Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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?
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.
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.mutation happens. Not blindly, it just happens. The design is through how it it selected to be passed down to the next generation.
"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."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.
Again ... and I hate to sound like a broken record ... but it looks to me like you're SOL.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.
Guess I'm SOL then, aren't I?Something else we can add to the long, long list of things you don't understand.
You were there?Actually it was inspired by European (mostly French) philosophers, not the bible.
If so, where did the European (mostly French) philosophers get it?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.
I musta made a good point then.I think that you're chatting an absolute load of bull.
I musta made a good point then.
I'm not familiar with Newton's theology.Does that mean that Newton's theology was the correct one?
If that's true, then maybe they should have left that clause out? but they didn't for some reason, did they?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.
"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
I'm not familiar with Newton's theology.
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.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.
Does that apply here too?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.
Like the many times I've said I think God gifted us Charles Darwin to find the cure for cancer.
Does that apply here too?
That's like asking, "What if God gave us Georg Ernst Stahl to discover Phlogiston theory?"But what if God gave us Charles Darwin to discover evolution? What then?
Yeah, he was a racist who thought the different racial groups described separate, related species or sub species.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."
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.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.
That's like asking, "What if God gave us Georg Ernst Stahl to discover Phlogiston theory?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?