I don’t know what you are trying to prove here but the field of geology was very primitive 150 years ago and Darwin was not a geologist. Further his geologic interpretations were heavily influenced by his friend and mentor, Charles Lyell, a creationist.
snip: I don’t know what you are trying to prove here but the field of geology was very primitive 150 years ago and Darwin was not a geologist. Further his geologic interpretations were heavily influenced by his friend and mentor, Charles Lyell, a creationist.
Spirited: Logically, Darwin’s theory must cancel itself out in accordance with the demands of materialistic empiricism (naturalism) which emphatically declares that only the sensory-material realm exists. This means that the immaterial realm, the realm of mind (reason, conscience, memory, etc), presuppositions, assumptions, morality, ideas, truth, natural law, laws of logic, theories, etc. must be denied. In keeping with this nonsense, materialists (using their minds, btw) stupidly proclaim that man is ‘nothing but’ chemical and/or neuronological reactions, robots, and other such stupidity. When we deny the obvious, as do materialist empiricists, we become stupid and depraved.
Either the immaterial exists, thus allowing us to know about Darwin’s immaterial theory or it does not, which logically means that robotic-man can know nothing, for he has no mind withwhich to know anything, let alone reason about it.
And this goes for you, Natural Law. When you attack God Guns and Guts, you are not doing so from within the parameters of the naturalist-worldview straitjacket which you paradoxically hold as true but rather from within the worldview of creationists, which you paradoxically deride as superstition.
He was a failed theologian and a medical school drop out.
Such a "scientific" intellectual hero you have! No wonder you think an evolution thread "belongsinreligion".
Further his geologic interpretations were heavily influenced by his friend and mentor, Charles Lyell, a creationist.
According to Antrhro Palomar.edu an evo-inclined site, Lyell was not a biblical creationist (operative term) at all. I quote: "While George Cuvier and Charles Lyell strongly disagreed about how the earth got to be the way it is today, they both rejected the idea of biological evolution. However, neither man accepted a traditional Biblical account of creation and a young earth. Cuvier did not live long enough to learn about Charles Darwin's proof of evolution, but Lyell did. He came to accept this proof in the early 1860's along with most leading scientists of that time. Lyell also became a friend of Charles Darwin."
Can't even get your facts straight. Such a careless little DU-schlub disruptor you are. Your research skills are bested by most public school third graders.
Everyone's a "creationist" in the general sense. Some of us know how we got here, Who cretaed us, why we got here, and what our purpose for being here is.
On the other hand "creationists" like you can't even seem to tell us how or why you chose to evolve your stupid little selves in the first place.
And on a site devoted to discussions intended to promote conservative principles one wonders why evo-materialists such as yourself whose "science" is at the root of totalitarian philosophy are even here, but for purposes of disruption and keyword mischief. (Yeah, we know it's you, "Natural Loser".)
Global warming suckers seem to start out as evo-suckers, but it looks like your little "peer-reviewed" pantheon -- the gate keepers of lies -- is about to come crumbling down around the both of your science-less philosophies.