What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[o_mlly]

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

I'm complimenting your insight. One is often hard pressed to go against the milieu of the times: Darwin lived in a period where racism was the norm. Subsequently, better observations and more cogent reasoning dispelled the errors of racism. Since all science is provisional, the same may be true for evolution as understood today.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm complimenting your insight. One is often hard pressed to go against the milieu of the times: Darwin lived in a period where racism was the norm. Subsequently, better observations and more cogent reasoning dispelled the errors of racism. Since all science is provisional, the same may be true for evolution as understood today.

I mean... probably.

 

[Frank Robert]

I wonder if he had any one individual in the Bible in mind when he said that; because I can't think of any single person therein who fits that description.

My impression is that Darwin was talking about the human race in general. He was still a young man at time and coming from an upper middle class family he never the opportunity to witness such atrocities.

 

[o_mlly]

It's a logical conclusion from his ideas.
Why are people not able to admit that?

Here's another logical conclusion. The fundamental assumption underlying science is that the universe is determined. Physical laws control and we can come to know them.

The logical extension of that assumption is that "randomness" merely implies ignorance: a thing cannot be determined and random. Yet "randomness" is fundamental component of Darwinism and all its derivatives. As to the diversity of life, the better scientific answer is, "We don't know, yet".

 

[Frank Robert]

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

Read it again slowly. Here is a hint. Darwin referred to species as races, i.e, for Darwin both humans and monkeys species are races. You can actually learn a lot more if you stop reading only biased sources.

 

[Frank Robert]

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

Hopefully @renniks will do some independent research, but I think I am being too optimistic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hopefully @renniks will do some independent research, but I think I am being too optimistic.

His example was a passage pointing out how badly the Australian aboriginals were being treated. Not exactly the stunning KO.

 

[Frank Robert]

God has wives, does He?

In the Catholic church when the sisters take their vows they are considered the wives of Christ. I am not sure if they still hold to that at present.

 

[Frank Robert]

I've already done that in other threads.

A critique is not numerous unsubstantiated claims meant to demean the ToE, just as you are now attempting to demean Darwin.

 

[AV1611VET]

My impression is that Darwin was talking about the human race in general. He was still a young man at time and coming from an upper middle class family he never the opportunity to witness such atrocities.

What intrigues me is the fact that the United States listened to the Bible and thus the declaration:

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL​

England, on the other hand, was so enraptured by Charles Darwin, that even Charles Spurgeon couldn't shake them.

And what is equally fascinating, is the fact that those finches should have alerted Charles Darwin to the fact that ... well ... all men are created equal.

Also interesting is the fact that our first ten amendments to our constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, insures no pogrom will occur legally on U.S. soil.

Don't get me wrong. I thank God for England.

God used England to give the world Isaac Newton, the King James Bible, and the likes of Charles Spurgeon.

But what Jesus said is so true ...

Luke 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

And while many Englanders did listed to Spurgeon, after he was gone ... well ... London has one of the largest mosques in Western Europe today.

 

[Frank Robert]

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?

For the simple reason that you are wrong. You picked up on a few words that Darwin wrote without understanding what he was writing.

 

[Phred]

Quite amusing. A series of blind mutations " designed" everything?
That's not how design works in the real world. We have to plan, make a blueprint, check it twice, do the math, and so on.
In essence, you're saying it just happened with none of that, just because, for no discernible reason.

Once again your ignorance of the subject does not make it false. I'm sure you're amused in the same way a stupid person is amused by seeking a penny in the corner of a round room.

A mutation happens. Not blindly, it just happens. The design is through how it it selected to be passed down to the next generation.

You must have intelligence in your equation. It's the only way you can get your god into this universe. Sadly, there is still no evidence that your deity exists.

Not. One. Bit.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the Catholic church when the sisters take their vows they are considered the wives of Christ. I am not it they still hold to that at present.

Yes, I know ... and that's just ... well ... no comment.

Let's just say this though: God the Father doesn't have any daughters-in-law.

And when the Marriage Supper of the Lamb takes place, I have a feeling those who think they're married to Him aren't going to be there.

I hate to say it ... but ... that's totally messed up.

You'd think they'd at most wear engagement rings.

But no, put on a wedding ring and ... well ...

"Here I am, Jesus. I'm your new wife, and You don't have any say in the matter."

Solomon, eat your heart out!

 

[Phred]

They did do that; at Jesus' trial and crucifixion.

No, they (If Jesus was actually a real person) crucified a man. The rest was decided at the council of Nicaea in 325. One day Jesus was a man the next day he was a god. I know what you believe. It's not based upon evidence or reality.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't have it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they (If Jesus was actually a real person) crucified a man. The rest was decided at the council of Nicaea in 325. One day Jesus was a man the next day he was a god. I know what you believe. It's not based upon evidence or reality.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't have it.

Then show me a picture of His remains.

And what do you mean, "If Jesus was actually a real person"?

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure you're amused in the same way a stupid person is amused by seeking a penny in the corner of a round room.

Or seeking evolution in a ring species?

 

[o_mlly]

And when the Marriage Supper of the Lamb takes place, I have a feeling those who think they're married to Him aren't going to be there.

See Acts 5:39. Substitute "women" for "men". The history of women's apostolic communities is long and repression by the Catholic and Protestant churches frequent. Yet they perdure.

 

[AV1611VET]

See Acts 5:39. Substitute "women" for "men". The history of women's apostolic communities is long and repression by the Catholic and Protestant churches frequent. Yet they perdure.

Well, when it's all over and done with; and God's adopted children sit at the Table, I don't think a single one will be God's daughter-in-law.

Not a one.

And don't you think putting a wedding ring on -- (for crying out loud) -- before an engagement ring is jumping the gun?

 

[Phred]

Then show me a picture of His remains.

And what do you mean, "If Jesus was actually a real person"?

From your "source"

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] although the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded some uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus, as the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels.[20][g][h]"

Who you think Jesus was and who he actually was are two entirely different people. He certainly wasn't a white guy with a neatly trimmed beard running around the Middle East in the first century. And that's if he was real at all. The stories are likely based upon someone. But who that someone was is open for debate. He certainly was not "God."

And if you think that his remains being missing 2,000 years later means something, show me the remains of any other crucified criminal from that time period. I think we are aware of the existence of ONE.

 

[Phred]

Or seeking evolution in a ring species?

Something else we can add to the long, long list of things you don't understand.