Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Relatively or Definitely, but not according to the world of sin that supported lies.

Or just not at all.

 

[Aaron112]

Evidence please.

All history in light of the truth.

 

[Jerry N.]

Okay... and where does the Fabian Society, a British socialist group that came up a full 25 years AFTER Darwin published On The Origin of Species?

You mostly answered yourself. Their idea of socialism pushed for government to be the highest authority, and evolution was a good tool to remove God from the picture, particularly when it came to eugenics. As you probably guessed, Marx had a great influence on their thinking.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mostly answered yourself. Their idea of socialism pushed for government to be the highest authority, and evolution was a good tool to remove God from the picture, particularly when it came to eugenics. As you probably guessed, Marx had a great influence on their thinking.

... nope, none of that tracks at all.

 

[Jerry N.]

... nope, none of that tracks at all.

I don't understand what doesn't "track."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't understand what doesn't "track."

Your claim. Darwin's original theory of natural selection and the subsequent theory of evolution really has and had no bearing on the formation of socialist groups in Europe in the mid to late 19th century.

 

[Jerry N.]

Your claim. Darwin's original theory of natural selection and the subsequent theory of evolution really has and had no bearing on the formation of socialist groups in Europe in the mid to late 19th century.

You don't see the connection between natural selection and eugenics or the idea of superior humans?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don't see the connection between natural selection and eugenics or the idea of superior humans?

You do know that eugenics was applied by main right-wing groups in Europe and the US more than it was by left-wing groups? That does not in anyway mean that Darwin was a fraud who got someone else to do the work for him as claimed specifically by the video in the OP.

 

[Jerry N.]

You do know that eugenics was applied by main right-wing groups in Europe and the US more than it was by left-wing groups? That does not in anyway mean that Darwin was a fraud who got someone else to do the work for him as claimed specifically by the video in the OP.

I have a fairly good understanding of the history of eugenics, and I don't think Darwin was a fraud, as I already wrote. I'm just saying that other people used his theories, both right and left, to promote their own political agendas. The Fabian Society was just one group.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have a fairly good understanding of the history of eugenics, and I don't think Darwin was a fraud, as I already wrote. I'm just saying that other people used his theories, both right and left, to promote their own political agendas. The Fabian Society was just one group.

Except that you didn't show that at all. You claimed it, and that's all you did.

Going off on bad tangents against your personal political views and how they've distorted your views of history is taking threads off-topic and can be seen as trolling in some cases. This definitely isn't trolling but it is majorly off-topic.

 

[Jerry N.]

Except that you didn't show that at all. You claimed it, and that's all you did.

Going off on bad tangents against your personal political views and how they've distorted your views of history is taking threads off-topic and can be seen as trolling in some cases. This definitely isn't trolling but it is majorly off-topic.

I wrote above, “Calling him a fraud is not quite right.” I don’t mean to troll or be too far off-topic. I just wanted to point out that Darwin is not fully to blame for the battle between evolution and creationism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I wrote above, “Calling him a fraud is not quite right.” I don’t mean to troll or be too far off-topic. I just wanted to point out that Darwin is not fully to blame for the battle between evolution and creationism.

No, that is fair. But going off about the Fabian Society IS going off topic since it has nothing to do with the video that OP posted, which is the core of the argument that the poster tried to make.

 

[Jerry N.]

No, that is fair. But going off about the Fabian Society IS going off topic since it has nothing to do with the video that OP posted, which is the core of the argument that the poster tried to make.

I understand the problem. I had difficulty in seeing the video on Facebook. I have managed to watch it just now. I jumped to the conclusion that Darwin was being blamed for more than he should, based on other posts. Even if Darwin got his information second hand, I don’t see how the theory is not partially his. Anyway, I’m sorry I was off-topic.

 

[Astrid]

Relatively or Definitely, but not according to the world of sin that supported lies.

For lies, just btw, all (100%) of claimed disproof of
evolution is, yes, fraudulent.

 

[Mountainmike]

The theory of biological evolution (the one theory we are discussing here) doesn't account for "life." It isn't intended to. It is intended to account for the origin of species.

Many serious scientists discuss them--including evolutionary biologists, even though they understand that the theory of evolution cannot fully account for either.

There is no single theory.
that is a myth,

So what is your hypothesis you say is confirmed to make your theory?

As for origin of species do you claim “ all” species ?
which case you are trying to account for all present life.

 

[BCP1928]

There is no single theory.
that is a myth,

So what is your hypothesis you say is confirmed to make your theory?

As for origin of species do you claim “ all” species ?
which case you are trying to account for all present life.

No, only its present diversity.

 

[Jerry N.]

No, only its present diversity.

I think the idea is that there is no evidence for macro-evolution, e.g., a fish becoming a reptile or a reptile becoming a mammal. That is different from micro-evolution, e.g., a wolf becoming a dog. Is that what you mean?

 

[Astrid]

I think the idea is that there is no evidence for macro-evolution, e.g., a fish becoming a reptile or a reptile becoming a mammal. That is different from micro-evolution, e.g., a wolf becoming a dog. Is that what you mean?

The evidence is very extensive, but if you
have a well presented explanation for the
sequence of transitional forms by all
means tell us.

im guessing you don’t know much, but
would be very interested to be shown wrong.

 

[Astrid]

All history in light of the truth.

Your “Truth” or logical conclusion based in concrete facts.

 

[Jerry N.]

The evidence is very extensive, but if you
have a well presented explanation for the
sequence of transitional forms by all
means tell us.

im guessing you don’t know much, but
would be very interested to be shown wrong.

I think you are assuming too much. I was primarily trying to get a clarification of BCP1928's statement.