Skip to comments.
Evolution study tightens human-chimp connection
EurekAlert (AAAS) ^
| 23 January 2006
| Staff
Posted on 01/23/2006 4:31:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560, 561-580, 581-600 ... 761-777 next last
To: TheBrotherhood
"Although the author leaves it to the reader to decide, the evidence is overwhelming that Lady Hope was the sole witness to Darwins' recanting his evolution theory, repentance and back into the arms of Jesus."
And her own words were that he didn't recant. Why are you STILL lying about this? Please explain to us WHY Darwin would have recanted to HER, and not to his wife who worried about his soul? Please explain how this can be logical.
561
posted on
01/25/2006 11:16:20 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: RunningWolf; Revolting cat!
Remember the old saying: a picture is worth more than a thousand words, especially if those words come from the Marxist/Leninist/Darwinist leftists' mouthpieces.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
From your post timestamp doesn't look like you read the entire convincing piece.
Please take the time to read the whole piece and then get back to us, hopefully convinced and converted to the CREV-ID camp.
To: TheBrotherhood
To: TheBrotherhood
"From your post timestamp doesn't look like you read the entire convincing piece."
Why should I? It's the same old crap. You have ONE ambiguous source (*Lady Hope* never says he converted or that he recanted his theory) and extrapolations from that source that completely ignore what Darwin said and did the last 6 months of his life after this alleged encounter.
Why would he have NOT told his family of this change of mind? He had six months to inform his beloved wife that he accepted Christ... yet, nothing. Any historian who used this type of crappy source would be the laughingstock of his department. There is FAR too much counter-evidence that he NEVER recanted or became a Christian again before he died. You will only *convince* the ignorant and stupid with your *argument*. Darwin never recanted. Period.
565
posted on
01/25/2006 11:35:18 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: TheBrotherhood
Although the author leaves it to the reader to decide, the evidence is overwhelming that Lady Hope was the sole witness to Darwins' recanting his evolution theory, repentance and back into the arms of Jesus.Overwhelming evidence, eh? What about this paragraph?
Her conversation with Darwin
Qhat is impressive in her account is the restraint of what they discussed - as Moore acknowledges (p55),. Had she wanted to cause a sensation, she would have claimed that Darwin was truly "converted" and written a vivid account of his testimony. In fact, she merely records his views on Hebrews an delicately raises the subject of Darwin's evolution contradicting Genesis There is no claim of any conversion, but simply a record of Darwin's renewed interest in the Christian faith.
To: Ol' Dan Tucker
But, but, it's OVERWHELMING!
:)
567
posted on
01/25/2006 11:36:36 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Overwhelmingly inane, if you ask me...
To: TheBrotherhood
Amazing. You claimed that it is a matter of "historical fact" that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. You even claimed that his own children testified to that fact. Now, in the face of overwhelming evidence against your claim, the best substantiation you can offer is an article that concludes with "We would have liked to conclude that, on balance, her account is truthful, but there is also much against it, and we cannot come to a firm conclusion either way."
So the best evidence that you can offer for your claim that it is a "historical fact" that Darwin recanted on his deathbed is an article that concludes that it cannot be known.
Looks like I was right: you are a shameless, brazen liar.
569
posted on
01/25/2006 11:48:15 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Me: "From your post timestamp doesn't look like you read the entire convincing piece."
You: "Why should I? It's the same old crap."
It's your choice to want to read it or not. But don't expect others to want to read your "same old crap."
To: TheBrotherhood
"It's your choice to want to read it or not. But don't expect others to want to read your "same old crap."
Why would Darwin tell this women he converted and NOT tell his wife? Why would his letters to others after this alleged encounter NOT say that he recanted evolution? YOUR OWN LINK (which I have read now; I'd actually seen it a while back and reread it just now) says the matter is unsettled, and their ONLY reasons for thinking it could be true are their wished it happened.
Darwin never recanted. To say he did is to lie.
571
posted on
01/25/2006 11:58:25 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Dimensio
" Looks like I was right: you are a shameless, brazen liar."
And he's not very good at it either. Not they ever seem to be here.
572
posted on
01/25/2006 11:59:48 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Dimensio; All
>So the best evidence that you can offer for your claim that it is a "historical fact" that Darwin recanted on his deathbed is an article that concludes that it cannot be known.
As I understood it, the article leans more towards a recant by Darwin than an unknown.
Have you all read my other links that proves that there was, in fact, a recant?
I think one has to be fair and not post slanted articles which agree with his/her view, so I decided to post an additional link which at first, and especially if not read in its entirety, may seem neutral, but in reality leans slightly towards a recant by Darwin.
Again, read it with an open mind and you'll agree that Lady Hope was real and so were her assertions regarding Darwins disavowal of his pet theory.
They say a mind is like a parachute: it works best when open.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
>Why would Darwin tell this women he converted and NOT tell his wife?
Because he was fearful of the repercussions amongst his close communist/atheist friends.
His recant was between him and Him with Lady Hope being the conduit to Him. Hence the no need to disseminate.
To: CarolinaGuitarman; TheBrotherhood
These things can certainly happen. Lady Hope may have reawakend Darwin's long dormant faith when no one else had.
Your acceptance of this is NOT NEEDED for its truth to be.
Regards,
Wolf
575
posted on
01/25/2006 12:11:18 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: TheBrotherhood
As I understood it, the article leans more towards a recant by Darwin than an unknown.
Then you didn't read it, because it concludes with " we cannot come to a firm conclusion either way." But then, you're lying, so it's not surprising that you're misrepresenting the article that doesn't support your original claim (that Darwin's own children testified that he recanted).
Have you all read my other links that proves that there was, in fact, a recant?
You are again lying. You have provided no other links. You have made comments regarding a link to a creationist website that also disputes the recanting claim, and you quoted snippets out of context and lied about the conclusions, and you called the articles on creationist websites "pro evolution stories", because you are a liar.
576
posted on
01/25/2006 12:12:26 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Galileo really did recant. BFD.
577
posted on
01/25/2006 12:12:34 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: TheBrotherhood
"Because he was fearful of the repercussions amongst his close communist/atheist friends."
1) Most of his friends weren't atheists (nor was he, he was agnostic)
2) He had no communist friends.
"His recant was between him and Him with Lady Hope being the conduit to Him. Hence the no need to disseminate."
Lady Hope's testimony shows no recantation or conversion to Christianity. You are taking an ambiguous source, extrapolating a conversion against all the OTHER evidence, and closing your eyes to truth. How pathetic.
578
posted on
01/25/2006 12:15:59 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: PatrickHenry
Galileo really did recant. BFD. And he subsequently recanted his recantation: "Eppur si muove!" (and yet, it moves!) From his deathbed, no less!
;-)
579
posted on
01/25/2006 12:18:10 PM PST
by
longshadow
(FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
To: PatrickHenry
"Galileo really did recant. BFD."
His recantation crushed the logic of his arguments. Silly EVILutionist!
(sarc off
580
posted on
01/25/2006 12:18:30 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560, 561-580, 581-600 ... 761-777 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson