Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Charles Darwin's College Degree
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Tommie
Sep 25, 2016, 6:57:05 PM9/25/16
to
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.
a425couple
Sep 26, 2016, 1:04:39 PM9/26/16
to
Wm. Esque
Oct 1, 2016, 2:37:25 PM10/1/16
to
revered as a scientist?
harry k
Oct 2, 2016, 5:01:34 PM10/2/16
to
One does not need a degree to be a scientist.
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 3:33:26 AM10/3/16
to
"harry k" wrote in message news:55756789-ef6a-466c...@googlegroups.com...
> Wm. Esque wrote:
>> a425couple wrote:
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
>
>> >> 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?
was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
the increasingly godless society.
> If asking stupid questions is a sign of your IQ...
> One does not need a degree to be a scientist.
harry k
Oct 3, 2016, 3:41:57 AM10/3/16
to
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2016, 7:42:45 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, 9:39:38 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, 9:50:07 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>
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 1:14:14 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.
Andrew
Oct 3, 2016, 1:32:55 PM10/3/16
to
"harry k" wrote in message news:a53a4c62-10b3-43b8...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
In any case, one needs to be objective in the pursuit of the truth.
> 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.
>>
>> > 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.
>
> A theist can't be as long as he tries to make realty match the bible.
I perceive that you may be a bigot.
>> > 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.
>
> A theist can't be as long as he tries to make realty match the bible.
In any case, one needs to be objective in the pursuit of the truth.
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2016, 1:59:19 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, 2:30:06 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, 3:06:33 PM10/3/16
to
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 3:08:43 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:14mdnefod440Pm_K...@earthlink.com:
Certainly, follow these links:
news:14mdnefod440Pm_K...@earthlink.com:
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2016, 5:34:21 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, 7:52:15 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'
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 8:24:43 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andr...@Lying.Bozo> Farted in 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:
> "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:
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 3, 2016, 8:26:40 PM10/3/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:IM6dnamk7Iancm_K...@earthlink.com:
> "nature bats last" wrote in message
> news:50cbd3f8-b886-45c9...@googlegroups.com...
>> .> Then tell us, exactly what is this 'natural process'
>> .> 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 --
>
> Just help him out and answer the question.
>
> "What is this 'natural process' that Darwin
> was --the very first person-- to discover?"
Certainly:
>> 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
>
>
>
news:IM6dnamk7Iancm_K...@earthlink.com:
> "nature bats last" wrote in message
> news:50cbd3f8-b886-45c9...@googlegroups.com...
>> .> 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 --
>
> Just help him out and answer the question.
>
> "What is this 'natural process' that Darwin
> was --the very first person-- to discover?"
Certainly:
>> 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
>
>
>
Mitchell Holman
Oct 3, 2016, 10:13:59 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?"
Andrew
Oct 4, 2016, 1:45:23 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, 1:48:56 AM10/4/16
to
"Bob Officer" wrote in message news:9orvi4....@news.alt.net...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Bob Officer" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Davej" wrote:
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> 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,
>>
>> 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.
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?
>>>>>> was omitted from origins which was more pleasing to
>>>>>> the increasingly godless society.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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,
>>
>> 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.
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'.
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 4, 2016, 1:58:33 AM10/4/16
to
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 4, 2016, 1:59:18 AM10/4/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:ZpKdncYBeZ-K3m7K...@earthlink.com:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
> news:XnsA696D6EB84D...@216.166.97.131...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
> It talks about his ideas. I don't see where it
> says he was the first person to discover a
> 'natural process'.
news:ZpKdncYBeZ-K3m7K...@earthlink.com:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
>> "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
>>>
>>>> His work is enshrined as one of the most
>>>> important discoveries ever made.
>>>
>>> Can you please explain exactly
>>> what it was that he discovered.
>>
>
> It talks about his ideas. I don't see where it
> says he was the first person to discover a
> 'natural process'.
Jørgen Farum Jensen
Oct 4, 2016, 8:08:01 AM10/4/16
to
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, 8:08:06 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, 9:48:33 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, 9:49:27 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, 11:01:12 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.
W.T.S., vrn-The Lamp of Golden Truth!*
Oct 5, 2016, 3:07:35 PM10/5/16
to
"Andrew86" <andrew86...@Lying.Bozo> Farted out in news:
Andrew
Oct 5, 2016, 8:52:31 PM10/5/16
to
"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.
_____________________________________________
"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.
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
0 new messages