Again, most of the people who are oppose creation have not even read the Bible.
Actually, you'll find most of us evolutionists have. For my part, I used to be a creationist; as an English major, it's a formative work for our culture.
It's of significant cultural interest, after all. Why wouldn't we have read it? If only to understand the Biblical "model" our opponents are trying to advance?
Being an outstanding Naturalist, I'm sure he would have changed alot of ideas knowing what we do today!
I think one of the testaments to Darwin's genius is how little he actually would have had to change. Obviously, he would have had to incorporate Mendel's genetic work; that's really about it. Traits in organisms don't work quite the way that Darwin thought they did; but natural selection works exactly as Darwin originally formulated it.
Watching the various posts within this site makes me question peoples knowledge of Darwins own theory.
(1) Could you site some examples where evos here don't know what they are talking about?
(2) Some of the people you are referring to are real live scientists. The last guy that tried to be a smart-ass who thought he could outsmart scientists using his common sense proved to everybody that he didn't know what he was talking about. Refer to this thread for an example of what I am talking about.
(3)Could you please leave an extra line between your paragraphs like what I am doing to make your post a lot more readable?
(4) You stated:
To answer the question posted: Darwin did change his own theory within his own works. Being an outstanding Naturalist, I'm sure he would have changed alot of ideas knowing what we do today!
Could you give us specific examples from Darwin's own works for us to discuss about? He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.
(1) I would like to say that I am not trying to be a smart ass. When I was speaking, it was a general comment. Not one towards those that have read the Bible and Darwin's works. I will ensure that comments made, will not be in the general sense.
(2) I can't imagine any naturalist, scientist, biologist or even world leaders that wouldn't have change their thoughts as time goes by.
(3) Do you think that we would have used the A-bomb, if we had the technological advancements that we have today during WWII? Knowing how smart Darwin was then, only makes me wonder what theories or conclusions he would have came up with during our times.
(3) As far as the Bible goes. Too many people try to put a time line on Genisis. No one knows what the length of one of God's days were. Was the assumed author of genesis speaking literal or figurative while speaking of the "first week"? I personally believe it was written from a figurative prospective.
(4) I will ensure to post a quote from Darwin within a few days. I want to ensure the quote is verbatum. It was on his thoughts concerning the flashlight fish.
As to knowing how complex nature can be, that was obvious long before Darwin's time and does not require incorporation of the supernatural to explain it...
This is untrue, to my knowledge........before Pasteur (who post-dated Darwin's theory, by a bit), it wasn't even known that there WAS microscopic life, much less how complex it was. People saw mold grow on meat and maggots pop out of it and assumed that life spontaneously emerged. What they didn't know (as Pasteur discovered) was that the mold was caused from microscopic bacteria......and the maggots were baby flies.......and they both had genetic codes which EMBARASS the most power computers in the world today.
in fact, nothing in science benefits from incorporating or postulating mythical supernatural causes.
This is not true. Ancient texts prove to be highly reliable time and time again......remember back in the day when Voltaire mocked the "fictional" Hittites spoken of in the Bible? Remember when Troy and the Trojan wars were thought to be pure myth? And, more recently, many ancient civilizations are being discovered which account for both the "myths" of Atlantis and Noah's flood.