Replies

His book Origins didn’t contain any data.

Really. If I were to pretend this is true, what say you about all of his other books?

It was just a long argument based on practically nothing, except a few minor variations between finches.

Which have thusly been verified and confirmed in the 150 years since. Rather amazing, actually.

He didn’t even discover natural selection. That was discovered some 25 years ealier by a creationist.

Pssst. He was a creationist before examining the evidence. Which maybe someday you and your ilk will do as well. And btw, you (and others) like to pretend Darwin's impact is diminished by mentioning that his idea wasn't original. This is hardly a secret as he work word Wallace before publishing. In fact, Wallace gave Darwin his "blessing" to publish "Origin."

Furthermore, by bringing this up every 10 or so threads of yours, aren't you shining a bright light on the fact that the idea of Natural Selection as a means of evolution was A) independently arrived at by others and B) would have been published on at some point by someone else anyway? Where's your irrational hatred for Wallace?

Look, Darwin’s book was all about a few finches, huge stretches of logic, and the rest was an attack on God and His Creation. 150 years later and now we know even the finches were a bust since they are all still finches. When they turn into a dog let us know, until then people of God will rightly laugh at the failure that was Darwin.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

The Natural Selection discovered by creationists (before Darwin) was a force for conservation, not a blind information-adding nature-god. In short, natural selection means two different things to creationists and evos. One crucial difference being that there is actual evidence supporting the creationist version, whereas I can’t find any evidence backing up the information-adding evo version at all.