: Farinata,: Is it not somewhat disingenuous for you to make such charges, given your track record towards others?
: You and you colleagues continually lash-out by cursing, degrading, name-calling, and ridiculing those whom you disagree with. It becomes readily apparent that your indignation here is somewhat, if not wholly, contrived. Certainly your demonstrated ability to dish it out, contradicts the sudden “sensitivity” that you now claim.
: Are there false accusations?
: YOU made the claim that new species could come from human races, if isolated long enough. No proof, no evidence, just mere blather. I simply underscored this ridiculous claim to illustrate your blather. Nothing false on my part here.
BULLSHIT. That's all there is to say about that.
At no point have I ever said anything about races leading to species.
What I said was that, if you take two IDENTICAL groups of an organism and isolate them long enough, they will eventually become different species.
This has been seen in nature; I cited you evidence from this page as observed in the physical world.
You ignored it.
I have pointed this page out to you some three times now; and you have never made any cogent effort to respond to it; are you afraid, Robert?
: YOU further complicated your theory with the homo-sapien-martialus example. Again, not based on proof or evidence, mere blather. All I did was to hold up a mirror to your claim to show you how foolish it was. Nothing false on my part here.
Floyd and I have repeatedly cited experimental evidence for speciation; and you have either pooh-poohed it as rubbish or ignored it.
Yet you repeatedly persist in holding up a twisted version of what we say and saying that that is our position.
You false witness, Robert.
: Perhaps you would do well to renounce such ridiculous races-to-species claims, rather than lash-out at those who disagree. It is you who looks foolish here. Moreover, isn’t it you and your colleagues who attempt to discredit me at every turn because of “no proof”.
We don't need to discredit you, Robert; you're doing a fine job on your own.
: If you were scientists of true merit, you would provide proof for your races-to-species and Martian race claims, instead of merely speculating upon them. We’re waiting, hmmm?
We provided proof last year, Robert. And the year before.
If you still haven't bothered to check out the links and sources we provide it is because you are ignoring them deliberately. It's not as if we haven't made our sources damn clear.
: It is not twisted or false to say that Darwinism spawned races-to-species claims as well.
It's also not false to say that the Christian Church is responsible for millions of murders and tortures.
Does this make Christianity cruel and brutal? No. Obviously not.
You're trying to make a false association.
: Darwin himself was horrified by the “racial weeding” adaptation of his theory by Haeckel. It was one reason why he had a deathbed conversion.
Except that he didn't have a deathbed conversion, as has also been pointed out to you by Floyd; the whole thing was a myth.
And no, Victor Pearce doesn't count as rational counter-argument.
Let's take the words that Lady Hope alleged Darwin to have said;
"I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything. And to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."
When Darwin published "The Origin of Species" he was 50; hardly young; he put 20 years' work into the book and didn't make the theory public before he judged it to be ready.
Or, to quote Charles Darwin's son Francis on the subject;
"Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father's agnostic point of view is given in my 'Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,' Vol. I., pp. 304-317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so. Yours faithfully, Francis Darwin. Brookthorpe, Gloucester. May 28, 1918."
(See also this page
: It is not false or twisted to say that eugenicist doctrines formed when Darwinists’ thinking was applied to the human race.
Actually, if you examine the evidence, it came more from Spencer's idea of 'survival of the fittest'
: Eugenicism exported to Germany resulted in the untermensch concept. Exported to America it became the Planned Parenthood “more from the fit, less from the unfit” movement.
: Again, nothing false here on my part.
On the contrary, you're continuing to make false associations.
Since we've repeatedly pointed out the falsity of this, I can only assume that you're doing it deliberately; misrepresenting our argument because you can't provide an effective counter, False Witness.
: You have bought a psuedo-science without evidence or proof, this is most obvious. I suspect that you will continue to struggle in vain with your races-to-species and homo-sapien-matialus philosophies, absurd as they may be.
You continue to walk around with your hands over your eyes and insist that there's no such thing as light. I pity you, Robert; is what we're saying so repellent to your unshakeable dogma?
: I understand the psychological pressures that you are under in the university world to toe-the-line or you will walk-the-plank. But please understand this, when you accept these Darwinsitic notions you inherently accept the contradiction:
I'm not in the university world. Absolutely nothing is forcing me to support evolution; apart from the irrefutable scientific evidence, that is.
(...which you still haven't made any serious attempt to read and counter.)
: MAN IS BEAST.
: Such a contradiction is so dehumanising, that perhaps you will never be able to think for yourself again once you accept it as “truth”.
Robert, exploitative and distasteful as I find the practice, there is an industry called xenotransplantation; the transferring of pig hearts to humans, to replace faulty human ones.
If humanity were medically significantly different to mammals like pigs, this would simply not be possible. The fact that there are people alive with pig organs inside them is evidence that sufficient similarity exists.
I repeat: I AM NOT CONDONING THIS PRACTICE IN ANY WAY.
- I think that it is a gross exploitation of the lives of innocent pigs to replace organs that (in the majority of cases) have been damaged by people living unhealthy lifestyles. It is not our right to exploit natural species and resources just because we have the ability.
In actual fact, you use the term 'beast' as in insult; whilst denying the proveable medical and biological data that we share 70%+ of our genetic makeup with most of the mammaliam species on the planet.
: I would hope that you would rise above that degraded level by renouncing it. If what I say disturbs you, perhaps it will give you a start. Cheers and no animosity withheld.
Many a true word was spoken in error, Robert...
What we say definitely disturbs you; and you have still no effective counter, which is why you misrepresent us and try to blather past us; and this is why you don't withhold animosity in your posts
Eppur si muove, Robert; you cannot refute the physical evidence.
Farinata.
