What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Origins of Species?

Yes, I corrected my question.

Yes. and it was not a fanciful story. Rather a boring and tedious explanation of an observed phenomena that had baffled naturalists for centuries.

Then what's your problem with me calling it, The Preservation of Favoured Races?

The full title is, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Some drop the first two words and the last sixteen words and just call it, Origin of Species.

I drop the first eleven words and the last five and call it, The Preservation of Favoured Races.

Or sometimes, when I'm comparing it to another book written, I'll call it, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

What's the big deal?

Second of all, it is called, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

So I get my pick: either/or.

Again, what's the big deal?

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes, I corrected my question.Then what's your problem with me calling it, The Preservation of Favoured Races?

The full title is, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Some drop the first two words and the last sixteen words and just call it, Origin of Species.

I drop the first eleven words and the last five and call it, The Preservation of Favoured Races.

Or sometimes, when I'm comparing it to another book written, I'll call it, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

What's the big deal?

Second of all, it is called, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

So I get my pick: either/or.

Again, what's the big deal?

Because its a childish way of implying that its a racist book.

Its trolling.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Yes, I corrected my question.Then what's your problem with me calling it, The Preservation of Favoured Races?

The fact that you are using the wrong title.
The fact that you are misrepresenting the intent of the author, deliberately.
The fact that you are resorting to a dishonest appeal to modern emotional reaction.
The fact that you KNOW most people will not know what you are talking about.
The fact that you are trying to paint the author as a racist bigot who favours genocide of so-called "inferior races"... despite all facts to the contrary.

The full title is, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Yes. So either use the WHOLE title, or use the accepted short form.

Some drop the first two words and the last sixteen words and just call it, Origin of Species.

And?

I drop the first eleven words and the last five and call it, The Preservation of Favoured Races.

And you do so to appeal to emotional fear and disgust at the modern associations of that section as presented without context.

Or sometimes, when I'm comparing it to another book written, I'll call it, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Which is of course, equally dishonest.
And what other book would you compare it with?

What's the big deal?

The "big deal" is honesty

Second of all, it is called, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

And?

So I get my pick: either/or.

Not if you want to be honest.

Again, what's the big deal?

And again... HONESTY

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, I corrected my question.Then what's your problem with me calling it, The Preservation of Favoured Races?

The full title is, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Some drop the first two words and the last sixteen words and just call it, Origin of Species.

I drop the first eleven words and the last five and call it, The Preservation of Favoured Races.

Or sometimes, when I'm comparing it to another book written, I'll call it, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

What's the big deal?

Second of all, it is called, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

So I get my pick: either/or.

Again, what's the big deal?

You can call it The Preservation Of Favoured Races or The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. They mean the same thing.

Maybe you didn't know that when Charles was writing his book, races was a synonym for species. From the Royal Society https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0015:

'Darwin agreed to delete the term ‘abstract’ but he hoped to retain the phrase ‘natural selection’, ‘with Explanation, somewhat as thus,—Through Natural Selection or the preservation of favoured Races’.52 The reason why he thought that the phrase ‘natural selection’ was not problematic is that it was ‘constantly used in all works on Breeding, & I am surprised that it is not familiar to Murray’.53 Both statements make it clear that his full subtitle, ‘the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’, was not conceived and intended as an alternative for the main title ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection’, but as an explanation of the, at the time, relatively novel phrase ‘natural selection’.

I hope you weren't playing the man rather than the ball. But now that's been cleared up, you are now free to link to anything that you think might suggest that Darwin was a man of his times and held beliefs regarding racial equality (and gender equality in all probability) that we wouldn't countenance today.

I'll dig out my bible in the meantime so we can swap examples back and forth. It'll serve no purpose but it might be fun.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because its a childish way of implying that its a racist book.

QV please:

In this extended title (and elsewhere in the book) Darwin used the biological term "races" interchangeably with "varieties", meaning varieties within a species.

SOURCE

So I'm going to have to disagree with you on this (unless whomever is using it doesn't know any better).

 

[Astrid]

The fact that you are using the wrong title.
The fact that you are misrepresenting the intent of the author, deliberately.
The fact that you are resorting to a dishonest appeal to modern emotional reaction.
The fact that you KNOW most people will not know what you are talking about.
The fact that you are trying to paint the author as a racist bigot who favours genocide of so-called "inferior races"... despite all facts to the contrary.



Yes. So either use the WHOLE title, or use the accepted short form.


And?


And you do so to appeal to emotional fear and disgust at the modern associations of that section as presented without context.


Which is of course, equally dishonest.
And what other book would you compare it with?


The "big deal" is honesty


And?


Not if you want to be honest.


And again... HONESTY

Wasn't there some guy with a lamp searching for an honest creationist?

The word "awesome" now means
" thank you", it used to mean "incredible,
awe inspiring".
"Race" used to include varieties
of animals, now it only refers to
people.
In the event, there is nothing "racist" in noting that
some "races" have died out, others have been
immensely successful. For those who don't
like the words "favored" or " race" there are
other ways to accurately describe how varieties
of plants, and human or others animals have
prospered in competition while others dwindle.

 

[Bradskii]

QV please:

SOURCE

So I'm going to have to disagree with you on this (unless whomever is using it doesn't know any better).

Then one might wonder as to the reason you'd prefer to reference the book by using part of the title that most people wouldn't be aware of and most would assume was racist.

We're not that dumb to think that you thought it was simply a better title...

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that you are using the wrong title.

No, I am not.

As I pointed out: It's okay for others to shorten the title, but I can't?

The fact that you KNOW most people will not know what you are talking about.

Then let them arc and spark about it?

Who made you their spokesman?

The fact that you are trying to paint the author as a racist bigot who favours genocide of so-called "inferior races"... despite all facts to the contrary.

I should report you for this, but I won't.

Yes. So either use the WHOLE title, or use the accepted short form.

No, thanks.

I'll use the title I prefer to use, as long as it's acceptable grammar.

And again... HONESTY

Don't preach to me about honesty, Dan, when you said Darwin didn't write that book.

Now I find out that you said that ... not because he didn't write it ... but because you think it's being used as some kind of racial slur; not to mention the fact that others might know what Darwin was talking about.

 

[Astrid]

Then one might wonder as to the reason you'd prefer to reference the book by using part of the title that most people wouldn't be aware of and most would assume was racist.

We're not that dumb to think that you thought it was simply a better title...

People who cannot argue facts will argue feelings.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can call it The Preservation Of Favoured Races or The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. They mean the same thing.

Thank you. I will.

Maybe you didn't know that when Charles was writing his book, races was a synonym for species.

No it wasn't. It was a synonym for "varieties within a species."

 

[Bradskii]

People who cannot argue facts will argue feelings.

It was quite an embarrassingly clumsy attempt to correlate evolution with 'Social Darwinism'.

 

[Bradskii]

Thank you. I will.No it wasn't. It was a synonym for "varieties within a species."

And you preferred the title as you quoted because..?

 

[AV1611VET]

For those who don't like the words "favored" or " race" there are other ways to accurately describe how varieties of plants, and human or others animals have prospered in competition while others dwindle.

Evidently the term "race" has been obsoleted.

But it is still acceptable grammar to use it when quoting it in the title to a book.

 

[Bradskii]

Evidently the term "race" has been obsoleted.

But it is still acceptable grammar to use it when quoting it in the title to a book.

Indeed it is. But you wanted to use it in isolation from the rest of the title. Because..?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then one might wonder as to the reason you'd prefer to reference the book by using part of the title that most people wouldn't be aware of and most would assume was racist.

It would be interesting to see what academia's Pew results are on this.

Maybe most people wouldn't know.

We're not that dumb to think that you thought it was simply a better title...

I'll be honest. I like shaking up the dust with that title. It shows me who's willing [and so quick] to assume I don't know what I'm talking about; and makes my accusers look dumb.

 

[Astrid]

It was quite an embarrassingly clumsy attempt to correlate evolution with 'Social Darwinism'.

Of course. But creationism forces dishonesty on people.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you preferred the title as you quoted because..?

Writer's choice.

And because it exposes a mindset in others that is what we call "stinkin thinkin".

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed it is. But you wanted to use it in isolation from the rest of the title. Because..?

I wanted to hear Dan say Darwin didn't write the book, which was code for, "You're being bigoted;" then harp on honesty.

 

[Speedwell]

Evidently the term "race" has been obsoleted.

No, it has just changed it's meaning somewhat since Darwin's day.

 

[Mr Laurier]

No, I am not.

Except that you are.

As I pointed out: It's okay for others to shorten the title, but I can't?

WRONG! And deliberately so.
Other people use the correct title, or the accepted abbreviation, to be clearly understood. You however, deliberately use a misleading fragment of the SUBtitle, to
misrepresent the book, and the author.
THAT is the problem.

Then let them arc and spark about it?

No. What the arsed is "arc and spark" anyway? You keep vomiting it up whenever you get held accountable.

Who made you their spokesman?

Why dont you tell me, since it is YOUR fantasy. I've never claimed to be anybody's spokesman.

I should report you for this, but I won't.

For what? Holding you accountable to basic morality?

No, thanks.

I'll use the title I prefer to use, as long as it's acceptable grammar.

... even though it is deliberately misleading.

Don't preach to me about honesty, Dan, when you said Darwin didn't write that book.

... which was an honest answer. Unlike your tactic of trying to create deliberate confusion.
The partial subtitle, is not the title.

Now I find out that you said that ... not because he didn't write it ... but because you think it's being used as some kind of racial slur; not to mention the fact that others might know what Darwin was talking about.

You KNOW FULL WELL that you are using the subtitle out of context, to misrepresent the book as a racist call for genocide.