[__ Science __ ] Darwinistspeak: "Individuals don't evolve, populations evolve!"

[Rookie]

with the truth

Truth that aligns with what you want to believe or the truth of Jesus Christ. Because no offense but I find it hard to reconcile some of your theories with Christian doctrine, are you not a Christian or what?

You would probably be surprised that Darwin considered God to be the Creator, and wrote that God just created the first living things.

Actually I'm not surprised, Darwin wasn't a stop believer until his wife got sick and died, and since God didn't do what Darwin wanted him to do which is keep his wife alive, he went full-blown atheist.
A fate that a lot of people do when God doesn't show up and be the magical Santa Claus genie, that does everything they do want him to do, that they wish for him to be.

 

[Barbarian]

Truth that aligns with what you want to believe or the truth of Jesus Christ.

Truth is truth. God is not neutral in this:
"Know the truth and the truth will set you free."

Because no offense but I find it hard to reconcile some of your theories with Christian doctrine

That seems like a testable idea. A very long time ago, Christians agreed on what defined a believer. Do you know what those things are? Hint: none of them are about evolution or whether the creation story is a literal or a figurative account. Even AIG eventually had to admit that one doesn't have to be a YE creationist to be a Christian. You don't have to be an evolutionist to be a Christian, either. It really doesn't matter. God doesn't care if you accept evolution or not.

Darwin wasn't a stop believer until his wife got sick and died

Darwin's wife outlived him by 14 years. But late in life, long after he had written about the way evolution works, he said he was "leaning toward agnosticism." When he was doing research, he mentioned that his devout Anglican beliefs were a source of amusement for the officers on The Beagle.

A fate that a lot of people do when God doesn't show up and be the magical Santa Claus genie, that does everything they do want him to do, that they wish for him to be.

We surely see that from people of all opinions on evolution. However, the truth doesn't have anything to do with what we think of it.

It's just truth.

 

[KV-44-v1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1825143978796462499

 

[Free]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1825143978796462499

The world could be millions or billions of years old regardless of whether or not Darwinian evolution is true. Be careful with Ken Ham.

 

[Barbarian]

We’ve seen public (secular = anti-God) schools (and around 85% or so of church kids go to public school) teach generations naturalistic (atheistic) evolution and millions of years as fact.

Sadly, many church leaders and Christian academics endorse evolution/millions of years…— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) August 18, 2024

Ham's obsession is that a phenomenon of nature is "atheistic", ignoring that Darwin himself ascribed creation to God, including the creation of life.

Sadly, he's been repeatedly corrected, but he professes himself to be wise, ignoring Creation to keep his own desires:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

 

[Audie]

Truth is truth. God is not neutral in this:
"Know the truth and the truth will set you free."


That seems like a testable idea. A very long time ago, Christians agreed on what defined a believer. Do you know what those things are? Hint: none of them are about evolution or whether the creation story is a literal or a figurative account. Even AIG eventually had to admit that one doesn't have to be a YE creationist to be a Christian. You don't have to be an evolutionist to be a Christian, either. It really doesn't matter. God doesn't care if you accept evolution or not.


Darwin's wife outlived him by 14 years. But late in life, long after he had written about the way evolution works, he said he was "leaning toward agnosticism." When he was doing research, he mentioned that his devout Anglican beliefs were a source of amusement for the officers on The Beagle.


We surely see that from people of all opinions on evolution. However, the truth doesn't have anything to do with what we think of it.

It's just truth.

" Know the truth"
I think the bible suggesrs one test all things.

Presumably that means diligently, honestly and well.

one

 

[Audie]

Truth that aligns with what you want to believe or the truth of Jesus Christ. Because no offense but I find it hard to reconcile some of your theories with Christian doctrine, are you not a Christian or what?


Actually I'm not surprised, Darwin wasn't a stop believer until his wife got sick and died, and since God didn't do what Darwin wanted him to do which is keep his wife alive, he went full-blown atheist.
A fate that a lot of people do when God doesn't show up and be the magical Santa Claus genie, that does everything they do want him to do, that they wish for him to be.

I had not heard that Darwin story.
What is your source?

 

[Rookie]

I had not heard that Darwin story.
What is your source?

I meant daughter not wife

I like tho we need secular sources to confirm something like Christians would just make it up, and put more faith in them.

Nevertheless

Darwin's complex loss of faith | Nick Spencer

Nick Spencer: It wasn't evolution that led Darwin away from religion, but nor was it simply the loss of his beloved daughter

www.theguardian.com

 

[Audie]

In addition to Darwinists contradicting themselves by both saying "Individuals don’t evolve" and saying "[Individuals] evolve", Darwinists even say "[Parts of individuals] evolve". For example:

• "eyes evolve"
• "skeletons evolve"

Darwinists even say "[Parts of parts of individuals] evolve":

• "the arches on our feet evolved"

I dont see any contradiction.. Could you explain the cotradiction as you see it?

 

[Barbarian]

I had not heard that Darwin story.
What is your source?

While Darwin came to heavily dispute the dogmatic prescriptions of the Anglican Church and Christianity in general, later in life he clarified his position as an agnostic in response to a letter from John Fordyce:

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

Religious views of Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Darwin died about 2 years later. So this was very late in life and long after his discovery of the mechanism of evolution.

 

[Audie]

I meant daughter not wife

I like tho we need secular sources to confirm something like Christians would just make it up, and put more faith in them.

Nevertheless

Darwin's complex loss of faith | Nick Spencer

Nick Spencer: It wasn't evolution that led Darwin away from religion, but nor was it simply the loss of his beloved daughter

www.theguardian.com

Thanks for the link.
As to the rest I don't understand it / whu you
said it so i cannot respond.

 

[Audie]

While Darwin came to heavily dispute the dogmatic prescriptions of the Anglican Church and Christianity in general, later in life he clarified his position as an agnostic in response to a letter from John Fordyce:

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

Religious views of Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Darwin died about 2 years later. So this was very late in life and long after his discovery of the mechanism of evolution.

There's divers accounts, but I see no point in it.
It has zero bearing on the validity of the ToE.

 

[Audie]

Darwinists, because they are unable to present any arguments, are constantly resorting to parroting Darwinistspeak slogans such as this common little gem:

In chanting such Darwinistspeak, they are shooting themselves in the feet. A population is individuals. So, if by the word "populations" the Darwinist is not referring to individuals, then by it he/she is not referring to populations. On the other hand, if by the word "populations" the Darwinist is referring to populations, then by it, he/she is referring to individuals. Thus, what the self-defeating Darwinist is handing you is this:

Because the Darwinist knows he/she has no hope of responding rationally to this truth about his/her Darwinistspeak self-contradiction, all the Darwinist can ever do is to react to being confronted with it by chanting things like, "You just don't understand evolution!" Yet, the Darwinist is someone who, within the space of a single, two-clause sentence, proudly contradicts what he/she asserts in the first half by asserting what he/she asserts in the second half. So, in light of such glaring Darwinist folly, it rings laughably hollow when the Darwinist turns around and tries to taunt you with accusations of failing to understand something.

Would you say that a group of dogs with the
desired characteristics were bred together,
to produced the poodle?