Awkward #7 Darwin

It is my belief that Darwin's evolution theory is an end times deception.  To offer an alternative for origins is to strike at the heart of Genesis.  'In the Beginning God...' has to be somehow debunked by the Enemy, Satan who doesn't care if his evil is also taken out of history. Satan has a place prepared for him, the Lake of Fire but a person can end up there if they fail to recognise God sent Messiah to become the sins of the world.  A person who is given Grace to recognise Messiah will see 'the other side of the coin' which is they themselves are guilty of sin and need to be Born Again from above. If a person has been taught that evolution is true then God can be sidestepped and people will default to their sinful nature.

Darwin's work has been built upon since he died but the problems he found are still there.  Here are some interesting excerpts from Darwin:

 ·         See sentences in BOLD below. Portions of Chapter 6 in Darwin's Origin of Species are included before and after the sentences in BOLD below, showing that these are clearly not out of context:

LONG before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to theory.

These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:—First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some other animal with widely different habits and structure? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?

Charles Darwin,
Origin of Species, Ch. 6, p133

So there we have it, Darwin saw the flaws in his own theory and a hundred and forty odd years later we still have no answers to his problems.  He does say that he doesn't find the problems fatal to his Theory.  Oh right then!  Thats like saying the moon is made of green cheese except it isn;t green and it isn't cheese.  But that's not 'fatal to the Theory!'  Perhaps his letter to his friend is 'fatal to his Theory'.  Its got more text around the quote in bold to give it context:

My dear Lyell,

You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition;† nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

Charles Darwin,
Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229

Also:

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 degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Charles Darwin,
Origin of Species, Ch. 6, p144

I underlined the part where Darwin tells us the important part of his writing that disproves it isn't really important at all.  He does start the book with honesty then tip toes through this absurdity:

Portions of Chapter 1 and 2 in Darwin's Origin of Species are included before and after the sentences in BOLD below, showing that these are clearly not out of context:

This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. 

In other words Charles.... 'just believe it.'  And herein lies the problem.  People don't so much understand evolution as want to have justification for walking away from and idea we have accountability to God.   140 something years later and the 'proofs' for evolution are so ridiculous, weird and whacky that it's amazing people don't fall down laughing at them.  But they don't.  The agenda is twofold:

1.  Do ANYTHING to avoid accountability for sin

2.  Never appear to be unintelligent

Many Christians are comfortable with a 16 Billion year age of the earth.  God 'evolved' the universe over time.  These same people pray for healing for their brothers and sisters and expect the instant response Jesus got in the gospels.  Genesis is literal. 

Gary Ward