The Real Charles Darwin - 1/2 - Dr. Emil Silvestru

[slowfinger2]

@CosmopolitanNo1 The true facts are that his theory is vigourously disputed. After all it is not a fact or it wouldn't still be call the "THEORY of Evolution". A reasonable mind can't deny that.

[andvil01]

Galileo Galilei made some mistakes, so I'll stick to be a geocentrist. Isaak Newton wasn't exactly right so I believe in intelligent falling and denies integrals in math. Columbus believed he did find India, means the earth is flat and America doesn't exis (haven't seen it myself). Einstein sucked at math and didn't accepted kvantum physics, means matter isn't energy. Pasteur didn't know about anti-biotics, means infections aren't caused by microorganisms. Make sense? Not!

[BigG99]

@CosmopolitanNo1  the real issue isnt wether the science is good or bad, its about the worldview.. if you believe that things happened over a long period of time, those assumptions go into the scientific method like carbon dating and so on. layers in strata for instance can develope in many ways. there is a humanist paradigm or belief in science. that belief can change. right now evolution stands as the best guess, one day ill guarantee that will change.

[CosmopolitanNo1]

@BigG99: Not exactly a "guess", but of course it it just the knowledge we have at this point in time. The likelihood that this will change is extraordinarily slim. There are simply too many proofs which pack up the theory.

[BigG99]

@CosmopolitanNo1 well i guess we will have to wait and see.. most of evolution is based on assumptions.layers are assumed in rock because have never observed them forming exept for rapidly due to valcanic eruption and floods. yet they claim it took millions of years, and then they date and write the evolutionary tree based on those layers. its flawed, its assumptive. we have a long way to go to understanding the big questions of this world.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

The problem is that creationists always lean on authority figures, so they think scientists do as well. They cannot for the life of them comprehend that Darwin is not considered the be-all and end-all of biology.

[MrShineSilver]

Yes, Darwin was naive at the time. Why? Because he lived in the 1800's. He made mistakes, like all scientists do. But what he believed remains true. He lined up some pieces of the puzzle, but he lined up a few wrong incorrectly. But the big picture he was creating is staring us all in the face. Evolution is real.

[Coryscott5]

To Emil Silvestru: If your whole idea started on a false premise like that, and then you built onto that non-existent foundation -- you fail. Sorry "Dr".

[cras17]

@karlkarlkarl1234 Actually Dr Silvestru earned his Ph.D in geology at the ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania. He has published 41 scientific papers and written a book on geology. He was, until recently, the head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute (speleology = the study of caves) in Cluj.

But yeah, he probably doesn't know what he is talking about because he disagrees with your central life paradigm.

[karlkarlkarl1234]

@cras17

"Dr Silvestru earned his Ph.D in geology at the ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania"

Whoa yeah heard that place is off the chart in academic standards.

[cras17]

@karlkarlkarl1234 " Whoa yeah heard that place is off the chart in academic standards."

Well your complaint seemed to be that you thought he had gone to a bible college (which is some way discredits everything he says). I was just showing you that Dr. Silvestru studied and worked at a legitimate academic center. Not just any institution can hand out PhD's. It is an internationally recognized degree and for a university to have a doctorate program they all need to meet guidelines and standards.

[gregrutz]

Darwin made geological mistakes>>>Soooooooooooooooo?

He made mistakes about ''slow and gradual'' too.

IF you can't prove evolution wrong, leave Darwin alone.

[karlkarlkarl1234]

I smell.... evangelical ignorance...

[MegaDude1969]

yes that is because the big globalist bankers and wealthy elitists are against God and against freedom, and they are in control of media and governments, so they want people atheist to accept their socialist atheist one world government. Lack of morals, and beliefs in God brings down society, so people look to them to be the saviors, while the rest of us live as slaves. Christ will return and destroy them and their god satan.

[Epagonizesthai]

Can you provide citations for these claims, plesae?

[Crioca]

I sure can, Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during the second round of "purifications".

Number 6 of the list of books to be banned or burnt:

"Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism "

[Crioca]

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x"

[Samuelthemule]

@Crioca you know who wrote mein kampf?

...

[Crioca]

"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed. (Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi)"

Hitler's beliefs were the OPPOSITE of evolution and are in line with modern creationist rhetoric.

[Crioca]

Trofim Lysenko was director of Soviet biology under Joseph Stalin

"Lysenkoism:

1. The doctrine that maintained that environmentally acquired characteristics could be inherited.

2. The use of pseudo-science in furtherance of an ideology."

Source wikipedia / wikitionary

[UppruniTegundanna]

Yeah, in fact when people bring up the numerous deaths caused by Stalinism, what they never mention is the gnawing pangs of hunger that preceded the deaths of Soviet peasants entirely caused by an illogical rejection of Darwinian/Mendelian science.

[UppruniTegundanna]

Wait a minute, didn't Stalin specifically refute Darwin as Capitalist science and put promoters of Darwin in gulags?

[gerontodon]

Yes, that's a good point. I'm personally not sure that mutation and selection *had to be* the explanation for major transitions. The Soviet Union favoured Lamarckism, for ideological reasons. Since Common Descent seems obviously true, then, imo, something *akin* to Lamarckism, in conjunction with natural selection -which *has* been observed, would seem the only alternative. So anyone who thinks Darwin didn't get it all right should give the Soviets some credit.

[Crioca]

Yup, and Hitler was a fundamentalist Christian who banned anything by Darwin as "false science" but evolution deniers never let the facts get in the way of their prejudices.

[Epagonizesthai]

The man who had Dietrich Bonhoeffer hanged and acknowledged the influence of eugenicists like Francis Galton and Madison Grant in Mein Kampf was a Fundamentalist? Come on, this guy had weird ideas that come much closer to Neo-Paganism or Occultism than anything found in biblical Christianity.

Also, the link between Nazism and Social Darwinism is easy to verify. Just do a quick search on the topic, that shouldn't be too hard to do.

[Crioca]

"Also, the link between Nazism and Social Darwinism is easy to verify. Just do a quick search on the topic, that shouldn't be too hard to do."

Social Darwinism is related to Darwin in the same way the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is related to democracy.

To put it in terms you can understand: Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin, or evolution. It's a misnomer.

[Epagonizesthai]

Guess who received a copy of Das Kapital because of the author's appreciation of his ideas...

[Crioca]

"Guess who received a copy of Das Kapital because of the author's appreciation of his ideas..."

What's your point? Stalin wasn't even a Marxist, he was a Stalinist. That's where the term came from.

[Samuelthemule]

@Epagonizesthai no way.

[sweatytoothmadman]

@UppruniTegundanna

Stalin prefered Lamarks theories because he felt that it put Russians at the top of the ladder where as Darwin didn't make a distinction between one organism being better than another just better adapted to the ecological pressures.