man says it is 14 to 600 billon years old. 2 choices available.
Romans 3:4 Let God be true, but every man a liar..
I will go with the truth of God, our creator.
No. He does not. Nowhere. That is an INFERENCE only … largely based on Usher’s terribly inaccurate chronology. And propagated incessantly by folks like Ken Ham at the ICR (Institute for Creation Research).
” … when I became a man, I put away childish things …”
Do thou likewise.
.
.
.
P.S. The Bible is not a science book.
Correction Ken Ham is not ICR and the Bible never claims to be a book on science. But where it does touch on the disciplines it is always right. And, weirdly correct before the ‘discovery’ by scientists asking the questions.
Right.
=====
“The CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis-US, the highly acclaimed Creation Museum, and the world-renowned Ark Encounter, ”
.
https://answersingenesis.org/bios/ken-ham/
====
“Answers in Genesis messages promote central young-Earth creationist doctrines, including the concepts of literal Creation of the Earth in six 24-hour days and effects of a global flood. ”
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis
==== ===
ICR was founded by Dr. Henry Morris in 1970. Morris and Ham have appeared together many time. In other words, there is zero difference between Ham and ICR.
But, thanks for playing.
Morris has been dead for 30 or more years so thats a big fail and just because they ‘appeared’ together doesn’t mean a thing. And to tie someone to someone elses ideologies because of their appearances ‘together’ is a typical liberal tactic to try and discredit the person.
But… they did believe much of the same things. Ken Ham is not an accredited scientist, as far as I know, but ICR on the other hand has nothing but accreted scientists putting out peer reviewed papers with real science and not fairy tales.
Nice try, thx for playing.
Oh, yes, it surely does. Something about ‘you can judge a person by the company they keep.”.
I have personally been to seminars where both were speaking. I have bought many books from both of them. If you continue to deny that they hold identical beliefs about Creationism, then you might be blind as a bat.
And you can stick your accusation that I’m a liberal as far up your bunghole as possible.
“But… they did believe much of the same things.”
Well theres your problem… comprehension.
Thats probably why you also don’t think when God says a ‘day’, in context of a day ie 24hrs, that it must mean billions of years instead of a… day.
And there was MORNING AND EVENING the first day. Pretty simple context.
It’s “accredited”.
Ahhh, you’re pulling out the “appeal to authority card”. Nice.
Fauchi is accredited. So, there’s that.
Hate to break it to ya … but probably 99% of regyoulah scientists consider ICR “scientists” to be a blight, a joke, buffoons of the highest order. (Not that that proves anything either.)
Why are they mocked? Because ICR types START with “proofs” … “It’s in the Bible!!” … and then work backwards from there. Too bad, so sad, that’s not how real science works.
I never said it did.
Unfortunately, many CHRISTIANS treat it like a science book.
For example, again — “The Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old!” Which it does not, fer cryin’ out loud!
Sorry you can’t do simple math through the patriarchs till the flood. After that other than some minor calendar differences it is easy.
Is that so?
“You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud. … The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.
—– Leviticus 11:6
Do rabbits chew the cud, brian? You might wanna check with Maggie Magoo on that.
Oh, btw, I am aware of the utterly ridiculous explanation offered by ICR-type folks.
.
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-rabbits-really-chew-the-cud/
Really??? So you ad homin attack the ‘ICR types’ with zero examples of what ICR types advocate. And typical to your angry with God rants pull out an article from AIG as your supporting argument. You quibble over straws and completely deflect from the real issues. Why didn’t you pull and article from ICR??? I know why…
I’ve posed some questions to you before in the stupidly ridiculous premise of ‘evolution’ which you refused to even try to explain, claiming a ‘gotcha trap’. convenient escapism statement…
I’ll take the reasoned and solid science from accredited people that have published and shown their work openly, following science methodology, over an angry at God troll any day.
If you choose to actually have a civil ‘debate’ then I’m open to such discussions regarding the ‘science’ and rational. But I suspect otherwise.
Wow! YOU are the one who tossed the first slur … saying I act like a typical liberal. YOU are the one tossing out your unfounded nonsense that I am a”God hater. It is YOU who call me a troll. It is YOU who mistakenly claim I believe “the stupidly ridiculous premise of evolution”.
So, pardon me if I don’t belive you are sincere about a “civil debate”
=========================
Actually, you know very little. The discussion here is about the age of the earth. I don’t need to pull an article that says they believe the earth is 10,000 years old, at most. Do not try to suck me down the rabbit hole any deeper than that.
=============
Judge much? HOW would you know what’s in my heart? What do you base your judgment on? Is it because I don’t agree with you on several points of theology? Or, because I question God? Because I ask difficult questions … perhaps even in your opinion …irreverent questions?
HAVE I been mad at God? Yes. Is this my generally permanent state of mind? Absolutely not. So, go ahead, if it suits your fancy … argue with me how I feel about God.
==================
I have stated my position on evolution here countless times, too many. I’m not afraid of the topic. I don’t recall your specific example. But, if the ridicules things you say in this post are any indication, then my refusal to engage probably made sense.
For the record, some aspects of Darwin’s theory make sense. For example micro-evolution … changes within a species. Macro evolution? Nah!
The bible is a science book and an extremely correct history book. God cannot lie but many many men make their living by lying. When God says it, that settles it.
I watched this this morning. We’re WAY past Darwin. The last 30 minutes or so are particularly interesting.
N
I
This thread is dead … and only a few were interested in the first place. Nevertheless, I want to say on last thing …. to no one in particular.
Why is is so difficult for some Christians to belive that God created the earth-stars-universe AND that the process took place over a very long time?
One the one hand Christians will admit that God is OUTSIDE of time. Some even say there is no time in heaven-eternity. That God is timeless … time is a physical dimension, while God is Spirit. Some say ALL times are before God … past, present, and future simultaneously. But, your beliefs totally constrain God to time whether it’s 24 hours … or any other number.
Some insist a Genesis “day” is a literal 24 hour period. But Peter says —“one day is as a thousand years with the Lord, and a thousand years as one day”. That can’t be literal. Surely, God is not limited to one “day” being a mere thousand years! It can be … any number of years. Peter is making a point that time is irrelevant to God. In Peter”day” is symbolic of a greater truth, the timeless Nature Of God, as it is in the Genesis “day”.
Regardless if you agree or disagree, let us do close with a truly greater truth …
God could have created everything in a nanosecond. Or, a billion years. It makes no difference to Him. But, for you people who want to pigeon hole God into a literal 24 hour day …. your God is too small. Not only that, but your understanding of his power, and his ways, is minuscule. You place God in a box, your little box … and it’s the wrong box.
My God can accomplish his will in the blink of an eye, or over eons … in terms of human time. In God-time, it’s all the same.
These are my opinions (I wasn’t there either when he did all this so, I could be wrong) …. but, I’m sticking to them until something more reasonable comes along.
I agree. I never understood why people accept this either/or nonsense, when there are infinite possibilities.
The Full title of his book was of course:
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.
Remember, boys and girls, “Evolution” is just a theory, because there is still no evidence for it whatsoever.
A theory, it must be noted, to which Darwin himself didn’t fully subscribe:
‘To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.’
– Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st Ed., p. 186.
Weak sauce!!
There is an”every day” use of the word. Then there is a scientific use. You confuse the two.
Your everyday use is clear; a theory is an untested hunch, perhaps even a guess without supporting evidence.
Scientists have an opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.
For example, there’s still the THEORY of gravitation. It explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. But, no one in their right mind denies gravity exists … because “Hey, it’s just a theory.”
If you are sticking to your misunderstanding of theory, I have a suggestion for you. Jump off a 20 story building. Send us a report how “it’s just a theory” is working out for you.