If forced at gunpoint to choose between the amount of truth you can find in memes, versus the amount of truth you can find in academia, which would you choose?
I was just ribbing a little here, but on a serious note the works of Darwin are compelling, but then pseudo-scientifically push the idea of evolution out of thin air. Note these studies were backed by Rothschild at the time and several scientists criticised the conclusions where they had to hire bulldog pulpits to push the idea. For example, Thomas Henry Huxley (the grandfather of Aldus and Julian Huxley and paid rothschild shill) was well known for being one of them.
Not saying any conclusion on this though, just that the particular conclusions are not scientific nor a valild theory (i.e. can be debunked by issues shown in other discoveries).
Darwin was as big a plagiarist as Einstein. He stole most of his work from other, less well known horticulturalists and animal husbandry experts of the same period and just got his work published and pushed hardest.
I would not be surprised. I read it a few decades ago and was a normie then so didn't read as critically as I do now. Again, compelling work (like Einstein), but I even understood then that something was not fleshed out with the conclusions. The findings (before conclusions) sounded interesting to me at the time.
He stole most of his work from other, less well known horticulturalists and animal husbandry experts of the same period and just got his work published and pushed hardest.
If you can help a little, I'd love to read or see more about this. It's clear he was a shill now, but I'd like to understand where he stole it from to get a better understanding of what was found at the time.
You could start with Patrick Matthew's "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" published in 1831.
In 1859 Darwin replicated the theory of evolution by natural selection in Patrick Matthew’s 1831 prior publication.
Matthew was the first to coin that phrase to explain the theory, which he called the Natural Process of Selection. Darwin realised he had no choice but to use the same words so he called it the Process of Natural Selection. He shuffled the words and hoped nobody would notice.
Perhaps most damning is a letter to Matthew from Darwin’s own wife, Emma, written on behalf of her husband.
She wrote claiming Darwin was too ill to write, with a telling line to Matthew. “Darwin is more loyal to your own original child than you were yourself.”
All the top Darwinists admit Matthew got there first, but claim nobody read it. Actually, they did.
‘We’ve got Darwin’s lies, replications of text and ideas, independent verifiable facts which, I think, come down in favour of deliberate, knowing fraud.’
Read: "Science Fraud" Dr. Mike Sutton, and, "Darwins Ghosts" by Professor Rebecca Scott.
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 0 points 1.4 yearsJan 4, 2024 20:39:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] oppressed
[ - ] oppressed [op] 0 points 1.4 yearsJan 4, 2024 22:20:40 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 0 points 1.4 yearsJan 4, 2024 22:24:20 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 0 points 1.4 yearsJan 5, 2024 04:49:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 0 points 1.4 yearsJan 5, 2024 10:59:58 ago (+0/-0)
Not saying any conclusion on this though, just that the particular conclusions are not scientific nor a valild theory (i.e. can be debunked by issues shown in other discoveries).
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 1 point 1.4 yearsJan 5, 2024 22:56:29 ago (+1/-0)
Darwin was as big a plagiarist as Einstein. He stole most of his work from other, less well known horticulturalists and animal husbandry experts of the same period and just got his work published and pushed hardest.
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 0 points 1.4 yearsJan 5, 2024 23:21:53 ago (+0/-0)
I would not be surprised. I read it a few decades ago and was a normie then so didn't read as critically as I do now. Again, compelling work (like Einstein), but I even understood then that something was not fleshed out with the conclusions. The findings (before conclusions) sounded interesting to me at the time.
If you can help a little, I'd love to read or see more about this. It's clear he was a shill now, but I'd like to understand where he stole it from to get a better understanding of what was found at the time.
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 1 point 1.4 yearsJan 5, 2024 23:34:14 ago (+1/-0)*
In 1859 Darwin replicated the theory of evolution by natural selection in Patrick Matthew’s 1831 prior publication.
Matthew was the first to coin that phrase to explain the theory, which he called the Natural Process of Selection. Darwin realised he had no choice but to use the same words so he called it the Process of Natural Selection. He shuffled the words and hoped nobody would notice.
Perhaps most damning is a letter to Matthew from Darwin’s own wife, Emma, written on behalf of her husband.
She wrote claiming Darwin was too ill to write, with a telling line to Matthew.
“Darwin is more loyal to your own original child than you were yourself.”
All the top Darwinists admit Matthew got there first, but claim nobody read it. Actually, they did.
‘We’ve got Darwin’s lies, replications of text and ideas, independent verifiable facts which, I think, come down in favour of deliberate, knowing fraud.’
Read: "Science Fraud" Dr. Mike Sutton, and, "Darwins Ghosts" by Professor Rebecca Scott.
[ + ] AryanPrime
[ - ] AryanPrime 1 point 1.4 yearsJan 4, 2024 21:34:19 ago (+1/-0)
seriously fuck off with this shit
[ + ] Thyhorrorcosmic103
[ - ] Thyhorrorcosmic103 3 points 1.4 yearsJan 4, 2024 17:43:13 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 1.4 yearsJan 4, 2024 20:41:08 ago (+1/-0)