Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

10 Reasons Evolution Is A Lie- Richard Dawkins Extending a Lie: Charles Darwin Started The Theory Of Evolution

with 21 comments

Richard Dawkins has been at it yet again, he has been given a huge platform yet again by the controllers of channel four to make a three part series on the Genius Of Charles Darwin. He is extending that he lie that the theory of evolution was begun by Charles Darwin.

Why would they want to lie about the origins of the theory? We have noted that the theory of Evolution has always existed in the mystery religions. As proof take Erasmus Darwin the grandfather of Charles who outllined the theory of Evolution in his tome Zoonomia. But there was something a little bit dark in his background, something that gave the plot away, he was a founder of a seceret society called the Lunar society.

In case you are still in doubt of the origins of the the theory of evolution in the mysteries, take Alfred Russel Wallace when the reinvention of the idea was first conceived, it was called the christened the Wallace Darwin Theory. It was decided to drop Wallace from the theory’s name when he became interested in Society of Psychichal Research and in 1875 published a book called Miracles and Modern Spiritism. He also became a extreme socialists and anyone who knows any thing about the Fabian Socialists knows their involvement with Society Of Psychiachal Research.

Alfred Russel Wallace

Today the Fabian Socialist and Roundtable groups dominate Oxford University through the Rhodes Foundation and other Anglo Saxon supremists institutes and research groups, that is the

About these ads

Written by dawkinswatch

August 5, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Posted in dawkins

21 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The idea of evolution has indeed been around long before Charles Darwin; even ancient Greeks had the idea. However Darwin, with the system called “natural selection” gave us the theory of evolution we know today. I don’t think anyone is lying about the origins.

    “there was something a little bit dark in his background, something that gave the plot away, he was a founder of a seceret society called the Lunar society”

    This is hilarious! What is the “dark background” of the Lunar Society? Could it be that they would meet on a full moon? Also, what exactly is “the plot”?

    As usual you are twisting things around.

    Nobody

    August 5, 2008 at 7:36 pm

  2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    J. Frantz

    August 5, 2008 at 10:30 pm

  3. The Lunar Society you say?

    Hm… this sounds serious. Those Godless commies must be stopped!

    *brings laughter under control*

    Dawkinswatch, the origins of a theory have nothing to do with its validity. Not that you made any valid arguments against evolution (I’m still trying to figure out how you determined that are inability to make man-ape hybrids disproves evolution as the whole point of evolution is that you can make different species over time).

    Besides, neither Darwin nor Wallace came up with evolution. The idea of “transmutation” had been around for many centuries before them (even a Greek philosopher had some inkling of it). Lamarck, for example, thought that use and disuse of body parts would cause them to be better in offspring. Of course, acquired characteristics aren’t passed on to offspring.

    Darwin and Wallace were recognized as geniuses for the mechanism of natural selection to drive evolution.

    splendidelles

    August 9, 2008 at 7:32 pm

  4. But, you’re totally right about those British with their metric system and their favourites and their honours and that dreaded reason-based scepticism.

    splendidelles

    August 9, 2008 at 7:40 pm

  5. There is a difference between Origin of Species and the origin of life. Charles Darwin was describing the reduction of variation in natural selection. He was not describing the creation of variation. To my knowledge, no one has explained ‘evolving up’ and the increase in specie, family, and genus that the fossil record shows.

    ReasonableCitizen

    August 14, 2008 at 10:45 am

  6. “There is a difference between Origin of Species and the origin of life. Charles Darwin was describing the reduction of variation in natural selection. He was not describing the creation of variation.”

    Variation doesn’t work like that. You know how all our dog breeds came about? Humans chose traits in wild wolves which made them less likely to tear our faces off and more likely for us to think they were cute adowable ‘lil puppies (awwww…). The Chinese were selecting for smaller dogs which could fit in their sleeves (random fact).

    Obviously such a great variety of dog breeds can’t have come about by reducing traits. What was going on was traits that humans were selecting for became more and more prominent. If you breed two horses which have long legs, their offspring is likely to have even longer legs.

    That, of course, was man selecting for traits they liked but nature selects in a similar way except it just selects for traits likely to make the organism survive using the variation between members of a species.

    Don’t forget about mutations. Genes can change due to anything from simple copying errors int he DNA to cosmic rays. Often times these changes are bad for the organism. Many times they are completely neutral allowing for more neutral changes to lead up to a good change. And sometimes this is an entirely beneficial change.

    “To my knowledge, no one has explained ‘evolving up’ and the increase in specie, family, and genus that the fossil record shows.”

    1. Species- Plural AND singular. Using ‘specie’ shows grammatical and scientific ignorance.

    2. No one has explained the increase in species, eh? That’s the thing that evolution predicts, that over time certain populations will evolve (which just means change, after all) into a new species (which just means they’ve changed so much that they can’t produce fertile offspring with other populations) and continue to change more and more over time until they are more and more distant. It’s called “speciation” which can happen any number of ways often by geographical separation. Anything that stops gene flow between two populations.

    splendidelles

    August 14, 2008 at 3:21 pm

  7. I think it’s time for you to resume taking your anti-psychotic medicine again, Dawkinswatch. Your bouts of paranoid schizophrenia are intensifying.

    Dr. Fred Edison

    August 29, 2008 at 2:16 am

  8. […] Charles Darwin Did Not Start The Theory Of Evolution […]

  9. I live on Mactan Island Cebu PI. We just cut off an area about 480 S.M.to a depth of about a meater, of fosil coral, and limestone for a house site. We found giant clam, coral, and other type of shell’s 1 meter down, then we hit hard limestone. On the top of mountains on Cebu Island, the same shells are fosilized, 200 ft up.
    The very same shell fish live in the waters surrounding these islands. How come if evelution is valid, the shell fish cant walk today? Why are they the same size, shape, and living conditions as their ancesters?

    Roger Brown

    May 27, 2009 at 1:49 pm

  10. I live on Mactan Island Cebu PI. We just cut off an area about 480 S.M.to a depth of about a meater, of fosil coral, and limestone for a house site. We found fossil giant clam, coral, and other type of shell’s 1 meter down, then we hit hard limestone. On the top of mountains on Cebu Island, the same shells are fosilized, 200 ft up.
    The very same shell fish live in the waters surrounding these islands. How come if evelution is valid, the shell fish cant walk today? Why are they the same size, shape, and living conditions as their ancesters?

    Roger Brown

    May 27, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    • This I saw from a nature documentary…There were some brittle starfish approaching some kind of shellfish, sorry I don’t know the name of it, As the brittle stars touches the shellfish, the shellfish flaps its shell and manage to swim/jet a distance away from the brittle stars which I suppose is its predator. I’m thinking other shellfish may have some lesser ability to move, but they do move about.Some move about at snail pace.They may not walked like a man though, but who knows in future, some shellfish was manipulated by some radical scientific experiments and turned in monsters, that can rival mankind.LOL… Some seashells fossils are found in Himalayas mountains. It just shows that that place was once under the water in the past. The land was raised when the earth moved.
      The rate of variation hasn’t been uniform. There are some examples of living creatures which are remained relatively unchanged since ancient times. eh… crocodiles ? and that giant clams, though I need to check again, after this… Very successful creatures in surviving a long time. and I mean relatively unchanged, but there could still be some changes. Just that amateurs like us won’t know the difference.

      Vincent Ang

      August 8, 2009 at 3:28 am

  11. Why are creationists so fixated on Darwin? Why are they blinkered to the huge amount of data confirming the theory of evolution after Darwin’s era?

    Anthony north

    July 4, 2009 at 11:40 am

  12. I believe you miss 2 – 10 of the reasons

    also this is complete bullshit

    fkfgj

    July 11, 2009 at 11:11 pm

  13. To Dr. Fred Edison who proclaims the writer a schzophrinic. How can you tell the man to take medication, when yr the one thats up at 2 am refuteing an evolution claim? In all seriousness, take a look at yrselves, how are you. I know one thing that Darwin should have taught the people of the world to do(besides thinking they come from monkeys!) Was too study everything around them, for Godsake thats what the boy did! He studied all that surrounded him. If evolution has happened we sure have evolved into so dumb beasts who only loving to kill others ideas and believe some bullshit story thats 100 years old. Its sad that old music doesn’t last but theories do. Sasquatch shall be found and you all shall be set free.

    B.L.

    March 25, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    • mate i think u forgot to mentiom the 2000 year old lie that is christianity, im not sayin jesus is a lie he was real there are documents but the majority of people have evolved as you said to believe this story of god and creation , darwin set out to find an answer about why we are here and he wasnt intentionally trying to kill of creationists ideas , as people say it is a theory , it might not have happened but a lot of people find significant evidence about it .

      mrjoe

      May 22, 2011 at 11:22 am

  14. The Periodic Table of Elements gets me. Apparently scientists were aware of about 12 basic elements at first, but as more elements were discovered and their atomic structures became apparent, they were placed into an order that corresponded to their structure. Scientists left gaps between these elements, where an element or elements hadn’t as yet been found. In time these missing elements were found and they fitted into the gaps left in the order. Point being, doesn’t the fact that there is such a mathematical ordered structure amongst the elements suggest there is design rather than chance behind their construction?

    Peter Garrido

    April 8, 2010 at 4:24 pm

  15. I believe in the truth, and the truth is Evolution is a fact!!! I always look at both sides of the argument and when one side of the argument is overwhelming in its favour, then I go with that one. In this case, its evolution!

    JOC

    June 18, 2011 at 3:49 pm

  16. At the age of 10 I believed that the theory of evolution was just a THEORY….
    At the age of 15, when I first studied evolution in school, I thought evolution was a FLAWED THEORY…
    At the age of 17, I took it serious and did a detailed research, and I thought evolution was a FAIRY TALE…

    Then I did an extensive study ( dozens of books a and articles) on evolution. I read parts of Richard Dawkin’s books, including: The Greatest Show On Earth, The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Genes…

    Now i’m 19, and I think the theory of evolution is INSANITY!

    Salman

    September 21, 2011 at 9:01 am

  17. But why? As JOC says that evidence for evolution is overwhelming! The truth is that there is not a single piece of evidence to favor evolution. Every shred of real evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution. I met an atheist a few days ago who said that evolution is 100% true. I asked him to bring me just 1 concrete evidence. He said that….well…ummm…we and monkeys – we both have thumbs!
    Fascinating! This is evidence.
    If this is valid then I guess the similarities between our technological devices proves beyond all reasonable doubt that they have evolved from one another. The atheist may point out: but we witnessed people actually make them. Well, what if we didn’t! What about archaeological discoveries like pottery? They share similarities and we didn’t see anyone making them. We can’t even track down their makers. Are archaeologists insane! Why don’t they act scientific like they do in evolution and say that all these pots are a result of a gradual natural process. Great hypocrisy! Don’t you see! Its not about the scientific method… it is about denying God!

    Salman

    September 21, 2011 at 9:31 am

  18. Nice try Dawkinswatch but there is no way to make people believe what they do not want to believe. At some point, things boil down to a matter of faith and that is a choice. Yet, if it’s any consolation to you, many Christian creationists fail to mention the little known scripture that says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,” and “Professing to be wise, they became fools.” People will continue to find ways to explain away creation thinking they are wise but in the end it says they will be “without excuse.”

    I often ponder the snowflake. Some present evolution as being about “survival of the fittest” and things adapting to their environments in order to survive and things that aren’t useful disappearing over time. It’s about the usefulness of a thing. In something as insignificant as a snowflake, which comes and goes in an instant if you pick it up, it having an intricate, beautiful and original design would serve no purpose whatsoever, which seems to make it an unlikely candidate of evolution. Forget animals and every other complex organism, snowflakes didn’t evolve. No point in them being unique or having a design, but that will just be chalked up to randomness. Just a pondering. People will go through any lengths to prove their theory no matter what is presented, and I’m sure its the same for creationists. Scripture is clear that even if God popped in front of some people and told them He created the earth, they would still choose to dishonor Him. That’s just the way it is.

    Carrie

    March 27, 2012 at 9:59 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: