My Darwin Quote Challenge

[DaisyDay]

If you're talking to me, I wasn't advocating no such thing.

Do the negatives cancel each other out here?

I just asked for an explanation of a single sentence attributed to him.

That's known as a "concern troll".

 

[AV1611VET]

Do the negatives cancel each other out here?

-- I did that on purpose.

I often put stuff like that in my replies to see if the person I'm responding to is awake.

Good catch.

 

[Smidlee]

Oh, you mean the bible.

Nope. You are mistaken.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope. You are mistaken.

Not hardly, I've actually read it.

 

[Smidlee]

Not hardly, I've actually read it.

Then you should know and without an excuse. If I meant "the Bible" I would have wrote it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then you should know and without an excuse. If I meant "the Bible" I would have wrote it.

You would have written your own bible?

 

[Smidlee]

You would have written your own bible?

Are you having trouble understanding?

 

[HitchSlap]

Are you having trouble understanding?

It's beginning to feel that way. You?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you're talking to me, I wasn't advocating no such thing.

I just asked for an explanation of a single sentence attributed to him.

And now you have your explanation. Satisfied?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think they left the building before Mr. Darwin showed up.

Well, there's your difference -- Darwin predicts extermination; God commands it.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Well, do YOU see any Moabites around?

They are called Jordanians today. Teutons/Alemans are called Germans. Assyrians are called Syrians. Lusitanians are called Portuguese. Names change.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Right. You're just asking questions that happen make him sound like a vicious racist.

Darwin, the PERSON, did some weird things in his life.

Apparently he married a very close relative and advocated some weird ideas.

But that's the case with every ideologue, for every accepted idea they have, there's some weird stuff. Plato is generally remembered in positive terms today, but held some weird views on women and medicine, for example. Some of the founding fathers maye have been slave-owners, but also theoretically held to some great principles. Nothing is one-sided.

Now for the reality check:

As to whether Darwin's personal eccentricity has any bearing on the "theory of evolution" as understood or professed by contemporary people, that seems unlikely. People generally see it as a science, like math, and hence don't draw any connection between the person and the idea named after or associated with him. You can be an evil person and still be a good mathematician, and hence the person doesn't matter relative to the science. So discrediting Darwin doesn't make a difference to Darwinists.

And indeed, they don't call themselves Darwinists, it is we that refer to them as Darwinists. They accept the theory of Evolution, they don't accept Darwinism, since the person is not important to them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin, the PERSON, did some weird things in his life.

Didn't he leave his medical studies and family behind to go on a long trip and ended up bringing back a communicable disease?

 

[Hoshiyya]

Didn't he leave his medical studies and family behind to go on a long trip and ended up bringing back a communicable disease?

I wouldn't be surprised, but my point is, to Evolutionists that doesn't make a difference.

Attacking Darwin the person is not really important to them. He could have been a ku klux klan grand wizard who grills baby kittens on a spike, it doesn't matter, because the idea is that evolution is science.

So, just as you can be an evil person and still be a good mathematician, Darwin's personality cannot discredit Evolutionism. You cannot convince them to reconsider the theory of evolution except by discrediting the theory itself. Attacking Darwin is not the same as discrediting Evolutionism/Darwinism, in their view.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wouldn't be surprised, but my point is, to Evolutionists that doesn't make a difference.

I agree.

Does the same apply to attacking Jesus?

 

[Hoshiyya]

I wouldn't be surprised, but my point is, to Evolutionists that doesn't make a difference.

I agree.

Does the same apply to attacking Jesus?

Attacking Jesus is usually the same as attacking the ideas associated with or attributed to him, as with Buddha or Mohammed. Whereas the theory of Evolution is treated as math, a subject where your person and your morality do not have bearing.

So if we want people who assume Evolutionism to be true to reconsider their assumption, we shouldn't waste time on arguments that do not actually convince them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Attacking Jesus is usually the same as attacking the ideas associated with or attributed to him, as with Buddha or Mohammed. Whereas the theory of Evolution is treated as math, a subject where your personal morality does not have bearing.

So if we want people who assume Evolutionism to be true to reconsider their assumption, we shouldn't waste time on argument that do not actually convince them.

Nice to meet you, by the way.

 

[Hoshiyya]

hey there

 

[Hoshiyya]

I'm not trying to derail, or negate the value of, the thread, but I want to emphasize that IF the goal is to convince evolutionists to reconsider the theory of evolution as they understand it, it would be a waste of time to attack the person or personal morality of Darwin.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not trying to derail, or negate the value of, the thread, but I want to emphasize that IF the goal is to convince evolutionists to reconsider the theory of evolution as they understand it, it would be a waste of time to attack the person or personal morality of Darwin.

What about trying to convince them on the basis of a literal translation of the Bible?