Creation vs. Evolution II

[Tattooed Theist]

I used the link. Your previous post misrepresented a quote from Haekel as one from Darwin. This post of yours above doesn't provide the quote itself. I could not fund the phrase 'lower organism' in any of Darwin's books, in any context.

Please, provide a quote instead of a paraphrase.

Quote

A quote from "The Descent of Man", in a chapter called "The Races of Man.", in which Darwin wrote:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178).

Enjoy, :cigar:

 

[gcthomas]

You said 'In his work, pygmies have been compared to "lower organisms"... '

Are you now accepting he said no such thing? (You used "quotes", so I will hold you to that.)

ps. I thought you'd have apologised for quoting Haekel as if he was Darwin. But never mind.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

You said 'In his work, pygmies have been compared to "lower organisms"... '

Are you now accepting he said no such thing? (You used "quotes", so I will hold you to that.)

ps. I thought you'd have apologised for quoting Haekel as if he was Darwin. But never mind.

Direct quote form Darwin.

You ignored my direct quote to condemn me for an old one? hm.

Haekel, in that quote, was to Darwin's work as commentators are to scripture.
I hope you don't ever use biblical commentaries.

I hope my direct quote from Darwin's book is sufficient for you.
God bless.

 

[gcthomas]

No. The claim was that Darwin referred to the pygmy people as "lower organisms". You are avoiding the obvious conclusion that he said no such thing. What others believed was nor the discussion. Both you and 6days have repeated the claim, yet neither of you are even embarrassed that Darwin never claimed such a thing.

You should both be ashamed. My moral code has it down as a bad thing to knowingly tell untruths about another person. Doesn't Christianity have anything to day about this sorry of thing?

How much will you wiggle before admitting that your sources misled you?

Unless you can find the direct quote you claimed top exist.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

No. The claim was that Darwin referred to the pygmy people as "lower organisms". You are avoiding the obvious conclusion that he said no such thing. What others believed was nor the discussion. Both you and 6days have repeated the claim, yet neither of you are even embarrassed that Darwin never claimed such a thing.

You should both be ashamed. My moral code has it down as a bad thing to knowingly tell untruths about another person. Doesn't Christianity have anything to day about this sorry of thing?

How much will you wiggle before admitting that your sources misled you?

Unless you can find the direct quote you claimed top exist.

Please use quotes so I know you've replied.

Please explain how you do not conclude racism from my provided quote?

You can claim moral superiority all you'd like, my friend, it doesn't mean you're morally superior.

I stand by the relatively well known understanding that Darwin, had a poor, nowa days racist view of those who were not white.

The provided quote is quite clear, if you ask me, which you do.

 

[gcthomas]

I started with this...

You claimed this three weeks ago, and you were unable to provide the quotes showing Darwin thought of the pygmies as less biologically evolved, relying instead on Creationist sites for your misleading claims.

You said 'In his work, pygmies have been compared to "lower organisms"... '

Are you now accepting he said no such thing? (You used "quotes", so I will hold you to that.)

And your reply still does not relate to the discuaalion.

Please explain how you do not conclude racism from my provided quote?
…
I stand by the relatively well known understanding that Darwin, had a poor, nowa days racist view of those who were not white.

The provided quote is quite clear, if you ask me, which you do.

You jumped into the discussion, yet you still haven't answered the initial issue, which is that both you and 6days have quoted Darwin as saying specific things he didn't say, implying that evolutionary ideas required you to consider other races as less evolved.

Of course Darwin would be considered somewhat racist today, as would virtually every other Christian of the day (although it is clear from his books that he was substantially less racist than most). That isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is that Darwin said that other races, specifically the pygmies, were less evolved biologically.

And that you still haven't answered, nor have you apologised for repeating the falsehood, or withdrawn your claim.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

I started with this...




And your reply still does not relate to the discuaalion.


You jumped into the discussion, yet you still haven't answered the initial issue, which is that both you and 6days have quoted Darwin as saying specific things he didn't say, implying that evolutionary ideas required you to consider other races as less evolved.

Of course Darwin would be considered somewhat racist today, as would virtually every other Christian of the day (although it is clear from his books that he was substantially less racist than most). That isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is that Darwin said that other races, specifically the pygmies, were less evolved biologically.

And that you still haven't answered, nor have you apologised for repeating the falsehood, or withdrawn your claim.

You are obviously stuck, or unwilling to accept the direct quote from a work written by Darwin in which he speaks of the closeness of african americas to gorillas. Also he very openly has called natives "savages."

This conversation is useless if you refuse to accept what is quite plain.
Furthermore you just admitted He was racist...
6Days and myself did not assert that He was any MORE racist that most during that time, but simply that He was.
The difference is that he had and has great influence is the evolutionary world, in which He compares Blacks to Apes and Natives to Savages.

Progress the discussion or I'm going to have to, respectfully, wish you a good day - and God bless.

P.S. I will not withdraw a claim that I've backed with proof

 

[Jose Fly]

Henry Morris, one of the fathers of young-earth creationism, in his book The Beginning of the World:

"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."

Then of course, there's always this...

 

[Jose Fly]

You are obviously stuck, or unwilling to accept the direct quote from a work written by Darwin in which he speaks of the closeness of african americas to gorillas. Also he very openly has called natives "savages."

I've asked 6days this countless times and he refuses to answer, so I'll ask you.....so what? What exactly is your point?

 

[Tattooed Theist]

I've asked 6days this countless times and he refuses to answer, so I'll ask you.....so what? What exactly is your point?

I didn't have one. I was simply replying to someone who was misinformed on the matter, shedding light.

If you need one to placate yourself, here.
If the "King of Evolution" considers blacks and apes to be less than whites - Whits literally are the superior race....

Which is why I REJECT with a burning passion, His theories and assertions on this topic.

I do not believer blacks are less evolved than whites. I believe we are image bearers of Christ to the same degree, both physically and spiritually.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't have one.

That's pretty much the impression I get from the other creationists here....there is no point to this whole "Darwin was a racist" thing other than simple mud-slinging.

If you need one to placate yourself, here.
If the "King of Evolution" considers blacks and apes to be less than whites - Whits literally are the superior race....

Which is why I REJECT with a burning passion, His theories and assertions on this topic.

Well that would be rather stupid, wouldn't it? "The person who developed this scientific theory was a racist, therefore his theory is wrong", as if the best means to determine the accuracy of a scientific idea is to examine the personal views of its creator.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

That's pretty much the impression I get from the other creationists here....there is no point to this whole "Darwin was a racist" thing other than simple mud-slinging.

Cherry picking much?

Well that would be rather stupid, wouldn't it? "The person who developed this scientific theory was a racist, therefore his theory is wrong", as if the best means to determine the accuracy of a scientific idea is to examine the personal views of its creator.

No, your missing the point. HIS racism is not the issue, but rather his scientific research resulting in his assertion that there IS a racial order in terms of supremacy and whites are at the top. His research finds that, not his opinion.

If you buy evolution, you buy that blacks are equal or close to apes - and whites are the highest on the evolutionary chain.

 

[Jose Fly]

Cherry picking much?

Sorry, you're not making sense.

No, your missing the point. HIS racism is not the issue, but rather his scientific research resulting in his assertion that there IS a racial order in terms of supremacy and whites are at the top. His research finds that, not his opinion.

What specific research of Darwin's shows that?

If you buy evolution, you buy that blacks are equal or close to apes - and whites are the highest on the evolutionary chain.

How is that any different than "If you buy creationism, you buy that blacks bear the curse of Ham and are predisposed to "the mundane" and "servitude"?

 

[gcthomas]

What specific research of Darwin's shows that?

None at all, of course. It is as much vapour as the claim that had him describing any humans as "lower organisms".

In any case, even if Darwin ended up in the church instead of the Beagle, the theory would be the same. It was discovered by Wallace also, and none of their ideas have been accepted without further study. It is Biblical scholars that accept earlier claims without evidence — science doesn't work like that.

 

[Rosenritter]

See:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...vs-Evolution&p=4827315&viewfull=1#post4827315

You claimed this three weeks ago, and you were unable to provide the quotes showing Darwin thought of the pygmies as less biologically evolved, relying instead on Creationist sites for your misleading claims. I searched ALL THREE Darwin books at the time and could not find what you claimed, as you know. This has been pointed out to you, yet you persist in your libel.

When you persist in a self-serving falsehood despite knowing it to be false, it goes from mistake to an outright lie. You are lying, 6Days, and you should have the honour to accept that you have been mislead by your go to sites.

 

[gcthomas]

Ridiculous. If this is the standard of creationist apologetics then no wonder you have all been mislead.

You obviously haven't read either book. The favored races are those breeds of plants and animals that outbreed their competition within their species.

Go on, Ros, find a quote from any of Darwin's writings that claim that pygmies are "lower organisms", as has been claimed and as you are supporting. Come on, it can't be that hard to do a ctrl-f on the Gutenberg texts of the books. (It took me less than a minute to search all of his books this way).

 

[6days]

You jumped into the discussion, yet you still haven't answered the initial issue, which is that both you and 6days have quoted Darwin as saying specific things he didn't say, implying that evolutionary ideas required you to consider other races as less evolved.

Why not quote what was actually said or provide post numbers.

 

[6days]

there is no point to this whole "Darwin was a racist" thing other than simple mud-slinging.

Actually it was GCthomas who brought Darwin into the discussion. See post 37

 

[redfern]

This is done all the time when a thread gets too long for some computers to load. An archived thread can still be read and enjoyed. Starting a part II allows the discussion to continue and the thread to survive. The fact that your thread has gotten to the point where we need to start a part II shows how popular it is.

Your thread is now in the Hall of Fame for threads here as TOL's most popular thread--->http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?94434-Creation-vs-Evolution

Point of clarification about this need to close the old thread due to size. It is my understanding that when you are viewing a TOL thread (on any computer) the computer actually only receives the text, graphics, ads, links, etc. for the section of the thread being viewed – usually 15 (or 100 posts). Even though there may be thousands of posts earlier in the thread (and later), the computer (or cellphone) does not have posts that are not near the ones being currently viewed. Kinda like a big book, though it has lots of pages, in fact all you can read at any given time are the two facing pages that it is open to. If you need to jump to another place in the book, you close the two pages you are viewing and then go to the two new pages.

I don’t see why the number of posts in a thread should be a problem.

 

[redfern]

<re Darwin> If the "King of Evolution" considers blacks and apes to be less than whites - Whits literally are the superior race....

Which is why I REJECT with a burning passion, His theories and assertions on this topic.

Isaac Newton’s work on gravity led him to conclude that the gravity between planets as they orbited would eventually throw each of them out of their orbits. We know that is wrong, and that is why I REJECT with a burning passion, Newton’s foolish theories and assertions on supposedly how gravity both pulls apples down and keeps the moon circling the earth.

OR, just maybe I could be a bit more mature and realize there is a difference between a proposed natural mechanism (gravity) and erroneous early applications of the new understanding of how gravity works.