The "damnable doctrine" of Charles Darwin

[gcomeau]

Look Gcomeau, I am reading each of the stages as you post.

Please continue

I have every intention of continuing. But you just avoided the question again. And considering what an absolutely ridiculously simple question it is I find it disturbing that you appear absolutely hell bent on refusing to answer it.

While you were reading the posts, have you yet come across any information in them which you consider incorrect/nonsense/pseudoscience? Yes or no?

If yes, what?

 

[Sunni Man]

I am reserving my opinion and statement till after I have read your last post on the subject.

 

[gcomeau]

I am reserving my opinion and statement till after I have read your last post on the subject.

Why?

What exactly could I possibly say in my last post that would determine whether or not I had previously accurately described the physical processes involved in radiometric dating? Are the laws of physics suddenly going to become dependent on my future statements?


What is it you're waiting for me to hypothetically say that will determine whether I correctly or incorrectly explained the geological column? If I say one thing will the earth's crust re-arrange itself to then determine I was describing it accurately, but if I say something else it'll re-arrange itself in a different way and I'l have described it innaccurately?


What is there to "reserve judgement" on?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

how?

oh, the ultimate troll stopper: asking them to support something. so I guess I can assume you're going to ignore this post and continue trolling other people now?

looks like i pinned ya pretty well there

I am reserving my opinion and statement till after I have read your last post on the subject.

why? uh oh - another one of those anti-troll questions you have to ignore!

 

[gcomeau]

I am reserving my opinion and statement till after I have read your last post on the subject.

Why?

What exactly could I possibly say in my last post that would determine whether or not I had previously accurately described the physical processes involved in radiometric dating? Are the laws of physics suddenly going to become dependent on my future statements?


What is it you're waiting for me to hypothetically say that will determine whether I correctly or incorrectly explained the geological column? If I say one thing will the earth's crust re-arrange itself to then determine I was describing it accurately, but if I say something else it'll re-arrange itself in a different way and I'l have described it innaccurately?


What is there to "reserve judgement" on?

Any time you feel like answering will be fine with me...

 

[gcomeau]

I am reserving my opinion and statement till after I have read your last post on the subject.

Why?

What exactly could I possibly say in my last post that would determine whether or not I had previously accurately described the physical processes involved in radiometric dating? Are the laws of physics suddenly going to become dependent on my future statements?


What is it you're waiting for me to hypothetically say that will determine whether I correctly or incorrectly explained the geological column? If I say one thing will the earth's crust re-arrange itself to then determine I was describing it accurately, but if I say something else it'll re-arrange itself in a different way and I'l have described it innaccurately?


What is there to "reserve judgement" on?

Any time you feel like answering will be fine with me...

...even if it takes days and days, no problem at all. Really. I can wait.

 

[Ryan]

A recently published statement on current scientific knowledge on cosmic evolution and biological evolution from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences concludes: "The extraordinary progress in our understanding of evolution and the place of man in nature should be shared with everyone. ... Furthermore, scientists have a clear responsibility to contribute to the quality of education, especially as regards the subject of evolution." The statement appears in the proceedings of "Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life," a plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held from October 31 to November 4, 2008....

Nobel laureate Christian DE Dive summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation ***t the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories," noting ***t there was also wide agreement among the participants on the common ancestry of life on earth. "Evolution," he added, "has acquired the status of established fact...."

The latest on evolution from the Vatican | NC SE

.

Yeah, thanks for the second posting. I caught it the first time since I went through the posts again to try and understand some of the misunderstandings.

Pope John Paul II may have totally embraced evolution as many Catholics have with no contradiction to their faith. Until an encyclical is established then there is no "authoritative finality" and of course the current Pope Benedict probably will not lean in that direction. The Pontifical Academy Sciences are also within their right to embrace evolution but this body and its conclusions do not have the authority on their own to make official doctrine. The PAS is not going to excommunicate the anyone for denouncing the theory of evolution.

As I mentioned in post #141 the Catholic Church is neutral. The PAS is influential but so is Austrian Cardinal Schoenborn on Pope Benedict but until a Pope speaks 'excathedra" then the last doctrine was established by Pope Pius XII in 1950. I do not believe that any one is still making the point that the encyclical "Humani Generis" was not cautious neutral statement.

 

[Ryan]

N4, I went through and read the posts and never saw a direct quote of mine that you challenged. Instead you kept making some point about terms are either synonymous or you state that I am 'rambling.' I am under no obligation to defend a position I never tried to establish, the bottom line you do not like the OP. I have read many posts that I wanted to respond to but did not bother just because it requires time and effort and there really is no payoff but you stayed with this one for awile. I got a few comments that found the OP interesting, to each his own. Still it seems odd to resent a topic just because you unable to appreciate the information.

You do make a valid point that Darwin was very much like his contemporaries. An important difference is that Darwin was influential, he was not just an obscure figure. I believe you also point out that the "Founding Fathers" had many flaws which is true and well acknowledged in history but was beyond the scope of my post. I have no objection to whatever praise is due Darwin be given but it should cut both ways. The OP was focusing mainly on eugenics and I pointed out the American eugenicist Margret Sanger.

Eugenics are still a valid concern today where the powerful Rockefeller family were early advocates and IMO should never be trusted. Since the topic came up before, the Malthusian eugenics championed by Cecil Rhodes is linked directly to Royal Institute of International Affairs or current known as the Chatum House. I am also concerned how a eugenicist like John Holdren holds the position of Directer of WH Office of Sciences. Trust who ever you want, I trust few powerful people.

As far as evolution goes I was very clear throughout the complete thread. What I questioned was the origin of modern man. Yet the topic evolution was at the forefront not because of me but because that's the only way other knew how to make their points.

I am a Catholic but my beliefs are influenced in part by researcher like Sitchen, van Doniken, Pye and many others that do not seem to be Christians. The field of intelligent design is more involved then anyone here seemed to appreciate and like any other field far from established fact. But at least I am willing to consider other theories.

It worth noting that evolution was the subject of one of the longest hoax's in history with the "Piltdown Man." Other cases like "Kennewick Man", the hobbit like "Floresiesis" skeletons or the "Ice Man" really highlight the shot comings of of widely accepted theories and the protective nature of conventional thinking.

An interesting case involving Thomas E. Lee, of the National Museum of Canada, found some highly advanced tools on Manitoulin Island on Lake Huron. The tools were shown to be at least 65,000 years old and perhaps as old as 125,000 years. Because of his find was inconsistent with the established scientific theories, Lee was "hounded" at his job forcing him to resigned. Lee was ostracized in his field and his work was misrepresented. The tools vanished and the museum director was fired for supporting Lee.

The authors of "Forbidden Archeology" Cremo and Thompson, note that the "treatment of Lee was not an isolated case." As they explain, "there exists in the scientific community a knowledge filter that screens out unwelcome evidence. The process of knowledge filtration has been going on for well over a century and continues right up to the present day." Or as explained by another anonymous researcher, "realize, that scientific institutions , such as the Smithsonian and the National Geographic Society, are set up by the world's elite factions in the first place to either debunk, distort or simply ignore any scientific data that tends to enlighten people about their true origins."

The field of "science" has a spotty record even though some seem to feel it is a source of absolute truth. I see keeping one's my mind opened as the "rational" thing to do.

 

[Diuretic]

I think anyone who thinks that science provides some sort of "absolute truth" is either unsure of what science can do or is intent on denigrating it. I don't know how to do science but I'm pretty sure I know that "absolute truth" isn't something a scientist would claim.

I would imagine that science, like any other human endeavour, is subject to the vagaries of human behaviour. There will be frauds, cheats, plagiarists, liars, charlartans and other undesirables in science just like there are in every other field of human concern. But the individuals who fail to live up to the rules don't invalidate the process that the rules are intended to support and protect.

 

[JW Frogen]

I think anyone who thinks that science provides some sort of "absolute truth" is either unsure of what science can do or is intent on denigrating it.

I am sick of science telling me what to do.

I am going to drink so much that my liver should give up but it will not, it will tell science to go fuck itself in it's empirical ass.

I am going to win this one.

 

[JW Frogen]

And don't even get me started on God!!!!!!!!

 

[Diuretic]

I think anyone who thinks that science provides some sort of "absolute truth" is either unsure of what science can do or is intent on denigrating it.

I am sick of science telling me what to do.

I am going to drink so much that my liver should give up but it will not, it will tell science to go fuck itself in it's empirical ass.

I am going to win this one.

Science can tell us what, it probably can't tell us "should" - well not without gummint hopping in. I'm with you though, tell me then let me make my decisions. I must admit, even though I am a Labor voter I am getting a bit ticked with some of the messages from Roxon.

 

[Diuretic]

And don't even get me started on God!!!!!!!!

He gets a lot of aggro. I bet He sometimes wishes He never bothered in the first place!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Intelligent design is not science and belongs in a humanties, liberal arts, or comparative philosophy classroom. Evolution is part of biology and belongs in a science classroom. To mix the two gives a credence to ID that it does not deserve and detract from what evolution is about.

So, once and finally, Darwinisn neither "damnable" nor a "doctrine". It is a scientific theory were as ID is not. Let's move on.

 

[Ryan]

BTW, I did notice that encyclical 159 was cited as the first support of evolution being part of the Catholic belief system and not "Humani Generis."

Catechism
159. 159. Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

Hardly a ringing endorsement of anything since man's is referred to as an "appearance."

 

[Ryan]

Intelligent design is not science and belongs in a humanties, liberal arts, or comparative philosophy classroom. Evolution is part of biology and belongs in a science classroom. To mix the two gives a credence to ID that it does not deserve and detract from what evolution is about.

So, once and finally, Darwinisn neither "damnable" nor a "doctrine". It is a scientific theory were as ID is not. Let's move on.

I have no problem with your categorization of "intelligent design." I do remember a similar argument against evolution being a scientific fact and therefore needing a similiar catagory. I believe the main argument was centered around the beliefs of a gent named Popper and you were commenting on the thread. Again, though the merits evolution were never what I referred to as "damnable doctrine" it was his social views. Since another poster claim I did not list enough of his views to prove that Darwin advocated a social application I will list more. You can go ahead and move on.

 

[Ryan]

The Racism of Charles Darwin

A Compendium of Quotes

By Ryan Thoryk

Original textual analysis by James M. Foard, From The Nebulous Hypothesis: A Study of the Philosophical and Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory

Beginning of 1st chapter

-proposing the idea that there are variants of man

"He who wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties; and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals."

Origin of Man, final paragraph of the Instinct chapter

-stating that the strongest in a species live, and the weakest die

"Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, ants making slaves, the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings--namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die."

First page, 1st chapter

-states that the variants could possibly be complete sub-species, not just variants

"It might also naturally be enquired whether man, like so many other animals, has given rise to varieties and sub-races, differing but slightly from each other, or to races differing so much that they must be classed as doubtful species?"

First page, 1st chapter

-wonders if a "race war" would be beneficial to mankind

"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct?"

1st page, 1st chapter

-answers YES to the previous question

"We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals."

Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man

-dreams of a future for mankind when the black races of man, as well as the mountain gorilla of Africa, will hopefully become extinct, thus enhancing the chances for the evolutionary advancement of the more "civilized" races of man

-also states that both blacks and Aborigines occupy a sub-species between white Caucasians and Baboons

-he did not observe that they were "endangered species", he encouraged extinction

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Chapter 7

-states that he will describe the differences between the sub-species (races) of man

"It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men; but I am about to inquire what is the value of the differences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how they have originated."

-then gives opinions from both sides of the debate

Descent, Chapter 7, p.347, Benton Edition

-likens the terms "sub-species" and "race"

"Some naturalists have lately employed the term "sub-species" to designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term "sub-species" might here be used with propriety. But from long habit the term "race" will perhaps always be employed. The choice of terms is only so far important in that it is desirable to use, as far as possible, the same terms for the same degrees of difference."

Descent, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man: Sub-species

-refers to races as sub-species, and explains why they should be sub-species and not full species.

"In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate."

Descent, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man, pp.343

-differentiates between the different "races" and claims that some have different mental capabilities than others

"The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties."

Descent, Chapter Five: On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During Primeval and Civilized Times: Natural selection as affecting civilized nations.

-shows that his racist viewpoint of non-Aryan races to include even the Irish

"A most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."

Descent, ibid.

-claims that none of the European nations owe their "superiority" to Greek ancestry

"The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks", to whom he referred in a quote from Greg as "'corrupt to the very core.'"

Chapter Seven of the Descent, On the Races of Man: On the Extinction of the Races of Man

-explains what happens when primitive cultures come in contact with more "advanced" nations

"The partial or complete extinction of many races of man is historically known . . . Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race . . .the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption . . .When civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race."

Ibid.

-States that it would be very good if wealthy nations replaces the less privileged races in his above quoted power struggle

"But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilized races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."

Comparison with 10th chapter of Hitler’s Mein Kampf:

"Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife . . .where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed, one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings . . . let the strongest live and the weakest die."

Another comparison; speech by Adolf Hitler, 4/13/23 in Munich:

" So the strength which each people possesses decides the day. Always before god and the world the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills. History proves: He who has not the strength - him the 'right in itself' profits not a whit. A world court without a world police would be a joke. And from what nations of the present League of Nations would then this force be recruited? Perhaps from the ranks of the old German Army? The whole world of nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness - an eternal victory of the strong over the weak. There would be nothing but decay in the whole of Nature if this were not so. States which should offend against the elementary law would fall into decay. You need not seek for long to find an example of such mortal decay: you can see it in the Reich of today...."

Comparison of Nuremberg law with Darwinian principles:

"Law for the Protection of Hereditary Health: The Attempt to Improve the German Aryan Breed."

Article 1, section 1: "Anyone who suffers from an inheritable disease may be surgically sterilized if, in the judgement of medical science, it could be expected that his descendants will suffer from serious inherited mental or physical defects."

Article 1, section II: "Anyone who suffers from one of the following is to be regarded as inheritable diseased within the meaning of this law:

1. Congenital feeble-mindedness

2. Schizophrenia

3. Manic-depression

4. Congenital epilepsy

5. Inheritable St. Vitus dance (Huntington's Chorea)

6. Hereditary blindness

7. Hereditary deafness

8. Serious inheritable malformations"

Article II section 1: ""Anyone who requests sterilization is entitled to it. If he be incapacitated or under a guardian because of low state of mental health or not yet 18 years of age, his legal guardian is empowered to make the request. In other cases of limited capacity the request must receive the approval of the legal representative. If a person be of age and has a nurse, the latter's consent is required."

Darwin, Descent of Man, Conclusion

"Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. . .Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man. . . .The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."

Descent of Man, Chapter Five, On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties during Primeval and Civilized Times: Natural Selection as affecting Civilized Nations.

"I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilized nations may be worth adding . . . With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. . . .The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected "

Darwin on Christianity (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Edited by Nora Barlow, W.W. Norton and Co., New York, London, 1958.):

"from its manifestly false history of the earth...and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

"[I can not see how] anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."

Comparison with Hitler: from Hitler's Secret Conversations, October 10, 1941

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical conclusion, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

Carl Marx on Darwin (Communist Manifesto dedication)

"Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle."

Excerpt about Social Darwinism from Darwin by Adrian Desmond and James Moore:

"‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous (to Darwin’s theory), an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start -‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain society."



Darwin’s primary racist viewpoints summed up:

Humans are divided into sub-species
The strongest live and the weakest die, which is good (Hitler and Marx agreed)
The sub-species are not simply variants
A "race war" would be beneficial to mankind
Blacks and Aborigines occupy a sub-species between Apes and Caucasians
The extinction of blacks and gorillas to advance the white "race" is good
Sub-species are also known as races
Different sub-species have different characteristics, such as mental capabilities
Irish are also non-Aryan and should be extinct
Europe doesn’t owe any ancestry to the Greeks
It would be good if a wealthy nation replaces a less privileged race
Christianity is a damnable doctrine, and Hitler agreed saying it is a rebellion against nature
Social Darwinism includes imperialism, racial extermination and sexual inequality and Darwinism was intended to explain society as a whole
"lower class" races should not normally be cared for; they should not multiply and should become extinct

The Racism of Charles Darwin

 

[Ryan]

I think anyone who thinks that science provides some sort of "absolute truth" is either unsure of what science can do or is intent on denigrating it. I don't know how to do science but I'm pretty sure I know that "absolute truth" isn't something a scientist would claim.

I would imagine that science, like any other human endeavour, is subject to the vagaries of human behaviour. There will be frauds, cheats, plagiarists, liars, charlartans and other undesirables in science just like there are in every other field of human concern. But the individuals who fail to live up to the rules don't invalidate the process that the rules are intended to support and protect.

Science is a field of study but limited by human understanding and of course impacted by human nature. I do not know any scientists that claim to have a source of absolute truth but I believe that many non-scientific minds believe that theory is absolute truth.

 

[Fatality]

Hitler was definetly a student of Darwin

 

[gcomeau]

Why?

What exactly could I possibly say in my last post that would determine whether or not I had previously accurately described the physical processes involved in radiometric dating? Are the laws of physics suddenly going to become dependent on my future statements?


What is it you're waiting for me to hypothetically say that will determine whether I correctly or incorrectly explained the geological column? If I say one thing will the earth's crust re-arrange itself to then determine I was describing it accurately, but if I say something else it'll re-arrange itself in a different way and I'l have described it innaccurately?


What is there to "reserve judgement" on?

Any time you feel like answering will be fine with me...

...even if it takes days and days, no problem at all. Really. I can wait.

It's good that you've been continuing to read the thread the last few days, indicated by your thanking people for posts in it. I can only assume that you've been doing so to review the data and decide what parts of it, if any, are invalid or incorrect.

I patiently await your conclusion... and will continue to do so (while periodically making sure it doesn't slip your mind... no need to thank me, I'm happy to do it.)