What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[HitchSlap]

C'mon if you have actually read Darwin you know he made no bones about there being Superior and inferior races including in the race of man. Why the sham?

I have read Darwin, which is why I can positively assert you have not. You're just parroting tired worn out creationist tropes. This is why a little knowledge is dangerous in the hand of those lacking context and depth of understanding >> this is you.

But, hey, believe what you need too.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol, It's literally in the title of his book. "The preservation of favored races."
Funny how most people only quote the first part of the title.

Darwin doesn't discuss humans in that book, for very obvious reasons. He saved his discussion of the origin of humans for a second book titled "The Descent of Man" (meaning the ancestry of humanity). So there are no "racial" implications to that subtitle. Race was just one of the words used to describe a sub-species or variety or breed of plants or animals within a species. The use of the word "race" in common parlance for things other than the large subdivisions of humanity has declined since then. "Preservation of the favoured races" (as he would used the royalist spelling) just refers to the best adapted varieties or sub-species prospering over other sub-species.

 

[renniks]

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

You can't have selection without someone to select. And you can not have order, design or structure or anything existing without an intelligent being creating it.
All science does is test what God already made. They have no ultimate answers as to why we are here.

 

[renniks]

Darwin doesn't discuss humans in that book, for very obvious reasons. He saved his discussion of the origin of humans for a second book titled "The Descent of Man" (meaning the ancestry of humanity). So there are no "racial" implications to that subtitle. Race was just one of the words used to describe a sub-species or variety or breed of plants or animals within a species. The use of the word "race" in common parlance for things other than the large subdivisions of humanity has declined since then. "Preservation of the favoured races" (as he would used the royalist spelling) just refers to the best adapted varieties or sub-species prospering over other sub-species.

"The chief causes of the low morality of savages, as judged by our standard, are, firstly, the confinement of sympathy to the same tribe. Secondly, insufficient powers of reasoning, so that the bearing of many virtues, especially of the self-regarding virtues, on the general welfare of the tribe is not recognised. Savages, for instance, fail to trace the multiplied evils consequent on a want of temperance, chastity, &c. And, thirdly, weak power of self-command; for this power has not been strengthened through long-continued, perhaps inherited, habit, instruction and religion."

Uh huh.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=side&pageseq=214

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Again ... and I hate to sound like a broken record ... but it looks to me like you're SOL.

(Short on Luck)

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Guess I'm SOL then, aren't I?

(Short on Luck)

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually it was inspired by European (mostly French) philosophers, not the bible.

You were there?

And even if that was true, did the European (mostly French) philosophers instill this in the writers:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If so, where did the European (mostly French) philosophers get it?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that you're chatting an absolute load of bull.

I musta made a good point then.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I musta made a good point then.

Not in the slightest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that mean that Newton's theology was the correct one?

I'm not familiar with Newton's theology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice thought, but not true. All men were not equal in the eyes of the founding fathers. Neither were women considered equal. And that battle of equality sadly is still on going nearly 2 and a half centuries later where it's still an issue of justice.

If that's true, then maybe they should have left that clause out? but they didn't for some reason, did they?

 

[Hans Blaster]

"The chief causes of the low morality of savages, as judged by our standard, are, firstly, the confinement of sympathy to the same tribe. Secondly, insufficient powers of reasoning, so that the bearing of many virtues, especially of the self-regarding virtues, on the general welfare of the tribe is not recognised. Savages, for instance, fail to trace the multiplied evils consequent on a want of temperance, chastity, &c. And, thirdly, weak power of self-command; for this power has not been strengthened through long-continued, perhaps inherited, habit, instruction and religion."

Uh huh.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=side&pageseq=214

And your counter to my statement that "On the Origin of Species" didn't talk about man was to block quote from "Descent of Man" which I noted was the one about humans.

Work on your reading skills.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not familiar with Newton's theology.

If your going to praise some one as a gift from god you should really have some idea about the theology they produced and worked on. Either that or you've been hiding your non-trintarianism well.

Religious views of Isaac Newton - Wikipedia

This is *exactly* why I (and others) focus on the specific ideas rather than the character of those who first had them or their unrelated other views. (See for example this "Darwin = racist" business in this thread. Whether it was true or not does not affect the truth of natural selection.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't have selection without someone to select. And you can not have order, design or structure or anything existing without an intelligent being creating it.
All science does is test what God already made. They have no ultimate answers as to why we are here.

Nope, nature "selects". You are making an equivocation fallacy. You will only fool irrational people with such an argument. Everyone else will see right through it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If your going to praise some one as a gift from god you should really have some idea about the theology they produced and worked on.

Does that apply here too?

Like the many times I've said I think God gifted us Charles Darwin to find the cure for cancer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Does that apply here too?

But what if God gave us Charles Darwin to discover evolution? What then?

 

[AV1611VET]

But what if God gave us Charles Darwin to discover evolution? What then?

That's like asking, "What if God gave us Georg Ernst Stahl to discover Phlogiston theory?"

 

[Shemjaza]

Darwin made the connection but you refuse to even acknowledge it. Interesting. If this is the world we live in, then racism isn't a sin, it's simple logic.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Yeah, he was a racist who thought the different racial groups described separate, related species or sub species.

He thought that white people were in conflict with black people and other great apes and it would lead to extinction.

He was wrong on many levels. But that's the advantage of science, Darwin wasn't a prophet, he was a scientist and his theory has borne fruit. It doesn't matter if he was wrong about many issues, if the evidence shows evolution to be true, then the character of the early proponents is irrelevant.

 

[renniks]

Nope, nature "selects". You are making an equivocation fallacy. You will only fool irrational people with such an argument. Everyone else will see right through it.

Nature doesn't select squat. But you can convince guillible college kids of anything. The very term " natural selection" is a metaphor. What is actually happening is adaptation of an organism due to its environment. "Selection" implies that nature has intelligence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's like asking, "What if God gave us Georg Ernst Stahl to discover Phlogiston theory?"

But what if God did give us Charles Darwin to discover evolution? What then?