How about an evaluation of what Darwin said as quoted in post 116?
He started a Religeon of psudo science. Professors are preaching it still.
He started a Religeon of psudo science. Professors are preaching it still.
Post 116
The probability is 1.0 IF you don't rule out things, such as intelligent design. Your proposition is, as I assume you know, a tautology.
No, I have no trouble with the world being complex. I just find it impossible to explain by Darwin's rules.
That isn't a tautology! What do you mean? And a Religeon of psudo science? That's not a religion. Don't understand what you mean?
He started a Religeon [sic] of psudo [sic] science. Professors are preaching it still.
From a google search:
Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic definition: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."Wrong. Try again?
What's the big deal? You quote a fine example of Darwin attempting to disarm his would be detractors and get a fair hearing: "Of course, Old Chap, all sorts of objections will occur to you, and I may be grand fool, I've considered that myself many a time, but I've thought long and carefully about this. I don't ask you put your reservations aside, but do hear me out, won't you?"
Sorry, but why should we join you in obsessing about Darwin's rhetorical devices? Interesting as that may be, isn't the substance of his theory, and modern versions thereof, more important?