Darwin- would he have changed his theory?

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. 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.

From punctuated equilibrium to heredity to the Big Bang theory, this is simply untrue.......because scientists HAVE had to change it plenty to keep it viable.

I could see a flukishly complex organ evolving once or twice, but 35 seperate times, as is the number which I've heard quoted? A similar deal with limbs as well.Not to say that this invalidates Darwin's theory, but it certainly makes it more difficult.........because irreducibly compex systems can't be accounted for entirely by natural selection......it would have to be largely on luck that they evolved.

The melting of the glaciers at the end of the ice age caused world wide flooding. Some recent discoveries lead some (non-theistic) people to believe that the world's first civilzations existed at that time.I'll elaborate in a bit, if you like.

PaulK, I've always been taught that it was Pasteur that had discovered microscopic life, and that the idea of spontaneous generation was common place in Darwin's time.

I saw documentaries on them on the Science Channel........I'd have to imagine there's stuff online about it too though. There are speculations that the Jamon people, who were the ancestors of the Japanese, were actually civilized themselves. There's also believed to be an under-water city built in what was once the Indus valley.......but then was later flooded during the glacial melting.But most convincing of all are the accounts of a man who believes that Atlantis was actually an ancient Meso-American civilization.......that guy had a TON of proof for his claim, such as the fact that it's geographically west of Greece (as Plato claimed), that the Alto-Plano area of South America is the only area in tyhe world that matches Plato's description of Atlantis' geography, Plato names orichalcon (a natural ore of part gold and part copper) as being mined in Atlantis, and the Alto-Plano region is the only area in the world where orichalcon is found, anthropological proof that the boats the Meso-Americans had at the time could have traversed the Atlantis, etc., etc. I'm suprised his theory is even still in debate which as much evidence seems to match up with it.

PaulK, still, spontaneous generation of life was an assumed fact in Darwin's day, and the level of complexity of microbes was not known.......two points which hurt his theory even today.

Oh, and Charles, the Black Sea was a lake with inhabitants that lived by it before the glacial meltings.......I'm frankly suprised that the idea of glacial meltings being the world wide flood spoken of Biblically hasn't been proposed before, as it's a universally accepted instance of world wide flooding which could have at least been handed down in oral tradition.....

Which one's Hancock, the Jamon and Indus Valley guy (who had some interesting, but not overwhelming evidence for his claims) or the Atlantis guy?

I've heard no proof to back that claim up.......other than that it was destroyed by a tsunami.

For the concept of first life, he did......

PaulK, the guy who proposed the Atlantis theory, and really has overwhelming proof to back it, was a different guy, I believe.

Because it makes the problem of first life incredibly hard........especially with the extremely limited time span.

What does the documentation say, and who was it by?

I'm guessing that the former holds that life sprung from inanimate chemicals........which isn't necessarily evolutionary theory, but it's usually combined with evolutionary theory.