Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[AV1611VET]

And your uses of nonsensical lists is once again noted.

Then:

1. tell that to the folks who live in the Northwest Territory, Australia
2. lobby for Mr Darwin to be exhumed to another gravesite
3. burn all your £10 notes -- (or send them to me)
4. refuse to respect Mr Darwin's title.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

An example would be anyone who thinks that the ToE somehow alleviates them of having to engage, or in believing, the relevance of the Bible.

In that vain, I'd start historically with Darwin himself, move on then to the likes of Nietzsche and Marx, and then onto anyone else at any time who has since thought the ToE somehow alleviates them of valuing the person of Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Savior.

Obviously, not everyone who is a scientist or who takes the ToE as being valid has alleviated themselves in this way.

So three dead men. Good start. Also, nitpick- vein, not vain.

How much, what percentage, little/lot/half..................................................is a political question which I won't specifically broach.

I think it's enough to say that both strict Scientism and Evolutionism can be used in dishonest, even greedy, ways.

And so can religion.

It is good for me. It means I don't have to kow tow to the reigning interpretive zeitgeist.

But anything involving religion, especially the Bible in the Western English speaking world relies on interpretation.

Yes, and I'll continue to ignore what you're saying like you're ignoring me. TOUCHÉ

Childish. I was never saying that you were arguing the validity of the theory of evolution with the Lady Hope story and in fact I invite you to say where I did otherwise I'm calling that a lie. I said Creationists like AV like to use to try and cast a negative on the theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Answer the question put to you as it stands, please:

If you knew something that would fundamentally show an opposing idea put forward by a well-known and well-respected member of society, something only you knew that they apparently told you themselves, would you wait 30 years to put it out into the wider world?

Serious question.

Sure, why not?

That way you'll protect yourself from potential mob violence.

Let the dust settle.

Then lower the boom.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then:

1. tell that to the folks who live in the Northwest Territory, Australia
2. lobby for Mr Darwin to be exhumed to another gravesite
3. burn all your £10 notes -- (or send them to me)
4. refuse to respect Mr Darwin's title.

Sterling to Dollar is quite good right right - £10 for $12.40.

But no.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure, why not?

That way you'll protect yourself from potential mob violence.

Let the dust settle.

Then lower the boom.

You really think that in the 1880s, Lady Hope was at risk of being lynched if she put forward her story?

... serious question, and I probably have asked this before: have you ever thought about writing fiction? You do have the imagination for it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So three dead men. Good start. Also, nitpick- vein, not vain.

Thanks for the nitpick. I do make my share of ..........typoes............

And so can religion.

Right. I'm not denying that. But what I tire of is seeing people spout their sophistry that secular scientists never lie nor align themselves with those who can be greedy.

But anything involving religion, especially the Bible in the Western English speaking world relies on interpretation.

And so does much of science.

Childish. I was never saying that you were arguing the validity of the theory of evolution with the Lady Hope story and in fact I invite you to say where I did otherwise I'm calling that a lie. I said Creationists like AV like to use to try and cast a negative on the theory.

Yes, I know that brother AV does that. I don't. But my conversation with him was only pertaining to "I hope Darwin will be in heaven."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So three dead men. Good start. Also, nitpick- vein, not vain.



And so can religion.



But anything involving religion, especially the Bible in the Western English speaking world relies on interpretation.



Childish. I was never saying that you were arguing the validity of the theory of evolution with the Lady Hope story and in fact I invite you to say where I did otherwise I'm calling that a lie. I said Creationists like AV like to use to try and cast a negative on the theory.

And one more thing, if anything can be said in Darwin's favor, it's that we all know he was "a True Scotsman."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the nitpick. I do make my share of ..........typoes............

Oh, join the club. My fingers move faster than my brain. Shirt is one I often misspell for some daft reason. Makes sentences interesting.

Right. I'm not denying that. But what I tire of is seeing people spout their sophistry that secular scientists never lie nor align themselves with those who can be greedy.

And I think you'll find that's from a small minority of people, not the whole group.

And so does much of science.

Never alleged it didn't.

Yes, I know that brother AV does that. I don't. But my conversation that I was having with him was only pertaining to "I hope Darwin will be in heaven."

And I made no comment against that. I should know, I've gone back and checked. That's not been my issue regarding the use of the Lady Hope story in any way shape or form. As I have repeatedly said.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And one more thing, if anything can be said in Darwin's favor, it's that we all know he was "a True Scotsman."

... nope, no idea what you're referring to with this one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

... nope, no idea what you're referring to with this one.

It's a bad joke, Warden. Anyway, I do hope the rest of your day is pleasant.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's a bad joke, Warden. Anyway, I do hope the rest of your day is pleasant.

I'm currently down with a slight case of the cold (on the first of three weeks off work too! The luck!/s), so I'm chugging lots of fluids and paracetamol and trying not to inhale too much snot. But it could be worse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm currently down with a slight case of the cold (on the first of three weeks off work too! The luck!/s), so I'm chugging lots of fluids and paracetamol and trying not to inhale too much snot. But it could be worse.

Eeesh! Well, I sincerely hope you get to feeling better real soon. I'll trust that the inherent efficacy of your evolved immune system surges ahead, and in my trust of that validity, I'll add a little prayer, too.

 

[AV1611VET]

You really think that in the 1880s, Lady Hope was at risk of being lynched if she put forward her story?

I don't know.

It wouldn't surprise me though.

... serious question, and I probably have asked this before: have you ever thought about writing fiction?

Yes -- once or twice.

Didn't care much for it.

Tried reading it too.

I read almost all of Edgar Allan Poe, and attempted Longfellow, but quit in favor of prose.

You do have the imagination for it.

I'll take that as a mild insult.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know.

It wouldn't surprise me though.

I won't even ask why. The inner workings of your mind are an enigma to all but yourself and God.

I'll take that as a mild insult.

Didn't intend to, but if you want to it's your prerogative.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't really care for Dawkins and anyone who talks about a society getting 'weaker' or 'stronger' really is not worth my time, to be frank, since it's such a stupid metric.

At the beginning, Dawkins seems to be confused about what ancestors are. Unless he is not telling us everything about his own past, everyone of my ancestors and his not only reached the age for reproduction, but did so sucessfully

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

At the beginning, Dawkins seems to be confused about what ancestors are. Unless he is not telling us everything about his own past, everyone of my ancestors and his not only reached the age for reproduction, but did so sucessfully

I didn't watch the video. As I said; I don't care for Dawkins and anyone who tries to talk about society in meaningless metrics like 'strong' and 'weak' is just... I ignore them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn't watch the video.

I'm not sure why it was posted. If we don't care about Darwin's conversion/social life/political opinions, why would we care about Dawkins'.

As I said; I don't care for Dawkins and anyone who tries to talk about society in meaningless metrics like 'strong' and 'weak' is just... I ignore them.

As you should and anyone that thinks philosphers (ancient or contemporary) are needed to understand Darwin's work on evolution. I no longer care for Dawkins. He used to be an excellent communicator of evolution, particularly in regards to anti-creationist arguments, but about 20 years ago moved clumsily into society and politics and his popular works went way downhill. To illustrate this, in the second half of the video clip, the interviewer draws Dawkins into a discussion on whether studying correlations between intelligence and race/ethnicity should be 'verboten' and Dawkins basically stubbles his way to "no". SMH.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not sure why it was posted. If we don't care about Darwin's conversion/social life/political opinions, why would we care about Dawkins'.

As you should and anyone that thinks philosphers (ancient or contemporary) are needed to understand Darwin's work on evolution. I no longer care for Dawkins. He used to be an excellent communicator of evolution, particularly in regards to anti-creationist arguments, but about 20 years ago moved clumsily into society and politics and his popular works went way downhill. To illustrate this, in the second half of the video clip, the interviewer draws Dawkins into a discussion on whether studying correlations between intelligence and race/ethnicity should be 'verboten' and Dawkins basically stubbles his way to "no". SMH.

I'll study a society in its historical place, and... well, believe it or not; the societies often considered 'strong', often had A LOT of flaws. A LOT.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure why it was posted. If we don't care about Darwin's conversion/social life/political opinions, why would we care about Dawkins'.

As you should and anyone that thinks philosphers (ancient or contemporary) are needed to understand Darwin's work on evolution. I no longer care for Dawkins. He used to be an excellent communicator of evolution, particularly in regards to anti-creationist arguments, but about 20 years ago moved clumsily into society and politics and his popular works went way downhill. To illustrate this, in the second half of the video clip, the interviewer draws Dawkins into a discussion on whether studying correlations between intelligence and race/ethnicity should be 'verboten' and Dawkins basically stubbles his way to "no". SMH.

And who do you think we should be listening to? I'm not really seeing much in the way of any discernible teaching finesse in your comments here, Hans. You're simply cutting down some random example that you don't happen to like. I don't like Dawkins and you don't have to like him either, but you're not directing our attention to who we should be getting the "better" information from so we can all become better educated boys and girls.

Obviously, philosophers aren't needed to understand Darwin's work on evolution. But as Einstein has intimated, they are needed in the sciences, however, for other reasons. Somehow, you keep flouting that point, and essentially for the reason Einstein (and philosophers of science) have spelled out.

So, now it's my turn to SMH

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And who do you think we should be listening to? I'm not really seeing much in the way of any discernible teaching finesse in your comments here, Hans. You're simply cutting down some random example that you don't happen to like, but you're not directing our attention to who we should be getting the "better" information so we can all become better educated boys and girls.

Obviously, philosophers aren't need to understand Darwin's work on evolution. But as Einstein has intimated, they are needed, however, for other reasons.

I mean, if you're talking about societies then you'll often want to go with a social anthropologist, or if they're a historical society then a historian, like Dr. Bret C. Devereaux, who studies ancient military history and societies around the ancient Mediterranean and Rome in particular but dipping into the wider fields of the European Middle Ages and a few bits beyond.