darwin denied his works?

I am pretty sure that is an urban legend.

 

This is a paragraph I found on Darwins biography at this site:

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/darwin_bio.htm

Sheila

 

Here's an excerpt from a letter that two Christian friends & I sent to the now - late astronomer Dr. Carl Sagan:
________________________________


Despite his obvious intelligence, Darwin couldn't see the forest for the trees. I understand he first became interested in evolution after observing some fossils in a cliff near his home, noticing that the deeper the rocks in the cliff were, the more "primitive" the fossilized creatures were.

He wrote, in origin of Species that:

What he failed to see is that small changes do not eventually cause one species to become another. For example, in the Smithsonian Institution, I've seen the fossilized skeletons of ancient alligators that were MUCH larger than the largest known gators of today...and the guide tells us that, apart from size, these skeletons are identical to those of modern gators.

We know the reverse is true for horses. The first known horses were about the size of a collie, with toes on each side of each hoof reaching the ground. As the climate became more favorable for horses, they slowly became larger, & their toes no longer reached the ground. BUT THEY WERE ALL STILL HORSES, and if they'd lived at the same times, they could've bred & produced more horses.

This brings us to this: The evolutionist tells us that birds evolved from lizards. This is asking an awful lot of that lizard. First, they're asking it to change its scales into feathers. OK, so that's conceivable, as well as asking it to change its jaws & teeth into a beak. (Yes, I realize that Archaeopteryx, believed to have been the first species of bird, had jaws & teeth.) But NOW that lizard runs into a problem; a bird's wings fold in reverse to the bend of the lizard's front legs.(which bend the same direction as do our arms)and most birds' lega bend opposite of the lizard's back legs.(which also bend knee-forward as our legs do) If our lizard was slowly evolving into a bird, there had to have been a generation of lizards whose legs would bend both directions, which would make locomotion difficult indeed. But that's not the main problem the lizard would have. All lizards are cold-blooded, while all birds are warm-blooded. Their blood chemistries are extrememy different. It's impossible for a warm-blooded creature to have any element of cold-blooded chemistry and still live, as the reverse is true for cold-blooded creatures. Their blood simply couldn't function w/o the COMPLETE chemistry for either one physiology or the other.

And, is 'cold-blooded' really primitive? A cold-blooded animal eats only 1/10 the amount of food a warm-blooded animal of the same weight eats. Thus, the cold-blooded creature is right at home in an area of little-changing climate and scarce food.

I realize your knowledge is far greater than mine, and what I've said here may well be repetitious to you, but I was hoping to ask you to CONSIDER these things, as I know you're an evolutionist.

Also please consider something about amoebas. The amoeba is the most "primitive" animal known, a small blob of jelly moving aimlessly around, feeding itself by engulfing any smaller living thing it encounters. (It was the basis for the sci-fi movie.Beware of The Blob.) But, if this little creature is so primitive, WHY DOES IT STILL EXIST? Why hasn't it evolved into something better?

__________________________________

Sadly, Dr. Sagan didn't reply.

I doubt that Darwin would've replied either, were he around then.

Missing links are missing because they never existed.

 

Right on RobyCop3. And a whole bunch of other stuff too.However I have learned over time on this board that it is practically useless to debate with an evolutionist much like debating the KJVO group. Don't confuse them with facts they will dismiss out of hand.None of your authors or scientists or information will be suitable for them.

 

Same as I ask the KJVOs for Scriptural support for their myth, I ask the EVs for a "missing link" to support THEIR myth. Until either of them can answer or admit their respective myths are wrong, I often rest my cases.

 

It doesn't really matter whether he recanted or not. The fact that He was an atheist at the time of this theory tells me all I need to know about his theory and point of view.

 

Well, it would have mattered a lot to him!

But sadly, the evidence is that he did not turn to Christ.