To judge by what's been seen on this forum, folks'd think there are no honest evolutionists. This is not the case. I have encountered some myself. It would be a good thing if some show up here.
For the record, I've said several times that I get called a liar, a God-hater, etc here, and that seems to be OK with people. I am actually neither, and neither are my friends and family who accept evolution, but "slandering" all of us is OK here too because apparently by definition, creationism is the correct position and anyone disagreeing with it is a liar.
Getting "all evolutionists are liars" out of what I wrote is beyond most folks' capacity to misinterpret by accident. I testified that I had met honest evolutionists which is pretty much the opposite. Had I the capacity, I might make it more clear than I did. And I'd be interested in any suggestions that might help.
Nice to know where I stand at least.
I don't think there's been much room for doubt for quite some time.
Don't kick RAZD when he's down, CTD. He isn't here anymore to read it anyway.
I have no intention of kicking him. Had nobody objected to his virtual request to be banned being promptly granted, I may not have bothered to post on the subject.
But as we are continually reminded, the hopes of the evolutionary cause are founded in emotion and appeals to popularity. So I voiced my opinion. Surely the contrary opinions were not based on events, but posted for the purpose of swaying the prone-to-be-swayed, and I figure if they exist they can just as easily sway back... or better yet, they may at any moment begin to evaluate things and learn how much better it is to evaluate things for themselves based upon evidence.
Sorry but there isn't really anyone here for you to argue with anymore. I'd rather pull my toenails out.
Suit yourself. I'll try to refrain from responding to your posts in that case. Of course you can help me by omitting logical fallacies, slanders, and other such things as cry out for correction.
I guess you heard that two scientifically knowledgeable people disappeared from here so you thought you'd come back.
Actually my return was delayed by weather and automotive problems, not that it's anyone's concern here. As for the scientific capacity of the unruly, they need all the endorsement you can give, and more. They could've stood to display it if they had it, that's my opinion. Science consists of proper methodology; it has nothing to do with using a hundred words to say nothing meaningful. That's my opinion too.
I await more threads about how Darwin was a homosexual and Hitler wanted to force evolution on the world.
I must have missed those. Can you direct me to such?
I am aware that a weak case could be made for homoDarwin. He took "long walks" with one of his professors who was a homosexual, and his position aboard the Beagle is reported by some sources as being "primarily a personal aide to the captain", which might be another way of saying "cabin boy" which is another way of saying... But if he was that kind of "cabin boy" it certainly doesn't seem to have been for the captain himself. The man has an outstanding reputation which in more than one way is incompatible with such behaviour, and casts doubt on speculations that such would even occur under his command.
Darwin was actually a last-minute choice. Another candidate had agreed to take the job, but backed out at the last minute. One who
wants to believe can easily imagine someone tipping him off "Hey fella! You know what they do on them ships? You know what that job's really about?"
And that's all I know on the subject. If there's any substantial evidence, it would explain a lot; but I'm not aware of such. HomoDarwin is possible, perhaps slightly probable, but nothing one should assert unless they have more evidence than this. Folks should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Even if Darwin was guilty, I doubt much evidence will turn up at this late time.
As for the Hitler thing... I understand Hitler had a good deal of respect for the English because they were a little island country and had built a magnificent empire. He could have been privately trying to evolve London into a correspondingly magnificent city by introducing random bursts of energy to its buildings in hopes that they'd evolve; but we have no indication that this was the case. None whatsoever.
Hitler's evolutionism seems to have been confined to the human race. I do not know that he ever tried to apply it to the world. I suspect you mean to say he wasn't an evolutionist, but we have records of what he did and all arguments produced thus far against the firm, involuntary conclusion of honest historians are based merely upon cherry-picked words, words of a man universally acknowledged to be a prolific liar. You are wise if you prefer not to repeat them. They are unfit material even for the purpose of fooling oneself.
You will most likely be upset to see that I have accepted the position of moderator here. It wasn't something that made me happy. I shall miss mocking the mockworthy, but it is all for the best. The source of most mockworthiness is unacceptable behaviour, if one considers the matter; and we hope to make such behaviour a relic of the past.
It may be that some new participants will show up if we have a civil atmosphere. But I shan't waste time just now speculating. The future holds what it holds. History teaches that we'll do well to prepare for unruly raiding parties as well.
