Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 34537

The really funny thing is that Charles Darwin recanted his evolution theory very late in life. Of course, no one wants to see that now. I had a geology professor in college who admitted that evolution as it is taught cannot be true. It relies on masses of 'missing links' that should have shown up in the fossil record by now. If they never show up, then evolution has been disproven. How often do you hear people talk about it? There is no proof or series of proofs for evolution that would show an unbroken string from some ape-like creature to man. They have no string of evidence. They know it. They don't care.

BlueCorvette (C5), Rapture Ready 55 Comments [2/5/2008 4:45:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: nintendofreakgcn
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Euclid

How often do you hear people talk about it?
Far too often, sadly. Please stop relying on well debunked falsehoods; they don't actually help your case.

2/5/2008 5:01:21 AM

Mattural Selection

It is the best theory that we have yet to come up with that fits all the facts we have. Not finding the fossils doesn't prove the theory wrong. If we found something that contradicts the theory, then it will be amended or scrapped for something that better fits the facts.

2/5/2008 5:02:11 AM

Mr. Tambourine Man

Charles Darwin could have said that the personification of Evolution itself declared him God-Emperor of the Moon and decreed that his pineapple army would slay the infidels and it wouldn't change the theory of evolution one bit.

That's the marvelous thing about science; once a theory is put forth to the scientific community at large, the input of the creator of that theory doesn't matter a whit unless they can provide scientific evidence to back up their new idea.

Incidentally, though, the story of Darwin's deathbed recanting is...dubious, at best.

2/5/2008 5:07:53 AM

Mike

The really funny thing is that Charles Darwin recanted his evolution theory very late in life.

And how often has that been proven true: 0. If I'm wrong, so be it.

I had a geology professor in college who admitted that evolution as it is taught cannot be true.

O RLY?

It relies on masses of 'missing links'

Bzzzt! Thank you for playing, but you lost.

that should have shown up in the fossil record by now.

Tikitaalik. YOU FAIL.

If they never show up, then evolution has been disproven.

It's right here:



How often do you hear people talk about it? There is no proof or series of proofs for evolution that would show an unbroken string from some ape-like creature to man.



They have no string of evidence. They know it. They don't care.

Once again:

2/5/2008 5:10:59 AM

Scion

This is the Lady Hope myth. Charles' own daughter, who was there, said her father didn't recant anything. This Lady Hope person was not even present for his death.

Besides, so what if he did? It wouldn't change anything.

2/5/2008 5:27:03 AM

Deep Search

Seriously? The whole story about Darwin 'accepting Jesus' on his deathbed and recanting the theory of evolution is a fabrication made up by an evangelical. And it's still pushed by religious boobs, obviously.

At least they know that if they try to 'talk about it' more informed people will think they're an idiot. For pity's sake at least do some research on the subject. It's not that hard.

2/5/2008 5:30:15 AM

Osiris


Shut. The fuck. Up.

2/5/2008 5:33:54 AM

Viva

Ignorance is bliss award.

2/5/2008 5:35:52 AM

approximate

As if you ever went to college...

2/5/2008 5:50:58 AM

WMDKitty

Wrong. On so many levels.

2/5/2008 5:51:43 AM

The_Hoser

Is it just me or are the fundies just getting stupider?

2/5/2008 5:59:56 AM

Mattural Selection

@ The_Hoser: I didn't think that was possible.

2/5/2008 6:20:05 AM

Brian X

That thread is such a circlejerk...

Oh, what the fuck. It's RR-BB. I could be huffing lewisite gas and it would still damage my brain less than reading Rapture Ready.

2/5/2008 6:33:16 AM

Miles G

What can you say to the same old shit sprouted by another fundie who suddenly thinks that they have stumbled upon something truly revolutionary that will, for once and for all, demonstrate that evolution is folly. Sigh... It's just sad. Unfortunately 'Rapture Ready" seems to be inhabited almost exclusively by this brand of moron, and any dissent is branded as "flaming" or "disrespect", and removed from the board. They don't want a discussion, they just want to make statements that prove how sanctimonious they are!

2/5/2008 6:33:39 AM

Deriamis

Heh, so Darwin recanted, did he? What, did coming up with the Theory of Evolution (which he did not) make him some sort of godless apostate? Funny - and all this time I thought the historical record showed that Darwin had his degree in Theology from Christ's College of Cambridge University.

So, either you're full of shit, or Charles Darwin is an example of how learning more about the Word of God makes you believe in it less.

Either choice you make is fine by me.

2/5/2008 6:40:35 AM

J-Hay

I read about as far as "Darwin recanted his evolution theory" before I nodded off. These same old tired arguments are boring me to sleep. I'm off to watch paint dry now to get my energy back up.

2/5/2008 6:42:46 AM

Nowonmai

We only have some fundies word that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. If anything, he might have said that it needed more study.

There have been 'bridging' species, aka missing links, of modern animals discovered. Just because you don't want to admit it, doesn't make it untrue.

2/5/2008 6:43:02 AM

Reverend Davidius

sometimes, I wish i had such a vivid imagination... sometimes.

2/5/2008 7:20:45 AM

antichrist

And yet again
Charles Darwin did not recant on his death bed, the woman who made that up was not there, and was just lying for Jesus

And your geology professor probably said, we don't have all the answers, not it's untrue. There's a difference.

I would be so happy if I could possibly see one original thought on this board.

2/5/2008 7:41:40 AM

Freboy

The really funny thing is that Charles Darwin recanted his evolution theory very late in life.
Irrelevant. The theory holds its own.

I had a geology professor in college who admitted that evolution as it is taught cannot be true.
Either you're in a crappy school or he's full of shit.

It relies on masses of 'missing links' that should have shown up in the fossil record by now.
"Should have" is not a valid argument.

If they never show up, then evolution has been disproven.
No.

How often do you hear people talk about it?
Only fundies, dear.

There is no proof or series of proofs for evolution that would show an unbroken string from some ape-like creature to man. They have no string of evidence.
Wrong. And missing links does nothing to prove the biblie.

They know it. They don't care.
It's because your bullshit gives them headaches.

2/5/2008 7:50:06 AM

tactitian

So someone in the wrong field told you evolution is false? Are you aware that most of the evidence for evolution is not in the fossil records but rather genetics?

2/5/2008 8:47:46 AM



A geology professor talking about evolution?, you're lying, because those MISSING LINKS have appeared, that's why it has been proved. Moreover, the one above is an urban legend that has been disproved over and over again by Darwin's children. Try a better one.

2/5/2008 9:07:57 AM

FMG

Charles Darwin's "rumoured" recant was a fabrication. He stood by his theory since it was magnificent. To Darwin, he saw a way animals could survive even the hardiest changes to their conditions. He had seen "perfection" in a system as opposed to the rigidity of creationists.

Missing links that Blue wants are crazy half cow half bird things. They are unlikely to exist. There are a fair few fossils showing us the formation of man. However they want every single step which means we would have to go out and dig up the entire world to find these things. And even then they may not have been fossilised since fossils rely on very very set conditions.

And indeed. Darwin was planning to become a vicar.

Oh and Gregor Mendel (another creationist) begs to differ with you.

2/5/2008 9:11:26 AM

Psittacosis

No, he didn't (and anyway it's irrelevant); No, you didn't; No, it doesn't; Yes, they have; All the fucking time; Yes, there is; Yes, we do; No, we don't; Yes, we do.

Now stop squawking, go back to your cage and eat your cracker.

2/5/2008 9:31:55 AM

David B.

Imagine two animals, believed to be related. Let's call them A1 and A2, where A1 is the ancestor species.

A1 -> A2

Now from the idea of common descent, we should expect to find somewhere in the fossil record an individual who shared some features with both A1 and A2, a transitional fossil, a missing link if you will. Let's assume we find this example and call it A3.

A1 -> A3 -> A2

Now somewhere in the FR, after A1 but before A3, we might expect to find another transitional form, and ditto for A3 and A2, so now we have two missing links. Let's assume we find them too.

A1 -> A4 -> A3 -> A5 -> A2

Now, of course, we have 4 missing links, but some really good field work turns up three of them.

A1 -> A6 -> A4 -> A7 -> A3 -> A8 -> A5 -> ? -> A2

Now a reasonable, logical and scientific mind would say that's a pretty confirmed theory. Particularly if half of these transitional forms had turned up because people had used the theory to make educated guesses about where to look. I mean, what sort of perverse idiot is going to look at a series of successes like that and say "Ah, you never found A9, it must all be a load of hooey!"

Apart from BC and his 'geology professor' (hint: BC, ask a palaeontology professor next time), obviously.

N.B. (1) See how the number of 'missing links' went from 1 to 2 to 4? The more fossils we find and fit into a series or tree, the more gaps we create, so if there are 'masses of missing links' it's because we have so much evidence to begin with. (2) Even if they never turn up, it doesn't disprove evolution as there is plenty of positive evidence to evolution around to go on. So an absence of evidence isn't only not evidence of absence, it doesn't even particularly disconfirm the theory, as where there is evidence it is supportive.

No there isn't an unbroken string of evidence from ape to man, and no we don't particularly care. Science doesn't work that way, so the requirement that it does is just a strawman set up to deceive the credulous.

2/5/2008 9:35:12 AM
1 2 3