Speculation on the Origin of the Darwin Last Name
socrtwo
Their fellows noticed from early on that the family was interested in
evil winning hence the name. The "K" was dropped at some point to
obscure the origins and make it appear more endearing, sounding
something like "dear" "win".
This is speculation...
socrtwo
sounds. Evolution, coul really be "evil" "you" "shun". So maybe it's
a clue from God that we should avoid it as an explanation.
jessica....@gmail.com
origins, that includes surname, etymology. You can't just make it
up. Darwin means "good friend" from middle english.
Darwin:
1. from the Old English personal name Deorwine, composed of the
elements deor 'dear' + wine 'friend'. This name is attested in the
10th century, but it was not common; nevertheless it may have survived
long enough to become a Middle English personal name and so given rise
to the surname.
2. habitational name from Darwen in Lancashire, named from the Darwin
river (earlier Derwent) on which it stands. This seems to be a British
name derived from a word meaning 'oak'.
Peter_W
correct and again proving that socrtwo is not infomred or able to
distinguish reality from the massif fantasies made up by the lack of
the effort to actually use the world as a source of information.
On Apr 13, 3:29 pm, "jessica.lover...@gmail.com"
Peter_W
correct and again proving that socrtwo is not infomred or able to
distinguish reality from the massif fantasies made up by the lack of
the effort to actually use the world as a source of information.
On Apr 13, 3:29 pm, "jessica.lover...@gmail.com"
<jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter_W
correct and again proving that socrtwo is not infomred or able to
distinguish reality from the massif fantasies made up by the lack of
the effort to actually use the world as a source of information.
On Apr 13, 3:29 pm, "jessica.lover...@gmail.com"
<jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
socrtwo
for clearing it up. I do want to pose though what to me is a kind of
radical notion as long as there is scholarly correction...
socrtwo
for clearing it up. I do want to pose though what to me is a kind of
radical notion as long as there is scholarly correction...
On May 18, 2:31 pm, Peter_W <f...@ncf.ca> wrote:
Peter_W
correct and again proving that socrtwo is not infomred or able to
distinguish reality from the massif fantasies made up by the lack of
the effort to actually use the world as a source of information.
On Apr 13, 3:29 pm, "jessica.lover...@gmail.com"
<jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
Peter_W
correct and again proving that socrtwo is not infomred or able to
distinguish reality from the massif fantasies made up by the lack of
the effort to actually use the world as a source of information.
On Apr 13, 3:29 pm, "jessica.lover...@gmail.com"
<jessica.lover...@gmail.com> wrote:
socrtwo
> Jessica,
> correct and again proving that socrtwo is not infomred or able to
> distinguish reality from the massif fantasies made up by the lack of
> the effort to actually use the world as a source of information.
You know I agree that the truth is freeing and more important than
anything and has the same relationship that dirt has to food, where
food is nutritive and furthers life and dirt is to be spit out
(yikes!).
Honestly I have discomfort with my own ideas. Mine might be a child's
fantasy, but I believe Darwinism is a dark fantasy and Fundamentalism
is an unpleasant fantasy. You know if we could combine the good
insights of all and stay true to Scripture and Science as they are
both vigorously interested in the issue of truth, something good might
come of it.
socrtwo
> correct and again proving that socrtwo is not infomred or able to
> distinguish reality from the massif fantasies made up by the lack of
> the effort to actually use the world as a source of information.
>
Sorry for going the troll route. Maybe I'm tring to be a troll, but
with a little sense of humor to get you to look beyond either
Evangelism or Darwinism as they are currently painted in the common
imagination (including mine). I appreciate your educating me.
As Jean Rostand said (he was an Agnostic at least too -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Rostand)
* Falsity cannot keep an idea from being beautiful; there are certain
errors of such ingenuity that one could regret their not ranking among
the achievements of the human mind.
* Greatness, in order to gain recognition, must all too often consent
to ape greatness.
* In order to remain true to oneself one ought to renounce one's party
three times a day.
* In politics, yesterday's lie is attacked only to flatter today's.
* It is not easy to imagine how little interested a scientist usually
is in the work of any other, with the possible exception of the
teacher who backs him or the student who honors him.
* It is sometimes important for science to know how to forget the
things she is surest of.
* One must credit an hypothesis with all that has had to be discovered
in order to demolish it.
* Theories pass. The frog remains.
* To love an idea is to love it a little more than one should.
* Truth is always served by great minds, even if they fight it.
socrtwo
> correct and again proving that socrtwo is not infomred or able to
> distinguish reality from the massif fantasies made up by the lack of
> the effort to actually use the world as a source of information.
By the way I agree that because of being enamored with myself and my
thinking, I am in danger and probably very inclined to not recognizing
the truth when it comes along and just being another false prophet.
So tell us something new. Darwinism has not the ring of Truth to me,
neither does a young earth but the Gospels and the rest of the Bible
do.
Have we interpreted the Bible wrong? Is what science has found,
already mentioned in there? There is the mention of the "circle of
the earth" and that the earth is suspended in space supported by
nothing (a Jehova's witness friend told me that the latter is in
there). Also what about the Hebrew of the Old Testamen? There is no
separation between words. Maybe false separations have led to
misinterpretations and the 4.5 billion year age of the Bible is really
in there somewhere. I don't know I can't read Hebrew. I would like
to learn how, and to read Greek and Aramaic too, and maybe even Arabic
in preparation to reading the Koran. I have read the Bible a couple
of times. Admittedly I only started the Origin of Species before it
got the better of me. I will try again...
Peter_W
On May 18, 6:00 pm, socrtwo <socr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > correct and again proving that socrtwo is not infomred or able to
> > distinguish reality from the massif fantasies made up by the lack of
> > the effort to actually use the world as a source of information.
>
> By the way I agree that because of being enamored with myself and my
> thinking, I am in danger and probably very inclined to not recognizing
> the truth when it comes along and just being another false prophet.
> So tell us something new. Darwinism has not the ring of Truth to me,
> neither does a young earth but the Gospels and the rest of the Bible
> do.
>
> Have we interpreted the Bible wrong? YES!
Is what science has found, already mentioned in there? Do you know
what the word science means first?
There is the mention of the "circle of the earth" and that the earth
is suspended in space supported by nothing (a Jehova's witness friend
told me that the latter is in there). No! and you not making effort to
check tells us how weak in the subject you are to the point you not
even bother to read any of it.
Also what about the Hebrew of the Old Testamen? What about them
There is no separation between words. SO?
Maybe false separations have led to misinterpretations and the 4.5
billion year age of the Bible is really in there somewhere? It is not,
and people are not so shallow and dumb as you are wanting them to be!
I don't know I can't read Hebrew. We know you don't!
I would like to learn how, and to read Greek and Aramaic too, and
maybe even Arabic in preparation to reading the Koran. LOL... Do you
think changing holy books can help you that make so little efforts?
I have read the Bible a couple of times. Sorry but I plain do not
believe you that knows not the Bible almost at all and wopuld if you
read it.
Admittedly I only started the Origin of Species before it got the
better of me. I will try again...
Makes no sense..try again what? to deal with evolution? or deal with
Darwin that is now old data not fit to use as a source since much
better ones exist and museums are full of data and proofs Darwin had
very little of. Do you go to new employee to know what the companie is
about and doing? No so why are you even thinking Darwin over the super
job others have done since? Do you always go to the past to learn what
is in the present incorrectly? It is TODAYS work or you waste your
time looking in the past for things in the present much more exposed
and clear... going to Darwin is a dumb thing to do less you are
completely blank on evolution and need a basic start , like
creationist need a jump start with truth and reality.
socrtwo
> Is what science has found, already mentioned in there? Do you know
> what the word science means first?
Science means to split as in the split of truth from fiction. I agree
this is what the aim must be. I'm suggesting the New Testament
concepts applied to man also apply to all life. It is certainly truth
if it can be proved to be true. Isn't the process of science first to
make a hypothesis then to test it? I'm sketching a hypothesis. It's
just a start.
> There is the mention of the "circle of the earth" and that the earth
> is suspended in space supported by nothing (a Jehova's witness friend
> told me that the latter is in there). No! and you not making effort to
> check tells us how weak in the subject you are to the point you not
> even bother to read any of it.
I have read the circle of the earth passage, it's Isaiah 40:22, I just
had not remembered the earth being suspended in nothing passage,
although my Jehova's Witness friend is usually reliable. I will try
to find the passage for you.
> Also what about the Hebrew of the Old Testamen? What about them
> There is no separation between words. SO?
> Maybe false separations have led to misinterpretations and the 4.5
> billion year age of the Bible is really in there somewhere? It is not,
> and people are not so shallow and dumb as you are wanting them to be!
I'm not saying they are shallow and dumb. I'm saying I'm from a new
generation, and new generations can take fresh approaches to material
and see things where others have not.
> I don't know I can't read Hebrew. We know you don't!
> I would like to learn how, and to read Greek and Aramaic too, and
> maybe even Arabic in preparation to reading the Koran. LOL... Do you
> think changing holy books can help you that make so little efforts?
One needs goals first to achieve difficult things. One can keep goals
to one self and try to develop the inspiration and fortitude necessary
to reach them or share them with others, and hope for encouragement.
> I have read the Bible a couple of times. Sorry but I plain do not
> believe you that knows not the Bible almost at all and would if you
> read it.
Perhaps, but please correct me where I don't, that's what a Newsgroup
discussion space is for.
> Admittedly I only started the Origin of Species before it got the
> better of me. I will try again...
> Makes no sense..try again what? to deal with evolution? or deal with
> Darwin that is now old data not fit to use as a source since much
> better ones exist and museums are full of data and proofs Darwin had
> very little of.
I believe to understand something one must start at the source, just
like reading the Holy books mentioned in their original languages.
Do you go to new employee to know what the companie is
> about and doing? No so why are you even thinking Darwin over the super
> job others have done since? Do you always go to the past to learn what
> is in the present incorrectly? It is TODAYS work or you waste your
> time looking in the past for things in the present much more exposed
> and clear... going to Darwin is a dumb thing to do less you are
> completely blank on evolution and need a basic start , like
> creationist need a jump start with truth and reality.
I agree, new data on Eveolution experiments or explanations are
extremely important and must be reviewed before puting forth anything
new.
If you would like, please sketch out how you think Evolution works. I
will sketch out what I think might actually be happening although we
have noticed it, because we haven't been looking for it.