evolution and scientists motives

[AV1611VET]

Did you understand the relevance of his point or did it sail past you in your happy pink cloud of denial?

I'll call his bluff and say that he can't daisy-chain a list of people who say Darwin wrote The Preservation of Favoured Races.

I could make my challenge much harder and require him to daisy-chain a list of people who say George Washington was our first President, but I am hoping he understands the point I am making.

Anyone can say A didn't write B.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since I take it your answer is NO, I'll go ahead and take your point with a grain of salt.

Your daisy chain request is the absolutely worse sort of evidence. Did you ever play "telephone" in school where a story was related through a series of tellers? The original story is always greatly changed. That is what you are requesting with a daisy chain.

Eye witnesses who recorded their observations at the time are much more valuable than a story told multiple times over. In a court of law just one person relating a story changes it to hearsay. Where the various periodicals, books, etc. of the time are perfectly legal evidence.

As usual you have your priorities backwards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll call his bluff and say that he can't daisy-chain a list of people who say Darwin wrote The Preservation of Favoured Races.

I could make my challenge much harder and require him to daisy-chain a list of people who say George Washington was our first President, but I am hoping he understands the point I am making.

Anyone can say A didn't write B.

Yes, an incredibly pointless and wrong one.

 

[Tomk80]

Just to be sure, does AV mean people like Thomas Henry Huxley who wrote to Darwin:
"I finished your book yesterday. . . Since I read Von Baer's Essays nine years ago no work on Natural History Science I have met with has made so great an impression on me & I do most heartily thank you for the great store of new views you have given me. . .
As for your doctrines I am prepared to go to the Stake if requisite. . .
I trust you will not allow yourself to be in any way disgusted or annoyed by the considerable abuse & misrepresentation which unless I greatly mistake is in store for you. . . And as to the curs which will bark and yelp -- you must recollect that some of your friends at any rate are endowed with an amount of combativeness which (though you have often & justly rebuked it) may stand you in good stead -- "

Or more in the direction of letters from his publisher John Murray, affirming he is the actual author?
"
My Dear Sir
I enclose my amended note of hand for £372 for the 3rd edition of your work on Speciesf1
This, as far as I can judge, is the amount of 23d profit arising from 2000 copies.f2 There are always contingencies arising—such as advertising expences, which make it difficult to fix beforehand the precise profits on any work.f3 Thus in the first Edition—the sum I gave you turned out far more than 23d or at least my share eventually fell below 13 considerably.f4
Moreover it must be borne in mind that it is not a mere rule of 3 sum to calculate profits of a book— Thus—the 3rd. Edn. of 2000 Copies cost only £70. less than 3000 of the 3rd. edition. Moreover this last is increased by two sheets beyond the second edition 23 shts instead of 21.
I enter into these details to prevent any misunderstanding and hope I have been successful.
If we print any more editions I would prefer deferring the settlement untill the whole is disposed of when I could arrange the amount of 23ds. profit to the uttermost farthing.f5
I remain | Dear Sir | Yrs. Very faithfully | (signed) John Murray

C. Darwin Esq"



​

Just so I am clear on what kind of "argument" AV is currently making.

 

[Tomk80]

Or is he maybe referring to a chain of people who have publicly affirmed that Darwin did so?

Like Richard Keynes, who would have heard this from, Elizabeth Darwin, who would have heard this from George Howard Darwin, who would have known this because he was the son of Charles Darwin?

Not that I see why that would matter, since the abundant contemporary testimony to the fact that Darwin actually wrote the Origin of Species is much better evidence.

By the way, we also know Darwin was a very meticulous observer of nature, not because Darwin said so himself, but because we actually have a lot of contemporary evidence to that effect.

edited to add: I also suspect that he is not able to provide the evidence he requests for Darwin for the author of the gospel of Luke in any way, shape or form.

 

[Loudmouth]

The one major difference between Darwin's work and the Gospels is that Darwin's work can be verified. You don't believe that there are different finches on different islands that fill different niches? Fine, then go to the Galapogos islands yourself and check it out. This pertains to all of the observations made by Darwin. We dont' accept evolution because Darwin said it was true. We accept evolution because the empirical evidence supports the theory independent of what anyone claims.

We have empirical evidence that apes and humans share a common ancestor, both in the fossil record and in our genomes. Where is the empirical evidence that Jesus was a descendant of the Adam and Eve described in Genesis? Nowhere.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I'll call his bluff and say that he can't daisy-chain a list of people who say Darwin wrote The Preservation of Favoured Races.

I could make my challenge much harder and require him to daisy-chain a list of people who say George Washington was our first President, but I am hoping he understands the point I am making.

I'll try again. Did you understand the relevance of his point or did it sail past you in your happy pink cloud of denial?

Anyone can say A didn't write B.

Just as anyone can say A did write B, but it depends on who says it and what evidence they have to support their claim. This is the problem you have with Luke, but we don't with with Darwin.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have his own testimony. You seem to dismiss his testimony, though personal testimonies have put people away or exonerated them through our court system.


He says he is writing an orderly account of what happened. Ever read Luke 1:1-4?

People have also gone to jail for perjury.

There is even a case where a women misidentified her own rapist, and that rapist was later set free on the basis of forensic (i.e. empirical) evidence:

The Innocence Project - News and Information: Search Innocence Blog: Search

More to the point, if a young earth, separate species, and a recent global flood are all true, then why do we have mountains of evidence that directly contradict these claims?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just as anyone can say A did write B, but it depends on who says it and what evidence they have to support their claim.

What 'depends on who says it and what evidence they have to support their claim?'

Would you elaborate, please, on your 'it depends'?

This is the problem you have with Luke, but we don't with with Darwin.

Okay with you then, if I solve "my problem" our way (viz., with basic doctrine)?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What 'depends on who says it and what evidence they have to support their claim?'

Would you elaborate, please, on your 'it depends'?

The authenticity of the claim of authorship, which you raised, and the reliability of what they have written, which is where the topic started. To be fair, the only thing that really matters is evidence, but I was thinking as I was writing of you and good brother saying Luke is a meticulous historian - you saying it makes me immediately doubt it. But I should have left that bit out and written 'depends what evidence they have to support their claim'. As always, evidence is the only thing that matters.

Okay with you then, if I solve "my problem" our way (viz., with basic doctrine)?

No, because basic doctrine isn't of any use.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay with you then, if I solve "my problem" our way (viz., with basic doctrine)?

The same way that Bellarmine solved the problem of heliocentrism?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Okay with you then, if I solve "my problem" our way (viz., with basic doctrine)?

You mean self-serving egotism? Wouldn't expect anything else.

 

[good brother]

People have also gone to jail for perjury.

There is even a case where a women misidentified her own rapist, and that rapist was later set free on the basis of forensic (i.e. empirical) evidence:

The Innocence Project - News and Information: Search Innocence Blog: Search

More to the point, if a young earth, separate species, and a recent global flood are all true, then why do we have mountains of evidence that directly contradict these claims?

You should read Subduction's post just five posts above this one of yours I am quoting. He talks about the reliability of eyewitness accounts.

 

[Tomk80]

You should read Subduction's post just five posts above this one of yours I am quoting. He talks about the reliability of eyewitness accounts.

You should read his post. Subduction is talking about the reliability of eyewitness accounts versus hearsay. We are talking about eyewitness accounts, period.

Eyewitness accounts are not all that reliable. Hearsay is even less reliable.

 

[Loudmouth]

You should read Subduction's post just five posts above this one of yours I am quoting. He talks about the reliability of eyewitness accounts.

I am talking about eyewitness accounts as well. In this case, scientific evidence overturned a conviction based on an eyewitness account where the eyewitness misidentified her own rapist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Back to my claims about how the evidence of actual eye witnesses is superior to the requested daisy chain. Actual eye witnesses can, and have know to be wrong. Especially if they report different stories. That is why numerous eyewitnesses are always preferable. Their stories can be check against each other for consistency. If they are all very consistent that adds credibility to their claims. If they have varying stories that makes their claims a bit questionable.

For example compare all of the almost identical references to Darwin's writing of the Origins of the Species compared to the four different versions of Christs resurrection in the Gospels. They do not agree on who went to see Jesus first, when they went, how many men or angels were present, and who they talked to afterwards.

Meanwhile if we had a daisy chain account as requested, which would be the worst sort of evidence, of either the Gospels or Darwin's work it is reasonable that we might get a halfway decent account of Darwin's book since it could be done with a handful of chains. To go back to Jesus's time it would take close to 100. And of course there would be countless different variations since the story would not be told to only one person.

When the Gospels were chosen, there were not always just four. They had to choose which versions were the most likely. Some of them were way out there and not much more than children's stories full of miracles and not much more.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Back to my claims about how the evidence of actual eye witnesses is superior to the requested daisy chain. Actual eye witnesses can, and have know to be wrong. Especially if they report different stories. That is why numerous eyewitnesses are always preferable. Their stories can be check against each other for consistency. If they are all very consistent that adds credibility to their claims. If they have varying stories that makes their claims a bit questionable.

For example compare all of the almost identical references to Darwin's writing of the Origins of the Species compared to the four different versions of Christs resurrection in the Gospels. They do not agree on who went to see Jesus first, when they went, how many men or angels were present, and who they talked to afterwards.

Meanwhile if we had a daisy chain account as requested, which would be the worst sort of evidence, of either the Gospels or Darwin's work it is reasonable that we might get a halfway decent account of Darwin's book since it could be done with a handful of chains. To go back to Jesus's time it would take close to 100. And of course there would be countless different variations since the story would not be told to only one person.

When the Gospels were chosen, there were not always just four. They had to choose which versions were the most likely. Some of them were way out there and not much more than children's stories full of miracles and not much more.

Many eyewitness accounts is not better than one. It's like saying many turds is better than one. In fact it's worse, because if they coincidentally happen to agree on some important details, it gives a false sense of accuracy and turns normally intelligent, thinking people into little more than a foaming-at-the-mouth rabid mob.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many eyewitness accounts is not better than one. It's like saying many turds is better than one. In fact it's worse, because if they coincidentally happen to agree on some important details, it gives a false sense of accuracy and turns normally intelligent, thinking people into little more than a foaming-at-the-mouth rabid mob.

I disagree on that. If they all have the same testimony and it is clear that they have not communicated with each other in any way it is reasonable to assume that they all witnessed the same event.

In fact if multiple witnesses are not telling the truth one thing that consistently occurs is that they all tell a different story when it comes to the details. That is why a good prosecutor separates the witnesses and the defendants since the main concern of a good prosecutor is to bring the right person to justice.