No, that's why I used the comparison as an example of fallacious logic. > for the sins of his cousin Francis Galton, but Darwin was never a social > Darwinist and opposed slavery long before it was popular to do so, in a > letter he said " what a proud thing for England, if she is the first > European nation which utterly abolish is it". But of course the personal > virtues or vices of Charles Darwin have nothing to do with the truth or > falsehood of his theory, it's just interesting that unlike Issac Newton who > was a complete bastard Darwin was a very nice man, even people who didn't > like his theory tended to like the man personally. > Newton was definitely a whack job, but I have no problem with either his theories or Darwin's - I'm just saying that they are part of the progress which began with spirituality and religion and continued to develop through theology, philosophy, and science. Of course, the key being that I am one of the many people who view the current phase of science as having passed its prime and will decay unless it can embrace larger and more scientific understandings. > >> > I take it as a given that you will think anything that I say is >> bullshit, >> > > Only if everything you say is bullshit. Try saying something that isn't > bullshit, who knows maybe you'll like it. > I don't bullshit as far as I know. I have no reason to lie and I'm not very good at it. It's not because I have a moral aversion to it, I'm just too lazy to keep track of what I say, so it's simpler to tell the truth. > >> > Genesis also - simple - first with the light, then with the dividing >> the waters and whatnot >> > > Genesis hypothesizes that something grand and complex (God) > Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as I know. It's a three letter word and it is not explained at all, so how complex could it be? > produced something less grand and less complex (humans), > Less grand maybe, but not less complex. Isn't God just supposed to be "I am that I am."? > but Darwin provided a mechanism by which something complex (humans) could > be produced by something less grand and less complex (bacteria) ; and that > is why Charles Darwin was a vastly superior human being compared to > whatever nameless bozo it was that wrote Genesis. > Probably several people contributed to writing Genesis, but while I think that the Bible has caused a lot of harm to the world, it's still responsible for driving much of the art and science of the Western world. Had Gutenberg printed the Origin of Species instead of a Bible, printing probably would not have caught on with the public. > >> >> Ron Popeil is much more moral than theologians because the stuff he >>> sells on TV actually exists. >>> >> >> > Still, televangelism is not representative of theology as a whole. >> > > Theology is just like any other line of work, not everybody manages to > reach the very top. > I doubt that most televangelists have even studied theology. Craig > John K Clark > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/8HQEwQCwkEYJ. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.