Summations Only

It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. So since the hypothesis of common descent is supposedly supported by "mountains of evidence" provided by the fossil record, embryology, genetics, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies ... blah, blah, blah, why it is not promoted to the status of "theory". All evolutionary biologists consider common descent to an irrefutable fact, so why it's lowly status as a hypothesis still? Dredge is confused.

The general theory of evolution was explained to me on an atheist site I was once on (they loved me). It is simply the theory that all present life forms evolved from much simpler forms of life. Versions of this theory have been around for thousands of years. It was a superstitious belief not based on any scientific evidence. Darwinism is a "scientific" attempt to provide a mechanism for how such an evolutionary process might work. But it's still superstition ... scientifically-flavoured superstition.As King Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the Sun."

What about the first necessary evolution - that of inanimate matter evolving into the first living organism? Abiogenesis requires a shipload of faith, I'd say.

I think you are confusing the doctrines of Dredge with the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. I didn't say there is an equivalence between science and religion. For starters, Darwinism isn't science ... it's pseudo-science. Darwinism is a cult, and there are similarities between any cult and religion.
Since you are in the cult, you can't see pass it. But to someone who is outside the cult looking in, the similarities to religion are obvious.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

"I practice theology" - what does that mean?Millions of years of evolution is incompatible with the Bible. Theistic evolutionists are heretics and the worst theologians ever invented, imo. Their idea of sound theology is laughable and pathetic - ignore Scripture and Christian doctrine and replace it with Scientism. Theistic Darwinists and atheistic Darwinists are actually on the same side and belong to the same cult.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

All primitive cultures came up with creation stories about how life came into existence. Darwinism is simply a creation story invented by atheist culture. The only difference is, it claims to be scientific.

Darwinists are so gullible.

Please translate this into English.

Engineering owes a lot to mathematics, physics and chemistry. In contrast, biology owes nothing to Darwinism. The Catholic Church claims that her core doctrines and dogmas are infallible and cannot contain error because they are inspired by the power of God Almighty. But this is getting way off-topic. Like any good Darwinist, you like to delude yourself that historical science can be subjected to the same scientific rigour and exacting methodology as operational science ... which is patent nonsense, of course, because claims can be made about what happened thousands or millions or billions of years ago that cannot possibly be tested. Claims that can't be tested are scientifically worthless, as even the village idiot knows. I have little interest in or respect for a "science" whose claims can lie anywhere between fact and pure fantasy. So I will leave such dubious and futile practices to the talkers, egotists, dreamers, space-cadets, charlatans and con-men of the world. When you were on "active duty", did you get wounded in the brain?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Huh?

Huh? That's not a very nice thing to say.

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4

A Darwinist is someone who accepts that all life on earth evolved from one or more unicellular bugs over millions of years. The moniker was not meant as an insult, but one must wonder about the psychological health of a Darwinist, as it is akin to being a Scientologist or a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon or a Branch Davidian.

Huh? I've learnt that I'd never in my life been called "dishonest ... a liar ... deceitful ...misleading ... disingenuous ... a hypocrite" until I started debating Darwinism cultists online.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Thank you for this information.