Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Charles Darwin's College Degree
76 views
Skip to first unread message
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 3:33:28 AM10/3/16
to
"harry k" wrote in message news:55756789-ef6a-466c...@googlegroups.com...
> Wm. Esque wrote:
>> a425couple wrote:
>> > "Tommie" wrote:
>
>> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
>> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
>> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
>> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
>> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree in
>> >> 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his life he went
>> >> to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
>> >>
>> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at Christ
>> >> College. Some sources say it Was theology.
>> >
>> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
>> >
>> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
>> revered as a scientist?
Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
the increasingly godless society.
> If asking stupid questions is a sign of your IQ...
Why did you?
> One does not need a degree to be a scientist.
Anyone can be a pseudo-scientist.
> Wm. Esque wrote:
>> a425couple wrote:
>> > "Tommie" wrote:
>
>> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
>> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
>> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
>> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
>> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree in
>> >> 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his life he went
>> >> to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
>> >>
>> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at Christ
>> >> College. Some sources say it Was theology.
>> >
>> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
>> >
>> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
>> revered as a scientist?
Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
the increasingly godless society.
> If asking stupid questions is a sign of your IQ...
Why did you?
> One does not need a degree to be a scientist.
Anyone can be a pseudo-scientist.
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2016, 7:42:47 AM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:fvedncbTooxdlG_K...@earthlink.com:
> "harry k" wrote in message
> news:55756789-ef6a-466c...@googlegroups.com...
>> Wm. Esque wrote:
>>> a425couple wrote:
>>> > "Tommie" wrote:
>>
>>> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
>>> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
>>> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
>>> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
>>> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree in
>>> >> 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his life he
>>> >> went to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
>>> >>
>>> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at
>>> >> Christ College. Some sources say it Was theology.
>>> >
>>> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
>>> >
>>> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
>>> revered as a scientist?
>
> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> the increasingly godless society.
Because of Darwin "god was omitted from origins"?
Because of Pasteur "god was omitted from disease"?
Because of Halley "god was omitted from comets"?
Does the discovery of every natural process
require "removing god" from it?
news:fvedncbTooxdlG_K...@earthlink.com:
> "harry k" wrote in message
> news:55756789-ef6a-466c...@googlegroups.com...
>> Wm. Esque wrote:
>>> a425couple wrote:
>>> > "Tommie" wrote:
>>
>>> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
>>> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
>>> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
>>> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
>>> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree in
>>> >> 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his life he
>>> >> went to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
>>> >>
>>> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at
>>> >> Christ College. Some sources say it Was theology.
>>> >
>>> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
>>> >
>>> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
>>> revered as a scientist?
>
> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> the increasingly godless society.
Because of Pasteur "god was omitted from disease"?
Because of Halley "god was omitted from comets"?
Does the discovery of every natural process
require "removing god" from it?
Malcolm McMahon
Oct 3, 2016, 9:39:40 AM10/3/16
to
recent piece of nonsense. Being regarded as a scientist is something earned by
publishing scientific ideas which withstand the test of doubt.
It's well known that Darwin held off publication because he saw the shitstorm
from the God Squad coming. Only when he saw that Wallace was about to beat him
too it did he finally let the primate out of the bag.
W.T.S., vr666n-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 9:50:09 AM10/3/16
to
<https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-i-would-say-to-
creationists-if-i-was-more-of-a-dick/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zascach>
< https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/dawkins-
berlinski/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zmv3xf2>
<https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-
answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate>
<http://tinyurl.com/hwjf83d>
<http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dumb-things-creationists-
say/>
<http://tinyurl.com/zq9wt5k>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/magazine/unintelligent-design.html?_r=
0>
<http://tinyurl.com/h7ubjta>
<http://www.eoht.info/page/Creationism+scientists+ranked+by+idiocy>
<http://tinyurl.com/h5y2gao>
<https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/18-creationist-arguments-
debunked>
<http://tinyurl.com/zb7sfyr>
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Creationism>
<http://tinyurl.com/zt8dycq>
<https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/28/creation-origin-life-
future-adam-rutherford-review>
<http://tinyurl.com/hsj6u6y>
<http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/06/07/what-do-physicists-
think-of-michio-kaku/>
<http://tinyurl.com/j32bskg>
<http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16>
<http://tinyurl.com/3p4e7mx>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin>
<http://tinyurl.com/jyzjfar>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel>
<http://tinyurl.com/pcqylyj>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution>
<http://tinyurl.com/7vw8ozk>
<http://www.famousscientists.org/charles-darwin/>
<http://tinyurl.com/jpr7p5v>
<http://darwin-online.org.uk/biography.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/5p6znj>
"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so
simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is
false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false.
What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious
commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than
a bill forcing honourable teachers to sully their sacred trust by
granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but
calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an
enterprise? - Stephen Jay Gould.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould>
<http://tinyurl.com/jc3ckub>
<http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-human-evolution>
<http://tinyurl.com/jsalxfe>
<http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/ecolsys>
<http://tinyurl.com/z8o6zan>
<http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/home>
<http://tinyurl.com/pwg6fak>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ibEaIPtMk>
<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falldidit#Falldidit>
<http://tinyurl.com/z4z77ra>
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 3, 2016, 12:38:29 PM10/3/16
to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 08:50:02 -0500, "W.T.S., vr666n-The Lamp of Golden
Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
>news:fvedncbTooxdlG_K...@earthlink.com:
>
>> "harry k" wrote in message
>> news:55756789-ef6a-466c...@googlegroups.com...
>>> Wm. Esque wrote:
>>>> a425couple wrote:
>>>> > "Tommie" wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
>>>> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
>>>> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
>>>> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
>>>> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree in
>>>> >> 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his life he
>>>> >> went to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at
>>>> >> Christ College. Some sources say it Was theology.
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
>>>> >
>>>> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
>>>> revered as a scientist?
What a fucking moron.
Truth!*" <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
>news:fvedncbTooxdlG_K...@earthlink.com:
>
>> "harry k" wrote in message
>> news:55756789-ef6a-466c...@googlegroups.com...
>>> Wm. Esque wrote:
>>>> a425couple wrote:
>>>> > "Tommie" wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
>>>> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
>>>> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
>>>> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
>>>> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree in
>>>> >> 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his life he
>>>> >> went to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at
>>>> >> Christ College. Some sources say it Was theology.
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
>>>> >
>>>> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
>>>> revered as a scientist?
Because he was one of the greatest scientists of all time. on a par
with Newton and Einstein.
Duh.
Plenty of scientists are theist, like Ken Miller who demolished
irreducible complexity at the Dover ID trial.
But like other scientists who are theist, he doesn't let his beliefs
interfere with or influence his science.
>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>> the increasingly godless society.
He started off as a non-fundamentalist Christian, who accepted the
then current scientific explanations (which weren't particularly
scientific in many cases, certainly not for evolution which had been
known for many decades).
He studied for the ministry because he thought the job of a country
parson would give him the time to pursue his real interests in nature
and geology.
But instead, he went on his voyage of discovery, and what he found led
to his losing his faith.
Natural selection was a "Eureka" moment - obvious in retrospect but
somebody had to be the first to realise it.
But one result was to set him down the road to agnosticism because he
couldn't reconcile the eat-or-be-eaten struggle for survival, with the
loving god he had previously believed directed evolution using
Lamarckian heredity.
He didn't publish his rigorously researched theory of evolution until
many years later, because he didn't want to upset the religious,
>>> If asking stupid questions is a sign of your IQ...
>>
>> Why did you?
>>> One does not need a degree to be a scientist.
>>
>> Anyone can be a pseudo-scientist.
>Darwin was one of the greatest scientist of all time:
These morons have no idea what science is, how its practiced or the
scientific method.
Darwin's other great contribution to science was to the scientific
method itself - the validation or refutation of prediction to extend
knowledge.
The stupids don't seem to understand this, and lie about this being
guesses, faith, etc.
Wexford Eire
Oct 3, 2016, 1:08:49 PM10/3/16
to
After the publication of his "Voyage" book he was awarded a Master's Degree from Cambridge.
What's your degree in? Have one or did you flunk out?
Davej
Oct 3, 2016, 1:10:16 PM10/3/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:33:28 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> the increasingly godless society.
Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> the increasingly godless society.
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 1:14:16 PM10/3/16
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA69642F2146...@216.166.97.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:
that wasn't already known by Mendel and others? No.
The "goo to you" story is not a 'natural process'.
Rather it is only a phantasy.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "harry k" wrote:
>>> Wm. Esque wrote:
>>>> a425couple wrote:
>>>> > "Tommie" wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
>>>> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
>>>> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
>>>> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
>>>> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree in
>>>> >> 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his life he
>>>> >> went to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at
>>>> >> Christ College. Some sources say it Was theology.
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
>>>> >
>>>> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
>>>> revered as a scientist?
>>
>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>> the increasingly godless society.
>
> Because of Darwin "god was omitted from origins"?
>
> Because of Pasteur "god was omitted from disease"?
>
> Because of Halley "god was omitted from comets"?
>
> Does the discovery of every natural process
> require "removing god" from it?
Was there a 'natural process' that Darwin discovered
>>> Wm. Esque wrote:
>>>> a425couple wrote:
>>>> > "Tommie" wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
>>>> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
>>>> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
>>>> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
>>>> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree in
>>>> >> 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his life he
>>>> >> went to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at
>>>> >> Christ College. Some sources say it Was theology.
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
>>>> >
>>>> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
>>>> revered as a scientist?
>>
>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>> the increasingly godless society.
>
> Because of Darwin "god was omitted from origins"?
>
> Because of Pasteur "god was omitted from disease"?
>
> Because of Halley "god was omitted from comets"?
>
> Does the discovery of every natural process
> require "removing god" from it?
that wasn't already known by Mendel and others? No.
The "goo to you" story is not a 'natural process'.
Rather it is only a phantasy.
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 3, 2016, 1:26:11 PM10/3/16
to
On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:10:08 -0700 (PDT), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
As usual, dishonest, nasty theist invents motives that aren't there,
for scientists finding out how things happen.
If there _is_ a god, then it did it that way.
wrote:
for scientists finding out how things happen.
If there _is_ a god, then it did it that way.
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 1:27:47 PM10/3/16
to
"Davej" wrote in message news:01b4dc02-ad67-4328...@googlegroups.com...
is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
> Andrew wrote:
>> [...]
>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>> the increasingly godless society.
>
> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
>> [...]
>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>> the increasingly godless society.
>
> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 1:28:40 PM10/3/16
to
"Wexford Eire" wrote in message news:7043331d-d2a3-4d21...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
We agree. It certainly would.
> Andrew wrote:
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2016, 1:59:20 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:QISdnZmgyvt8DG_K...@earthlink.com:
Wrong.
Darwin published his first book on evolution
in 1856. Mendel didn't publish anything until 9
years later, in 1865.
Are you saying Darwin went forward in time,
grabbed Mendel's book, and went back in time to
copy them?
news:QISdnZmgyvt8DG_K...@earthlink.com:
Darwin published his first book on evolution
in 1856. Mendel didn't publish anything until 9
years later, in 1865.
Are you saying Darwin went forward in time,
grabbed Mendel's book, and went back in time to
copy them?
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 2:30:08 PM10/3/16
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA69682C9C5F...@216.166.97.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:
Then tell us, exactly what is this 'natural process'
that Darwin was the very first person to discover?
Thanks.
> "Andrew" wrote:
that Darwin was the very first person to discover?
Thanks.
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 3:05:08 PM10/3/16
to
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 3:06:35 PM10/3/16
to
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 3:08:45 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:14mdnefod440Pm_K...@earthlink.com:
Certainly, follow these links:
news:14mdnefod440Pm_K...@earthlink.com:
nature bats last
Oct 3, 2016, 3:32:05 PM10/3/16
to
.> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?
And discuss yet one more dreary time something we've gone
over and over and over and over for years now? I suggest that
we instead talk about something more recent and novel --
do tell us more about how Obama will not be stepping down,
and give us more detail on these "events [that will ] occur on a scale
you have never seen before, or even dreamed of".
Sounds fascinating.
Seth
John Locke
Oct 3, 2016, 4:32:11 PM10/3/16
to
On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:27:40 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
...pathetic imaginary god....is that better ?
wrote:
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 3, 2016, 4:50:06 PM10/3/16
to
Why do you bother? Do you really thonk you can tarnish the reputation or unddiscover the theory of evolution?
It wouln't matter if Darwin was a scienist or a plumber. He still discovered evoltion through natural selection.
Before that he was a recognized world expert on barnacles. This does not paint a picture of a sloppy scientist.
Still it does not matter what you think of him. His work is enshrined as one of the most important discoveries ever made.
There is nothing you can do about that. Either as a troll or as a fake Christian.
It wouln't matter if Darwin was a scienist or a plumber. He still discovered evoltion through natural selection.
Before that he was a recognized world expert on barnacles. This does not paint a picture of a sloppy scientist.
Still it does not matter what you think of him. His work is enshrined as one of the most important discoveries ever made.
There is nothing you can do about that. Either as a troll or as a fake Christian.
quar...@gmail.com
Oct 3, 2016, 4:52:20 PM10/3/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:50:06 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> the theory of evolution?
Explain.
> the theory of evolution?
Explain.
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 3, 2016, 4:55:14 PM10/3/16
to
That is correct. Your pathetic god does not exist.
quar...@gmail.com
Oct 3, 2016, 4:56:09 PM10/3/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:55:14 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> That is correct.
It might help, mr troll, if you showed who you were replying to.
Take some deep breaths and learn this before you click send for the multimillionth time on usenet.
> That is correct.
It might help, mr troll, if you showed who you were replying to.
Take some deep breaths and learn this before you click send for the multimillionth time on usenet.
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 3, 2016, 5:03:39 PM10/3/16
to
Been there done that. Read a fucking biology book.
This was covered in most middle school science calasses.
It has been discussed here many times and the newsgroup talk.origins will be happy to explain it. I am not going to drag this thread on any longer.
The world knows who Darwin was and what he did.
That some people, a tiny minority recfuseto accept it does not make it any less true.
Attacking his character will not erase his work. Nothing can do that.
This was covered in most middle school science calasses.
It has been discussed here many times and the newsgroup talk.origins will be happy to explain it. I am not going to drag this thread on any longer.
The world knows who Darwin was and what he did.
That some people, a tiny minority recfuseto accept it does not make it any less true.
Attacking his character will not erase his work. Nothing can do that.
John Locke
Oct 3, 2016, 5:30:00 PM10/3/16
to
On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:03:37 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
<youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Been there done that. Read a fucking biology book.
>
>This was covered in most middle school science calasses.
>
>It has been discussed here many times and the newsgroup talk.origins will be happy to explain it. I am not going to drag this thread on any longer.
>
>The world knows who Darwin was and what he did.
>
>That some people, a tiny minority recfuseto accept it does not make it any less true.
...unfortuneately it's not a tiny minority. It's half the friggen
<youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Been there done that. Read a fucking biology book.
>
>This was covered in most middle school science calasses.
>
>It has been discussed here many times and the newsgroup talk.origins will be happy to explain it. I am not going to drag this thread on any longer.
>
>The world knows who Darwin was and what he did.
>
>That some people, a tiny minority recfuseto accept it does not make it any less true.
population of the U.S. that refuse to accept evolution theory
becuase it shakes their god beliefs to the core.
>Attacking his character will not erase his work. Nothing can do that.
their tenaciously deceitful attempts to do so.
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2016, 5:34:23 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:14mdnefod440Pm_K...@earthlink.com:
Read his book.
In the meantime back up your claim that it
is based on Mendels book that didn't exist yet.
news:14mdnefod440Pm_K...@earthlink.com:
In the meantime back up your claim that it
is based on Mendels book that didn't exist yet.
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 7:48:41 PM10/3/16
to
"Bob Officer" wrote in message news:9or5gh....@news.alt.net...
> Andrew wrote:
Which is why they need to learn about the living God
who made the heavens and earth. Glory to His name!
> just as the people which follow these human created
> and imaginary gods
Yes, they need the truth.
I totally agree!
Thanks.
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Davej" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>>>> the increasingly godless society.
>>>
>>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
>>
>> A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
>> is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
>>
> A L gods are created by man. And that is pathetic,
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>>>> the increasingly godless society.
>>>
>>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
>>
>> A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
>> is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
>>
Which is why they need to learn about the living God
who made the heavens and earth. Glory to His name!
> just as the people which follow these human created
> and imaginary gods
Yes, they need the truth.
I totally agree!
Thanks.
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 7:49:04 PM10/3/16
to
"John Locke" wrote in message news:d1g5vb5nir6mok0km...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
is evidence that you know there is GOD but
not god.
Which is revealed in your post here, and else
where. Yes, you cannot hide from the truth.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Davej" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>>>> the increasingly godless society.
>>>
>>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
>>
>>A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
>>is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
>>
> ...pathetic imaginary god....is that better ?
The fact that you say 'god' rather than 'God'
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>>>> the increasingly godless society.
>>>
>>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
>>
>>A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
>>is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
>>
> ...pathetic imaginary god....is that better ?
is evidence that you know there is GOD but
not god.
Which is revealed in your post here, and else
where. Yes, you cannot hide from the truth.
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 7:51:56 PM10/3/16
to
"Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:f9148c5d-25f1-48f0...@googlegroups.com...
> His work is enshrined as one of the most
> important discoveries ever made.
Can you please explain exactly
what it was that he discovered.
Because no one here is able to.
Thanks.
> His work is enshrined as one of the most
> important discoveries ever made.
what it was that he discovered.
Because no one here is able to.
Thanks.
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 7:52:16 PM10/3/16
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA696A73F894...@216.166.97.131...
I note that you cannot answer my simply question,
above.
Do you want to try again, or would you rather just
concede now? Here it is. .
"Please tell us exactly, what is this 'natural process'
above.
Do you want to try again, or would you rather just
concede now? Here it is. .
"Please tell us exactly, what is this 'natural process'
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 7:52:33 PM10/3/16
to
"nature bats last" wrote in message news:50cbd3f8-b886-45c9...@googlegroups.com...
Just help him out and answer the question.
"What is this 'natural process' that Darwin
was --the very first person-- to discover?"
"What is this 'natural process' that Darwin
was --the very first person-- to discover?"
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 8:19:44 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew.8...@Lying.Bozo> Farted in news:
> "Bob Officer" wrote in message news:9or5gh....@news.alt.net...
>> Andrew86 wrote:
>>> "Davej" wrote:
> I totally agree!
> Thanks.
YW, here it is:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ibEaIPtMk>
<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>
> "Bob Officer" wrote in message news:9or5gh....@news.alt.net...
>>> "Davej" wrote:
>>>> Andrew86 wrote:
>>>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>>>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>>>>> the increasingly godless society.
>>>>
>>>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
>>>
>>> A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
>>> is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
>>>
>> A L gods are created by man. And that is pathetic,
>
> Which is why they need to learn about the living God
> who made the heavens and earth. Glory to His name!
>
>> just as the people which follow these human created
>> and imaginary gods
>
> Yes, they need the truth!
>>>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>>>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>>>>> the increasingly godless society.
>>>>
>>>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
>>>
>>> A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
>>> is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
>>>
>> A L gods are created by man. And that is pathetic,
>
> Which is why they need to learn about the living God
> who made the heavens and earth. Glory to His name!
>
>> just as the people which follow these human created
>> and imaginary gods
>
> I totally agree!
> Thanks.
YW, here it is:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ibEaIPtMk>
<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 8:21:38 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:0sWdneZvzur0c2_K...@earthlink.com:
> "John Locke" wrote in message news:
Here's the truth, enjoy:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ibEaIPtMk>
<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>
news:0sWdneZvzur0c2_K...@earthlink.com:
> "John Locke" wrote in message news:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ibEaIPtMk>
<http://tinyurl.com/hy7xymb>
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 8:24:44 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andr...@Lying.Bozo> Farted in news:
> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:
>
> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:
>
>> His work is enshrined as one of the most
>> important discoveries ever made.
>
> Can you please explain exactly
> what it was that he discovered.
> Because no one here is able to.
> Thanks.
Certainly!!! Here it is, again, once more:
>> important discoveries ever made.
>
> Can you please explain exactly
> what it was that he discovered.
> Because no one here is able to.
> Thanks.
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 8:26:41 PM10/3/16
to
t2jud...@gmail.com
Oct 3, 2016, 8:32:30 PM10/3/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:03:39 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> Been there done that. Read a fucking biology book.
>
> This was covered in most middle school science calasses.
>
> It has been discussed here many times and the newsgroup talk.origins will be happy to explain it. I am not going to drag this thread on any longer.
>
> The world knows who Darwin was and what he did.
No, dipshit, i fail to see what that idea has to do with GODs existence.
> Been there done that. Read a fucking biology book.
>
> This was covered in most middle school science calasses.
>
> It has been discussed here many times and the newsgroup talk.origins will be happy to explain it. I am not going to drag this thread on any longer.
>
> The world knows who Darwin was and what he did.
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2016, 10:14:00 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:n7GdnRwfqc20cm_K...@earthlink.com:
Just explain how Darwin's theory of evolution
was based on Mendel's work that hadn't even been
published yet.
> Do you want to try again, or would you rather just
> concede now? Here it is. .
>
> "Please tell us exactly, what is this 'natural process'
> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
news:n7GdnRwfqc20cm_K...@earthlink.com:
was based on Mendel's work that hadn't even been
published yet.
> Do you want to try again, or would you rather just
> concede now? Here it is. .
>
> "Please tell us exactly, what is this 'natural process'
> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?"
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2016, 10:15:32 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:b96dnV5sEJGLcm_K...@earthlink.com:
> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message
> news:f9148c5d-25f1-48f0...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> His work is enshrined as one of the most
>> important discoveries ever made.
>
> Can you please explain exactly
> what it was that he discovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
news:b96dnV5sEJGLcm_K...@earthlink.com:
> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message
> news:f9148c5d-25f1-48f0...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> His work is enshrined as one of the most
>> important discoveries ever made.
>
> Can you please explain exactly
> what it was that he discovered.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 3, 2016, 10:24:53 PM10/3/16
to
In article <7043331d-d2a3-4d21...@googlegroups.com>,
Wexford Eire <wexford....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:33:28 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> > "harry k" wrote in message
> > news:55756789-ef6a-466c...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Why did you?
> >
> > > One does not need a degree to be a scientist.
> >
> > Anyone can be a pseudo-scientist.
>
> The degree was in theology, but a large part of his study involved "natural
> philosophy," studying flora and fauna. In fact, the pursuit of natural
> philosophy -- for budding theologians -- was thought to expand man's
> knowledge of the wondrous works of God. In any even he learned a great deal
> about descriptive biology, the right ways of collecting and preserving
> specimens, even geology.
>
> After the publication of his "Voyage" book he was awarded a Master's Degree
> from Cambridge.
>
> What's your degree in? Have one or did you flunk out?
Or never got admitted?
--
JD
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Wexford Eire <wexford....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:33:28 AM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> > "harry k" wrote in message
> > news:55756789-ef6a-466c...@googlegroups.com...
> > > Wm. Esque wrote:
> > >> a425couple wrote:
> > >> > "Tommie" wrote:
> > >
> > >> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
> > >> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
> > >> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
> > >> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
> > >> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree in
> > >> >> 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his life he went
> > >> >> to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at Christ
> > >> >> College. Some sources say it Was theology.
> > >> >
> > >> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
> > >> >
> > >> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
> > >> revered as a scientist?
> >
> > Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> > was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> > the increasingly godless society.
> >
> > > If asking stupid questions is a sign of your IQ...
> > >> a425couple wrote:
> > >> > "Tommie" wrote:
> > >
> > >> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
> > >> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
> > >> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
> > >> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
> > >> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree in
> > >> >> 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his life he went
> > >> >> to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at Christ
> > >> >> College. Some sources say it Was theology.
> > >> >
> > >> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
> > >> >
> > >> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
> > >> revered as a scientist?
> >
> > Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> > was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> > the increasingly godless society.
> >
> >
> > Why did you?
> >
> > > One does not need a degree to be a scientist.
> >
> > Anyone can be a pseudo-scientist.
>
> The degree was in theology, but a large part of his study involved "natural
> philosophy," studying flora and fauna. In fact, the pursuit of natural
> philosophy -- for budding theologians -- was thought to expand man's
> knowledge of the wondrous works of God. In any even he learned a great deal
> about descriptive biology, the right ways of collecting and preserving
> specimens, even geology.
>
> After the publication of his "Voyage" book he was awarded a Master's Degree
> from Cambridge.
>
> What's your degree in? Have one or did you flunk out?
Or never got admitted?
--
JD
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 3, 2016, 10:33:19 PM10/3/16
to
In article <ec6e0de0-9534-47f2...@googlegroups.com>,
Yep. It could come out that he hate babies for breakfast every Sunday
and it still wouldn't refute his science.
and it still wouldn't refute his science.
%
Oct 3, 2016, 10:48:30 PM10/3/16
to
Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article
> <ec6e0de0-9534-47f2...@googlegroups.com>,
> Cloud Hobbit <youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Been there done that. Read a fucking biology
>> book.
>>
>> This was covered in most middle school science
>> calasses.
>>
>> It has been discussed here many times and the
>> newsgroup talk.origins
>> will be happy to explain it. I am not going to
>> drag this thread on
>> any longer.
>>
>> The world knows who Darwin was and what he did.
>>
>> That some people, a tiny minority recfuseto
>> accept it does not make
>> it any less true.
>> Attacking his character will not erase his
>> work. Nothing can do
>> that.
>
>
> Yep. It could come out that he hate babies for
> breakfast every Sunday
> and it still wouldn't refute his science.
how could anyone hate babies for breakfast
> In article
> <ec6e0de0-9534-47f2...@googlegroups.com>,
> Cloud Hobbit <youngbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Been there done that. Read a fucking biology
>> book.
>>
>> This was covered in most middle school science
>> calasses.
>>
>> It has been discussed here many times and the
>> newsgroup talk.origins
>> will be happy to explain it. I am not going to
>> drag this thread on
>> any longer.
>>
>> The world knows who Darwin was and what he did.
>>
>> That some people, a tiny minority recfuseto
>> accept it does not make
>> it any less true.
>> Attacking his character will not erase his
>> work. Nothing can do
>> that.
>
>
> Yep. It could come out that he hate babies for
> breakfast every Sunday
> and it still wouldn't refute his science.
Andrew
Oct 4, 2016, 1:45:24 AM10/4/16
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA696D6A8045...@216.166.97.131...
Not my claim.
>> Do you want to try again, or would you rather just
>> concede now? Here it is. .
>>
>> "Please tell us exactly, what is this 'natural process'
>> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
That explains his ideas, but it doesn't answer the question.
Therefore I accept this as your concession that there is no
answer to the question.
>> Do you want to try again, or would you rather just
>> concede now? Here it is. .
>>
>> "Please tell us exactly, what is this 'natural process'
>> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
Therefore I accept this as your concession that there is no
answer to the question.
Andrew
Oct 4, 2016, 1:48:58 AM10/4/16
to
"Bob Officer" wrote in message news:9orvi4....@news.alt.net...
> Andrew wrote:
The fact that you say 'god' rather than 'God' is
evidence that you know there is GOD but not
god.
I subscribe to no 'god'. I believe in no 'god'.
> That right your god is just like all the rest
I note that atheists are afraid to say, "God".
You know there is no 'god' so you can't get
in trouble with him because he doesn't exist.
But the GOD who is the Majesty of heaven
is altogether a different story. You try to be
careful not to get in trouble with Him.
> created and followed by a bunch of pathetic
> weak minded people.
You're talking about 'god' here, not GOD.
>>> just as the people which follow these
>>> human created and imaginary gods
>>
>> Yes, they need the truth.
>
> You need to wear a sign which proclaims you
> are a weak minded and pathetic person.
Thanks, but you need to learn the difference
between 'god' and 'GOD' who is the majesty
of heaven. He is so awesome. Glory to Him!
>> Thanks.
>
> No problem. There is a treatment for your
> mental disorder. It is called critical thinking.
One more time --> I believe in no 'god'.
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Bob Officer" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Davej" wrote:
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>>>>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>>>>>> the increasingly godless society.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
>>>>
>>>> A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
>>>> is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
>>>>
>>> ALL gods are created by man. And that is pathetic,
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Davej" wrote:
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
>>>>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>>>>>> the increasingly godless society.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
>>>>
>>>> A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
>>>> is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
>>>>
>>
>> Which is why they need to learn about the living God
>> who made the heavens and earth. Glory to His name!
>
> I call bulllshit produce you god for inspection.
>> Which is why they need to learn about the living God
>> who made the heavens and earth. Glory to His name!
>
The fact that you say 'god' rather than 'God' is
evidence that you know there is GOD but not
god.
> That right your god is just like all the rest
I note that atheists are afraid to say, "God".
You know there is no 'god' so you can't get
in trouble with him because he doesn't exist.
But the GOD who is the Majesty of heaven
is altogether a different story. You try to be
careful not to get in trouble with Him.
> created and followed by a bunch of pathetic
> weak minded people.
You're talking about 'god' here, not GOD.
>>> just as the people which follow these
>>> human created and imaginary gods
>>
>> Yes, they need the truth.
>
> are a weak minded and pathetic person.
Thanks, but you need to learn the difference
between 'god' and 'GOD' who is the majesty
of heaven. He is so awesome. Glory to Him!
>> Thanks.
>
> No problem. There is a treatment for your
> mental disorder. It is called critical thinking.
One more time --> I believe in no 'god'.
Andrew
Oct 4, 2016, 1:50:22 AM10/4/16
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA696D6EB84D...@216.166.97.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:
says he was the first person to discover a
'natural process'.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote:
>>
>>> His work is enshrined as one of the most
>>> important discoveries ever made.
>>
>> Can you please explain exactly
>> what it was that he discovered.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
It talks about his ideas. I don't see where it
>>
>>> His work is enshrined as one of the most
>>> important discoveries ever made.
>>
>> Can you please explain exactly
>> what it was that he discovered.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
says he was the first person to discover a
'natural process'.
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 4, 2016, 1:58:34 AM10/4/16
to
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 4, 2016, 1:59:19 AM10/4/16
to
Jørgen Farum Jensen
Oct 4, 2016, 8:08:02 AM10/4/16
to
> news:QISdnZmgyvt8DG_K...@earthlink.com:
> Darwin published his first book on evolution
> in 1856. Mendel didn't publish anything until 9
> years later, in 1865.
>
> Are you saying Darwin went forward in time,
> grabbed Mendel's book, and went back in time to
> copy them?
>
Darwin was aware of Mendels experiments.
The interesting thing is, that if Andrew
don't accept Darwin as a scientist, why
does he accept Mendel as a scientist?
Because Mendel was a Monk, perhaps?
--
Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
— Ashley Montagu
>
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>> news:XnsA69642F2146...@216.166.97.131...
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> in 1856. Mendel didn't publish anything until 9
> years later, in 1865.
>
> Are you saying Darwin went forward in time,
> grabbed Mendel's book, and went back in time to
> copy them?
>
Darwin was aware of Mendels experiments.
The interesting thing is, that if Andrew
don't accept Darwin as a scientist, why
does he accept Mendel as a scientist?
Because Mendel was a Monk, perhaps?
--
Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
— Ashley Montagu
Mitchell Holman
Oct 4, 2016, 8:08:07 AM10/4/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:EY6dnUzdifNz3G7K...@earthlink.com:
Your quote, from above.
"Was there a 'natural process' that Darwin
discovered that wasn't already known by
Mendel and others? No."
>
Start with the websites that WTS posts,
or just ask the regulars at talk.origins.
news:EY6dnUzdifNz3G7K...@earthlink.com:
"Was there a 'natural process' that Darwin
discovered that wasn't already known by
Mendel and others? No."
>
>>> Do you want to try again, or would you rather just
>>> concede now? Here it is. .
>>>
>>> "Please tell us exactly, what is this 'natural process'
>>> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?"
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
>
> That explains his ideas, but it doesn't answer the question.
Then look it up yourself.
>>> concede now? Here it is. .
>>>
>>> "Please tell us exactly, what is this 'natural process'
>>> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?"
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
>
> That explains his ideas, but it doesn't answer the question.
Start with the websites that WTS posts,
or just ask the regulars at talk.origins.
Andrew
Oct 4, 2016, 9:48:35 AM10/4/16
to
"Jørgen Farum Jensen" wrote in message news:nt062i$q65$1...@dont-email.me...
> Darwin was aware of Mendels experiments.
> The interesting thing is, that if Andrew
> don't accept Darwin as a scientist, why
> does he accept Mendel as a scientist?
Mendel was involved in empirical, observable
science. Whereas Darwin was involved in a
lot of fantasizing. There is a big difference.
> Because Mendel was a Monk, perhaps?
No.
> Darwin was aware of Mendels experiments.
> The interesting thing is, that if Andrew
> don't accept Darwin as a scientist, why
> does he accept Mendel as a scientist?
science. Whereas Darwin was involved in a
lot of fantasizing. There is a big difference.
> Because Mendel was a Monk, perhaps?
Andrew
Oct 4, 2016, 9:49:29 AM10/4/16
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA697473E393...@216.166.97.131...
That was a question and answer. Not a claim that Darwin
was based on Mendel's work. Also, you never did answer
my question.
>>>> Do you want to try again, or would you rather just
>>>> concede now? Here it is. .
>>>>
>>>> "Please tell us exactly, what is this 'natural process'
>>>> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?"
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
>>
>> That explains his ideas, but it doesn't answer the question.
>
> Then look it up yourself.
I did, and it doesn't exist.
> Start with the websites that WTS posts,
> or just ask the regulars at talk.origins.
So you can't answer. It is only your belief.
was based on Mendel's work. Also, you never did answer
my question.
>>>> Do you want to try again, or would you rather just
>>>> concede now? Here it is. .
>>>>
>>>> "Please tell us exactly, what is this 'natural process'
>>>> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?"
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
>>
>> That explains his ideas, but it doesn't answer the question.
>
> Then look it up yourself.
> Start with the websites that WTS posts,
> or just ask the regulars at talk.origins.
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 4, 2016, 11:01:14 AM10/4/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:SZCdnXQaLN62Lm7K...@earthlink.com:
> "Jørgen Farum Jensen" wrote in message
> news:nt062i$q65$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> Darwin was aware of Mendels experiments.
>> The interesting thing is, that if Andrew
>> don't accept Darwin as a scientist, why
>> does he accept Mendel as a scientist?
>
> Mendel was involved in empirical, observable
> science. Whereas Darwin was involved in a
> lot of fantasizing. There is a big difference.
You know nothing about Darwin. Every bit of Darwin's work is based on
observed, recorded, cataloged fact.
news:SZCdnXQaLN62Lm7K...@earthlink.com:
> "Jørgen Farum Jensen" wrote in message
> news:nt062i$q65$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> Darwin was aware of Mendels experiments.
>> The interesting thing is, that if Andrew
>> don't accept Darwin as a scientist, why
>> does he accept Mendel as a scientist?
>
> Mendel was involved in empirical, observable
> science. Whereas Darwin was involved in a
> lot of fantasizing. There is a big difference.
observed, recorded, cataloged fact.
>
>> Because Mendel was a Monk, perhaps?
>
> No.
>> Because Mendel was a Monk, perhaps?
>
> No.
Kevrob
Oct 4, 2016, 11:15:32 AM10/4/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:49:04 PM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> "John Locke" wrote in message news:d1g5vb5nir6mok0km...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>"Davej" wrote:
> >>> Andrew wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> >>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> >>>> the increasingly godless society.
> >>>
> >>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
> >>
> >>A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
> >>is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
> >>
> > ...pathetic imaginary god....is that better ?
>
> The fact that you say 'god' rather than 'God'
> is evidence that you know there is GOD but
> not god.
>
No, it is an attempt, however futile, to treat Yahooey the same
> "John Locke" wrote in message news:d1g5vb5nir6mok0km...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>"Davej" wrote:
> >>> Andrew wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> >>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> >>>> the increasingly godless society.
> >>>
> >>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
> >>
> >>A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
> >>is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
> >>
> > ...pathetic imaginary god....is that better ?
>
> The fact that you say 'god' rather than 'God'
> is evidence that you know there is GOD but
> not god.
>
as we would treat Thor or Hermes or the Dagda: as a mythical
figure, which, like a character in a book of fiction, can have
a proper name, but isn't real. Capitalaizing "god" anywhere but
at the beginning of a sentence is following a tradition that
goes back to the ancient Hebrews: one doesn't use YHWH lightly,
but refers obliquely to the deity, calling it "the Lord" or
some other obfuscation.
It's superstitious nonsense, and I and others just won't play.
> Which is revealed in your post here, and else
> where. Yes, you cannot hide from the truth.
Kevin R
Kevrob
Oct 4, 2016, 11:24:11 AM10/4/16
to
Y'know, like some people like beef, but don't like veal?
Kevin R
Syd M.
Oct 4, 2016, 3:50:10 PM10/4/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:30:08 PM UTC-4, Andrew wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA69682C9C5F...@216.166.97.131...
>
>
>
Why? So you can ignore it again?
PDW
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA69682C9C5F...@216.166.97.131...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> "harry k" wrote:
> >>>>> Wm. Esque wrote:
> >>>>>> a425couple wrote:
> >>>>>> > "Tommie" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
> >>>>>> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
> >>>>>> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
> >>>>>> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
> >>>>>> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree
> >>>>>> >> in 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his
> >>>>>> >> life he went to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at
> >>>>>> >> Christ College. Some sources say it Was theology.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
> >>>>>> revered as a scientist?
> >>>>
> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> "harry k" wrote:
> >>>>> Wm. Esque wrote:
> >>>>>> a425couple wrote:
> >>>>>> > "Tommie" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> >> From curiosity I searched to find our what College Degree
> >>>>>> >> Charles Darwin earned. What I learned was that he started
> >>>>>> >> out to become a Physician like his father and Grandfather.
> >>>>>> >> However this was not his interest. After dropping out from
> >>>>>> >> medical school, he earned a BA degree in 1831 and a MS degree
> >>>>>> >> in 1836 at Christ college at Cambridge. At some time in his
> >>>>>> >> life he went to Oxford where he eared a degree in theology.
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> There seems to be some confusion regarding his AB degree at
> >>>>>> >> Christ College. Some sources say it Was theology.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > Interesting. Thanks for posting.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> If Darwin's only degree was theology, how is it that he is
> >>>>>> revered as a scientist?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> >>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> >>>> the increasingly godless society.
> >>>
> >>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> >>>> the increasingly godless society.
> >>>
> >>> Because of Darwin "god was omitted from origins"?
> >>>
> >>> Because of Pasteur "god was omitted from disease"?
> >>>
> >>> Because of Halley "god was omitted from comets"?
> >>>
> >>> Does the discovery of every natural process
> >>> require "removing god" from it?
> >>
> >> Was there a 'natural process' that Darwin discovered
> >> that wasn't already known by Mendel and others? No.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Then tell us, exactly what is this 'natural process'
> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?
>
> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Because of Pasteur "god was omitted from disease"?
> >>>
> >>> Because of Halley "god was omitted from comets"?
> >>>
> >>> Does the discovery of every natural process
> >>> require "removing god" from it?
> >>
> >> Was there a 'natural process' that Darwin discovered
> >> that wasn't already known by Mendel and others? No.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Then tell us, exactly what is this 'natural process'
> that Darwin was the very first person to discover?
>
>
>
>
Why? So you can ignore it again?
PDW
Andrew
Oct 4, 2016, 5:52:51 PM10/4/16
to
"Syd M." wrote in message news:3c70ff06-6413-4241...@googlegroups.com...
Did Darwin discover some 'natural process'
that was previously unknown? No, so what
~did~ he do?
He helped formulate a worldview where
God was omitted from origins, which was
that was previously unknown? No, so what
~did~ he do?
He helped formulate a worldview where
God was omitted from origins, which was
more pleasing to the increasingly godless
society. But it was basically a 'phantasy'.
Mitchell Holman
Oct 4, 2016, 10:10:02 PM10/4/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:ZfudnZIQu5QxuWnK...@earthlink.com:
Did Pasteur "formulate a worldview"
where god was omitted from disease?
news:ZfudnZIQu5QxuWnK...@earthlink.com:
where god was omitted from disease?
Kevrob
Oct 4, 2016, 10:39:14 PM10/4/16
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory
In neither theory is intervention by a deity required to
explain the spread of diseases.
Uneducated, ghod-obsessed people might believe plagues were
punishments inflicted by some ghod.
Kevin R
Malcolm McMahon
Oct 5, 2016, 5:34:08 AM10/5/16
to
> He helped formulate a worldview where
> God was omitted from origins, which was
> more pleasing to the increasingly godless
> society. But it was basically a 'phantasy'.
Jeanne Douglas
Oct 5, 2016, 8:17:20 AM10/5/16
to
In article <9910ba36-3476-45d3...@googlegroups.com>,
Hence, the name of malaria.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory
>
> In neither theory is intervention by a deity required to
> explain the spread of diseases.
>
> Uneducated, ghod-obsessed people might believe plagues were
> punishments inflicted by some ghod.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory
>
> In neither theory is intervention by a deity required to
> explain the spread of diseases.
>
> Uneducated, ghod-obsessed people might believe plagues were
> punishments inflicted by some ghod.
Andrew
Oct 5, 2016, 10:36:58 AM10/5/16
to
Malcolm McMahon" wrote in message news:cbd80246-845a-45cf...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
No, humans already knew that ~long before~ Darwin.
"Humans have used selective breeding long before Darwin's Postulates
and the discovery of genetics. Farmers chose cattle with beneficial traits
such as larger size or producing more milk, and made them breed; and
although they may have known nothing about genes, they knew that the
beneficial traits could be heritable." http://alturl.com/hstc9
> Andrew wrote:
"Humans have used selective breeding long before Darwin's Postulates
and the discovery of genetics. Farmers chose cattle with beneficial traits
such as larger size or producing more milk, and made them breed; and
although they may have known nothing about genes, they knew that the
beneficial traits could be heritable." http://alturl.com/hstc9
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 5, 2016, 3:07:37 PM10/5/16
to
"Andrew86" <andrew86...@Lying.Bozo> Farted out in news:
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 5, 2016, 7:22:34 PM10/5/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:52:20 PM UTC-7, quar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:50:06 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > the theory of evolution?
>
>
> Explain.
Living things evolve over time, through the process of natural selection.
This has been demonstrated to be true or over 150 years and has led to new fields of medicine and new treatments ith things like antibiotics, vaccines, and so on.
There ae several good places that explain it. You might start with talk.origins.
Which part do you have problems understanding?
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 1:50:06 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > the theory of evolution?
>
>
> Explain.
Living things evolve over time, through the process of natural selection.
This has been demonstrated to be true or over 150 years and has led to new fields of medicine and new treatments ith things like antibiotics, vaccines, and so on.
There ae several good places that explain it. You might start with talk.origins.
Which part do you have problems understanding?
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 5, 2016, 7:26:20 PM10/5/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 4:48:41 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Bob Officer" wrote in message news:9or5gh....@news.alt.net...
> > just as the people which follow these human-created
>
> Thanks.
But you are not after any truth that contradicts the bible. IOW you want lies.
That the bible is full of shit is no in dispute. It as been proven many times.
Prove that any god exists.
> "Bob Officer" wrote in message news:9or5gh....@news.alt.net...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Davej" wrote:
> >>> Andrew wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >> "Davej" wrote:
> >>> Andrew wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> >>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> >>>> the increasingly godless society.
> >>>
> >>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> >>>> the increasingly godless society.
> >>>
> >>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
> >>
> >> A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
> >> is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
> >>
> > A L gods are created by man. And that is pathetic,
> >>
> >> A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
> >> is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
> >>
>
> Which is why they need to learn about the living God
> who made the heavens and earth. Glory to His name!
>
Prove he exists.
> Which is why they need to learn about the living God
> who made the heavens and earth. Glory to His name!
>
> > just as the people which follow these human-created
> > and imaginary gods
>
> Yes, they need the truth.
>
> I totally agree!
>
> Yes, they need the truth.
>
>
> Thanks.
But you are not after any truth that contradicts the bible. IOW you want lies.
That the bible is full of shit is no in dispute. It as been proven many times.
Prove that any god exists.
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 5, 2016, 7:31:49 PM10/5/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 4:49:04 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "John Locke" wrote in message news:d1g5vb5nir6mok0km...@4ax.com...
> "John Locke" wrote in message news:d1g5vb5nir6mok0km...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>"Davej" wrote:
> >>> Andrew wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> >>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> >>>> the increasingly godless society.
> >>>
> >>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
> >>
> >>A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
> >>is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
> >>
> >>"Davej" wrote:
> >>> Andrew wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> Because he helped formulate a worldview where God
> >>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
> >>>> the increasingly godless society.
> >>>
> >>> Does every natural process exclude your pathetic god?
> >>
> >>A worldview is not a 'natural process'? Also a phantasy
> >>is not a 'natural process'. And there is no "pathetic god".
> >>
> > ...pathetic imaginary god....is that better ?
>
> The fact that you say 'god' rather than 'God'
> is evidence that you know there is GOD but
> not god.
>
No, it is not. It is only proof of how I don't wish to give any sort of reverence to an imaginary being. Just one of many that men have invented over the centuries.
>
> The fact that you say 'god' rather than 'God'
> is evidence that you know there is GOD but
> not god.
>
> Which is revealed in your post here, and else
> where. Yes, you cannot hide from the truth.
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 5, 2016, 7:40:26 PM10/5/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:f9148c5d-25f1-48f0...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Thanks.
Liar. It has been explained many times.
Go read a science book.
> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:f9148c5d-25f1-48f0...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > His work is enshrined as one of the most
> > important discoveries ever made.
>
> Can you please explain exactly
> what it was that he discovered.
>
> Because no one here is able to.
> > His work is enshrined as one of the most
> > important discoveries ever made.
>
> Can you please explain exactly
> what it was that he discovered.
>
>
> Thanks.
Liar. It has been explained many times.
Go read a science book.
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 5, 2016, 7:47:31 PM10/5/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 5:32:30 PM UTC-7, t2jud...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing has anything to do with god's existence. There is no God. There was no Abraham, no Moses, no Noah, no Flood, no Exodus. Just throw out all the OT and you will be better off, it's almost all ficition.
The NT talks about a guy that prformed miracles but was so uninteresting, that nobody wrote a word about him during his lifetime.
If anybody remotely like Jesus existed, he was not anything like the one in the NT.
You are convinced there is a god. Why? Based on what?
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:03:39 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > Been there done that. Read a fucking biology book.
> >
> > This was covered in most middle school science calasses.
> >
> > It has been discussed here many times and the newsgroup talk.origins will be happy to explain it. I am not going to drag this thread on any longer.
> >
> > The world knows who Darwin was and what he did.
>
>
> No, dipshit, i fail to see what that idea has to do with GODs existence.
> > Been there done that. Read a fucking biology book.
> >
> > This was covered in most middle school science calasses.
> >
> > It has been discussed here many times and the newsgroup talk.origins will be happy to explain it. I am not going to drag this thread on any longer.
> >
> > The world knows who Darwin was and what he did.
>
>
Nothing has anything to do with god's existence. There is no God. There was no Abraham, no Moses, no Noah, no Flood, no Exodus. Just throw out all the OT and you will be better off, it's almost all ficition.
The NT talks about a guy that prformed miracles but was so uninteresting, that nobody wrote a word about him during his lifetime.
If anybody remotely like Jesus existed, he was not anything like the one in the NT.
You are convinced there is a god. Why? Based on what?
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 5, 2016, 7:56:10 PM10/5/16
to
> > created and followed by a bunch of pathetic
> > weak minded people.
>
> You're talking about 'god' here, not GOD.
>
> >>> just as the people which follow these
> >>> human created and imaginary gods
> >>
> >> Yes, they need the truth.
> >
> > You need to wear a sign which proclaims you
> > are a weak minded and pathetic person.
>
> Thanks, but you need to learn the difference
> between 'god' and 'GOD' who is the majesty
> of heaven. He is so awesome. Glory to Him!
>
> >> Thanks.
> >
> > No problem. There is a treatment for your
> > mental disorder. It is called critical thinking.
>
> One more time --> I believe in no 'god'.
Big fake, prove your existence you brainless fucking loser.
Not afraind of the nonexistent.
Andrew
Oct 5, 2016, 8:17:03 PM10/5/16
to
"Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:94097b6a-ebc6-4d5e...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
important. Why can't you just say what
it was?
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote:
>>
>> > His work is enshrined as one of the most
>> > important discoveries ever made.
>>
>> Can you please explain exactly
>> what it was that he discovered.
>>
>> Because no one here is able to.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Liar. It has been explained many
> times. Go read a science book.
You said that he discovered something
>>
>> > His work is enshrined as one of the most
>> > important discoveries ever made.
>>
>> Can you please explain exactly
>> what it was that he discovered.
>>
>> Because no one here is able to.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Liar. It has been explained many
> times. Go read a science book.
important. Why can't you just say what
it was?
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 5, 2016, 8:41:53 PM10/5/16
to
It is important to keep in mind that evolution by natural selection is a theory that pertains to all life on earth. To prove a fundamental truth concerning all life on earth requires a range of facts and evidence drawn from every part of the organic world. The scope of the evidence must be commensurate with the scope of the principle it supports—and evolution is the fundamental integrating principle of all biology.
To prove his theory, Darwin assembled and organized “long catalogues of facts.”28 He gathered evidence from all corners of the plant and animal kingdoms, and from all corners of the globe. He had correspondents all over the world who sent him specimens and answered questions on local flora and fauna. He drew on the most obvious and the most obscure facts, spanning all branches of life’s family tree—from the smallest, microscopic organisms to the tallest trees and the largest whales, and from as far back in time as the fossil record went in his day.
He was an example for all science on how to be thourough, how to do the work necessary to get answers. Not necessarily the answer you wanted, but the right answer.
You can decide for yourself if you think he discovered a new natural process or not. It seems more accurate to me, that he discovered something that ties all life together. Something nobody had done before.
Attempts to smear him or say that he did nothing new are pointless. There is far too much data he collected for that to be true.
His work has stood the test of time and constant testing. Evolution through natural selection is real.
Davej
Oct 5, 2016, 8:46:15 PM10/5/16
to
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 9:36:58 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
worthless in science. Darwin provided lines of
supporting evidence and a clear statement of the
working mechanism.
> Malcolm McMahon" wrote:
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Syd M." wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Why? So you can ignore it again?
> >>
> >> Did Darwin discover some 'natural process'
> >> that was previously unknown? No, so what
> >> ~did~ he do?
> >
> > He saw how Natural Selection could shape species.
>
> No, humans already knew that ~long before~ Darwin.
Who knew it? How did they "know" it? Opinions are
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Syd M." wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Why? So you can ignore it again?
> >>
> >> Did Darwin discover some 'natural process'
> >> that was previously unknown? No, so what
> >> ~did~ he do?
> >
> > He saw how Natural Selection could shape species.
>
> No, humans already knew that ~long before~ Darwin.
worthless in science. Darwin provided lines of
supporting evidence and a clear statement of the
working mechanism.
Andrew
Oct 5, 2016, 8:52:32 PM10/5/16
to
"Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:86028342-0ef0-4c74...@googlegroups.com...
In fact, it is even mentioned in the Holy Bible.
> This has been demonstrated to be true or over 150 years
It has also been demonstrated in Bible times.
> and has led to new fields of medicine and new treatments
> ith things like antibiotics, vaccines, and so on.
No.
> There ae several good places that explain it.
_____________________________________________
"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they
would have done their work differently if they had thought
Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the
same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past
century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization
of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on
medications and drug reactions; improvements in food
production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries;
and others.
I even queried biologists working in areas where one would
expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research,
such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides.
Here, as else where, I found that Darwin's theory had provided
no discernible guidance but was brought in, AFTER the
breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior,
it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst
for scientific discovery."
~ Philip S. Skell. August 29, 2005
Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
The Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 16, p. 10
member, National Academy of Sciences
> quar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> > the theory of evolution?
>>
>> Explain.
>
> Living things evolve over time, through the process of natural selection.
They knew about natural selection throughout history.
>> Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> > the theory of evolution?
>>
>> Explain.
>
> Living things evolve over time, through the process of natural selection.
In fact, it is even mentioned in the Holy Bible.
> This has been demonstrated to be true or over 150 years
> and has led to new fields of medicine and new treatments
> ith things like antibiotics, vaccines, and so on.
> There ae several good places that explain it.
"I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they
would have done their work differently if they had thought
Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the
same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past
century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization
of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on
medications and drug reactions; improvements in food
production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries;
and others.
I even queried biologists working in areas where one would
expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research,
such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides.
Here, as else where, I found that Darwin's theory had provided
no discernible guidance but was brought in, AFTER the
breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. <----
When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior,
it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst
for scientific discovery."
~ Philip S. Skell. August 29, 2005
Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
The Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 16, p. 10
member, National Academy of Sciences
Cloud Hobbit
Oct 5, 2016, 10:50:45 PM10/5/16
to
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 5:52:32 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:86028342-0ef0-4c74...@googlegroups.com...
> > quar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> >> > the theory of evolution?
> >>
> >> Explain.
> >
> > Living things evolve over time, through the process of natural selection.
>
> They knew about natural selection throughout history.
>
Not the impression te rest of the world has.
> "Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:86028342-0ef0-4c74...@googlegroups.com...
> > quar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> >> > the theory of evolution?
> >>
> >> Explain.
> >
> > Living things evolve over time, through the process of natural selection.
>
> They knew about natural selection throughout history.
>
> In fact, it is even mentioned in the Holy Bible.
>
> > This has been demonstrated to be true or over 150 years
>
> It has also been demonstrated in Bible times.
>
> > and has led to new fields of medicine and new treatments
> > ith things like antibiotics, vaccines, and so on.
>
> No.
>
> > There ae several good places that explain it.
snip<<
Malcolm McMahon
Oct 6, 2016, 6:11:37 AM10/6/16
to
On Wednesday, 5 October 2016 15:36:58 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
> "Humans have used selective breeding long before Darwin's Postulates
> and the discovery of genetics. Farmers chose cattle with beneficial traits
> such as larger size or producing more milk, and made them breed; and
> although they may have known nothing about genes, they knew that the
> beneficial traits could be heritable." http://alturl.com/hstc9
Of course they knew that. What Darwin saw was that the selection process also operated in nature. He realised that "selective breeding" didn't need a breeder.
> "Humans have used selective breeding long before Darwin's Postulates
> and the discovery of genetics. Farmers chose cattle with beneficial traits
> such as larger size or producing more milk, and made them breed; and
> although they may have known nothing about genes, they knew that the
> beneficial traits could be heritable." http://alturl.com/hstc9
Syd M.
Oct 6, 2016, 5:23:40 PM10/6/16
to
Evolution is a scientific fact, creastionism is religion.
'Nuff said.
PDW
Syd M.
Oct 6, 2016, 5:25:48 PM10/6/16
to
PDW
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 6, 2016, 5:35:27 PM10/6/16
to
>PDW
0 new messages