Charles Darwin (Chucky) Shocking Facts

Part 1/3

Overview link:
https://x-evolutionist.com/charles-darwin-described-the-problems-with-his-theory-in-his-book-origin-of-species/

Charles Darwin did NOT have a degree in biology. Chucky (Charles Darwin) NEVER earned a degree in biology (so he's NOT a biologist). In fact, it is reported that Chuck earned either an ordinary, non-specialized Bachelor of Arts degree, or a Bachelor of Arts degree in theology from Christ's College at Cambridge University in 1831—for the express purpose of becoming an ANGLICAN PARSON (i.e. a God-fearing, Christ-serving, Bible-believing [and carrying] PREACHER).

Click https://books.google.com/books?id=2AgFMkqWZIMC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=Charles+Darwin+Bachelor+of+Arts+in+theology&source=bl&ots=oTlHLjs4yE&sig=qF2048niLoCRWwwCEENUVL_7lR8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_sJSw_87UAhUC8mMKHXscD-0Q6AEIVjAI#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Darwin%20Bachelor%20of%20Arts%20in%20theology&f=false

Click http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

Click http://www.allaboutscience.org/charles-darwin.htm

Just because REAL biologists claim that Darwin was a biologist, that doesn't make it true. The TRUTH IS Charles Darwin dropped out of medical school at the University of Edinburg because he was averse to, or squeamish of just the sight of blood. His father then enrolled him in/sent him to Christ's College at Cambridge to become a CLERGYMAN IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, which Darwin wanted to do.

These are the facts.

Again, Charles Darwin doesn't have a degree in biology, so he's not a biologist. I have seen links that claim that Darwin was a biologist. I wonder how many other people without degrees in biology today can run around claiming that they are biologists. How many? I'll tell you: NONE.

Darwin is no exception.

Besides, there are no transitional fossils.

In his book, “On the Origin of Species (or more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life), published on 24 November 1859…”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

Charles Darwin wrote,

"By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present

[page] 282 IMPERFECTION OF THE CHAP. IX

day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. SO THAT THE NUMBER OF INTERMEDIATE AND TRANSITIONAL LINKS, BETWEEN ALL LIVING AND EXTINCT SPECIES, MUST HAVE BEEN INCONCEIVABLY GREAT. BUT ASSUREDLY, IF THIS THEORY BE TRUE, SUCH HAVE LIVED UPON THIS EARTH.” -- Charles Darwin, 1859, Chapter 9 "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record", On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1

“[page] 280 IMPERFECTION OF THE CHAP. IX.
pends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. WHY THEN IS NOT EVERY GEOLOGICAL FORMATION AND EVERY STRATUM FULL OF SUCH INTERMEDIATE LINKS? GEOLOGY ASSUREDLY DOES NOT REVEAL ANY SUCH FINELY GRADUATED ORGANIC CHAIN; AND THIS, PERHAPS, IS THE MOST OBVIOUS AND GRAVEST OBJECTION WHICH CAN BE URGED AGAINST MY THEORY. THE EXPLANATION LIES, AS I BELIEVE, IN THE EXTREME IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD.” -- Charles Darwin, 1859, Chapter 9 "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record", On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1

“P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. WHEN WE DESCEND TO DETAILS, WE CAN PROVE THAT NO ONE SPECIES HAS CHANGED [I.E. WE CANNOT PROVE THAT A SINGLE SPECIES HAS CHANGED]; NOR CAN WE PROVE THAT THE SUPPOSED CHANGES ARE BENEFICIAL, WHICH IS THE GROUNDWORK OF THE THEORY. NOR CAN WE EXPLAIN WHY SOME SPECIES HAVE CHANGED AND OTHERS HAVE NOT. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another plant. . . . the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments.”

--letter to G. Bentham, May 22, 1863 [Darwin, F., ed. 1905. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10].

So Darwin himself RECOGNIZED that there are NO transitional fossils

Later on, Charles Darwin became an agnostic. I think PEER PRESSURE may have contributed to his decision to become an agnostic.

Part 2/3

Here's more quotes from Charles Darwin,

I quote,

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

From Charles Darwin, Autobiography (1876), in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin, vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1888), pp. 307-13.

End of quote.

The man who read and quoted his Bible and stopped doing so because of peer pressure. Darwin was laughed at on the Beagle for quoting Scripture on morality.

I quote,

"...Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers... for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality...."

End of quote.

I quote,

“The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin – Day 13 of 188

Cambridge 1828-1831.

After having spent two sessions in Edinburgh, my father perceived, or he heard from my sisters, that I did not like the thought of being a physician, so he proposed that I should become a clergyman. He was very properly vehement against my turning into an idle sporting man, which then seemed my probable destination. I asked for some time to consider, as from what little I had heard or thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care ‘Pearson on the Creed,’ and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted.

Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the orthodox, it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father’s wish ever formerly given up, but died a natural death when, on leaving Cambridge, I joined the Beagle as naturalist. If the phrenologists are to be trusted, I was well fitted in one respect to be a clergyman. A few years ago the secretaries of a German psychological society asked me earnestly by letter for a photograph of myself; and some time afterwards I received the proceedings of one of the meetings, in which it seemed that the shape of my head had been the subject of a public discussion, and one of the speakers declared that I had the bump of reverence developed enough for ten priests.

As it was decided that I should be a clergyman, it was necessary that I should go to one of the English universities and take a degree; but as I had never opened a classical book since leaving school, I found to my dismay, that in the two intervening years I had actually forgotten, incredible as it may appear, almost everything which I had learnt, even to some few of the Greek letters. I did not therefore proceed to Cambridge at the usual time in October, but worked with a private tutor in Shrewsbury, and went to Cambridge after the Christmas vacation, early in 1828. I soon recovered my school standard of knowledge, and could translate easy Greek books, such as Homer and the Greek Testament, with moderate facility.

During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh and at school. I attempted mathematics, and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra. This impatience was very foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics, for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade. With respect to Classics I did nothing except attend a few compulsory college lectures, and the attendance was almost nominal. In my second year I had to work for a month or two to pass the Little-Go, which I did easily. Again, in my last year I worked with some earnestness for my final degree of B.A., and brushed up my Classics, together with a little Algebra and Euclid, which latter gave me much pleasure, as it did at school. In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was also necessary to get up Paley’s ‘Evidences of Christianity,’ and his ‘Moral Philosophy.’ This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced that I could have written out the whole of the ‘Evidences’ with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book and, as I may add, of his ‘Natural Theology,’ gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley’s premises; and taking these on trust, I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation. By answering well the examination questions in Paley, by doing Euclid well, and by not failing miserably in Classics, I gained a good place among the oi polloi or crowd of men who do not go in for honours. Oddly enough, I cannot remember how high I stood, and my memory fluctuates between the fifth, tenth, or twelfth, name on the list. (Tenth in the list of January 1831.)

Public lectures on several branches were given in the University, attendance being quite voluntary; but I was so sickened with lectures at Edinburgh that I did not even attend Sedgwick’s eloquent and interesting lectures. Had I done so I should probably have become a geologist earlier than I did. I attended, however, Henslow’s lectures on Botany, and liked them much for their extreme clearness, and the admirable illustrations; but I did not study botany. Henslow used to take his pupils, including several of the older members of the University, field excursions, on foot or in coaches, to distant places, or in a barge down the river, and lectured on the rarer plants and animals which were observed. These excursions were delightful.

Although, as we shall presently see, there were some redeeming features in my life at Cambridge, my time was sadly wasted there, and worse than wasted. From my passion for shooting and for hunting, and, when this failed, for riding across country, I got into a sporting set, including some dissipated low-minded young men. We used often to dine together in the evening, though these dinners often included men of a higher stamp, and we sometimes drank too much, with jolly singing and playing at cards afterwards. I know that I ought to feel ashamed of days and evenings thus spent, but as some of my friends were very pleasant, and we were all in the highest spirits, I cannot help looking back to these times with much pleasure.

But I am glad to think that I had many other friends of a widely different nature. I was very intimate with Whitley (Rev. C. Whitley, Hon. Canon of Durham, formerly Reader in Natural Philosophy in Durham University.), who was afterwards Senior Wrangler, and we used continually to take long walks together. He inoculated me with a taste for pictures and good engravings, of which I bought some. I frequently went to the Fitzwilliam Gallery, and my taste must have been fairly good, for I certainly admired the best pictures, which I discussed with the old curator. I read also with much interest Sir Joshua Reynolds’ book. This taste, though not natural to me, lasted for several years, and many of the pictures in the National Gallery in London gave me much pleasure; that of Sebastian del Piombo exciting in me a sense of sublimity.

« The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin – Day 12 of 188

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin – Day 14 of 188 ».”

End of quote.

Click http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/charles-darwin/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-day-13-of-188/

[page] 186 DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY. CHAP. VI.
“Organs of extreme perfection and complication.—To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural”

-- Charles Darwin, 1859, Chapter 6 "Difficulties On Theory", On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1

Part 3/3

Dr. Kent Hovind, who is anointed teacher in the body of Christ (i.e. the church of the Lord Jesus Christ) was arrested and thrown in jail for what the IRS calls “structuring” approximately ten years ago.

I want to use one of his BEST teachings on YouTube entitled,

“100 Reasons Why Evolution is So Stupid!”,

but I KNEW non-Christians (i.e. unbelievers) would research Kent's background for the purpose of resorting to AD HOMINEM ATTACKS against him, in an attempt to discredit him. But this is done to AVOID coming to terms with the FACTS that he EXPOSES about the UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS of evolution.

So here are a couple of videos that provide some information on Kent Hovind’s background relative to the charge of structuring. Nevertheless, his incarceration in NO WAY changes the INADEQUACIES, PROBLEMS, AND INCONSISTENCIES, AND ISSUES surrounding the UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS of evolution.

ys2V-qR18_c&t=12s

AGMNqYDXnEY&t=10s

YouTube video

YouTube video

What's stupid is this guy's poor understanding of evolution and his tendency to set up straw men and if something isn't understood fully use the God-of-the-gaps technique. Oh, we've never seen a star being formed before, so GOD and THE BIBLE!! This thinking stops inquiry and is the source of ignorance and stupidity. This guy is oozing with ignorance and stupidity.

He's got some natural comedic timing, though. He should quit brainwashing people for a living and do stand-up comedy.

k /thread

.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
What's stupid is this guy's poor understanding of evolution and his tendency to set up straw men and if something isn't understood fully use the God-of-the-gaps technique. Oh, we've never seen a star being formed before, so [b]GOD and THE BIBLE!! This thinking stops inquiry and is the source of ignorance and stupidity. This guy is oozing with ignorance and stupidity.

He's got some natural comedic timing, though. He should quit brainwashing people for a living and do stand-up comedy. [/B]

Just like clockwork.

Every time ANYONE (it does not matter WHO it is) REFUTES, EXPLODES, and EXPOSES the HYPOTHESIS of evolution—an evolutionist ADHERENT/PROPONENT claims that he/she,

“…just has a poor understanding of evolution.”

It is either that one or,

“You just don’t UNDERSTAND evolution.”

Lol. I have read that LAME EXCUSE SO MANY TIMES that I just have to laugh (excuse me).

Did it ever occur to evolutionist PROSELYTES that the REASON we DON’T BELIEVE in the RELIGION of evolution is because we KNOW that it AIN’T TRUE?

Based on former Church of England clergy aspirant Chucky (Charles Darwin), and his PIRATED hypothesis, evolution just is NOT POSSIBLE.

If you go back and read Chucky’s quotes in Parts 1/2 and 2/2, of my posts you will SEE that Chucky KNEW IT.

If he turned his skeptical inquiry on his own silly beliefs he would cease to spew such nonsense. He says we have never seen stars formed (I guess his assumption is that God spoke them all into existence?) but all the crazy bullshit he believes in about the Bible has never been seen before either. And where did God come from if he spoke everything into existence?

"No one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog."

That's not how evolution works. So clearly he doesn't get it.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
If he turned his skeptical inquiry on his own silly beliefs he would cease to spew such nonsense. He says we have never seen stars formed (I guess his assumption is that God spoke them all into existence?) but all the crazy bullshit he believes in about the Bible has never been seen before either. And where did God come from if he spoke everything into existence?

That's not how evolution works. So clearly he doesn't get it.

Patient_Leech,

Ask me HOW MANY TIMES someone has asked me,

"...where did God come from...?"

The answer is NUMEROUS TIMES.

I don’t expect you to COMPREHEND THIS (because it is SPIRITUAL TRUTH) BUT, let me give you the EASIEST answer:

If God CAME FROM SOMEWHERE...trust me...He AIN'T God because His existence would be DEPENDENT on WHATEVER He CAME FROM.

But God (hallelujah!) did NOT COME FROM anywhere.

The whole ORIGIN concept is COMPLETELY INAPPLICABLE to God. You see, only things that have a BEGINNING, or are DEPENDENT on someone else for their ORIGIN—COME FROM SOMEHWERE. But God does NOT have a beginning. For example, YOU had a BEGINNING, or your ORIGIN is dependent on YOUR PARENTS. But God does NOT have a beginning, and He does NOT have an origin.

God has ALWAYS existed. Moreover, God’s EXISTENCE is NOT dependent on ANYONE or ANYTHING. God has NO parents, NO birthplace, NO siblings, NO relatives, NO in-laws, NO hometown, NO grade school, NO high school, NO blood, NO heart, and NO lungs.

God is 100 percent SUPERNATURAL and DIVINE.

Only NATURAL things (ALL MATTER) that exists in this three-dimensional construct that we call SPACE-TIME (it really should be called TIME-SPACE because that’s the order in the Bible) have a beginning (or origin, including TIME and SPACE). This includes the universe, stars, galaxies, planets, Earth, all sand, dirt, trees, cattle, livestock, mammals, birds, reptiles, ponds, lakes, rivers, oceans, sea creatures, insects, bugs, and all life on Earth.

But the SPIRITUAL LAWS that GOVERN time, space, and matter DO NOT have a beginning (just like God, because they have their existence IN GOD). They are GOD’S ATTRIBUTES (or MANIFESTATIONS OF HIS POWER).

The FUNDAMENTAL FORCES (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak Interactions) are GOD’S SPIRITUAL LAWS that GOVERN this time-space construct. NO scientist can EXPLAIN WHERE the Fundamental Forces CAME FROM because they are ETERNAL (i.e. UNCREATED and ALWAYS EXISTING just like God)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

God the Father is Jesus' HEAVENLY Father. In other words, the Lord Jesus got His SUPERNATURAL/DIVINE Y-chromosome from God MIRACULOUSLY—NOT through the normal manner in which a man and woman come together sexually in order to procreate, or produce offspring. So the Lord Jesus did not get ANY of His Y-chromosome from a descendant of Adam (such as Noah’s descendants). Mary was a VIRGIN when God SUPERNATURALLY caused the Lord Jesus to be conceived in her womb.

But the Lord Jesus' LEGAL, EARTHLY, father through ADOPTION is Joseph (Mary's husband).

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

I guess I explained this one okay.

I don't see any questions.

I forgot to provide a source for this Charles Darwin quote. Also, I didn’t quote the whole thought so here it is:

“Whilst on board the 'Beagle' I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality.”

End of quote.

The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Volume I

Page 132

http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-volume-i/ebook-page-132.asp

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
If he turned his skeptical inquiry on his own silly beliefs he would cease to spew such nonsense. He says we have never seen stars formed (I guess his assumption is that God spoke them all into existence?) but all the crazy bullshit he believes in about the Bible has never been seen before either. And where did God come from if he spoke everything into existence?

That's not how evolution works. So clearly he doesn't get it.

You're right, evolution doesn't work.

Originally posted by JesusLovesYou
I guess I explained this one okay.

I don't see any questions.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
"No one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog."

That's not how evolution works. So clearly he doesn't get it.

Originally posted by SamZED
Haven't watched the video, is that an acyual argument that he makes to "disprove" evolution? 🤨🤨🤨

Yes, if you start at about 4:55 in the video, you'll hear it. The guy is a complete moron...

YouTube video

A dog... came from a rock? What evolutionist believes that?