Is it true that on his death bed, Charles Darwin renounced his theory of evolution?
Yes and Jesus said that God doesn't exist minute before he died on cross. True Story, fellow anon.
>>1402460
You can just say no, dickhead. Why is everyone on here such a pretentious faggot? For fuck's sake, God forbid we answer a question and help someone like normal human beings. Kill yourself.
>>1402460
I like Answers in Genesis' article on trees and the flood.
They basically mumble that some species of trees can survive being submerged and then change the subject hoping nobody will notice how retarded it is to apply that to all plants.
>>1402471
The creation museum argues for "god powered super evolution" to explain the diversification of life after all the animals filed off the ark. Evolution via natural selection is still the devil of course.
>>1402471
The flood was just a metaphor retard
>>1402477
Tell that to Answers in Genesis they're the ones trying to defend a completely literal reading of it.
>>1402477
God sure does like His metaphors.
>>1402477
>anon mentions something someone else said
>calls anon a retard
wew
>>1402460
That reminds me of a science fiction book I read a long time ago.
It's about this guy with serious mental issues who develops a weird pathological obsession with the life of Christ and Christianity in general. He ends up going back in time to see for himself what happened and when he finds out it's largely inaccurate he decides to make it real by reenacting Jesus' life as recorded in the Gospels (stable time loop and all that).
It was overall pretty forgettable and I don't remember much but the ending was kind of clever.
On the cross his last words are (in modern English, because he's a Londoner from the 60s) "it's a lie, it's a lie. Let me down". But they're misheard as "eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani" which is the Aramaic for the famous "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
>>1402515
Time like loops are pretty neat.
>>1402469
maybe dont ask retarded questions if you want serios answers?
>>1402477
Heretic.
>>1402482
God is just a metaphor for evolution.
>>1402460
It doesn't matter how you put it - using that as something to discredit or credit evolution is dumb as fuck and should be ignored.
>>1402475
That's literally all that creationism is against, explaining biological life trough natural selection in absence of God.
It just claims based on scriptures that life was created as a whole, alongside all laws and processes of nature as a whole. So evolution as a process isn't denied - just it being the main impersonal recipe behind biological life.
>>1402453
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQJ3sqkdCRE
>>1403501
>Prottie calling other people heretics
O i am laffin
>>1402477
>Jesus - God backs up Moses.
>Moses was having a dialogue directly with God.
>What Moses wrote is from God.
>What Jesus said is from God.
...
hurr durr It's a metaphor.
>>1403582
>Bertrand Russell
kek
>>1402460
>be pretentious dickhead
>complain about pretentious dickheads
>>1402460
>including the greatest: the Bible
top zozzle
No, just like Crowley never begged for God's forgiveness on his deathbed. Stupid shit made up by paranoid conservatives to feel more special when faced with their own idiocy.
Evolution was just a metaphor, bron
>>1402453
No, it's just a legend
>>1403581
The fuck are you even arguing?
>>1402469
>stupid meme thread gets stupid meme replies
Wew
I wonder why people are so obsessed with Darwin.
Sure he formulated a pretty neat theory, but evolution is not his theory in the slightest, its the theory of every single scientist who over the course of history contributed meaningfully to it, its a consensus supported by experimentation.
Darwin's personal characteristics, his personality, his life, his beliefs etc. do not matter in the slightest to the theory of evolution, the only thing about him that matters is exactly what he contributed to it.
>>1405616
You're using that word again, I don't think you know what it means
>>1405628
>I wonder why people are so obsessed with Darwin
They think evolution is a religion, to the extent that they think if you discredit the founder the religion would be discredited by proxy. It must be a religion, they reason, because it contradicts their beliefs, and so it could not possibly be science (or sometimes they just declare that science is a religion.) That's probably why you hear people say words like "Darwinism", as though he founded it as a static thing instead of it changing as more discoveries came about and underpinning much of our understanding of biology.
>>1402453
1) No.
2) If I declared all my life that 2+2 =4 but on my deathbed proclaimed that 2+2 =5, would that have any bearing on the truth of the statement?
>>1405664
thing is the obsession comes from both sides including many supporters of evolution
happens often that the original formulators of a theory are seen as the owners of said theory even if the version they formulated was heavily flawed to the point that it was entirely justified for a rational person to doubt their validity.
Darwin's theory is a good example of that given it had a major flaw in that he formulated absolutely no method for inheritance.
>>1402469
>you can just say no
>everyone on here
>such a pretentious faggot
....
>first guy actually says no
>ignore him
>go after b8 post
>>1405675
Failing to explain the mechanism doesn't meant the theory was flawed. It meant it was incomplete. The means of inheritance is genetics. The means of genetics is molecular biology. The means of molecular biology is physics. The means of physics is ???
Just because that ends with ??? doesn't mean our understanding of everything above is invalid.
Gregor Mendel's (a clergyman) work on genetics came after Darwin. and would eventually inform and clarify Darwin's ideas.
The simple matter is that you should start with a hypothesis you try to disprove through experimentation. There is no eternally proving anything. There is only lending weight to through experimentation. Dogmatists see this as a weakness because they begin with a conclusion then work backwards to prove it, ignoring, insisting, and cherrypicking every step of the way..
>>1405675
He was ahead of his times in many ways. Now we have genetics and DNA and he came up for the framework for the Theory of Evolution without any knowledge of it. You have to give him credit, even if a major aspect of his idea needed decades more work to find. But somebody would have come up with the same idea sooner or later. People have this idea scientists just come up with these ideas, but really they are uncovering a truth that simply needed to be discovered. Gravity still exists, whether or not Newton wrote about it. Somebody else would have described the same phenomenon at some point.
>>1405694
it was incomplete sure but that wasn't my point
my point was that more often than not, especially early in its conception, there can be very little difference between an inherently flawed theory and an incomplete one and as such it is entirely reasonable for a logical person to doubt what will later on become the standard theory.
>>1402469
>be on 4chan
>Not expecting everyone to be pretentious assholes, degenerate prodigies, and clinical sociopaths.
Back to tumblr with you
>>1407654
>implying tumblr is any different than 4chan
>>1402453
yeah, it was a prank anyway bro, LOL. heard of lamarck and lysenko?
the enlighted chosens believe in emanationsim anyway, those petty evolutionist vs. creationist duels are JUST for the dumb unenlighted goyim)))
