Darwinists: Persisting despite the evidence

It was Gavrilo Princip 's fault.

I blame it on him.

Just because you are ignorant of the civil wars between the Carlists and the Isabellistas for more than 40 years doesn't mean that it didn't take place. Just because you are ignorant of Louis Bonaparte's two invasions of Italy (first as President of the Republic and then as Napoleon III) doesn't mean that it didn't take place--and it doesn't alter the undeniable fact that the battle of Solferino was the largest battle in Europe since the battle at Leipsic in 1813. Just because you are sufficiently ignorant of the extent of the Russo-Turkish War of 1853, known to the Russians as the Oriental War, and known to the English and French as the Crimean War, not to know the scale of that conflict is not evidence that no major war took place between 1815 and 1913.

Let's just concentrate on the Russo-Turkish War of 1853, since that one right there shoots your entire proposition to hell. French casualties in that war were in excess of 100,000. That's about 50% greater than the size of Napoleon' s entire army at Waterloo. Turkish casualties were about a quarter of a million--exact figures are difficult in the case of the Turks--which is greater than the size of Napoleon's entire army at the Battle of the Nations at Leipsic in 1813. British casualties in that war were about 22,000, which is just about exactly number of casualties Wellington's army suffered at Waterloo. However, when Wellington marched to Waterloo, he had twice as many troops as Raglan had at the siege of Sevastopol. Italian casualties in that war were negligible. Russian casualties mounted to half a million.

Allow me to provide you some more perspective. Lord Raglan's forces at the time they were assembled in England before leaving for Turkey amounted to about 60,000 men. At no time was that entire force ever assembled again in one place, but that's because they started dropping like flies as soon as they reached Scutari, from disease. They landed with their French allies at Varna (in modern-day Roumania), but they just sat around and died from septic diseases, because the Turks managed to stop the Russian invasion of the Principalities (Walachia and Transylvania, which roughly correspond to modern Roumania) without outside aid. The Russians probably lost upwards of 80,000 to 100,000 troops in that failed invasion, but no one will every know, because Menshikov suppressed the returns after the few tens of thousands of survivors managed to stagger back to the Ukraine.

So, Lord Ragland and his French allies landed on the Crimean Peninsula in the middle of September, 1854. The French and English governments were at a loss what to do with their armies after the defeat of the Russian invasion of the Principalities, but the Russian Black Sea Fleet provided them with an objective. In November, 1853, the Black Sea Fleet had surprised seven Turkish frigates and five corvettes at Sinope, and sank all the frigates and four of the corvettes. They killed every Turk they found in the water, which was a common feature of Russo-Turkish conflicts. The English were appalled at the battle of Inkerman when the Russians started to kill the wounded on the battlefield, but that was just business as usual for the Turks and Russians.

So the Anglo-French decided to go for the Black Sea Fleet, and that meant taking their main base at Sevastopol. Raglan landed with fewer than 30,000 men (about 27,000 or 28,000), so he had lost half his army without having fought a single engagement. A week later, the English and French found about 40,000 Russians drawn up on the heights south of and dominating the Alma River. They drove the Russians from a position which the Russians and the English and French thought they could have held for days--the Russians lost about 6,000 men.

Marching on to Sevastopol, the English arrived first simply by happenstance, and so formed a line, to protect the march of the French, and the French ended up on the left and the English on the right as they faced north toward Sevastopol. The English established their base at the port of Balaclava. That meant that the English were exposed to the attacks of Menshikov's army which hovered on the Worontzov Road leading east-southeast out of Sevastopol. That road passed over a line of ridges and the English engineers began building redoubts there for the Turks to man with English artillery. In October, a little over a month after the battle of the Alma, the Russians launched an attack to take Balaclava, and began by taking the redoubts on what the English were now calling the Causeway Heights. That was the first battle of Balaclava, and the casualties were very light, somewhat over 600 on each side. It became famous because of the idiotic charge of the Light Brigade, which came a couple of hours after the heroic and highly effective charge of the Heavy Brigade--which is now forgotten in consequence of the subsequent idiocy.

This was followed in November by the second battle of Balaclava, known as the Battle of Inkerman after the ridge from which the Russians launched their attack. This was the time when Raglan told the French commander Canrobert that he thought they were fucked--although he said it to him in French, couldn't remember the word, and had it supplied to him by Canrobert, who politely disagreed. The English lost about 2,500 men and the French about 1,800, while the Russians lost about 9,000.

There were no more battles in the open field in that part of the war, which was but one part of a war that stretched from one end of the Black Sea to the other. The English, who eventually landed 35,000 troops before Raglan died of disease, had lost more than 5,000 men in those three battles. That's about 15%, which constitutes crippling losses. Menshikov just over 6,000 at the Alma and the Causeway Heights, and another 9,000 at Inkerman, for a total of 15,000, for an army which never exceeded 45,000--so he lost a third of his force in three battles, every one of which he should have won, and every one of which the English and the French were sure he would win.

But we are all wrapped up in the Crimean campaign of this war, and it was small potatoes on the scale of the entire war. At a conservative estimate, more than 750,000 men were killed, wounded or died of disease in that war, and most reasonable estimates put the casualties at just under 900,000. By contrast, the entire forces of the Thirty Years War, over the entire 30 years, did not quite reach 900,000. The entire force of Napoleon's army in the invasion of Russia, before the invasion began, was only half that size--that is to say, he had half as many men in his army as both sides lost in the Russo-Turkish War of 1853, and the Russians alone lost more men in that war than Napoleon ever had in the Grand Army.

It is absurd to claim that there was a century of peace after 1815, and is absurd to say that there were no major wars in that period. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Just because you ain't heard of it don't mean it didn't happen and don't mean it wasn't major.

I needed to remind myself why I had Setanta on ignore.....

Mostly, because he makes you look like a ******* idiot, with regularity. That would be my guess.

Cycloptichorn

Any modern historian would laugh in your face for that one. The war took place almost exclusively in Germany, and most of it in northern Germany (although Turenne and Montececuli did face one another in the Rhineland, and the Franco-Swedish army did launch a doomed invasion of Swabia.) The old assumption that northern Germany was horribly ravaged has been dismissed by modern historians, both because there is no real evidence for this, and because the region recovered economically very swiftly. It was bad wherever Wallenstein's army marched, but to claim that Europe was turned into pigpen once again displays profound ignorance.

I don't make him look like what he is, i just point it out . . .

You can't look more an idiot than when anybody uses a word like "war" Set goes off on one like one of those toys that jump all over the table making farting noises when you tickle its midriff.

He talks about wars lasting years as if they are the instructions on a TV dinner.

I think it makes him feel virile.

Hate to pile on from another side but "The Scientists that dont accept evolution"
have their own pet theories to forward

Hoyle and Wikramsingen dont buy the chemical evolution theory (even though research is closing in on the base reactions that can occur in a water medium). These two guys have landed on a panspermia theory. This doesnt really discount evolution, it pushes it out into space where Hoyle stated that leaps in complexity in life are ccomplished by influx of new strains of genomes from outer space.
1This denies the evidence in the fossil record. Even though many species die in mass extinctions during these cataclysms, many species pass right through unmolested. (Eg, mammals were composed of 7 major orders before the K/T extinction, then after KT only four were left and then one more died out and we are left with three (monotremes, marsupials, and placentals) These 3 basic groups led to therest of mammalia alive today.

Hoyles lack of any data or explanations for HOW his errant genomes get incorporated into existing life is unknown. The Gaia people all recognize a limit in which genomes can transfer in eukaryotes. (No problem to Hoyle)

2Nilsson was frustrated that he couldnt "force" evolution . Therefore, according to him, it doesnt happen . Out there are thousands of biologists who are watching evolution in action by multi generational studies on bacteria, birds, and pelecypods.Nilsonn is a proponent of EMACISM, a proposal that , like"The Moat in Gods EYe", periodic catastrophes cause rapid readjustments of genomes. This too is shown to be invalid from studying the fossil record. Also Nilsonn has not proposed any "mechanism" as to how rootstock genomes are preserved (unless possibly by transferons and hence EVOLUTION?)
Gunga states that "scientists" who refute evolution do it by transfer from other disciplines that they work in. If Im a neurosurgeon involved in oncology, I dont believe I have any credibility in cosmology.

Im not familiar with work by Volmert (rat ****?) or Lwoff, but I can say from their opinions that they totally miss what evolution is about and where the theory by natural selection begins. By trying to conflate evolution and all studies of the origins of life, we have an attempt at trying to confuse the general public who clearly wish to learn something .

Well effemm--we have just had David Attenborough no less, in his most ceremonial hushed tones of reverential awe, assure us that Ida could be our link to the animal kigdom and that the team believes she is. Which one might do on their salaries looking at pictures on screens all day long and getting themselves on telly.

I presume you agree that the could and the believes renders DA's statement mush and when you think that by the time I get to the pub Ida will be the real thing in the public mind.

Which is confusing the public and a man of DA's education knows it.

He went on to say that through Ida we were connected to everying else but he didn't specify what probably due to it being grubs, worms and microbes.

When are you going to answer the question about birth control, homosexuality and abortion in evolution? And lay the ghost of a suspicion that you are using evolution science to undermine the Church because its teachings on those matters are not convenient to you.

You seem to think that the Church disapproves of those things for no reason despite it making them unpopular. It disapproves of them because they reduce or eliminate the dignity of women. And thus men.

That comes first. The dogma stems from that. And is consistent with evolution.

gungasnake wrote:

Now that u mention it, I must admit that nazis and communists
both intended to use evolution to breed their own favored kind of guy.
U have conceded the point qua "microevolution".
The nazis coud have successfully bred for more tall blue eyed blonds.
The commies were less likely of success in breeding for unselfish collectivists.

Most respectfully, Gunga, I must accuse u of projecting your own
high nobility of mind onto predatory collectivist miscreants where it does not belong,
insofar as u suggest that predators care whether their prey is a fellow child of God.
That did not stop the Roman legions, nor the Persians, who anteceded Darwin.

It did not stop the Catholic Inquisition (no offense, Farmer).
Dion O'Bannion was known to have been an alter boy in the morning
and then go out picking up some extra cash by mugging at nite.
He was not deterred from exploiting his fellow children of God.
I don 't know his beliefs concerning evolution.



Altho I respect anyone 's right to an opinion,
I believe that this one is factually incorrect,
in that Jesus was perfectly capable of speaking for himself,
and he DID so. I think it is a little presumputous of Sir Arthur
to add his own beliefs to what Jesus actually said;
I doubt that he 'd like that.
Jesus had plenty of time to express his own position.
He never condemned evolution; he did not tell farmers
to stop breeding animals for better results.
The 10 Commandments don 't prohibit breeding for good results.
WHICH law of Jesus is it that must wait
until "the law of evolution is destroyed" before it can prevail?
ALL of them? Is Sir Arthur telling us that God's laws are suspended
pending the refutation of genetic evolution ?



Some folks who have been revived from death have described
life-review experiences, in the presence of a Being of Light,
who has counselled them not to be too harsh in their judgments
of their lives. The universal consensus was that each life
was judged by 2 criteria: love and learning.

Evolution was not a concern that has ever been mentioned.

There was a Southern Christian minister who was known
for his fire n brimstone speeches. After he was revived
from having died of a heart attack, he said: "I was surprized
that God was not interested in my theology."





David

spendius wrote:

What question is that, Spendius ?





David

gungasnake wrote:

I 'd have taken him off Ignore,
if I thought he 'd stop being so abrasively impolite,
but I believe that he is not capable of that.




`

The question is Dave ---why are those who support teaching evolution in schools all in favour of abortion, birth control, and homosexual rights when none of those appear in evolution and why is the Church against all those if it is not for the very reason that they don't appear in evolution and are not natural.

Is the Church consistent with evolutionary principles and their opponents are merely attacking it to get their rocks off without sweating.

spendius wrote:


OK; I qualify to answer
because I deem biological evolution to have been a fact,
and therefore to be included in the history and pre-history
of the Earth and its inhabitants which shoud be tawt
along with fonetic spelling:
I favor freedom of abortion because I recognize that everyone
owns his own body and is sovereign over his own property;
that includes the right to defense thereof from intruders,
be thay human or not. That is an aspect of the right to self defense.

This autonomy extends to birth control,
which is like locking out unwelcome intruders.
Analogize it to bug repellent.

Qua the homosexuals, I acknowledge the same rights
in them as others (e.g., to be treated the same by the traffic cop
or the post office or the tax collector) but not special rights.
I have no position qua homosexual marriage,
tho I slightly tend to disfavor it, in that it is such a radical
departure from what I am used to. If there were a referendum
on it, I doubt that I 'd take the trouble to vote.
Whether any of these "appear in evolution" or not
is not an applicable criterion in my judgment
qua how thay shoud be deemed in contemplation of law.
(Also, I don 't care whether thay appear in evolution or not.)

I have not been granted authority to represent any church;
therefore, I cannot tell u the reasoning of any church.
Maybe it coud be possible that different churches have different views.

Do u intend to answer my questions ?
the ones that I displayed for u, in answer to your question ?





David

I don't consider cosmological arguments of any kind, nor arguments about abiogenesis to be of much relevance to evolutionary theory. How the cosmos arose, and how life arose are interesting areas for speculation in themselves, but they have nothing to do with a theory of evolution, which is a theory of process--of what happens after the cosmos arises, of how the life which arises, by whatever means, becomes increasingly complex.

Noone does (except the Cretinists). They, by trying to force cosmology and life origins onto evo/devo theory, are merely "looking" for a weak spot .
The fact is that the ICR has nothing in the way of ANY research going on. They have no basis to begin.
However, Im amazed that gunga has stuck it out this far, usually hye posts a couple of douchy statements, followed by his list of "quote mined" "WHAT REL SCIENTISTS SAY ABOUT EVOLUTION" then he posts his 2 cartoons and then splits.

I've mentioned this before... There are two kinds of evolution, i.e. MICROEVOLUTION

I've mentioned this before... There are two kinds of evolution, i.e. MICROEVOLUTION which nobody disputes and which produces variations within one KIND of animal, and MACROEVOLUTION which is what the theory of evolution is about and which the controversy is about, and farmers are practicing the art of influencing MICRO evolution and, in fact, breeders told Chuck Darwin he was full of **** early on since they knew perfectly well that they could never breed a new KIND of animal. Chihuahuas and great Danes are both still dogs; their genome is entirely determined by information as is ours, and the ONLY information present in any dog is that for dogs. Turn them ALL loose, i.e. all the dogs in the world and stop breeding them and, five generations later, all that will be left is your ordinary fifty pound wild dog which is common over the world.

Jesus WOULD have said something had there been anybody in his audience stupid enough to believe that they could breed a cat or a goat from dog stock, i.e. if there had been anybody like Farmerman in his audience but, obviously, there WASN'T anybody that stupid walking around in those days.

I did not forget what u said.