Providing Proof that Darwin Existed

Providing Proof that Darwin Existed

Mudley replied: "How about I take you to his tomb? If you really wanted to make a stink, you could probably convince someone to open it so that you could examine the corpse."

Sorry, there’s no "corpse." After around 120 years of decomposition, all you will have is skeletal remains.

"You could also compare the DNA of the corpse to the DNA of his descendants, and to the DNA of the hair which was taken from his desk, which you had mentioned in a previous post."

That would just prove that it’s the same man whose hair was on the desk. I want proof before I will believe as you do. Also, how do you know that those who claim to be his descendents are actually his offspring, without having faith in genealogical records?

"There are also photographs of him, and books and papers published in his name."

We have photographs of a man who people maintain was Charles Darwin. Do you have any eye-witnesses who knew him, and can testify that those pictures are authentic? How do you know who wrote the books and papers? A name on a book proves nothing.

"He is also mentioned in records such as the ship roster of the HMS Beagle."

Who wrote the records? How can you have faith in a man you don’t know, who wrote records in a roster 177 years ago? And how can you be sure that they haven’t been altered down through the years? It’s healthy to be a skeptic who refuses to have a blind faith in the documents of men, because that’s all you have.

Unlike you taking me to the tomb of Charles Darwin, I can’t take you to the tomb of Jesus because He didn’t have one. But 2,000 years after His death and resurrection, I can introduce you to Him. There’s my empirical proof. If you fulfill the conditions for the introduction (humility, repentance, and trust), you will stand with your mouth open in unbelief at how He will transform you overnight. See John 3:16 for further details.

Unlike you taking me to the tomb of Charles Darwin, I can’t take you to the tomb of Jesus because He didn’t have one. But 2,000 years after His death and resurrection, I can introduce you to Him. There’s my empirical proof. If you fulfill the conditions for the introduction (humility, repentance, and trust), you will stand with your mouth open in unbelief at how He will transform you overnight. See John 3:16 for further details.

I don't think you understand the phrase "empirical proof".

TerryRC wrote:Unlike you taking me to the tomb of Charles Darwin, I can’t take you to the tomb of Jesus because He didn’t have one. But 2,000 years after His death and resurrection, I can introduce you to Him. There’s my empirical proof. If you fulfill the conditions for the introduction (humility, repentance, and trust), you will stand with your mouth open in unbelief at how He will transform you overnight. See John 3:16 for further details.

I don't think you understand the phrase "empirical proof".

Appealing to empirical proof is the last resort of those who want to disagree with what someone else believes.

Appealing to empirical proof is the last resort of those who want to disagree with what someone else believes.

Demands of empirical proof is what BS artists fear.

Regardless, you spoke of empirical proof for the divinity of jesus. I say you are full of it.

Bets that I am correct.

Appealing to empirical proof is the last resort of those who want to disagree with what someone else believes.

Demands of empirical proof is what BS artists fear.

Regardless, you spoke of empirical proof for the existence of Darwin. I say you are full of it.

Bets that I am correct.

Armon Ayers wrote:Providing Proof that Darwin Existed

Mudley replied: "How about I take you to his tomb? If you really wanted to make a stink, you could probably convince someone to open it so that you could examine the corpse."

Sorry, there’s no "corpse." After around 120 years of decomposition, all you will have is skeletal remains.

"You could also compare the DNA of the corpse to the DNA of his descendants, and to the DNA of the hair which was taken from his desk, which you had mentioned in a previous post."

That would just prove that it’s the same man whose hair was on the desk. I want proof before I will believe as you do. Also, how do you know that those who claim to be his descendents are actually his offspring, without having faith in genealogical records?

"There are also photographs of him, and books and papers published in his name."

We have photographs of a man who people maintain was Charles Darwin. Do you have any eye-witnesses who knew him, and can testify that those pictures are authentic? How do you know who wrote the books and papers? A name on a book proves nothing.

"He is also mentioned in records such as the ship roster of the HMS Beagle."

Who wrote the records? How can you have faith in a man you don’t know, who wrote records in a roster 177 years ago? And how can you be sure that they haven’t been altered down through the years? It’s healthy to be a skeptic who refuses to have a blind faith in the documents of men, because that’s all you have.

Unlike you taking me to the tomb of Charles Darwin, I can’t take you to the tomb of Jesus because He didn’t have one. But 2,000 years after His death and resurrection, I can introduce you to Him. There’s my empirical proof. If you fulfill the conditions for the introduction (humility, repentance, and trust), you will stand with your mouth open in unbelief at how He will transform you overnight. See John 3:16 for further details.

And your point is what?

Unlike most religions, the science of life, the "origin of species", etc. is not dependent on the existence of Darwin or of any other particular persons.

That Darwin did or did not exist matters not to the science of evolution. Darwin the man was but one more pontificator. So why do you seek to make him bigger than life?

ziggy wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:Providing Proof that Darwin Existed

Mudley replied: "How about I take you to his tomb? If you really wanted to make a stink, you could probably convince someone to open it so that you could examine the corpse."

Sorry, there’s no "corpse." After around 120 years of decomposition, all you will have is skeletal remains.

"You could also compare the DNA of the corpse to the DNA of his descendants, and to the DNA of the hair which was taken from his desk, which you had mentioned in a previous post."

That would just prove that it’s the same man whose hair was on the desk. I want proof before I will believe as you do. Also, how do you know that those who claim to be his descendents are actually his offspring, without having faith in genealogical records?

"There are also photographs of him, and books and papers published in his name."

We have photographs of a man who people maintain was Charles Darwin. Do you have any eye-witnesses who knew him, and can testify that those pictures are authentic? How do you know who wrote the books and papers? A name on a book proves nothing.

"He is also mentioned in records such as the ship roster of the HMS Beagle."

Who wrote the records? How can you have faith in a man you don’t know, who wrote records in a roster 177 years ago? And how can you be sure that they haven’t been altered down through the years? It’s healthy to be a skeptic who refuses to have a blind faith in the documents of men, because that’s all you have.

Unlike you taking me to the tomb of Charles Darwin, I can’t take you to the tomb of Jesus because He didn’t have one. But 2,000 years after His death and resurrection, I can introduce you to Him. There’s my empirical proof. If you fulfill the conditions for the introduction (humility, repentance, and trust), you will stand with your mouth open in unbelief at how He will transform you overnight. See John 3:16 for further details.

And your point is what?

Unlike most religions, the science of life, the "origin of species", etc. is not dependent on the existence of Darwin or of any other particular persons.

That Darwin did or did not exist matters not to the science of evolution. Darwin the man was but one more pontificator. So why do you seek to make him bigger than life?

How do we know that any of those persons who supported evolution ever existed? Your word? The words of others? Didn't Jay Gould argue against Darwin's micro-evolution? He instead argued for Punctuated Equilibrium. Basically, the belief that a dog one day gave birth to cats. Didn't science claim that Piltdown man was an evolutionary step in human evolution? (Pilty turned about to be based on a pig's tooth.) What about the claim that the Coelacanth was 50 million years old--until they recently caught them off of Madagascar? Ziggy, you and Solsticysts can believe what you want. I will believe what I want. Either way, it is faith.

The difference is that without Jesus Christ, fundamentalist Christianity falls.

But even without Darwin, evolution still rolls right on- whether through science, or through "faith".

ziggy wrote:The difference is that without Jesus Christ, fundamentalist Christianity falls.

But even without Darwin, evolution still rolls right on- whether through science, or through "faith".

Providing that there ever really was a Darwin. Or, maybe he was just a creation of early evolutions? What proof do you have that he ever existed--other than supposed eyewitness accounts?

Evolution does not and never has needed Darwin. His existence or non-existence is irrelevant to evolution- just as Galileo is irrelevant to the movements of the planets.

Evolution marches on regardless or Darwin- just as Mercury and Venus and Earth and Mars and Jupiter and the other planets retain their solar orbits regardless of Galileo.

Armon Ayers wrote:

How do we know that any of those persons who supported evolution ever existed? Your word? The words of others? Didn't Jay Gould argue against Darwin's micro-evolution? He instead argued for Punctuated Equilibrium. Basically, the belief that a dog one day gave birth to cats. Didn't science claim that Piltdown man was an evolutionary step in human evolution? (Pilty turned about to be based on a pig's tooth.) What about the claim that the Coelacanth was 50 million years old--until they recently caught them off of Madagascar? Ziggy, you and Solsticysts can believe what you want. I will believe what I want. Either way, it is faith.

TH, I suggest that you actually READ what Niles Eldridge and Steve Gould wrote before you make such a fool of yourself by repeating creationist distortions. The best place to start would be with their original formulation of Punctuated Equilibrium (Eldredge, N.; Gould, S.J. 1972: Punctuated Equilibria: an Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In Schopf, T.M. (ed.) 1972: Models in Palaeobiology. Freeman Cooper, pp. 82-115). You may not believe what they proposed, but after reading their paper(s) you should (if you aren't as stupid as your words above would indicate) be able to realize that Punctuated Equilibrium fits well within Darwinian Theory.

In addition to the stupidity of you views on Punc. Eq., you seem to have a poor memory. I (and others) pointed out to you in a previous incarnation of this dialog that the Piltdown hoax was debunked by scientists, not creationists. Additionally, it was not terribly important to most physical anthropologists of the time, being viewed as either an anomalous specimen, a "dead end" lineage, or a fraud. The last alternative turned out to be the eventual resolution after a careful re-examination by scientists.

Coelacanths were a quite successful group of fishes from the Devonian (about 400 mya) to the K-T boundary (the event that did in most of the dinosaurs, about 65 mya). They appeared to have become extinct at that point, as they are completely absent from Cenozoic deposits. However, in probably the most dramatic example of something known as the Signor-Lipps Effect, a specimen of Latimeria chalumnae from the east coast of Africa was procured by scientists in the 1930's. We now know that the two extant species of coelacanths (L. menadoensis was described about 10 years ago) are actually fairly common, but only in very deep waters. This habitat is quite unfavorable to fossilization, accounting for the apparent extinction of these critters.

Now, all of this information is readily available. None of it is hidden from view, or has ever been denied by scientists. Why then, TH, do you insists on lying to folks by promulgating blatant distortions? Are you really too stupid to do five minutes of research before you lie?

ziggy wrote:Evolution does not and never has needed Darwin. His existence or non-existence is irrelevant to evolution- just as Galileo is irrelevant to the movements of the planets.

Evolution marches on regardless or Darwin- just as Mercury and Venus and Earth and Mars and Jupiter and the other planets retain their solar orbits regardless of Galileo.

You might also note that Alfred Russel Wallace independently formulated an almost identical hypothesis to that of Darwin, demonstrating that NO scientist is indispensable to a body of theory.

bmd wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:

How do we know that any of those persons who supported evolution ever existed? Your word? The words of others? Didn't Jay Gould argue against Darwin's micro-evolution? He instead argued for Punctuated Equilibrium. Basically, the belief that a dog one day gave birth to cats. Didn't science claim that Piltdown man was an evolutionary step in human evolution? (Pilty turned about to be based on a pig's tooth.) What about the claim that the Coelacanth was 50 million years old--until they recently caught them off of Madagascar? Ziggy, you and Solsticysts can believe what you want. I will believe what I want. Either way, it is faith.

TH, I suggest that you actually READ what Niles Eldridge and Steve Gould wrote before you make such a fool of yourself by repeating creationist distortions. The best place to start would be with their original formulation of Punctuated Equilibrium (Eldredge, N.; Gould, S.J. 1972: Punctuated Equilibria: an Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In Schopf, T.M. (ed.) 1972: Models in Palaeobiology. Freeman Cooper, pp. 82-115). You may not believe what they proposed, but after reading their paper(s) you should (if you aren't as stupid as your words above would indicate) be able to realize that Punctuated Equilibrium fits well within Darwinian Theory.

In addition to the stupidity of you views on Punc. Eq., you seem to have a poor memory. I (and others) pointed out to you in a previous incarnation of this dialog that the Piltdown hoax was debunked by scientists, not creationists. Additionally, it was not terribly important to most physical anthropologists of the time, being viewed as either an anomalous specimen, a "dead end" lineage, or a fraud. The last alternative turned out to be the eventual resolution after a careful re-examination by scientists.

Coelacanths were a quite successful group of fishes from the Devonian (about 400 mya) to the K-T boundary (the event that did in most of the dinosaurs, about 65 mya). They appeared to have become extinct at that point, as they are completely absent from Cenozoic deposits. However, in probably the most dramatic example of something known as the Signor-Lipps Effect, a specimen of Latimeria chalumnae from the east coast of Africa was procured by scientists in the 1930's. We now know that the two extant species of coelacanths (L. menadoensis was described about 10 years ago) are actually fairly common, but only in very deep waters. This habitat is quite unfavorable to fossilization, accounting for the apparent extinction of these critters.

Now, all of this information is readily available. None of it is hidden from view, or has ever been denied by scientists. Why then, TH, do you insists on lying to folks by promulgating blatant distortions? Are you really too stupid to do five minutes of research before you lie?

Okay, bm'd. I will put you down as undecided.

Hagedorn, you ignorant slut. I suppose that you agree with the following: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-85114592499103809

Keli wrote:Hagedorn, you ignorant slut. I suppose that you agree with the following: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-85114592499103809

So?

Citing another stupid liar adds no support to your argument.

TH has to don his "political hat" when the argument starts getting tough.

Of course, the politicians really learned that "trick" from the creationists.