[Dimensio]

Amazing. You claimed that it is a matter of "historical fact" that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. You even claimed that his own children testified to that fact. Now, in the face of overwhelming evidence against your claim, the best substantiation you can offer is an article that concludes with "We would have liked to conclude that, on balance, her account is truthful, but there is also much against it, and we cannot come to a firm conclusion either way."

So the best evidence that you can offer for your claim that it is a "historical fact" that Darwin recanted on his deathbed is an article that concludes that it cannot be known.

Looks like I was right: you are a shameless, brazen liar.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Looks like I was right: you are a shameless, brazen liar."

And he's not very good at it either. Not they ever seem to be here.

[TheBrotherhood]

>So the best evidence that you can offer for your claim that it is a "historical fact" that Darwin recanted on his deathbed is an article that concludes that it cannot be known.

As I understood it, the article leans more towards a recant by Darwin than an unknown.

Have you all read my other links that proves that there was, in fact, a recant?

I think one has to be fair and not post slanted articles which agree with his/her view, so I decided to post an additional link which at first, and especially if not read in its entirety, may seem neutral, but in reality leans slightly towards a recant by Darwin.

Again, read it with an open mind and you'll agree that Lady Hope was real and so were her assertions regarding Darwins disavowal of his pet theory.

They say a mind is like a parachute: it works best when open.