Does Charles Darwin approve of “Answers in Genesis”?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

2 Chr. 34:19

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2020
777
445
63
Chester ish
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at Astronomy, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."

Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: The Deception of True.Origin

That dishonesty has since been removed, but I looked when I first heard of it, and yes, they did it. They are notorious for that kind of thing. The term "quote-mining" was coined to describe the behavior.
Quote from his article...
As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’...Psalm 19:1 says: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.’ Supernovas declare His mighty power, but are still only finite expressions. The low number of their remnants is a pointer to God’s recent creation of the heavens and earth.
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
LOL!!! Answers in Genesis would NEVER concede to Darwin's fallacious ideas.

Speciation...
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
Speciation

Natural Selection...
Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds.

Common Descent...
creationist-perspective.gif

“Common Design Means Common Ancestry”

Just a little, not too much. But notice that diagram, applied to primates, would make humans the descendants of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

Remember, Darwin was the guy who thought that cells were simple, not complex....

Sounds unlikely. Show us. You do realize that Darwin supposed that God just created the first cells, don't you?

There is grandeur in this 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.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

Your idea is based on a wrong assumption.

You just misrepresented AiG's views after accusing them of "inventing ideas for other people,"

See above. No apology necessary; I realize you probably never read anything Darwin wrote, so you never realized this.
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Quote from his article...
As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’...Psalm 19:1 says: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.’ Supernovas declare His mighty power, but are still only finite expressions. The low number of their remnants is a pointer to God’s recent creation of the heavens and earth.

Oh. Last time I looked, it had been taken down, after Sarfati was called out for dishonestly editing their words. As you know, he removed "and the mystery is solved", making it appear that Clark and Caswell thought the number of supernova remnants was a mystery, when they showed just the opposite to be true.

I'm disappointed. As you may know, AIG has been less inclined to do that kind of thing in recent years.
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just a little, not too much. But notice that diagram, applied to primates, would make humans the descendants of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.
So...you think your diagram disproves the biblical account of Creation??? You might want to keep in mind that all of my education occurred in government schools where the idea of evolution was taught as fact, so I pretty much heard the evolutionary rhetoric and bought into it until I became a Christian and God opened my eyes to the truth.

Sounds unlikely. Show us. You do realize that Darwin supposed that God just created the first cells, don't you?

Well, we KNOW that God created the first cells. That goes without saying. I'm glad to see that you believe this. ;)

BUT Darwin made a wrong assumption about the complexity of those cells and based another HUGE assumption on that faulty assumption. Doesn't sound like science to me, but I got my degree in "soft science," not true science.
.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: theophilus

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just a little, not too much. But notice that diagram, applied to primates, would make humans the descendants of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

So...you think your diagram disproves the biblical account of Creation???

No. Common descent is completely consistent with the Biblical account of Creation.

You might want to keep in mind that all of my education occurred in government schools where the idea of evolution was taught as fact,

Since it's observed to happen daily, that would make sense. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

so I pretty much heard the evolutionary rhetoric and bought into it until I became a Christian and God opened my eyes to the truth.

It appears you don't even know what it is. What do you think the scientific definition of biological evolution is?

Well, we KNOW that God created the first cells.

Darwin thought so. We're now learning more about that, and it seems God was precisely right when He said life was brought forth by the earth.

BUT Darwin made a wrong assumption about the complexity of those cells

You were going to show us that from Darwin's writings. Did you forget?

How about showing us that?
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just a little, not too much. But notice that diagram, applied to primates, would make humans the descendants of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

So smug, are we? Diagrams don't prove anything. Look, I know that you have oodles in your arsenal that you believe PROVE that man descended from lower lifeforms, but it just isn't the truth. There are no PROOFS!

No. Common descent is completely consistent with the Biblical account of Creation.

I see. In the beginning God made the goo....that became you? LOL!

It appears you don't even know what it is. What do you think the scientific definition of biological evolution is?

Oh boy, now you're being downright condescending, but I would expect no less from you. :(

You were going to show us that from Darwin's writings. Did you forget?
Mmm hmm
.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: theophilus

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Darwin believes God’s Word.
If that were true, he would not have dedicated his life to DISPROVING it. You will not find him bringing God into the equation at all. Evolution is an attack on the creation account in Genesis. So people have to make up their minds as to whether it is true or false. For Bible-believing Christians, it is a no-brainer.
 

Joseph77

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2020
5,673
1,325
113
Tulsa, OK
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Who blinds the goo ?

Who gives sight to the blind ?

Who gives the unfaithful over to believe their own delusions ?

Who saves them if they turn to Him, away from sin ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 Chr. 34:19

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Yehren --This article quotes Darwin and explains the dilemma of understanding cell complexity much better than I can. I had to split it into 2 posts, so here is the conclusion of the article: A strong case, then, can be made that the cell has turned out to be a lot more complicated than Darwin or his contemporaries imagined. Not only did they vastly underestimate the complexity of the cell, but it’s probably vastly more complex even than we imagine today.

No, Scientists in Darwin’s Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close

Casey Luskin
June 6, 2013, 4:59 AM
Virchow-cell.jpg


Recently a reader of ENV wrote to me asking whether it’s true that in Darwin’s day, scientists thought that the cell had a simple structure. The reader had argued on an Internet forum that back then, scientists vastly underappreciated the complexity of the cell — especially compared to what we know today. Some Darwin-defenders responded to him by claiming that Darwin believed the cell was indeed “complex,” and quoted Darwin as saying:

A cell is a complex structure, with its investing membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus, a gemmule, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has remarked in his interesting discussion on this subject (Fortnightly Review, Nov. 1, 1868, p. 508), must, perhaps, be a compound one, so as to reproduce all the parts.​

This quotation of Darwin was then followed by the customary attacks on ID proponents, calling us ignorant, deceitful, or worse, for claiming that scientists of Darwin’s era misunderstood and/or dramatically misunderstimated the complexity of the cell. I suppose that somehow this is supposed to bolster the ability of Darwinism to explain the complexity of the cell.

Well, let’s take a closer look at that quote from Darwin. He said that the cell is “complex,” in part, because it has a “membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus.” It’s no surprise that Darwin knew about these cellular components, because they were visible to microscopes of that time. But does this mean he really appreciated or anticipated the complexity of the cell?

The answer is a resounding no. Consider the article that Darwin approvingly cites in that quote, the one by G.H. Lewes in Fortnightly Review. Lewes serves as Darwin’s authority for the claim that the cell is “complex,” so let’s start by looking at what Lewes said about the protoplasm in that very article:

The simplest form of organic life is not — as commonly stated — a cell, but a microscopic lump of jelly-like substance, or protoplasm, which has been named sarcode by Dujardin, cytode by Haeckel, and germinal matter by Lionel Beale. This protoplasm, although entirely destitute of texture, and consequently destitute of organs, is nevertheless considered to be an Organism, because it manifests the cardinal phenomena of Life: Nutrition, Reproduction, and Contractility. As examples of this simplest organism we may cite Monads, Vibriones, Protam�b�, and Polythalamia. Few things are more surprising than the vital activity of these organisms, which puzzle naturalists as to whether they should be called plants or animals. All microscopists are familiar with the spectacle of a formless lump of albuminous matter (a Rhizopod), putting forth a process of its body as a temporary arm or leg, or else slowly wrapping itself round a microscopic plant, or morsel of animal substance, thus making its whole body a mouth and a stomach; but these phenomena are as nothing to those described by Cienkowski, who narrates how one Monad fastens on to a plant and sucks the chlorophyl, first from one cell and then from another; while another Monad, unable to make a hole in the cell-wall, thrusts long processes of its body into the opening already made, and drags out the remains of the chlorophyl left there by its predecessor; while a third Monad leads a predatory life, falling upon other Monads who have filled themselves with food. Here, as he says, we stand on the threshold of that dark region where Animal Will begins; and yet there is here no trace of organisation.​

So protoplasm — which we now call “cytoplasm” and know to be full of cellular organelles, molecular machines, RNA molecules, enzymes, and numerous other crucial biomolecules — is considered by Darwin’s favored authority on the subject to be the “simplest form of organic life,” which is a “microscopic lump of jelly-like substance” that is “destitute of texture” and “destitute of organs” with “no trace of organization.” This same authority believed a eukaryotic organism like a Rhizopod is little more than a “formless lump of albuminous matter.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement or appreciation of the complexity of the cell.

It gets even worse when you read Mr. Lewes’s simplistic descriptions of the nucleus or the cell membrane. He writes:

Now let our glance pass on to the second stage — the Cell. Here we have the first recognised differentiation of structure, in the appearance of a nucleus, or attractive centre, amid the protoplasm. The nucleus is chemically different from the substance which surrounds it; and although perhaps exaggerated importance has been attributed to this nucleus, and mysterious powers have been ascribed to it, yet as an essential constituent of the Cell it commands attention. Indeed, according to the most recent investigations, the definition of a Cell is “a nucleus with surrounding protoplasm.” The cell-wall, or delicate investing membrane — that which makes the Cell a closed sac — is no longer to be regarded as a necessary constituent, but only as an accessory.​

So the nucleus, which we now know to be the information control center of the cell containing chromosomes and much of the genetic information — billions of bits in some cases — necessary to form an organism, is of “exaggerated importance,” having “mysterious powers.” Meanwhile, the membrane is called “only as an accessory” that isn’t even necessary to the definition of a cell.

So if we take Lewes’s definition of a cell as “a nucleus with surrounding protoplasm,” and combine it with his prior description of protoplasm, then we see that a cell is a: structure of “exaggerated importance” with “mysterious powers” surrounded by the “simplest form of organic life,” which is a “microscopic lump of jelly-like substance” that is “destitute of texture” and “destitute of organs” with “no trace of organization.” This is what Darwin’s favored authority on the complexity of the cell said about the complexity of the cell. Not exactly an anticipation of the cell’s true complexity.

But what about Darwin’s citation of the gemmule? Does this help show he had an accurate understanding of cellular complexity? A gemmule is, of course, a now-discredited concept. Darwin had an inaccurate understanding of inheritance, and believed something similar to Lamarck’s long-abandoned view about the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Though I’m generally wary of citing Wikipedia, it correctly explains that “gemmules were imagined particles of inheritance proposed by Charles Darwin as part of his Pangenesis theory.” Darwin invented gemmules as a mechanism of explaining blended inheritance. His theory turned out to be wrong: gemmules don’t exist. So if someone is trying to claim Darwin had an accurate understanding of the cellular complexity, gemmules aren’t a good place to start.

Of course, neither Darwin nor Lewes is to be faulted for getting these things wrong. It’s obvious that in their time knowledge of molecular biology and cell structure was extremely primitive compared to 2013.

Continued in next post
 
  • Like
Reactions: theophilus

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Continued from previous post

There are other good examples of Darwin’s contemporaries failing to anticipate the complexity of the cell. For example, in his 1979 book The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin(Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), John Farley observes that Ernst Haeckel called the cell a “simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon” (p. 73).

Not only did scientists long underestimate the complexity of cells, but they have continued to do so down to recent times, as leading biologists admit. Consider these words from former U.S. National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts:

We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as na�ve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB — and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid.​

Consider an enzyme, for example. If its substrate molecule is present at a concentration of 0.5mM,which is only one substrate molecule for every 105 water molecules, the enzyme’s active site will randomly collide with about 500,000 molecules of substrate per second. And a typical globular protein will be spinning to and fro, turning about various axes at rates corresponding to a million rotations per second.​

But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”​

(Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294 (emphases added).)​

A strong case, then, can be made that the cell has turned out to be a lot more complicated than Darwin or his contemporaries imagined. Not only did they vastly underestimate the complexity of the cell, but it’s probably vastly more complex even than we imagine today.

Image: Rudolf Virchow’s cell theory/Wikipedia.

Source of article: No, Scientists in Darwin’s Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close | Evolution News
 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
O.K. Let's recap...

You said:
Remember, Darwin was the guy who thought that cells were simple, not complex....

But you admit that Darwin said:
A cell is a complex structure, with its investing membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus, a gemmule, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has remarked in his interesting discussion on this subject (Fortnightly Review, Nov. 1, 1868, p. 508), must, perhaps, be a compound one, so as to reproduce all the parts.

So Darwin knew cells are complex. Got that.

It’s no surprise that Darwin knew about these cellular components, because they were visible to microscopes of that time.

Yes, he realized they were complex, even with the limited knowledge of time.

But does this mean he really appreciated or anticipated the complexity of the cell?

He didn't anticipate how complex they were; he just acknowledged that they were complex. But it probably wouldn't have surprised him to know all the details, since he thought God just created the first cells.

(Claims about things other people thought)

But we're talking about what Darwin thought. And as you just learned, Darwin was aware that cells are complex. BTW, notice that he didn't say the simplest form of life was complex. And there are acellular things that have DNA, enzymes, and nicely fit between cells and what we normally think of as viruses. And some argue that viruses themselves are living, since they are self-replicating biological entities that just borrow some things from cells of other organisms. So the guys back then, who suspected that there were simpler forms of life than (even then known to be complex) cells were right.

You've been badly misled here. Bottom line? Darwin knew cells were complex, as you now realize.


 

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(Notice that AIG also admits a limited amount of common descent, as Darwin showed)

Just a little, not too much. But notice that diagram, applied to primates, would make humans the descendants of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

So smug, are we?

You were. That's kinda what got you crossways with the truth here.

Diagrams don't prove anything.

This one merely shows that AIG agrees with Darwin on common descent, but limiting how far they will accept it.

Look, I know that you have oodles in your arsenal that you believe PROVE that man descended from lower lifeforms,

Even honest creationists admit the fact that the evidence shows this. But neither they nor I say it's a matter of proof. Science never gets logical certainty, since it's inductive in the way it works. You just keep gathering evidence until it's foolish to deny the evidence.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

YE Creationist Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

I see. In the beginning God made the goo....that became you?

God created all things. The problem for you, is that you don't approve of the way He did some of it.


Fortunately, yes. You see, God doesn't care if you approve or not. It won't cost you your salvation if you deny the way He created living things. So your error is just funny, not tragic.

Oh boy, now you're being downright condescending,

Well, you know how condescending old barbarians can be. But they aren't the only ones, are they? ;)

Things aren't quite the way you were told. That happens to all of us, from time to time. Learn from this and go on.
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
O.K. Let's recap...
Okay, let's do.

So Darwin knew cells are complex. Got that.
Not so fast. Did you read the article??

The TRUTH of the matter is Darwin used the word complex, BUT he had NO IDEA what that meant. He had NO IDEA how complex cells are.... Like the article states,

Well, let’s take a closer look at that quote from Darwin. He said that the cell is “complex,” in part, because it has a “membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus.” It’s no surprise that Darwin knew about these cellular components, because they were visible to microscopes of that time. But does this mean he really appreciated or anticipated the complexity of the cell?
The only HONEST answer to this question is NO!

He didn't anticipate how complex they were; he just acknowledged that they were complex. But it probably wouldn't have surprised him to know all the details, since he thought God just created the first cells.

LOL! You're digging a really deep hole on this one. Just admit that Darwin didn't have a clue about cell complexity.

But we're talking about what Darwin thought.

Yeah, Darwin based his ideas (at least, partially) about cell complexity on what others of his time believed. But NONE of them had any idea how complex a cell is!
.
 
Last edited:

2 Chr. 34:19

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2020
777
445
63
Chester ish
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at Astronomy, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."

Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: The Deception of True.Origin

That dishonesty has since been removed, but I looked when I first heard of it, and yes, they did it. They are notorious for that kind of thing. The term "quote-mining" was coined to describe the behavior.
Evolutionists aren’t dishonest are they? How old is the universe again? Last I looked, it had dropped 2 billion yrs and was down to 13.7 billion ;)
 

2 Chr. 34:19

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2020
777
445
63
Chester ish
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Speciation...
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.
Speciation

Natural Selection...
Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds.

Common Descent...
creationist-perspective.gif

“Common Design Means Common Ancestry”

Just a little, not too much. But notice that diagram, applied to primates, would make humans the descendants of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.



Sounds unlikely. Show us. You do realize that Darwin supposed that God just created the first cells, don't you?

There is grandeur in this 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.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872

Your idea is based on a wrong assumption.



See above. No apology necessary; I realize you probably never read anything Darwin wrote, so you never realized this.
Is that Darwin’s diagram or his idol, Charles Lyell’s ?
 

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Even honest creationists admit the fact that the evidence shows this. But neither they nor I say it's a matter of proof. Science never gets logical certainty, since it's inductive in the way it works. You just keep gathering evidence until it's foolish to deny the evidence.

The evidence SHOWS this??? Showing something and proving it are two different things, don't you think? And yet, you believe it. You seem to think that the conclusions reached by evolutionists are irrefutable.

Really, evidence doesn't show us anything. Scientists consider the evidence that's available; then they draw conclusions based on that evidence. Many times in the past, scientists have reached conclusions that they now see as erroneous because they lacked essential information not available to them at the time.

This is the case with Darwin, who based his ideas about evolution on faulty information about the complexity of cells. NOW we know how little his generation knew about it. Even today's scientists have more to learn about how complex cells really are.

God created all things. The problem for you, is that you don't approve of the way He did some of it.

I KNOW what God SAID! I'll go with His words, not the words of ignorant scientists.

Genesis One
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Imagine that, God supposedly spoke to a pool of primordial goo and told it to multiply and fill the earth. Sounds like a horror movie! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
 
Last edited:

2 Chr. 34:19

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2020
777
445
63
Chester ish
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
upload_2020-7-20_19-58-51.jpeg
This diagram is a fallacy. Animal embryos actually look completely different...from humans and each other.
Primates do not have:
1. Voicebox
2. Appendix
3. Hair growth
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prayer Warrior

Yehren

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2019
2,912
1,461
113
76
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So Darwin knew cells are complex. Got that.

Not so fast. Did you read the article??

The TRUTH of the matter is Darwin used the word complex, BUT he had NO IDEA what that meant.

Seems like he did. He cited a number of organelles to support his claim that cells are complex. In fact, he declared them to be complex.

But you admit that Darwin said:
A cell is a complex structure, with its investing membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus, a gemmule, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has remarked in his interesting discussion on this subject (Fortnightly Review, Nov. 1, 1868, p. 508),

So Darwin knew cells are complex. Got that.

He had NO IDEA how complex cells are.... Like the article states,

He just knew that they were complex, and said so. Your assumption that he did not, is clearly wrong.

LOL! You're digging a really deep hole on this one. Just admit that Darwin didn't have a clue about cell complexity.

He pointed out that they were complex. He said the were. You said:

Remember, Darwin was the guy who thought that cells were simple, not complex....

You were just wrong. Learn from it.