|Recent Posts Categories Archives||Link||Print||Email||Share||RSS|
Richard Dawkins Promotes Desperate Darwinist Excuses in Ludicrous Cover-Up of Darwin's Science Fraud
|Author's FavoritesThinker Recommended|
Howard L. Minnick
November 30, 2014 at 7:08 pm
It's all a matter of perspective
Bravo... well done my good friend.
While taking in what I just read I had a picture in my mind of a transcending time scene in which Richard Dawkins was strolling along the Carse of Goury not noticing that he was passing by a beautiful new planting... still ongoing... of Coastal Redwoods brought from America by Patrick's son John and being planted by P.M. himself in 1857. Instead of watching a true forester in the labors of his love... Dawkins was intently watching a donkey feeding on what little scrub there was in an overused patch of pasture. Curious as to what was so interesting P. M. strolled up to Dawkins and greeted him kindly...only to have the later scowl at him and begin a rant about how stupid a beast of burden like a donkey was and that Mother Mary herself...if the story were true... would have never chosen a donkey to ride to go pay her taxes with while carrying her son. He then continued his rant about how useless the animal was how it should be made to work for it's keep. About that time the donkey walked up to Dawkins and pissed on the back of his legs and then proceeded to crap all over his shoes. What proceeded from Dawkins mouth at that time may have just as well been shouted from the roof tops. It was probably the best and most believable speech he would ever give in his entire life. But the best part was yet to come. With a smile on his face from ear to ear Ole P.M. took his shovel and did what any good gardener would do... he shoveled up the donkeys contribution and fertilized his marvelous new trees.
December 5, 2014 at 12:41 pm
The one problem with your version of Dawkins supplying the fertilizer is that his would be very lacking in substance... where as the donkey's wouldn't.
December 6, 2014 at 4:11 am
I'm a great fan of Harry H. Frankfurt's aptly named book: On Bull***t:, which is available here as a free essay. Frankfurt explains the difference between "bull" and lies. Essentially, the liar is concerned with the truth - its just that he wants to convince you that something else is veracious. The bulls****er has no concern for the truth - his aim is merely to sound correct and plausible, regardless of the veracity of what he says.
Clearly, Richard Dawkins needs to read this blog on his bulls***t and then read Frankfurt and reflect. If, after doing so, he continues with his daft-as-a-brush Darwin worshiping rhetoric that Matthew should have trumpeted his heretical discovery form the rooftops then Bishop Dawkins - of the Church of St Darwin and St Wallace of the Immaculate Conception of a prior Published Theory - can be labelled a liar.
December 6, 2014 at 4:24 am
It does appear that Darwin used his illness to avoid meeting Matthew. Of course, to be even handed (unlike Darwin worshipers) it is true that Darwin did have a chronic vomiting illness (possibly Crohn's Disease ) - but he did rudely hide behind his wife's apron strings in corresponding with Matthew, which strongly suggests he had a guilty mind.
December 9, 2014 at 10:55 am
Many thanks - that is an interesting insight into Jim Dempster's on-going concern to bring greater veracity to the story of Matthew and Darwin. Prof Milton Wainwright thinks it an idea worth pursuing - see page 17 of this article . :
' It is noteworthy that one of the main purposes of Captain Fitzroy’s command of the Beagle voyage was to study the arboriculture of the countries visited with a view to discovering where in the world British warships and merchant vessels might take on board wood for repairs (Cook, 1839). It is possible therefore that Captain Fitzroy may have taken a copy of Matthew’s Naval Timber and Arboriculture with him on the Beagle; if this was the case then Darwin would have had ample time to learn of Matthew’s views on natural selection.'
If any of Jim Dempster's children do happen to read this blog then perhaps they could share any information - or knowledge of their Father's lack of it on this precise question.
January 15, 2015 at 8:23 am
Firstly from herein I'm going to adopt your longer acronym ONTA (OnNaval Timber and Aboriculture) - rather than my earlier NTA. Yours can be pronounced - it's better therefore.
You might be onto something with that lead. Hopefully you can uniquely find further New Data. It's most certainly a trail worth following up.
I think we should be cautious in attributing Fitzroy's suicide to Darwin. He was a notoriously mercurial and brooding man. He completely screwed-up his post as Governor of New Zealand - and his fortune was lost. When he died, Darwin and others had to lobby for his widow to receive a state pension so that she did not die in absolute poverty.