Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Holding their feet to the fire ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    maybe its my public education.

    my science teacher in his monotone elocution, said (he sounded like Ben Stein) "Science .......is work"

    .... "science is work, gathering recording data .....and if you do the work .........gather adequate data, then you can formulate a hypothesis, .....
    Are you sure you didn't nod off during the class JR?

    If science is just data collection and hypothesis formulation, then Newton's theory of gravity is not science. It's just a theory, another interpretation of the data.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      Ya noticed how I don't even waste my time with you any more, Beagle Boy?
      If you hadn't noticed then allow me to draw your attention to it.
      Doesn't make the constant running away you do any less cowardly.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by rwatts View Post
        Are you sure you didn't nod off during the class JR?

        .
        ha ha, you got me there


        If science is just data collection and hypothesis formulation, then Newton's theory of gravity is not science. It's just a theory, another interpretation of the data
        its science
        But do you think Newton's conclusions set in stone forever.

        Do you think Darwin's conclusion, based on the work of science is set in stone forever, and there is no HGT, just Darwin's tree.
        To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
          ha ha, you got me there
          Well, to be fair, sometimes I did.

          (I'm at the age where occasionally I even nod off at work. )

          Originally posted by JR
          its science
          But do you think Newton's conclusions set in stone forever.

          Do you think Darwin's conclusion, based on the work of science is set in stone forever, and there is no HGT, just Darwin's tree.
          No.

          None of those ideas are set in stone forever. Eienstein's ideas do better than Newton's ideas, but there are puzzles about Einstein's ideas. Darwin proposed a great mechanism but there are puzzles concerning his mechanism.

          In the essay I'm currently writing and posting about denovo gene origin, HGT is one of the methods by which new genes arise. There are several others, but Darwin couldn't know about these.

          His trees survive but HGT makes them a lot more messy, most particularly down towards the base of the trunk. There, life is bacterial and HGT happens an awful lot, as does vertical gene transfer.
          Last edited by rwatts; 09-01-2014, 07:55 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post

            The First International Eugenics Conference took place in London in 1912. It was organized by the British Eugenics Education Society and dedicated to Francis Galton who had died a year earlier. Major Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin, was presiding. In the final address, Major Darwin extolled eugenics as the practical application of the principle of evolution (Bruinius, Harry. Better For All the World. The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America's Quest for Racial Purity. A. A. Knopf, New York, 2006. ISBN 0-375-41371-5).

            You think, just maybe, that Major Darwin was thoroughly familiar with Evolution?
            And that underlined part ... sure does sound a lot like Jorge's thesis in this thread.

            The Second International Eugenics Conference was held in New York in 1921, Alexander Graham Bell was the honorary president. The principal guest speaker, Major Leonard Darwin, advocated eugenic measures that needed to be taken, namely the "elimination of the unfit", the discouragement of large families in the "ill-endowed", and the encouragement of large families in the "well-endowed". (reference: New York Times, September 25, 1921).

            Huh - "elimination of the unfit" once again by Major Darwin. Sure does sound a lot like what Jorge has been saying here, namely, the direct, logical application of a fundamental Darwinian Principle.

            The Third International Eugenics Conference was also held in New York in 1932. Major Darwin, then 88 years old, was unable to attend. He sent a report that was read by Sir Ronald Fisher. On August 23, 1932, The New York Times reported, “‘Eugenic reforms must be adopted within the next hundred years if civilization is to go on’, was the message of Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, founder of the modern theory of evolution, read last night at the Third International Congress of Eugenics, which opened yesterday at the American Museum of Natural History.”
            Just because his son Leonard supported eugenics does not mean that either Charles Darwin or the ToE advocated eugenics. As I already made abundantly clear (and reposted in this thread here) Charles Darwin was adamantly opposed to eugenical thinking and concepts so Leonard would have had to go against his father's beliefs in this matter

            A child going against his parent's teachings is not exactly unheard of. Parents often have children that do things that they don't approve of and oppose.

            The son of Michael Behe, a leading figure in the Intelligent Design movement, has announced that he is an "outspoken atheist" (Leo's own term). Are you going to claim this is what his father taught him to be?

            The daughter of Matthew J. Slick, the president of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), has recently announced that she is an atheist. Are you seriously going to claim this is what her father taught her to be?

            OTOH, the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, probably the most outspoken atheist in the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century, is an evangelistic minister. Are you going to say this is what his mother taught him to be?

            History is full of such examples where the children didn't follow in their parent's footsteps. American Revolutionary leader Benjamin Franklin had a son who was a staunch Tory. Joseph Patrick "Joe" Kennedy was pretty conservative but his sons were pretty liberal. Ernest Hemingway and his non-hunting, teatotalling sons

            George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush were very active in the leadership of the eugenics societies (the latter IIRC was the director of a group in Connecticut) doesn't automatically mean that either George Herbert Walker Bush or George Walker Bush (or any other living member of the Bush family) support eugenics.


            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Shortly after this Third Eugenics Congress, the Nazi government began to implemented eugenics according to the recommendations made by H. H. Laughlin and Ernst Rüdin.
            As I've already pointed out Laughlin was influenced not by Darwin or evolution but by Mendelian genetics
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            For instance Harry Hamilton Laughlin, who was among the most active individuals in influencing American eugenics policy in the first half of the 20th century (especially in forced sterilization policies and described as "among the most racist and anti-Semitic of early twentieth-century eugenicists"), became interested in eugenics through breeding experiments and the works of Gregor Johann Mendel[1] -- specifically what is called Mendelian inheritance.

            Laughlin was superintendent in charge of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) from its origin in 1910 until 1921 and director from 1921 until either 1939 or 1940 as well as president of the American Eugenics Society 1927-28, and associate editor of the Eugenical News from 1916 to 1939. He was also awarded an honorary medical degree by the Nazi-controlled University of Heidelberg in 1936 for his work behalf of the “science of racial cleansing.”

            So much for the attempt to link evolution to the abominations of the Nazis. The Nazis were indeed heavily influenced by American eugenicists but these guys like Laughlin and Charles Benedict Davenport were guided by Mendel and genetics -- not by Darwin and evolution.
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            Laughlin was friends with Charles Benedict Davenport, who founded the ERO and an early American researcher into Mendelian inheritance. Initially skeptical of the validity of Mendelian genetics he became convinced through his own research involving animal breeding experiments.

            Davenport became one of the most prominent figures of the American eugenics movement (sometimes referred to its standard bearer) and was directly involved in the sterilization of approximately 60,000 "unfit" Americans.

            His works strongly influenced Nazi racial supremacists and while he didn't approve of how they governed, Davenport kept up connections with various Nazi institutions and publications, both before and during World War II.

            So two of America's most notorious eugenicists, aside from their Nazi connections, were influenced not by Darwin and the ToE but by the genetic research of Gregor Mendel.

            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            The Nazis pointed to eugenics practices in other European countries and the leadership that had been provided by the United States. Thus was initiated the process to rid “the unfit” from German society – the Holocaust was born. [Laughlin was the Director of the Eugenics Record Office in New York from its inception in 1910 to its closing in 1939 and was among the most active individuals influencing American eugenics policy including compulsory sterilization legislation.]
            Agreed, and that is what I said earlier in this post. But the part you ignore is that the folks who influenced the Nazi's eugenics program weren't influenced by Darwin and evolution but by Mendel and genetics.

            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Once again we see "the unfit". If that doesn't sound like an application of "survival of the fittest" by doing away with "the unfit" - a fundamental Darwinian Principle - then I guess nothing does.
            It sounds just like the practices put in place by ancient Sparta -- who Hitler and other Nazi's cited as their role models.
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

            The actual constitution of Sparta included eugenic measures where by law every new-born child was brought to the Council Hall and examined. Any deemed unfit and useless by the city elders were taken to a chasm on the slopes of Mount Taygetus a few miles outside the center of Sparta known as the Apothetae -- the “Deposits” -- and cast into it.

            According to Allen G. Roper’s essay "Ancient Eugenics," the ancient Spartans believed that "it was better for the child and the city that one not born from the beginning to comeliness and strength should not live." This is precisely what Plutarch recorded about them in his "Lives”:

            Source: Lives: Lycurgus, the Father of the Spartans


            "Whenever a child was born, it was taken to a council of elders for examination. If the baby was in any way defective, the elders dropped it into a chasm. Such a child, in the opinion of the Spartans, should not be permitted to live."


            Source

            © Copyright Original Source



            Even Conservapedia recognizes that "The Spartans in ancient Greece practiced a primitive form of eugenics, wherein babies which were judged to be too 'weak' or 'sickly' would be left to die," although throwing them into a chasm wasn't exactly just leaving them to die.

            ...

            Returning to Sparta and eugenics, they, and not Darwin or evolutionary theory, were the inspiration for the Nazis who took eugenical practices to the extreme turning it into outright genocide.

            In his "Zweites Buch" ("Second Book"), an unedited transcript of Hitler's thoughts on foreign policy written in 1928 after "Mein Kampf," Hitler himself cited the Greek city state of Sparta as his inspiration, adding that he considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State":

            Source: Adolph Hitler, "Zweites Buch"


            "Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses."

            © Copyright Original Source



            Hitler explicitly recommended that Germany should imitate the Spartans by limiting "the number allowed to live". He added that "The Spartans were once capable of such a wise measure... The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans."

            Hitler praised the Spartans saying that they had created "the first racialist state." During the invasion of the U.S.S.R. he saw that country's citizens as Helots to his Spartans: "They came as conquerors, and they took everything."

            This thought is echoed in "Der Generalplan Ost" ("Master Plan East"), the Nazi plan for the colonization of Eastern Europe, where it is stated that "the Germans would have to assume the position of the Spartiates, while ... the Russians were the Helots."

            It should also be noted that Heinrich Himmler, the infamous Reichsführer of the SS and one of those most directly responsible for the Holocaust, also called Nazi Germany the "new Sparta."
            Sheesh. If you had actually read any of my posts you would know that I've covered most of this.

            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            In April of 1932 Margaret Sanger advocated an option "to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [i.e., concentration camps] or sterilization." (from ‘A Plan For Peace’, Birth Control Review, 1932).

            Dr. Paul Popenoe was a researcher, a leader in the U.S. eugenics movement, author of the most widely used American eugenics text and editor of the Journal of Heredity. Margaret Sanger enthusiastically supported his ideas and practices. In the April 1933 Birth Control Review [edited my Margaret Sanger from 1917 through 1938) Popenoe wrote, “Eugenic sterilization is one of the many indispensable measures in any modern program of social welfare … Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results.”
            While I'm certainly no fan of either Sanger or Planned Parenthood for that matter, her words are commonly ripped out of context and even some of the things her critics have claimed that she meant have been falsely attributed to her as things she actually said.

            As for Popenoe, he was in thick with both Laughlin and Davenport as well as Madison Grant (who I also already discussed in contrast to avid supporter of Darwin and evolution, Franz Boas) who spoke of "inherited defect[s] due to a single Mendelian factor." And in his "Applied Eugenics" kept referencing the "laws of heredity." IOW, Popenoe, like his buddies, his eugenical ideas were primarily influenced by Mendel and genetics rather than Darwin and evolution.

            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            As if it needed saying, both Sanger and Popenoe were fervent Dawinists upholding the foundational Darwinian Principle of "survival of the fittest" by, among other things, limiting/eliminating the "inferior" of the species.
            Yeah, Popenoe was such a "fervent Dawinist" [sic] that in the portion of his aforementioned "Applied Eugenics" that covered natural selection, Popenoe left it to someone else, Roswell H. Johnson, to write about it because genetics was the former's area of expertise and he didn't know much about the subject (which kind of clinches it that evolutionary theory wasn't a big influence on Popenoe's thinking).

            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Again, the connection between Darwinism and eugenics is utterly undeniable, except to a "special" few.

            See, Rogue06 - I too can "Hurl Elephants" and my elephants are much bigger than yours.

            Jorge
            This connection is again exposed as being incredibly weak when compared to the influence that Gregor Mendel and genetics played. Yet you never hear of YECs foaming at the mouth and attacking them like they do Darwin and evolution. This is because that doesn't fit in with their agenda. So hypocrites that they are they conveniently ignore it.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #66
              As a total aside, one of the reasons that eugenics lost favor in the U.S. was the Great Depression. Eugenicists attributed economic conditions to biological deterioration -- they believed poverty was a characteristic of genetic inferiority. When the Great Depression struck eugenicists insisted that those who were poor and unemployed were so because of a biological destiny that made them incompetent, irresponsible and thriftless. But too many folks from "good families" who were thought to be from sound biological stock were ruined and faced with poverty during this period. This caused many people to open their eyes to the unscientific nature of eugenics and how it had been designed to reinforces prejudices.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                Then why are you posting this garbage in the Natural Science forum instead of some fundamentalist theological forum where you'll get no one to call you on your obvious category error and is/ought fallacy??!!

                The science of evolution is the science of evolution. If you want to attack its science, go right ahead and good luck with that, but this deceitful tack does not support Biblical "scientific" Creationism in any way, shape, or form.

                Enjoy blowing noisemakers at your little party.

                K54
                By now you surely know that you've been BOOTED off this thread, Santa 'Duffus' Klaus.
                So get going ... boot - boot - boot !!!

                For others: what Santa 'Bozo' Klaus writes above neglects to mention (no surprise there) what I have posted here time and time and time again. Evolution is not presented as ideology or philosophy or theology - Evolution is presented as pure science. That's why it's in this forum, Santa Klaus.

                My aim is to put a spotlight on this issue so as to hopefully make some of you here aware and alert to the deceptions taking place under the guise of "science". I say "some of you here" because I do not kid myself - I know full well that many people are beyond help, either because they have closed their minds tighter than a sealed drum or because they know what the score is but they have willingly chosen to believe the lie rather than the truth. Why? I believe that the primary reason (there are many reasons) is because this allows them to live as they wish rather than as they should (submitting to the truth).

                Have a good time at the fishing hole, Santa Klaus!

                Jorge

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Just because his son Leonard supported eugenics does not mean that either Charles Darwin or the ToE advocated eugenics. As I already made abundantly clear (and reposted in this thread here) Charles Darwin was adamantly opposed to eugenical thinking and concepts so Leonard would have had to go against his father's beliefs in this matter

                  A child going against his parent's teachings is not exactly unheard of. Parents often have children that do things that they don't approve of and oppose.

                  The son of Michael Behe, a leading figure in the Intelligent Design movement, has announced that he is an "outspoken atheist" (Leo's own term). Are you going to claim this is what his father taught him to be?

                  The daughter of Matthew J. Slick, the president of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), has recently announced that she is an atheist. Are you seriously going to claim this is what her father taught her to be?

                  OTOH, the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, probably the most outspoken atheist in the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century, is an evangelistic minister. Are you going to say this is what his mother taught him to be?

                  History is full of such examples where the children didn't follow in their parent's footsteps. American Revolutionary leader Benjamin Franklin had a son who was a staunch Tory. Joseph Patrick "Joe" Kennedy was pretty conservative but his sons were pretty liberal. Ernest Hemingway and his non-hunting, teatotalling sons

                  George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush were very active in the leadership of the eugenics societies (the latter IIRC was the director of a group in Connecticut) doesn't automatically mean that either George Herbert Walker Bush or George Walker Bush (or any other living member of the Bush family) support eugenics.



                  As I've already pointed out Laughlin was influenced not by Darwin or evolution but by Mendelian genetics

                  So much for the attempt to link evolution to the abominations of the Nazis. The Nazis were indeed heavily influenced by American eugenicists but these guys like Laughlin and Charles Benedict Davenport were guided by Mendel and genetics -- not by Darwin and evolution.


                  Agreed, and that is what I said earlier in this post. But the part you ignore is that the folks who influenced the Nazi's eugenics program weren't influenced by Darwin and evolution but by Mendel and genetics.


                  It sounds just like the practices put in place by ancient Sparta -- who Hitler and other Nazi's cited as their role models.
                  Sheesh. If you had actually read any of my posts you would know that I've covered most of this.


                  While I'm certainly no fan of either Sanger or Planned Parenthood for that matter, her words are commonly ripped out of context and even some of the things her critics have claimed that she meant have been falsely attributed to her as things she actually said.

                  As for Popenoe, he was in thick with both Laughlin and Davenport as well as Madison Grant (who I also already discussed in contrast to avid supporter of Darwin and evolution, Franz Boas) who spoke of "inherited defect[s] due to a single Mendelian factor." And in his "Applied Eugenics" kept referencing the "laws of heredity." IOW, Popenoe, like his buddies, his eugenical ideas were primarily influenced by Mendel and genetics rather than Darwin and evolution.


                  Yeah, Popenoe was such a "fervent Dawinist" [sic] that in the portion of his aforementioned "Applied Eugenics" that covered natural selection, Popenoe left it to someone else, Roswell H. Johnson, to write about it because genetics was the former's area of expertise and he didn't know much about the subject (which kind of clinches it that evolutionary theory wasn't a big influence on Popenoe's thinking).


                  This connection is again exposed as being incredibly weak when compared to the influence that Gregor Mendel and genetics played. Yet you never hear of YECs foaming at the mouth and attacking them like they do Darwin and evolution. This is because that doesn't fit in with their agenda. So hypocrites that they are they conveniently ignore it.
                  I admit remaining astonished at the level of faithfulness and effort that you practice defending and promoting your Sacred Cow - Evolution. I only wish that all Biblical Creationists exhibited the same level of fervent dedication promoting God's biblical account as you exhibit promoting the Evolutionary account. If that were to happen, we'd regain control of this 'war' in a heartbeat. BTW, maybe you should consider finding full-time, gainful employment, R06 'coz clearly you have waaaayyy too much free time on your hands. Then again, maybe this IS your full-time job (?) -- getting paid by the Evo-Club of America.

                  Jorge
                  Last edited by Jorge; 09-02-2014, 06:20 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    I admit remaining astonished at the level of faithfulness and effort that you practice defending and promoting your Sacred Cow - Evolution.
                    Are you wanting rogue06 to offer the kind of rant that you do Jorge?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                      Are you wanting rogue06 to offer the kind of rant that you do Jorge?
                      "rant"?

                      I'll have to find a better hiding place for the keys to the vodka cabinet.

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by rogue06
                        OTOH, the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, probably the most outspoken atheist in the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century, is an evangelistic minister. Are you going to say this is what his mother taught him to be?
                        This quip doesn't work when we have this.

                        Source: Thought Criminal Blog

                        Leonard Darwin had been talking about his father's eugenics beliefs for far longer than that. Last year I mentioned the dedication to his father of his book, The Need for Eugenic Reform, in 1926. In his dedication he does what no one is more qualified to have done, attribute his eugenics beliefs to Charles Darwin. "For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book.” He was 76 the year he wrote that. In that he directly states that eugenics was the practical application of Charles Darwin's "life's work" and that he fully believed his own father would have seen his eugenics activism as making Charles Darwin's work "of service to mankind".

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Source.

                        Do you have Madalyn's son saying similar as an atheist? Never mind, rhetorical question. I need to stop reading these threads anyway. The ignorance passing itself off as education is too sickening.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          My aim is to put a spotlight on this issue so as to hopefully make some of you here aware and alert to the deceptions taking place under the guise of "science".
                          That would be the deceptions of a cowardly YEC idiot making up his own pet definitions of evolution and trying to bluster his way into having knowledgeable people accept them. Won't work of course but it does spotlight the nonstop dishonesty of the YEC position.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            OTOH, the LOGICAL application of Evolution supports eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, etc.
                            The evidence for this is beyond overwhelming.
                            It is just as logical that dropping atomic bombs is the logical application of Atom theory.

                            Once again, we find a creationist who can't tell the difference between an Is and an Ought.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                              This quip doesn't work when we have this.

                              Source: Thought Criminal Blog

                              Leonard Darwin had been talking about his father's eugenics beliefs for far longer than that. Last year I mentioned the dedication to his father of his book, The Need for Eugenic Reform, in 1926. In his dedication he does what no one is more qualified to have done, attribute his eugenics beliefs to Charles Darwin. "For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book.” He was 76 the year he wrote that. In that he directly states that eugenics was the practical application of Charles Darwin's "life's work" and that he fully believed his own father would have seen his eugenics activism as making Charles Darwin's work "of service to mankind".

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              Source.

                              Do you have Madalyn's son saying similar as an atheist? Never mind, rhetorical question. I need to stop reading these threads anyway. The ignorance passing itself off as education is too sickening.
                              " "For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book.” He was 76 the year he wrote that. In that he directly states that eugenics was the practical application of Charles Darwin's "life's work" and that he fully believed his own father would have seen his eugenics activism as making Charles Darwin's work "of service to mankind".


                              Thanks, C123 - good one!

                              I've said this several times before: how much clearer can it get?

                              Of course, to 'certain' people nothing will suffice, n-o-t-h-i-n-g!

                              As we discussed via PM, the intellectual dishonesty of these people (and it HAS to be that since ignorance is no longer a realistic option and must therefore be ruled out) is something that would lead a bald man to trying to pull his hair out.

                              Oh well, they seem to be fine with it ... they sleep like 'babies'.

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                " "For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book.” He was 76 the year he wrote that. In that he directly states that eugenics was the practical application of Charles Darwin's "life's work" and that he fully believed his own father would have seen his eugenics activism as making Charles Darwin's work "of service to mankind".


                                Thanks, C123 - good one!

                                I've said this several times before: how much clearer can it get?

                                Of course, to 'certain' people nothing will suffice, n-o-t-h-i-n-g!

                                As we discussed via PM, the intellectual dishonesty of these people (and it HAS to be that since ignorance is no longer a realistic option and must therefore be ruled out) is something that would lead a bald man to trying to pull his hair out.

                                Oh well, they seem to be fine with it ... they sleep like 'babies'.

                                Jorge
                                Quoting people who are wrong does not make you less wrong.

                                You can't get an Ought from an Is, no matter how much you try to cloud the issue. The theory of evolution doesn't tell us to kill or protect anyone.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X