What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Good point. Only mavericks buck the trend while the orthodox follow the herd.

Except that _______ wasn't being AN EVOLUTIONIST on purpose. The POST MODERN era was not a period where RELIGION was a thing, and while _______ does show the EVOLUTIONARY thinking of that time period, that's not unusual nor him being an outlier.​

I really cannot tell if you're trying to support what I said, or mocking me...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well yeah, Nations tend to integrate well after you kill enough of them. The Roman empire was barbaric. They literally hacked people apart for entertainment. You might want to find a better example of a civilized nation ...

I never made the claim that Roman empire wasn't barbaric or a good example of a positive civilization. Those are your words, not mine.
But the Roman Empire lasted longer because it was able to do more than just murder and kill and pillage like the Mongols did.
Survival of the fittest is not just survival of the strongest or the bloodiest.

 

[renniks]

You are confusing prediction with racism.

You are misinterpreting Darwin. He might have been racist but not in the way you think.

“For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper; or from that old baboon, who, descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man​

Lol, thanks for confirming what I said. You know he's calling black people savages, right?
And saying primitive blacks are worse than monkeys.

 

[renniks]

I never made the claim that Roman empire wasn't barbaric or a good example of a positive civilization. Those are your words, not mine.
But the Roman Empire lasted longer because it was able to do more than just murder and kill and pillage like the Mongols did.
Survival of the fittest is not just survival of the strongest or the bloodiest.

No, it's also survival of the fittest mentally and intellectually, combined with no moral objections to brutality when needed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Lol, thanks for confirming what I said. You know he's calling black people savages, right?
And saying primitive blacks are worse than monkeys.

Chapter and verse that Darwin is specifically referring to blacks in that passage.
Go ahead.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, it's also survival of the fittest mentally and intellectually, combined with no moral objections to brutality when needed.

And survival of the fittest also means that a group that can actually look after its individuals with food and protection for them and their offspring will enjoy a greater quality of life. And guess what the Romans were able to do on a large scale? (aside from mass campaigns of warfare)

 

[AV1611VET]

Hint: 3 letters, begins with G and ends with d.

God has wives, does He?

 

[Jimmy D]

Lol, thanks for confirming what I said. You know he's calling black people savages, right?
And saying primitive blacks are worse than monkeys.

Can you please explain the relevance of your “Darwin was a racist” posts in the context of the thread?

True or not, it makes absolutely no difference to modern science.

How about a critique of the genetic evidence for the relationship between chimps and humans, or a cogent argument in support of the evidence for whatever your opinions are on their origins?

I am being slightly disingenuous asking that, because we both know creationism offers none of the above.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about a critique of the genetic evidence for the relationship between chimps and humans, or a cogent argument in support of the evidence for whatever your opinions are on their origins?

If God created an ape, then the next day created a man, would it matter if that man had 10, 20, 80, or 99% of the same kind of DNA the ape was created with?

In addition, would it matter if God created the man first, then all the animals?

 

[renniks]

Chapter and verse that Darwin is specifically referring to blacks in that passage.
Go ahead.

"How little can the hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses hardly any abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence” (62).

 

[renniks]

How about a critique of the genetic evidence for the relationship between chimps and humans, or a cogent argument in support of the evidence for whatever your opinions are on their origins?

I am being slightly disingenuous asking that, because we both know creationism offers none of the above.

I've already done that in other threads.

 

[renniks]

And survival of the fittest also means that a group that can actually look after its individuals with food and protection for them and their offspring will enjoy a greater quality of life. And guess what the Romans were able to do on a large scale? (aside from mass campaigns of warfare)

Sure. A greater quality of life brought to them by slavery and subjects.

 

[renniks]

Can you please explain the relevance of your “Darwin was a racist” posts in the context of the thread?

Already did. Darwin associated superior races, specifically white supremacy, with evolution.
It's a logical conclusion from his ideas.
Why are people not able to admit that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"How little can the hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses hardly any abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence” (62).

From Descent of Man (which isn't Origin of Species).
And do you wonder why Darwin uses the term 'degraded', which means to be treated with contempt or disgust? Maybe it's got something to with how poorly the Australian aboriginals were being treated by the white European settlers? Has that thought ever crossed your mind in your self-righteous crusade to try and make out Darwin as the devil incarnate?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure. A greater quality of life brought to them by slavery and subjects.

And yet, the Romans still did great civic works to help create better quality of life for their citizens and subjects. History is not as black and white as you seem to like to make it out to be.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Already did. Darwin associated superior races, specifically white supremacy, with evolution.
It's a logical conclusion from his ideas.
Why are people not able to admit that?

We aren't admitting it because you aren't showing anything of the sort. You're just going "DARWIN WAS RACIST!" and showing examples of racist language, but nothing to support your claim that it's do with evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you please explain the relevance of your “Darwin was a racist” posts in the context of the thread?

True or not, it makes absolutely no difference to modern science.

How about a critique of the genetic evidence for the relationship between chimps and humans, or a cogent argument in support of the evidence for whatever your opinions are on their origins?

I am being slightly disingenuous asking that, because we both know creationism offers none of the above.

When one cannot win the real debate one must create a strawman to "win".

 

[Bungle_Bear]

God has wives, does He?

Every Catholic nun, apparently

 

[AV1611VET]

Every Catholic nun, apparently

And He treats them like slaves?

 

[HitchSlap]

God has wives, does He?

Well, he had a son…