The "damnable doctrine" of Charles Darwin

[Sunni Man]

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.

The public has been led to believe that evolution is an absolute fact and not just another theory.

 

[Care4all]

hitler was clearly a darwinist

1)'darwinist' is a meaningless word

2)every medical doctor in the world accepts evolution. If you don't think evolution is a fact, try explaining inoculations.

Evolution is a fact, but what Darwin believed and other Scientists as well at the time is that we evolved from the Chimpanzee, which has been proven incorrect...we did not evolve from the Chimp or an Ape....as was taught to my generation in school.... google ardi.

 

[Father Time]

Hitler was definetly a student of Darwin

You know no matter how many times you repeat that it still won't be relevant.

 

[gcomeau]

hitler was clearly a darwinist

1)'darwinist' is a meaningless word

2)every medical doctor in the world accepts evolution. If you don't think evolution is a fact, try explaining inoculations.

Evolution is a fact, but what Darwin believed and other Scientists as well at the time is that we evolved from the Chimpanzee, which has been proven incorrect...we did not evolve from the Chimp or an Ape....as was taught to my generation in school.... google ardi.

Evolutionary theory has always held that humans and modern primates are descended from common ancestry, NOT that humans descended from modern primates (like chimps). I challenge you to present any evolutionary biology text produced any time in the last century that said "humans evolved from chimps".

If you were taught that in high school science class or something, then you had an incompetent instructor.

 

[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.

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.

The public has been led to believe that evolution is an absolute fact and not just another theory.

Science. Absolute fact. Theory.

As far as I know science is not that keen on "absolute facts". If science was about "absolute facts" it would have stopped years ago. I think it's more accurate to talk about tentative explanations.

"Theory" has a specific meaning in science. For me anyway it lines up with "accepted explanation for an observed phenomenon" - well that's my untutored understanding of it.

 

[JW Frogen]

The public has been led to believe that evolution is an absolute fact and not just another theory.

Gravity is a scientific theory, empircally proved, like evolution.

Jump off a building and say God there is no gravity, let's see how that works out for you?

 

[Sunni Man]

The public has been led to believe that evolution is an absolute fact and not just another theory.

Gravity is a scientific theory, empircally proved, like evolution.

You might want to back off that statement Frogen.

Evolution has NOT been "empirically" proven.

 

[gcomeau]

The public has been led to believe that evolution is an absolute fact and not just another theory.

Gravity is a scientific theory, empircally proved, like evolution.

You might want to back off that statement Frogen.

Evolution has NOT been "empirically" proven.

After making a claim like that you know what now would be a GREAT time for? Answering the question you've been avoiding for well over a week about whether you have found anything in the data I presented to you that was incorrect or invalid. How about it? Or do you need yet another week to think it over?

Because it seems to me you're all about single sentence statements that evolution is "unproven" or "nonsense" or "pseudoscience" with absolutely no backing or explanation or reference to the evidence... but getting you to address the actual data is like pulling teeth.

 

[Sunni Man]

I had a guy build a house for me once.

Every time he nailed a board.

He didn't say, "ya like it"?

I was waiting for the completed project.

He said he could build it.

So the proof is in the finished product.

Not in the construction.

 

[gcomeau]

I had a guy build a house for me once.

Good for you. This is nothing like that. Stop dodging the question. I've posted relatively detailed information on everything from radiometric dating methods to geologic column composition to genetic analysis to the fosil record...

Have. You. Found. Anything. Wrong. With. Any. Of. It. Yet?

Yes, or no? Or you could just keep running away from the question because you know where this is leading and refuse to admit it.

 

[Sunni Man]

I am NOT refusing to admit anything.

You are like a salesman trying to sell me a half assembled product.

I am the customer who is saying. "I only want to purchase a finished product".

So either show me the completed product you claimed you could produce.

Or admit you really don't have one.

 

[gcomeau]

I am NOT refusing to admit anything.

Great! Then this time you'll answer right? Instead of dodging the question for... what, the 15th time in a row?

Have you found anything wrong with the data presented so far? Note that not one fucking time have I asked you "Do you accept that I've proven evolution is true". So stop pretending like I'm doing anything of the kind. I am asking you only to judge what has already been fully laid out in front of you. And you have been doing everything you can manage to avoind doing it.

Now stop dodging and answer.

 

[Sunni Man]

I am NOT refusing to admit anything.

Great! Then this time you'll answer right?

Just answered you on post #249

Look. you initially said you were going to school me on evolution.

I only agreed to read all of your posts.

I NEVER said I would give you feedback on your individual posts during the process.

So either continue or forget it.

 

[gcomeau]

I am NOT refusing to admit anything.

Great! Then this time you'll answer right?

Just answered you on post #249

Really? I just read it again and saw absolutely no statement either verifying or rejecting the validity of the information I've presented so far. Why don't you just quote the part that was an answer to help me find it?

Here's my conclusion based on your behavior so far. You don't have a clue about evolutionary theory. You know next to nothing about genetics. Physics is completely beyond your grasp. You have no familiarity with geology. You feel perfectly comfortable issuing blanket unsupported statments about how evolution is "nonsense" or "pseudoscience" as long as you don't actually have to discuss anything involved in any level of detail whatsoever and can just stick to your unqualified pronouncements, but all of a sudden you found yourself in an exchange where the actual hard data was being dealt with. And the more it progressed the more you realized you were in way over your head. But you can't admit that so every time you're asked to so much as give a yes or no answer on the validity of that data you run for the hills to avoid facing the reality that data represents and is inexorably leading towards, wait a sufficient period of time, then go right back to making such in depth and insightful posts as "Evolution is unproven" while still ignoring all the actual data.

Of course I could be wrong. If so, it would be easy to demonstrate. DEAL with the data. At even the most basic simple level.

Answer. The. Question. Have you found anything incorrect or invalid in anything presented so far or not?

 

[Sunni Man]

Here's my conclusion based on your behavior so far. You don't have a clue about evolutionary theory. You know next to nothing about genetics. Physics is completely beyond your grasp. You have no familiarity with geology. You feel perfectly comfortable issuing blanket unsupported statments about how evolution is "nonsense" or "pseudoscience" as long as you don't actually have to discuss anything involved in any level of detail whatsoever and can just stick to your unqualified pronouncements, but all of a sudden you found yourself in an exchange where the actual hard data was being dealt with. And the more it progressed the more you realized you were in way over your head. But you can't admit that so every time you're asked to so much as give a yes or no answer on the validity of that data you run for the hills to avoid facing the reality that data represents and is inexorably leading towards,

And to think, all this time I thought you had a giant ego and were full of yourself

 

[gcomeau]

And to think, all this time I thought you had a giant ego and were full of yourself

That's question dodge number... what? 17?

Here, let me save you some time. Yep, I have a massive ego. Totally full of myself. I'm arrogant and I'm not particularly polite.

And you're still avoiding dealing with any of the information on this topic and you're not fooling anyone with these endless evasions. Try answering the question.

 

[Sunni Man]

And to think, all this time I thought you had a giant ego and were full of yourself

That's question dodge number... what? 17?

Here, let me save you some time. Yep, I have a massive ego. Totally full of myself. I'm arrogant and I'm not particularly polite.

And you're still avoiding dealing with any of the information on this topic and you're not fooling anyone with these endless evasions. Try answering the question.

Why are you stalling?

Either you have the evidence or you don't.

This is my LAST post to you about this issue.

If you continue to post your stages, I will continue to read them.

And will answer you at the conclusion of your case for evolution.

 

[gcomeau]

And to think, all this time I thought you had a giant ego and were full of yourself

That's question dodge number... what? 17?

Here, let me save you some time. Yep, I have a massive ego. Totally full of myself. I'm arrogant and I'm not particularly polite.

And you're still avoiding dealing with any of the information on this topic and you're not fooling anyone with these endless evasions. Try answering the question.

Why are you stalling?

Either you have the evidence or you don't.

You mean that stuff I]ve already filled 7 rather long posts with while you refused to so much as admit whether it was valid information or not at every single stage?

This is my LAST post to you about this issue.

In other words, you're running for it. Question avoided again.

 

[N4mddissent]

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.

I would say I have an open mind since I was once a creationist who came to accept evolution on the basis of understanding and evidence. You should visit talk.origins and I believe they will be able to answer all of your questions. Go to some science and skepticism messageboards and ask questions. I have spent time on christian message boards asking questions and I mostly encounter a great deal of ignorance about the theory of evolution and the origins of man. For one thing, I have never had a reasonable answer to one question in particular. If man did not evolve, then how do you explain the commonality of endogenous retro-viral insertions and how their frequency aligns with expected morphological distance?

I guess the main point I was trying to make is that there is no purpose in pointing out that Darwin held views that were racist by today's standards, but commonplace and even enlightened in the context of his time. It seems intentionally dishonest on your part to present such information out of context. And while Darwin was influential, he alone did not drive the cultural tide. Eugenics, by it's nature, is artificial selection, not natural selection. I suggest you look more toward Herbert Spencer for taking evolutionary theory and attempting to apply it to social systems.

In any case, it does not reflect on evolutionary theory itself. Even if human evolution were to validate ideas about eugenics, it does not affect the factual basis of human evolution.

You say you are Catholic? You support an organization that burned people alive. Priests representing your church flayed Hypatia alive with oyster shells. It tortured Bruno in a horrible manner for supporting a Copernican view of the solar system. It placed Galileo under house arrest for his entire life for his beliefs. How many were tortured and maimed and killed by the Inquisition? And the holy book of all christianity has multiple incidents where your god directly orders the genocide- men, women, and children- of entire groups of people just simply so "his" people could take their land. Yet you post about how darwin's racist opinions, common for his time, might have influenced other men to do evil?

Forgive me if I am astonished at the hypocrisy.

 

[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.

I would say I have an open mind since I was once a creationist who came to accept evolution on the basis of understanding and evidence. You should visit talk.origins and I believe they will be able to answer all of your questions. Go to some science and skepticism messageboards and ask questions. I have spent time on christian message boards asking questions and I mostly encounter a great deal of ignorance about the theory of evolution and the origins of man. For one thing, I have never had a reasonable answer to one question in particular. If man did not evolve, then how do you explain the commonality of endogenous retro-viral insertions and how their frequency aligns with expected morphological distance?

I guess the main point I was trying to make is that there is no purpose in pointing out that Darwin held views that were racist by today's standards, but commonplace and even enlightened in the context of his time. It seems intentionally dishonest on your part to present such information out of context. And while Darwin was influential, he alone did not drive the cultural tide. Eugenics, by it's nature, is artificial selection, not natural selection. I suggest you look more toward Herbert Spencer for taking evolutionary theory and attempting to apply it to social systems.

In any case, it does not reflect on evolutionary theory itself. Even if human evolution were to validate ideas about eugenics, it does not affect the factual basis of human evolution.

You say you are Catholic? You support an organization that burned people alive. Priests representing your church flayed Hypatia alive with oyster shells. It tortured Bruno in a horrible manner for supporting a Copernican view of the solar system. It placed Galileo under house arrest for his entire life for his beliefs. How many were tortured and maimed and killed by the Inquisition? And the holy book of all christianity has multiple incidents where your god directly orders the genocide- men, women, and children- of entire groups of people just simply so "his" people could take their land. Yet you post about how darwin's racist opinions, common for his time, might have influenced other men to do evil?

Forgive me if I am astonished at the hypocrisy.

Do not ask me for forgiveness, I pointed out the truth and you call it "hypocrisy." I pointed out the legacy of Darwin's theory in social application and how this doctrine eventually destroyed the British and you rail against the historical facts.

A true "rationalist" might have objected to specific historical interpretations in my original post, which you were unable, but would not have condemned without any reference. A true rationalist would not consider Darwin's dehumanizing views justified by other existing dehumanizingl views.

I was the first one too point out to your rude friend that war was form of unnatural selection while also pointing out Darwin's vision of unnatural selection in some futuristic racial war of annihilation, check the record. Since then, you have tried to pick up the fallen standard of you rude friend and make your "dishonest" argument.

Just as I am an American I do not blindly follow or condone what has been done in the name of the United States and of course a true rationalist should understand this distinction of membership. I do not call for the cencorship of any accurate history including the history Catholic Church as you do the truth on Darwin. I do not say that a barbarity of an era justifies any barbarity in that same era by Church members, a true rationalist could understand this point. Darwin's undeniable influence was the point and it is another "dishonest" argument to say that "he alone did not drive the cultural tide." Who alone does drive a cultural tide?

The 'Holy Book of Christianity' may not be as definite as you may believe. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the OT is not stressed, the NT is as I already pointed out on this thread. The Catholic Church does not encourage private interpretation of the Bible nor stress Bible study. I my view other Christian groups put way too much emphasis on the OT as elements of the OT and NT seem incompatible. The basis of Christanity should be the "Sermon on the Mount" not the OT, that Covenant was not mine.

My views on evolution were clearily stated which you are apparently unable to understand and of course unaware of the theorists whose names I listed. If your posts continue to be related only in the most abstract sense to mine I will probably no longer respond.