Some people use a threaded view which stops working when the thread gets too big.
Creation vs. Evolution II
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
Thanks, I haven't used that mode before.
Tattooed Theist
New member
I dont see anything wrong with what you just said.
Newton was wrong.
I assume your intent was to provoke an argument, in which I am sorry to say I will not propose one.
Jose Fly
New member
I'm still waiting on you to provide Darwin's "scientific research resulting in his assertion that there IS a racial order in terms of supremacy and whites are at the top".
You must be a PhD physicist short listed for a Nobel
Not provoking, just showing that misuse of a very valid theory does nothing to make the theory wrong – as in my example of Newton misusing his new understanding of gravity, or your example of claiming Darwin had racist ideas based on his Theory of Evolution. Is that a bit more clear?
Whites are the best
Tattooed Theist
New member
If directed at me, please refer to my previous posts and sources - I'm terribly against repeating myself.
:cheers:
Tattooed Theist
New member
You misunderstand my statement then.
Let me clarify.
Due to his racism, it makes his theories of evolution garbage - because his racism is in direct correlation to his research. He acquired his racism through his research, therefore if you adopt his research you also must adopt his racism, being that ("whites are best"- [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION] :darwinsm
If you would like to propose a different theory of evolution - that is a different story.
"Darwinism" however, is that which pertains to Darwin's studies and research.
Much love brother.
Rosenritter
New member
"Most present-day Darwinists claim that Charles Darwin was not actually a racist, but that racists have interpreted his ideas in a biased manner in order to support their own views. They maintain that the expression “by means of The Preservation of Favored Races” in the subtitle of his book The Origin of Species is meant solely for animals. However, those who make such claims ignore what Darwin actually said about human races in his book The Descent of Man.
According to the views that by Darwin set out in that book, the different human races represented different stages of evolution, and some races were more highly “evolved” and thus advanced than others. Some, in fact, were pretty much at the same level as apes.
Darwin suggested that the struggle for survival also applied to human races, (See Struggle for Survival, the.) In the course of that struggle, favored races would be victorious. According to Darwin, these favored were European whites. Asians and Africans, on the other hand, had lagged behind in the fight for survival going on in the world. Darwin went even further and suggested that these races would soon lose the struggle entirely and be eliminated altogether: "
http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Evolution-Dictionary/16613/theory-of-favored-races-the
GCThomas, do you understand the concept of honesty? I presented an image, without comment or interpretation. The image is legitimate, a simple fact. It must have certainly struck a nerve because you launched into a defensive!
Regardless, here's where the honesty part comes in. Don't create a claim, then pretend it's my claim. I'm not quoting the phrase "lower organisms" although if you had an evolved brain you'd understand that Darwin considered Africans and Asians lower, and that he also considered them organisms, thus "lower organisms" by any means of logical construction.
Rosenritter
New member
What I don't understand is why Redfern and/or gcThomas doesn't just say "So what if Darwin was rascist?" or "So what if we want to be racist?" It's not like morality or fundamental fairness has any place under the evolutionary-atheist belief system anyway.
I am not clear what you mean by Darwin’s “research”. In science (and I am sure in Darwin’s case) often there is considerable scientific research done before the crucial elements of the theory become clear. But once that happens, often the theory can be succinctly stated and verified independently of the original research that led to it. For Example, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was the end result of years of struggling with new mathematics, new ways of looking at space and time, and some trial and error. Yet few cosmologists today master General Relativity that way, the path to understanding it is much more direct now (but still not trivial).You misunderstand my statement then.
Let me clarify.
Due to his racism, it makes his theories of evolution garbage - because his racism is in direct correlation to his research. He acquired his racism through his research, therefore if you adopt his research you also must adopt his racism, being that ("whites are best"- [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION] :darwinsm
If you would like to propose a different theory of evolution - that is a different story.
"Darwinism" however, is that which pertains to Darwin's studies and research.
Much love brother.
I have limited knowledge of the specific research Darwin did in coming to his Theory of Evolution, yet his theory now rests largely on two major concepts – the introduction of novel changes into a genome, and natural selection. I have no problems with embracing The Theory of Evolution with those as foundational elements. And I can assure you, I do not see racism as a necessary conclusion therefrom.
I think I know all my siblings, and I suspect you ain’t one of em.
gcthomas
New member
Leaving out your juvenile school-yard insults that have no place in a discussion like this…
First, Darwin though that all humans were the same species and he valued them the same, and even argued with the Beagle's captain on this point. He did consider that many 'races' had less developed civilisations, and were hence likely to be wiped out by the more advanced civilisations. He never used the word lower for human biology, only for their civilisational progress. Your insistance on using the quoted phrase "lower organisms" for Darwin is pure fabrication, and your defence of such a quote is weak. It was presented as a quote, yet was not - you should have abandoned it then.
Second, if Darwin was revealed to be a racist bigot of the wors kind, a wife beater and poodle puppy torturer, it would have no effect on the veracity Theory of Evolution. The Theory stands on its own, since scientific theories should never depend on the personal standing of one person. They are tested and challenged and verified and improved, as has Evolution: Darwin is entirely unimportant to the Theory except as an historical footnote. If Darwin had never existed, the Theory of Evolution would be just the same.
So carry on making up and defending fabricated "quotes" - it has no effect on the Theory and just undermines your credibility. Misquoting is lying, and you should back off from misquoting.
Read the books yourself, don't rely on partisan advocacy sites - they can't be trusted. Better still, read a modern text on Evolution, and tackle the actual theory instead of attacking an historical character with the intention of slinging some mud at evolution as a side effect.
gcthomas
New member
What I don't understand is why you don't actually read replies to you, such as this one:
Hey All, I don't mean to go off topic, but I thought you should see this. It shows that Christianity is valid and so is the Bible. Check it out:
'Burial slab' of Jesus found in Jerusalem church
3 / 18
USA TODAY
Mary Bowerman - 12 hrs ago
Researchers recently uncovered a stone burial slab which many believe Jesus Christ's body may have been laid on following his death.
The original surface of the tomb was uncovered in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the Old City of Jerusalem during restoration work and has been covered by marble cladding since at least 1555 A.D., National Geographic reports.
The marble cover was pulled back, and researchers were surprised by the amount of fill material beneath the covering, Fredrik Hiebert, an archaeologist-in-residence at the National Geographic Society, and a researcher on the restoration project, told National Geographic.
“It will be a long scientific analysis, but we will finally be able to see the original rock surface on which, according to tradition, the body of Christ was laid,” Hiebert told National Geographic.
National Geographic is filming the restoration process for the Explorer series, which will air in November.
According to the Bible, the body of Jesus Christ was laid on a burial bed, or slab of limestone following his crucifixion.
© Gali Tibbon, AFP/Getty Images A general view showing one of Christianity's holiest site, The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, also known as the Basilica of the Resurrection in Jerusalem's Old City. Christians believe that Christ was resurrected following his death, and women who came to anoint his body three days after the burial reported that Jesus’ remains had vanished.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was built by the Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D., and has long been considered by Christians to be the spot where Jesus Christ was buried, AP reported.
In June, a team of experts began renovations on the church and the Edicule or ancient chamber that held Jesus’ tomb, AP reported.
The exposure of the burial bed will allow researchers to answer questions about the original form of the tomb, Antonia Moropoulou, of the National Technical University of Athens, told National Geographic.
"We are at the critical moment for rehabilitating the Edicule," Moropoulou, who is supervising the restoration. "The techniques we're using to document this unique monument will enable the world to study our findings as if they themselves were in the tomb of Christ."
Follow [MENTION=2221]Mary[/MENTION]Bowerman on Twitter.
:angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9: :angel: :guitar: :guitar: :singer: :singer:
'Burial slab' of Jesus found in Jerusalem church
3 / 18
USA TODAY
Mary Bowerman - 12 hrs ago
Researchers recently uncovered a stone burial slab which many believe Jesus Christ's body may have been laid on following his death.
The original surface of the tomb was uncovered in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in the Old City of Jerusalem during restoration work and has been covered by marble cladding since at least 1555 A.D., National Geographic reports.
The marble cover was pulled back, and researchers were surprised by the amount of fill material beneath the covering, Fredrik Hiebert, an archaeologist-in-residence at the National Geographic Society, and a researcher on the restoration project, told National Geographic.
“It will be a long scientific analysis, but we will finally be able to see the original rock surface on which, according to tradition, the body of Christ was laid,” Hiebert told National Geographic.
National Geographic is filming the restoration process for the Explorer series, which will air in November.
According to the Bible, the body of Jesus Christ was laid on a burial bed, or slab of limestone following his crucifixion.
© Gali Tibbon, AFP/Getty Images A general view showing one of Christianity's holiest site, The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, also known as the Basilica of the Resurrection in Jerusalem's Old City. Christians believe that Christ was resurrected following his death, and women who came to anoint his body three days after the burial reported that Jesus’ remains had vanished.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was built by the Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D., and has long been considered by Christians to be the spot where Jesus Christ was buried, AP reported.
In June, a team of experts began renovations on the church and the Edicule or ancient chamber that held Jesus’ tomb, AP reported.
The exposure of the burial bed will allow researchers to answer questions about the original form of the tomb, Antonia Moropoulou, of the National Technical University of Athens, told National Geographic.
"We are at the critical moment for rehabilitating the Edicule," Moropoulou, who is supervising the restoration. "The techniques we're using to document this unique monument will enable the world to study our findings as if they themselves were in the tomb of Christ."
Follow [MENTION=2221]Mary[/MENTION]Bowerman on Twitter.
:angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9: :angel: :guitar: :guitar: :singer: :singer:
Last edited:
Dear gcthomas,
Good Evening!! It is almost morning here. Morning has broken. I hope that you had a good day. I have to see what mine holds now. See what happens. How do you like the article that I posted? Will chat more later!! Bedtime is calling.
Much Love And Cheerio, Mate!!
Michael
Good Evening!! It is almost morning here. Morning has broken. I hope that you had a good day. I have to see what mine holds now. See what happens. How do you like the article that I posted? Will chat more later!! Bedtime is calling.
Much Love And Cheerio, Mate!!
Michael
Most of the time in these discussions I try to keep my focus on science. I have little interest in delving into the moral or personal lives of many influential people. I am aware that some people who we hold in high esteem scientifically were not so savory in their personal lives. Newton is regarded as a genius, but as a person he had a reputation as an unpleasant irascible fellow.
I can’t help but see the hypocrisy of you and 6days and cohorts in focusing more attention on the personal weaknesses of scientists you want to discredit than you do on their science. If you are comfortable rooting in that sewer, have at it, but don’t expect me to want to join your circle.
Dear redfern,
I'm not rotting in any sewer. I just wanted to say Good Morning! I was looking for my post to gcthomas, and I finally found it here. So cool. I thought I lost it forever. Please check out the article I posted. I don't think you are atheist and even if you were, you might find it interesting. Okay, now I've really got to get to bed. It is 5:40 a.m. here. I'm a night owl, in case you didn't know.
To A Brother In Christ!!
Michael
Jose Fly
New member
No, you have not shown any research by Darwin that leads to the conclusion "there is a racial order and whites are at the top".