emmm darwin only layed the foundations,evolution these days has far surprassed what darwin envisioned or thought...so it doesnt really matter.Origin of the species is still a good read just to see how it all started .Darwinism for lack of a better term died out like a century ago.And evolution says nothing of abiogenesis so thats another moot point.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by Solomons]

not anymore, but we believed it for a long time. but that;s not the point.

that theorie was kind of a base for our understanding of our species. but it turns out that this guy was a fraud.
I have my doubts about the source though, that abiogeneses story didn't convince me.

Originally posted by GondelleX
not anymore, but we believed it for a long time. but that;s not the point.

that theorie was kind of a base for our understanding of our species. but it turns out that this guy was a fraud.
I have my doubts about the source though, that abiogeneses story didn't convince me.

What? how does a degree determine how someone views the world? and like i said,darwin has been proven correct on the foundation of his theory through many modern techniques ..If you are set in your ways that all the evidence for evolution is wrong yet the zero evidence for any other explanation is correct...well good luck to you.

So what? Many of the greatest thinkers had irrelevant degrees or no degree at all. Did you know that Leonardo Davinci had no degree and all his discoveries were influenced by observing nature just like Darwin did?

Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.

Yeah, clearly the site is not biased at all.

Also, it's funny how this is just being reported as though it's big news. Darwin was technically qualified to become a clergyman, but he also took many science classes while in school, and degree programs back then weren't as highly specialized as they are now. Doesn't have any bearing on the accuracy of his theories, anyway, especially considering he also self-educated himself in science after graduation.

The article mentions Gregor Mendel as well. Monks, being devoted to a life of celibacy, were highly interested in science and botany, which is what led Mendel to his experiments with pea plants.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

"Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian."

There is no science you can use to defend creationism. Creationism comes from an extreme religious viewpoint. If you can use science to prove the creation myth then you remove any need for faith and its therefore no longer a religion. This is the most perplexing thing about Creationism, if they ever proved beyond a doubt they were correct they would destroy their own religion.

Besides the fact that Darwin had a degree in God only adds more weight to the plausibility of evolution. If evolution really did disprove the existence of God then it sounds a lot better coming from someone who is predisposed to believe in Him than a scientist who isn't

This only shows that even for close minded, ignorant, believers in gods, there is hope, if they only open their eyes, take a look around... and STUDY real things.


Even he, a theologian could see evolution.. but still... almost in 2009, someone refuses to believe it could be true. They are either ignorant or in plain stupidity denying zounds of evidence. In the last years however most christians have accepted it as truth.. and im happy for that.



1000 people could read the bible and we could have 1000 different interpretations of it.

1000 people could "read" science and we'd have 1000 totaly similar interpretations, exept someone might learn get a little less, some more.

Theology degree?
Whats the use of that?
How can a person mark an exam on god when noone knows any of the answers?



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

wow you saw this in another thread someone posted it in yesterday and thought it needed a whole thread of its own?

Darwin didnt have a thoelogy degree he left 1/2 way through for his trip on the beagle fail

mendels work is also misrepresented, his work on hereditary gene's answered some of the questions darwin wasnt sure about fail

mendel never limited his work to kinds and sort thats just make beleive he reported ONLY what he did prove and that had nothing to do with kinds and sorts as he only used peas so is that a kind or a sort? as no no one every actually answers what they are when asked we dont know

this is nonsense its so we dont laugh at people like Doctor hovind and co fail

the fact they insist and refer to them selves as Doctor becasue they have a phd (so not medical DOCTORS who should be called daoctor) in bible studies where as REAL sceintists refer to them selves by name and if the occasion merits it say they hace a phd in (insert field) is one of the reasons we laugh

also the fact they talk complete nonsense about somthing they dont have a clue about doesnt do them an favours

Linneaus didnt even have a degree and he formed a whole new branch of science

this thread like the article fail



[edit on 16/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
Darwin didnt have a thoelogy degree he left 1/2 way through for his trip on the beagle fail

He actually did have a Bachelor of Arts degree, and graduated in the top 10 of his class.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
He actually did have a Bachelor of Arts degree, and graduated in the top 10 of his class.

he also was semi trained as a doctor/surgeon but didnt like the thought of surgery so quit further study in medicine

he certainley got about a bit

he also didn't go all evo-revolution till after his daughter died and thought there was no god because of all the evil he said he saw.

food for thought.

nothing in this life matters anyways though, so who cares.

Originally posted by Shawn B.
he also didn't go all evo-revolution till after his daughter died and thought there was no god because of all the evil he said he saw.

Source?

As a matter of fact, Darwin never said outright he thought there was no God. The final passage of the origin of species, actually, says:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Jesus was a carpenter but he managed to found Christianity. I guess Darwin could found the idea of evolution with a degree in theology.