Question by Dreamstuff Entity: Is it honest to quote a question Darwin posed but not the answer he provided, and claim he had none?
Posted a few minutes ago:
“Even Charles Darwin was honest when he confesses in ‘Origin of Speies’; ” But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” -Charles Darwin ”
Darwin is proceeding by his usual method of asking a question and then answering it. Creationist quote miners classically omit his answer. Let’s look at the text:
“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.”
Besides leaving out the context, this is misleading in a subtler way when used for the proposition that there are no transitional forms. Darwin is not talking about the existence or nonexistence of transitionals here, but of an “innumerable” series of finely-graded transitionals linking together all extinct and existing forms.
Do you feel this creationist argument is honest?
Answer by Seb
Of course instead lets just believe that God fucked the world up because Adam ate a piece of fruit! Evolution is so crazy right?
What do you think? Answer below!