Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Darwin the plagiarist?
#1
Did Dawin rip off the concept of natural selection from a creationist whose research predated Darwin's:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_muddy_waters2.asp">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... aters2.asp</a><!-- m -->

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#2
Shlama Akhi Craig,

It looks like Darwin plagiarized and revamped considerably, doesn't it?
By the way, Kent Hovind spells out the incredible damage that has been done by the evolution teaching. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were very fond of evolution, e. g.
Just as Hitler believed that the Germans were the master race, Mussolini believed the Italians were the master race. At the heart of the evolution teaching is racism! The older books such as 'Origin of the Species' had longer titles on the inner cover page. From what I can remember this page added something about 'preferred races' to the title!
A precorsor to the evolution teaching was a belief called uniformitarianism which claims that everything has occurred because of natural processes over the course of time, etc. This pushes YHWH out of the picture also because it doesn't account for his judgments (such as the Flood). Seemingly, this belief would say "Everything happens by chance and circumstance so ignore your Bible and its author-God"...or at least that's my take on it.
When you consider the sum total of all the damage that's done in the classrooms of our schools and colleges by evolution (and its corresponding racism) and its precursor uniformitarianism...plus whatever else came down the turnpike...it's a mindblower. Was it Kip Kinkle's associate-in-crime at the Columbine shootings that had 'Natural Selection' emblazoned on his sweatshirt or T-shirt? Well...take my word for it...if Kent Hovind's video tapes were circulated to every school in America, it would rock this nation! I've never seen anybody cover evolution and the glaring question "What about dinosaurs" quite like Bro. Kent...very in-depth and comprehensive!

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey
Reply
#3
Yes, I don't think any of Darwins ideas were actually new, rather the climate was ready to receive them at that time.
Random (unpredictable to us) mutations do occur as does natural selection. Darwins error was to extrapolate these small changes into enormous ones.
For a good look at the role of Random mutation and natural selection this online book is good.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/">http://www.evolutionisdegeneration.com/</a><!-- m -->

and for an extension of this theory to attempt to account for sequene similarity this is a good stat.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000120.html">http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000120.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#4
I agree with my colleague from Down Under. Evolution is real. Before you start burning me at the stake... I of course believe in Creation, and do not believe that evoultion theory is what created all the world's different "families". But to deny evolution is to deny our health. Natural selection takes place everyday with microorganisms such as bacteria, partly due to our overusage of antibiotics. This is why many antibiotics are no longer useful for bugs they were used for in the past, and why most antibiotic doses have increased.

This is the problem for us. I guess the way to fight such people is to show that the Earth is very young, and that 8000 years is not enough for inorganic chemicals to form the firct cell, then to form the first ape, then first human... After all, how in this secular world of ours, could life have just been impregnated into inorganic matter? And how could a few tiny microorganisms possibly have merged to form the first cell? That is if I would merge with a hippo, cat and bird to make a 'super cell' <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#5
Wow, that first link is very good and true, the evolution usually results in loss of info. The second link, I am interested to read from my countryman, I wish they had the original Dutch version on line though, since coming to this site, I have a strange love for originals...

Of course I disagree on dinosaurs, belieivng them to be devilspawn, but each to his own <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#6
Perhaps Akhan Dave will now see that "extra-Peshittical" topics are still important and not mere games <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#7
drmlanc Wrote:This is the problem for us. I guess the way to fight such people is to show that the Earth is very young, and that 8000 years is not enough for inorganic chemicals to form the firct cell, then to form the first ape, then first human...

The Earth could be older than that, not that I'm arguing against Elaha's direct creation or that macroevolution of one species into a new species is possible. The post-Abrahamic genealogies at the least are abriged and the first six days could have been 6,000 years since a 1,000 of our years are a day to Elaha. While the pre-Abramahic genealogies don't seem to leave any room for their being abriged since they are so specific, "When Enoch was 65 years old, Methuselah was born," but the real importance can seen placing the meaning of the names in order:

Adam - Man
Seth - Appointed
Enosh - Mortal
Kenan - Sorrow
Mahalalel - The Blessed God
Jared - Shall come down
Enoch - Teaching
Methuselah - His death shall bring
Lamech - the Despairing
Noach - Comfort

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#8
Craig did you translate those names yourself, or did you just rip them off from Chuck Missler? Amazingly, someone was trying to tell me that that is bs as that is not really what it means in Hebrew...
Reply
#9
drmlanc Wrote:Craig did you translate those names yourself, or did you just rip them off from Chuck Missler? Amazingly, someone was trying to tell me that that is bs as that is not really what it means in Hebrew...

Don't know, I never claimed it be an original insight of mine. But, using a combination of my own <i>The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible</i> and the The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon of <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.studylight.org">http://www.studylight.org</a><!-- m -->:

120 Adam "man"

8351 set n.pr.m same as 8352: Seth, Sheth, "determined, granted"

582 enos, n.m, man, humankind, mortal, with an emphasis on frailty
583 'enos n.pr.m Enosh, "[mortal] man"

7018 qenan, n.r.m. Kenan, "possession"

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=07018">http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=07018</a><!-- m -->

4111 mahlal'el, n.pr.m. Mahalel, "praise of God [El]"

3382 yered, n.pr.m. Jered or Jared, "descent"

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03382">http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03382</a><!-- m -->

2585 Enoch; Hanoch, "initiated; follower"

4968 Methuselah "man of the dart"

3929 Lamech - "powerful"

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03929">http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03929</a><!-- m -->

5146 noah, n.pr.m. Noah, "rest, comfort"

Now "praise of God" can be turned around as "God of praise", so what I came up with myself:

[Originally immortal] man/humanity granted mortal man/humanity [as] a possession, the God of praise's descent initiated the man of the dart [war?] [into] a powerful rest/comfort.

And perhaps a work like TWOT would provide an alternative entry for Methuselah. *Shrug*

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#10
Where the desire to fill in the gaps of what Scripture doesn't tell us can take us as Christians:

""Now i think God made bacteria, because bacteria are important for eating our poo and keeping us from getting sick... although some bacteria do make us sick for some reason (i dont get that, i think some bacteria get influenced by satan and deviate from goodness or something). But i heard viruses arent even alive, they just make more of themselves and kill things, so whats the point of that? I think viruses are the work of satan, because all they bring is death and destruction..."

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#11
hmm.... I think viruses are man-made somehow. The only "living thing" that isn't living...

So that "Genesis code about Jesus" is just a scam then Akhi?
Reply
#12
drmlanc Wrote:hmm.... I think viruses are man-made somehow. The only "living thing" that isn't living...

Well, if such things must be explained then I would say that harmful bacteria and viruses are part of the Fall and the curse on the land that insure that death is the ultimate end of the soul that sins.

Quote:So that "Genesis code about Jesus" is just a scam then Akhi?

Well, the meanings of the names that I looked up made sense to me.

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#13
So is that "hidden message" invalid? Or can it still be true?
Reply
#14
drmlanc Wrote:So is that "hidden message" invalid? Or can it still be true?

You mean the original? It could be, I don't know what resources where used for that or even where I picked it up, I had accepted it without question until you called me on it.

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#15
We Christians SO want to believe these things... Like the stories of each of the 12 sons, "making" up the story of teh Christian Church <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)