Guest shiloh357 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Even if a scientist is a mass murdering pedophile, that would still have zero effect on the veracity of their claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Given that evolution is the Genesis for the racist eugenics of Margaret Sanger and the madness of Hitler's murders of over 11 million people, I find your statement rather telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The concept of evolution by natural selection is sometimes referred to as Charles Darwin’s brainchild, and indeed he often referred to it in his letters to his friends as his dear ‘child’. However, this is a far cry from the facts. At best it was an adopted child; at worst an illegitimate child. http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild How is any child "illegitimate"? All children are conceived in the same way - no difference among them at all. Why are you disparaging children to try to make a point about a scientific theory with which you disagree? Sorry, that is a very poor and mean analogy. The point is that Darwin took credit for something that he didn't originate. He was not an honest man. How does that impact the veracity of the theory of evolution? There are many discoveries that happened at the same time independently. Research calculus. If a man is dishonest at his core, if he is willing to completely plagiarize and accept credit for something he did not really originate, why would you trust anything else he has to say??? Wouldn't the credibility of his clams be suspect? If he is willing to lie about his research as if it was his idea alone, why would you trust him in anything else he has to say about his research??? I would say his integrity would have a huge impact on the credibility of his claims about Evolution. But if people are so adamant about evolution that they would accept the word of a liar simply to protect the theory, it is a sad statement about humanity in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 30, 2014 But if the theory of evolution was popularized by someone else, one of the men that Darwin built his theory upon, and was named after him rather than Darwin, could you still disclaim the theory based on authorship? (I'm arguing this from a neutral perspective.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 But if the theory of evolution was popularized by someone else, one of the men that Darwin built his theory upon, and was named after him rather than Darwin, could you still disclaim the theory based on authorship? (I'm arguing this from a neutral perspective.) Not on the basis of authorship, but on the basis of it not being a genuine theory. I mean the argument agaisnt evolution would go to the fact that it was postualted before modern science even existed. It would discredit the theory even more if it were an earlier invention from someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 30, 2014 But if the theory of evolution was popularized by someone else, one of the men that Darwin built his theory upon, and was named after him rather than Darwin, could you still disclaim the theory based on authorship? (I'm arguing this from a neutral perspective.) Not on the basis of authorship, but on the basis of it not being a genuine theory. I mean the argument agaisnt evolution would go to the fact that it was postualted before modern science even existed. It would discredit the theory even more if it were an earlier invention from someone else. I'm not following your train of thought in this. Sorry. Would you expand on that please? (Again, I'm not arguing against you, nor arguing for evolution by any means.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2014 Suppose we discovered Einstein to not only be a cad, but a habitual liar and so on. Should we, in that circumstance, stop using the theory of relativity? The case is even more stark here insofar as, Darwin didn't even know what physical mechanism was behind evolution, and his guess was wrong. Since we know about genes now, the theory is on a firmer scientific foundation than it ever was during Darwin's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Suppose we discovered Einstein to not only be a cad, but a habitual liar and so on. Should we, in that circumstance, stop using the theory of relativity? That is a spurious comparison. The issue is not about Darwin simply being a liar. The issue is wether or not Darwin illegitimatley took credit for an idea that wasn't his. It is a specific kind of lie we are dealing with. If you are a graduate student in a university and you present a thesis or dissertation and it is discovered that even a paragraph was lifted from someone else without proper attribution and presented as your own, you can be subject to any number of disciplinary actions up to expulsion from the university, depending on that university's policy. No credit will be given to the correctness of your information. Your credibility and your honor are in the toilet after something like that. You will forefeit the degree you were endeavoring to obtain. Yet when it comes to Darwin and possibility that he took undue credit for an idea that wasn't his own, the attitude seems to be, "So what?" Why don't we hold Darwin to the same level that we would any graduate student of science? The case is even more stark here insofar as, Darwin didn't even know what physical mechanism was behind evolution, and his guess was wrong. Since we know about genes now, the theory is on a firmer scientific foundation than it ever was during Darwin's time. Given what is known now about the single cell and the complexity it contains, had Evolution been introduced TODAY instead of over a century and a half ago, it would never have gotten off the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 But if the theory of evolution was popularized by someone else, one of the men that Darwin built his theory upon, and was named after him rather than Darwin, could you still disclaim the theory based on authorship? (I'm arguing this from a neutral perspective.) Not on the basis of authorship, but on the basis of it not being a genuine theory. I mean the argument agaisnt evolution would go to the fact that it was postualted before modern science even existed. It would discredit the theory even more if it were an earlier invention from someone else. I'm not following your train of thought in this. Sorry. Would you expand on that please? (Again, I'm not arguing against you, nor arguing for evolution by any means.) What I mean is that Evolution isn't a theory. It is an untested hypothesis. The fact that this hypothesis pre-dates even Darwin means that it isn't scientific. It is an assumption that isn't based in science, but rooted in an unbelief in the Scriptures during the age of enlightenment. So if Evolution predates even Darwin that discredits evolution as being scientific and only shows that it is an untestable hypothesis with no basis in reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Suppose we discovered Einstein to not only be a cad, but a habitual liar and so on. Should we, in that circumstance, stop using the theory of relativity? The case is even more stark here insofar as, Darwin didn't even know what physical mechanism was behind evolution, and his guess was wrong. Since we know about genes now, the theory is on a firmer scientific foundation than it ever was during Darwin's time. What theory might that be??...please be very Specific concerning the Tenets? Are you talking about "Macro" Evolution? If so, lets see how "firm" that foundation is with Genetics.....Provide your "Scientific Evidence" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2014 shiloh alright. Let's say he was a complete liar, took false credit and so on. If anything, that means we should think about renaming the theory, but that doesn't make the theory itself any more or less true about the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts