Science Disproves Evolution

[Sideroxylon]

Apparently you don't even know the title of his book:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin stated that blacks in Africa and elsewhere were nearer to the apes, and would fall by the wayside. Those are not my words, they're Charles Darwin's. One would think you would be more familiar with them.

Like Hovind, Ham, Comfort and the rest of the nongs, you are big on the rhetoric and play it up to the peanut gallery. Rather it is your ignorance on show by trying to make something of the full title:

Darwin had initially decided to call it An abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties Through natural selection, but with Murray's persuasion it was eventually changed to the snappier title: On the Origin of Species, with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.[1] Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants"

Wikipedia

Source on the Darwin statements please? Not that I find such ideas of white supremacy surprising for the man's time. Nor do any of his personal traits affect the truth of evolution.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'll give 154 a hand here.

In the first place, a Christian who selects a passage from a science book is often condemned for "quote mining". But any leftist or atheist who does the same thing to the Holy Bible is never ever condemned by one of his own.
Why is that? Why is YOUR quote-mining so acceptable while ours is not?
It's purely rhetorical. I have come to expect non-answers from the left.

Context is everything. Some of what we read in the Holy Bible is historical in nature. Some of it is written in the form of a parable, a story, made easier to understand. Some of it is instructional, and gives us moral direction. All of it must be read with discernment and a loving heart and mind.

Jesus listens to, and responds to satan. That could be misinterpreted in many, many ways. An old man slept with his daughters. Lovely spin for the left, that.

Old and New Testament alike counsel us to be kind and loving, and not to be cruel or evil.

Find for me a set of universal laws for humans to deal with each other - a set of Secular Commandments, if you will, that are acceptable to every society on earth.

Atheists feign a morality that is laughably vague and of course scientifically untenable, but they continue the arrogant charade that has been going on for millenia.

Christians, not atheists, took the lead in ending slavery. Nevertheless, there are more slaves worldwide today than there have ever been in history.
And what country has more slaves than any other?
Hint: It is not a Christian country.

What is the real context of Exodus chapter 21 then? Please enlighten us.

 

[154]

Why don't you guys team up and make that Big Christian Slavery Thread.

Go lay out some of your best arguments in more than the regular little potshots.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Why don't you guys team up and make that Big Christian Slavery Thread.

Go lay out some of your best arguments in more than the regular little potshots.

I'm not keen, but am sure you will find many takers. Among the pot shots you will get some well thought out responses from knowledgeable people, just as you have here.

 

[154]

I'm not keen, but am sure you will find many takers. Among the pot shots you will get some well thought out responses from knowledgeable people, just as you have here.

Always.

 

[laca]

I will never understand why people like you, Brainache, are so condescending to the overwhelming majority of Americans, ~85% of whom call themselves "Christians".

Speaking of an "old book," how about Darwin's racist tome, declaring the superiority of the white race, and the inferiority of blacks, placing them down with apes. Is Darwin's literal truth still so important to you?

Funny. No, actually there is something called science. I'm sure you've heard of it. It's that pesky thing that deals with reality, unlike religion. Anyway, Darwin wrote a lot. Most of it was verified, the rest discarded. That's how science works. It's not like people go around with the first edition of Darwin's book and bang on people doors to preach. That's what some other people do.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Always.

Yeah pretty much always. Its a busy forum and there are some pretty well read people here.

 

[laca]

Apparently you don't even know the title of his book:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin stated that blacks in Africa and elsewhere were nearer to the apes, and would fall by the wayside. Those are not my words, they're Charles Darwin's. One would think you would be more familiar with them.

Why? It's not like anyone worships the guy. Who said that everything Darwin ever said is true? He could have been a serial killer for all I care. Evolution is still a valid theory.

 

[laca]

You still think that's such a great point, don't you? Why?

Because every time it comes up all we get is either silence or total avoidance of the matter. See, it's not easy to explain that away.

 

[Marduk]

Darwin stated that blacks in Africa and elsewhere were nearer to the apes, and would fall by the wayside. Those are not my words, they're Charles Darwin's. One would think you would be more familiar with them.

He wrote that 6 years before America abolished slavery, seems it was world opinion at the time, but I don't understand how that has any effect on evolutionary theory
care to answer that one ?

 

[laca]

I'll give 154 a hand here.

In the first place, a Christian who selects a passage from a science book is often condemned for "quote mining". But any leftist or atheist who does the same thing to the Holy Bible is never ever condemned by one of his own.
Why is that? Why is YOUR quote-mining so acceptable while ours is not?
It's purely rhetorical. I have come to expect non-answers from the left.

Context is everything. Some of what we read in the Holy Bible is historical in nature. Some of it is written in the form of a parable, a story, made easier to understand. Some of it is instructional, and gives us moral direction.

Nice evasion. Let's have some context, shall we:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 12&version=KJV
Now please show how it is quote-mining to say Jesus condoned beating of slaves, even if they were not aware they were doing something wrong.

After you realize you can't, look up the definition of quote mining. Thanks.

All of it must be read with discernment and a loving heart and mind.

In other words, pick and choose the parts you like. Excellent!

Jesus listens to, and responds to satan. That could be misinterpreted in many, many ways. An old man slept with his daughters. Lovely spin for the left, that.

Old and New Testament alike counsel us to be kind and loving, and not to be cruel or evil.

You got to be kidding me. Have you read the thing?!

Find for me a set of universal laws for humans to deal with each other - a set of Secular Commandments, if you will, that are acceptable to every society on earth.

Atheists feign a morality that is laughably vague and of course scientifically untenable, but they continue the arrogant charade that has been going on for millenia.

There is no absolute morality. Deal with it.

Christians, not atheists, took the lead in ending slavery. Nevertheless, there are more slaves worldwide today than there have ever been in history.
And what country has more slaves than any other?
Hint: It is not a Christian country.

After you've done with all the dodging and apologetics do try to address why Jesus condoned beating of slaves, regardless whether they knew they were doing wrong or not. Thanks.

 

[Sideroxylon]

After you've done with all the dodging and apologetics do try to address why Jesus condoned beating of slaves, regardless whether they knew they were doing wrong or not. Thanks.

In another thread of course.

 

[laca]

In another thread of course.

Well, it is a derail, I was just pointing out that he didn't answer the post he replied to.

 

[Brainache]

Struth! Fundamentalists are accusing scientists of being Fundamentalists! That is hilariously ignorant of you Mr Quick. Keep it up.

Maybe you will turn away as many people from your strange superstitious lifestyle as your friend 154 has done.

 

[Hans]

Of course being god he could have snapped his metaphysical fingers, all the people would have disappeared and you could have done without the drowning of all those innocent people (not that it happened) but instead he went through the whole show......

the classic vengeful god

 

[brenn]

I will never understand why people like you, Brainache, are so condescending to the overwhelming majority of Americans, ~85% of whom call themselves "Christians".

Speaking of an "old book," how about Darwin's racist tome, declaring the superiority of the white race, and the inferiority of blacks, placing them down with apes. Is Darwin's literal truth still so important to you?

Maybe you should read some Darwin, instead of internet BS. I think you'd find he was surprisingly non-racist, particularly taken in context of the time and his subject.

"It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant." Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 217 (1872).

"The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours" The Descent of Man, 223.

"I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him." Frederick Burkhardt, Sydney Smith, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: 1821-1836 311 (1985).

 

[brenn]

Apparently you don't even know the title of his book:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin stated that blacks in Africa and elsewhere were nearer to the apes, and would fall by the wayside. Those are not my words, they're Charles Darwin's. One would think you would be more familiar with them.

Got a page cite? That sounds a lot like the old "more evolved" thing which, of course, doesn't fit in with natural selection at all (everything is equally evolved, but in different directions). When I google it, I get all sorts of Darwin quotes that he never said, mainly from christian sites that are willing to lie outright to try to demonize Charles darwin.

The most interesting thing about this claims is (a) that Christians are so willing to lie about it and (b) that they arrive at this "blacks are closer to apes and less evolved" theory that they then falsely attribute to Darwin. It says more about the christians spreading the rumors than about Darwin.

 

[godless dave]

I will never understand why people like you, Brainache, are so condescending to the overwhelming majority of Americans, ~85% of whom call themselves "Christians".

He's only being condescending to the fraction that take the Bible literally.

Speaking of an "old book," how about Darwin's racist tome, declaring the superiority of the white race, and the inferiority of blacks, placing them down with apes.

That's called lying.

 

[brenn]

He wrote that 6 years before America abolished slavery, seems it was world opinion at the time, but I don't understand how that has any effect on evolutionary theory
care to answer that one ?

If you are going to concede that he wrote it, maybe you would care to give a cite?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If you are going to concede that he wrote it, maybe you would care to give a cite?

Darwin's actual views on this subject are from The Descent of Man, relevant excerpts can be found at wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_man#Human_races

It's clear Darwin considerd Negros to be a race of human, not an ape or something in between. It also seems clear they were one of the savage races he referred to.

He was abolitionist as mentioned earlier.