NoBlowBama (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Of course not, Fatherland.

NoBlowBama (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

lmao....nice

theorybased (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Darwins initial ideas have since been modified many times over because no one mans word is Gospel; he made mistakes and the goal of science is to weed them out. No doubt the current model too has some mistakes itself, but science has no end goal, it is a continuous expansion & improvement of our knowledge. Speaking of mistakes, you are aware that C. GALTON Darwin is the grandson of C. ROBERT Darwin, right? And it is the LATTER who gave us the idea of evolution NOT the former.

theorybased (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Because popularity is irrelevant to the validity of his scientific claims! I have no personal affection for the man nor do I suggest we follow him as a moral role model; just assess the theory on its own merits! Same goes for the possible co-authors, I dont care because Darwin the person is irrelevant to the validity of the theory (I cant stress this enough). So the question again becomes, are you in fact questioning the validly of evolution, and if so, in what respect?

Lsdfunk (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Okay, but shouldn't you at least have the ability to google "charles galton darwin eugenics" of your own volition. Seems easy, but then again, I have a google toolbar. XD I'm not saying evolution is entirely wrong. Logically, it's very pleasing. I'm just saying it's possible it contains some untruth. Seeing as the 'creator' of this fine theory obviously had a malicious agenda, later in his career at least. His entire extended family/friends were eugenicists & imbreeders. What a hero.

Lsdfunk (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

lol, are you implying I have an agenda? Read his book 'The Next Million Years'. You implied it didn't matter - whether he was evil or not. But if he's such a popular historical figure, how could it not matter? Secondly, this not just darwins theory. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was responsible for the majority of the theory of evolution. Also, Charles' counterpart, A. R. Wallace, was responsible for nearly all of the field work which was later to be attributed to Darwin.

theorybased (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

O, incidentally, the burden of proof IS on you since you're the one making the claim that Darwin was a Nazi etc. Had this discussion been over proving evolution then the burden of proof would be on me; though frankly the matter of its proof has been so thoroughly exhausted that I just dont take anyone who just dismisses evolution wholemeal seriously (and I question if they even read relevant scientific material), if particular points are raised however then there is room for a meaningful debate

theorybased (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The issue isn't of minding; I'd rather Heidegger wasn't a Nazi, but his ideas on 'being' -on their own merits- are still brilliant. Likewise, even IF Darwin was all you say he was, his theories about evolution have withstood testing and evidence, unless of course you are questioning the scientific validity of evolution? O, & "just a search engine" is not a reliable source of information, anyone "with their own agendas" can fabricate a story; point me to a reliable source & I'll happily read it.

Lsdfunk (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

It's not for me to carry the burden of proof. Especially when confined to 500 characters. Just look into it if wish to know, it's pretty easy - all you needs a search engine. What does it matter? Are you serious? You don't mind that the owner of the theory of the progression of phylogeny was part of societies/foundations with their own agendas? I'd rather my culture was constructed without machination. Not by inbred aristocrats - with twisted delusions of grandeur - involved in eugenics.

theorybased (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@ LSDfunk (...quite); ad hominem dear boy, even IF you were right on all account (although to mine eyes "you all know this, right?" doesn't quite count as proof but *shrugs*) what does it matter? Does the idea itself become any less credible? Heidegger WAS a Nazi beyond any doubt, but Being and Time remains a seminal work in modern Western thought nonetheless.