Could Trump reconcile our political dissension well enough to fix America without the Leftist inflaming the stupids into calling him a dictator?

[mark francis]

Evolution is not theologically based

Yes, it is. Darwin founded his theory of evolution as a substitute theory toreplace the Biblical affirmation that God created original life on earth. I know modern evolutionists do their best to scrub that fact from the record, but their efforts are dishonest.

Darwin's college degree was in arts and theology, not science. He was a racist, but modern evolutionists do their best to hide that fact. He theorized about the origin of life on earth and modern evolutionists try to hide that fact and the fact that his ideas of origins have all been proven wrong by actual scientific facts.

Here is what the school that trained him said:

Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species | The British Journal for the History of Science | Cambridge Core

Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2011

STEPHEN DILLEY

---

Abstract

This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science.

 

[mark francis]

It is a proven fact but your religion forbids you to accept it. You have never researched anything in the matter but take a Bible as a god given fact.
It doesn't matter if you don't believe it or ridicule it forever. It is still a fact and your still a loser.

It is your humanistic religion that forces you to come up with stupid unscientific assumptions and speculations about how the universe and life on earth could have originated without God.

 

[Boris Norris]

It is your humanistic religion that forces you to come up with stupid unscientific assumptions and speculations about how the universe and life on earth could have originated without God.

Not so. I'm saying you have no evidence it did.

 

[Boris Norris]

Yes, it is. Darwin founded his theory of evolution as a substitute theory toreplace the Biblical affirmation that God created original life on earth. I know modern evolutionists do their best to scrub that fact from the record, but their efforts are dishonest.

It is not a theory. It is a fact and Darwin never set out to substitute it for religion. At the time he prepared to leave he was training for the priesthood. You didn't know that ay? He died an atheist because of exactly what he discovered.

Darwin's college degree was in arts and theology, not science.

You have been caught lying again.
Charles Robert Darwin FRS FRGS FLS FZS JP[6] (/ˈdɑːrwɪn/[7] DAR-win; 12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist, geologist and biologist,[8] widely known for his contributions to evolutionary biology.

How's that for theology you fool.

He was a racist, but modern evolutionists do their best to hide that fact.

That is not recorded anywhere in history and it's simply you attempting to denigrate him.

He theorized about the origin of life on earth and modern evolutionists try to hide that fact and the fact that his ideas of origins have all been proven wrong by actual scientific facts.

Not one has been proven wrong by scientific facts. That aside, why are you believing scientific facts about Darwin but ignore the same science when they prove there's no god? You've contradicted yourself purely to denigrate the man.

Here is what the school that trained him said:

Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species | The British Journal for the History of Science | Cambridge Core

Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2011

STEPHEN DILLEY

---

Abstract

This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science.

Here's his qualifications.
Nothing about theology there comrade.

Stephen Dilley is an associate professor of philosophy at St. Edward’s University in Austin, Texas. In addition to political philosophy, his areas of interest include the history and philosophy of biology. He has published essays in British Journal for the History of Science, The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, and elsewhere.

 

[pjmret]

Yes, it is. Darwin founded his theory of evolution as a substitute theory toreplace the Biblical affirmation that God created original life on earth. I know modern evolutionists do their best to scrub that fact from the record, but their efforts are dishonest.

Darwin's college degree was in arts and theology, not science. He was a racist, but modern evolutionists do their best to hide that fact. He theorized about the origin of life on earth and modern evolutionists try to hide that fact and the fact that his ideas of origins have all been proven wrong by actual scientific facts.

Here is what the school that trained him said:

Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species | The British Journal for the History of Science | Cambridge Core

Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2011

STEPHEN DILLEY

---

Abstract

This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science.

Whether or not it started that way doesn't matter for 2023 no matter how much you blather about the distant past lol
As of today it is clearly not theologocal
Update your calendar to 2023 so you don't look stupid lol

 

[mark francis]

It is not a theory. It is a fact and Darwin never set out to substitute it for religion. At the time he prepared to leave he was training for the priesthood. You didn't know that ay? He died an atheist because of exactly what he discovered.

Calling a theory a fact is stupid, not scientifically intelligent.

You have been caught lying again.
Charles Robert Darwin FRS FRGS FLS FZS JP[6] (/ˈdɑːrwɪn/[7] DAR-win; 12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist, geologist and biologist,[8] widely known for his contributions to evolutionary biology.
How's that for theology you fool.

Darwin did not obtain a degree in science or medicine. The dishonest but devout Darwinists try to hide that fact for stupid reasons.

That is not recorded anywhere in history and it's simply you attempting to denigrate him.

If you do not know about Darwin's racism, then you are ignorant of that fact about the mythmaker.

Not one has been proven wrong by scientific facts. That aside, why are you believing scientific facts about Darwin but ignore the same science when they prove there's no god? You've contradicted yourself purely to denigrate the man.

Science is incapable of disproving God. Nobody can disprove God. Darwin's dumb speculative theory of the origin of life on earth has been soundly debunked.

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination

www.newscientist.com

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life​

Here's his qualifications.
Nothing about theology there comrade.

Stephen Dilley is an associate professor of philosophy at St. Edward’s University in Austin, Texas. In addition to political philosophy, his areas of interest include the history and philosophy of biology. He has published essays in British Journal for the History of Science, The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, and elsewhere.

All the accolades from devotees around the world will never give Darwin a science degree instead of the arts and theology degree he earned.

 

[mark francis]

Whether or not it started that way doesn't matter for 2023 no matter how much you blather about the distant past lol
As of today it is clearly not theologocal
Update your calendar to 2023 so you don't look stupid lol

Evolution is only theologically based in the sense that Secular Humanism is theological, which it is, but so what? Evolution involves faith in the unseen and unproven.

 

[pjmret]

Evolution is only theologically based in the sense that Secular Humanism is theological, which it is, but so what? Evolution involves faith in the unseen and unproven.

"so what"? of course you dont care if you lie, liar.

no it doesn't involve "faith", it involves science.

you are a science *****.

 

[mark francis]

"so what"? of course you dont care if you lie, liar.

no it doesn't involve "faith", it involves science.

you are a science *****.

Evolution is a theory, not proven science. Here is one explanation:

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science1. Scientific theories are testable2and supported by a great deal of evidence3. A theory is a formal explanation of the relationship among a set of observations, and the observations provide evidence for the theory4. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof1. If new evidence is not compatible with a theory, the theory is refined or rejected2.

Interpreting data to support a theory is seriously damaged when other data contradicts elements of the theory. Such is the case of evolutionary theory.

 

[pjmret]

Evolution is a theory, not proven science. Here is one explanation:

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science1. Scientific theories are testable2and supported by a great deal of evidence3. A theory is a formal explanation of the relationship among a set of observations, and the observations provide evidence for the theory4. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof1. If new evidence is not compatible with a theory, the theory is refined or rejected2.

Interpreting data to support a theory is seriously damaged when other data contradicts elements of the theory. Such is the case of evolutionary theory.

Of course it's a theory you science more on you the point is it's not based on theology as you claim because you are a liar

 

[mark francis]

Of course it's a theory you science more on you the point is it's not based on theology as you claim because you are a liar

You must deny evidence in order to propagate your theory that Darwin's theological beliefs did not infect his scientific assumptions.

 

[pjmret]

You must deny evidence in order to propagate your theory that Darwin's theological beliefs did not infect his scientific assumptions.

i don't care what darwin's theological beliefs were. duh.
its not relevant to the theory of evolution today.
you morons can stay in the 1800's if you want. I am here in 2023

 

[Boris Norris]

Calling a theory a fact is stupid, not scientifically.

You wouldn't know if you shit yourself so to not understand the difference is plausible.

Darwin did not obtain a degree in science or medicine. The dishonest but devout Darwinists try to hide that fact for stupid reasons.

I did not say he did, you did. I've never hidden anything. You're just sour because his findings completely debunked your silly god.

If you do not know about Darwin's racism, then you are ignorant of that fact about the mythmaker.

Well tell us because millions don't know. Isn't it coincidental you know all these things but never read a word written about him.

Science is incapable of disproving God.

That's because they have never wasted a minute investigating the bullshit. You can believe there's a god and science won't interfere with that. They deal with evidence. You deal with delusions.

Nobody can disprove God. Darwin's dumb speculative theory of the origin of life on earth has been soundly debunked.

Debunked by whom? Religion inspired nut cases?

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination

www.newscientist.com

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life​

All the accolades from devotees around the world will never give Darwin a science degree instead of the arts and theology degree he earned.

The new scientist magazine has form around religious beliefs. Nothing more us to be expected.

 

[mark francis]

i don't care what darwin's theological beliefs were. duh.
its not relevant to the theory of evolution today.
you morons can stay in the 1800's if you want. I am here in 2023

You can believe what you like about the myth of evolution. It is a free country.

 

[pjmret]

You can believe what you like about the myth of evolution. It is a free country.

of course its a free country.
and you are free to exhibit how little you know about science by claiming its a theological basis. lol.
no law stops you from being stupid here