Was darwin the anti-christ?

He was persuasive! He convinced millions of people to his way of thinking? And what he said to persuade them was found to be false. It was his infamous 'theory' ,which turned out to be nothing more than mere speculation, that turned millions of people from believing in a Creator. What do you think?

If all you have is name calling, ridicule and intimidation to offer, please dont bother responding.

'Actualy Darwin was a life long christian. its said he regreated that his theroy became a religion. It is a religion cause it requires you to believe in a unproven system'

Please show me where darwin said this?

The definition of religion:
re·li·gion n.
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

the definition of theory:
the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I see no commonalities between these two definitions.

Religion has no evidence to support it and is completely unknowable. Evolution has mountains of evidence to support the theory. So much so that it is widely accepted as fact.

who said it turned people away from believing in a creator? maybe it turned them away from believing in the exact word of the bible, but thats about it...

no he was not
he doesn't fit the description
and really, darwin didn't do things such as scientific research to take people away from their religions
he opened up a new idea and theory
he wasn't evil, he was incredibly smart and analytical
anyways, not everybody believes in christianity in the first place
they want real answers to real questions
(im not putting the religion down, im just saying its ignorant to think that he turned a ton of 'christians' away)

I don't believe that the theory of evolution has been proven wrong- the evidence is in the fossil record, and it wasn't darwin that turned me away from christianity- it was the belief itself that I couldn't swallow, once I had thought hard about it- the creator theory makes no sense, and the theory of evolution and natural selection does. I don't believe he should be considered an antichrist

I do not think he was the Anti christ but a think he was a antichrist.

I think you are very mistaken.

You should remember that Darwin started off believing in orthodoxy. And that he also started off studying as a medical doctor.

I think we are so now tied up in what our pastors tell us, and what politicians tell us that many of us can no longer even independently research things for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

Its one thing to believe in something. Its another thing to study and realize empirical evidence about that same thing. And of course, quite another thing to be willfully stupid, ignorant and close-minded that you're unwilling to step out of the box that you're cramped in to examine other points of view.

This is one ridiculous thread. Darwin was a scientist. Was Galilleo also the anticrist? He was persecuted for correctly explaining the positions and movements of the sun and planets.

Elone, please tell me what your expertize is in being able to completely dismiss the overwhelming evidence and consensus that evolution and natural selection actually do exist?

da nile aint just a river in egypt...

elone -
you want to know if darwin was the antichrist and then you state..
'If all you have is name calling, ridicule and intimidation to offer, please dont bother responding.'
loaded questions deserve loaded answers.
aren't you really just looking for an argument?

Jimahl:
In the literally millions and millions of species on this earth that have been classified by science, there is not one, to my knowledge, that represents an in between species.

amoeba:
Not at all! I do a lot of research inside and outside of the context of the Bible and I have had this question on my mind for some time now and it appears that no one has asked it so, here it is.

If I had just asked the question without any qualifying statements, then it could be construed that way, but I didnt. I asked it in the context of what I have found to be the case and I am looking for non-confrontational yet informative responses, like yours. Thank you!

*** I think you are very mistaken.
You ask what We thought and I gave my opinion. . . Except it or not, But like you say 'If all you have is name calling, ridicule and intimidation to offer, please dont bother responding.'

elone: 'In the literally millions and millions of species on this earth that have been classified by science, there is not one, to my knowledge, that represents an in between species.'

Ok, how do you explain the idea that bacteria are able to become resistent to various antibiotics? This is an example of adaptation, which, in the long run leads to evolution. Evolution is the adaptation over a long period of time... ie, multiple adaptations as the environment changes. There are strains of bacteria resistant to penicillin, due to them evolving to produce enzymes which disable the ability of the antibiotic to break down their cell wall. Surely this is example enough? Others are resistant to ampicillin. Others still restistant to emoxycillin. Some bacterial strains have encorporated multiple drug resistences. These are all examples of 'inbetween species' They have evolved from a common strain and have thus become new strains. The 'inbetween species' that you're looking for are now individually classed as seperate species. They have evolved from common ancestors. That is what evolution is.
Also, who has disproved the theory of evolution?

No, Darwin was not 'the Anti-Christ'. That's crazy talk.

'In the literally millions and millions of species on this earth that have been classified by science, there is not one, to my knowledge, that represents an in between species.'

Define 'in between species'? The differences that happen in species through evolution occur of millenias. It is not something we can look at now and say, ohh this species is in the middle of changing to this.

Like a typical evolution denyer, you use supposition and not science to make your point. You make an observation and with no other evidence other than that observation. Then you make your hypothesis, but provide no actual evidence, other than your observation, to prove your point.

Still waiting for your bona fides on evolution that enable you to dismiss it so easily? Or atleast the source of your information?

' It was his infamous 'theory' ,which turned out to be nothing more than mere speculation, that turned millions of people from believing in a Creator.'

Belief in a creator is, itself, pure speculation. So, you could say that the authors of the Bible have duped millions of people as well into believing their stories.

As for Darwin, the theory of evolution has changed greatly since his time, and we know things now that he did not. Even contemporaries of Darwin discovered things that would eventually change the theories of evolution and natural selection, such as Mendel's work in genetics. His theory paved the way for future research that all of us, including yourself, benefit from.

Actualy Darwin was a life long christian. its said he regreated that his theroy became a religion. It is a religion cause it requires you to believe in a unproven system

'species' is an arbitrary categorization we use to aid our own understanding. In nature, what we actually observe is a continuum, not hard distinct species. Many individuals from what we call different species are capable of reproducing with eachother. ...and even within a given species, many pairs of mates are individually fertile, but infertile as a pair, yet we still refer to them as the same species. So, the demand for 'in-between' species is a failure to even comprehend the basics of biology.

Kurt Cameron is a typical creationist. He put forth the absurd claim that if evolution were true, we would find crocoducks. Now suppose for a moment, someone actually did find a crocoduck and showed it to Kurt. Would he admit it was a transitional form between crocodiles and ducks? No, he would simply claim it was a unique species. ...and this is the same game creationists play with all the evidence. No matter how many transitional forms you present (and there are many to choose from), they just claim they are unique species and not transitional forms.

You can even show them direct links from recovered dino protein and birds, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-trex-mastodon.html , and they'll claim it's just coincidence because God used the same building blocks.

If you show them a modern fully documented case of rapid speciation in nature involving the evolution of a new gut structure and other significant changes, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html , they claim the potential for this change was already designed, and so it doesn't count.

'Actualy Darwin was a life long christian. its said he regreated that his theroy became a religion. It is a religion cause it requires you to believe in a unproven system'

Please show me where darwin said this?

The definition of religion:
re·li·gion n.
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

the definition of theory:
the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I see no commonalities between these two definitions.

Religion has no evidence to support it and is completely unknowable. Evolution has mountains of evidence to support the theory. So much so that it is widely accepted as fact.

Any scientist who seeks for the truth and honestly looks at the facts in order to form a theory is honouring God's work in my opinion. I believe Darwin did that. The theory he began tells us more about how God created the species that populate(d) our world.

Anyone who tries to dictate 'the truth' and dishonestly uses distortions of facts in order to form a theory, or to disprove another theory, is not honouring God, in my opinon. Some scientists do that, and I'm afraid that some Christians do too.

'Anyone who tries to dictate 'the truth' and dishonestly uses distortions of facts in order to form a theory, or to disprove another theory, is not honouring God, in my opinon. Some scientists do that, and I'm afraid that some Christians do too.'

If a scientist tries to dictate 'the truth' and dishonestly uses distortions of facts in order to form a theory, or to disprove another theory, he is no longer engaging in science. Belief in gods has nothing to do with it.

But on the other hand, if you didn't believe in God, you wouldn't even be inclined to call anyone the Anti-Christ, so I think that reference to God is relevant to this question.

You are right flossheal, but the question itself is anti-science, (and a ltitle anti-atheist), and I was just making the point that science and belief in god are not mutually exclusive. However, belief in creationism and science are. If you don't believe in evolution, you might as well not believe in gravity either.

*** He convinced millions of people to his way of thinking? And what he said to persuade them was found to be false.***

No... it wasn't...