WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

fakescience

fakescience

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Derpwin was an agenda driven fraud and a hack whose “observations” were the equivalent of surmising that the leaves on trees create the wind. (((Einsteal))) was a fame whore whose stolen “discoveries” intentionally derailed science “research” and funding into the idiocy and funding boondoggle of “theoretical quantum mechanics” rather than practical, observable study.

[–] [deleted] 3 pts

I bet you never even read anything real about Darwin, just political bullshit.

Darwin was a devout Christian man, who came up with a theory of Natural Selection. As far as I know he never mentioned anything about Evolution, just that Nature would favor the fitter of two species competing for the same biological niche. And Gregor Mendel was a monk who bred sweet peas and found that blossom colors followed certain heredity rules.

You and your world view are both fake and gay, you phony-baloney homosexual.

[–] 0 pt

Darwin was a mason.

Your Mom's a mason!

[–] 0 pt (edited )

“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the [New Testament] text seems to show that the men who do not believe, & this would include my Father, Brother & almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

-Charles Darwin, autobiography

"[My] judgment often fluctuates…. Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term … In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. — I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, — that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

-Charles Darwin, in correspondence with John Fordyce

At best, his early aims were to "help align scripture" the so-called science of his day, as if it needed his pompous ass for such assistance. What he instead did was draw faulty conclusions from observations made earlier and better - that being of a species improving and adding genetic information which results in change, rather than understanding the species loses genetic information as time continues and results in extinction setting end-marks of subsets within larger groups - as opposed to his mistaken assumption of the emergence of new subsets and groups.

Oh, so he was flirting with Deism, which is the religious belief of the preponderance of the USA's Founding Fathers? And in no way did Darwin ever so much as speculate about "adding genetic information," it was simply "Natural Selection." You can't "select" something that isn't already there.

And "improvement" is a very narrow way of looking at something that is simply "weighted towards the most fit." A long hooked beak might be good for sipping nectar, so that animal tends to eat nectar because it's more fit to do so than the short straight-beaked bird, which has an easier time opening nuts so that's what it eats.

Then you have a nut canker come through and most of your nut-cracking birds starve, but look, there was a nut-cracking rodent waiting in the wings, and when the canker is over and the nut trees return, that rodent will now be able to compete with the birds. That's how Natural Selection works, notice there is nothing in there about mutations.

Darwin knew nothing about nor did he ever conceive of mutations driving Natural Selection, which would be the required components of a basic Evolutionary Theory. He just discovered a pattern in Nature, which is a part of what Science is.