Charlatan? Did Darwin habitually quote people out of context? Did he lie (ie try to deceive, as opposed to merely being mistaken?) Did he call other people liars and frauds? Did he make up evidence?
This habitual name calling tells me that you know you're wrong.
The only habitual name-callers here are the evolutionists - they insult the Bible, they insult God, they insult fundamentalists, they insult everyone who disagrees with them. However I have not heard you say a word about them. In fact in the very next post - which has been reported for abuse - you do some pretty viscious name calling yourself. My calling Darwin a charlatan is not name calling, it is a statement of fact as I shall hereby show:
One of the most interesting things about the Origin of the Species is that it gives proof of nothing:
he cannot prove it, but please believe him.
All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.
He cannot prove it but it's true:
We should not be able to recognise a species as the parent of any one or more species if we were to examine them ever so closely, unless we likewise possessed many of the intermediate links between their past or parent and present states; and these many links we could hardly ever expect to discover, owing to the imperfection of the geological record.
There is no proof but I believe I am correct:
it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are. We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs; it cannot be pretended that we know all the varied means of Distribution during the long lapse of years, or that we know how imperfect the Geological Record is. Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgment
In the future I will be proven right (like Miss Cleo?):
Species and groups of species, which are called aberrant, and which may fancifully be called living fossils, will aid us in forming a picture of the ancient forms of life. Embryology will reveal to us the structure, in some degree obscured, of the prototypes of each great class.
Contradicting what he said before of living fossils:
Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.
Both sides prove me right:
it follows, that the amount of organic change in the fossils of consecutive formations probably serves as a fair measure of the lapse of actual time. A number of species, however, keeping in a body might remain for a long period unchanged, whilst within this same period, several of these species, by migrating into new countries and coming into competition with foreign associates, might become modified; so that we must not overrate the accuracy of organic change as a measure of time.
The future again:
In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches.
Glorification of war and death:
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life
You prove the eye did not evolve
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.
Of course, the great "scientist" Darwin has also been proven wrong numerous times by real science:
1. His racist brachyo-cephalic index for lower species has been shown to be a farce.
2. His numerous statements on apes being the progenitor of man have been shown to be false.
3. His theory that the characteristics of each parent "melded" in the children was proven wrong by Mendellian genetics.
4. The fossil record, 150 years later still does not show gradual evolution.
5. His hero, Malthus, the original chicken little, has been proven wrong by the tenfold increase in humanity while nutrition improved.
So yes, I have plenty of reasons to call Darwin a charlatan. The biggest one of these reasons being that he never gave an iota of proof for macro-evolution and that now, 150 years later, the proof looks even less likely to ever be found than it was when he made his totally unfounded assumption.