What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Ophiolite]

Some people believe what the Bible teaches about man's origin, while others believe in what an outright racist had to say.

If you mean Darwin, I'll attribute your statement to ignorance. If such is the case I strongly urge you to educate yourself on that point before digging an even deeper hole. I suggest you (and anyone else who hold's such an ill informed notion) read Darwin's Sacred Cause by Adrian Desmond and James Moore.

 

[renniks]

I might agree with you except for one blaring fact. Namely, the consilience of evidence from independent, unrelated sources that provide compelling evidence for evolution and your only refutation was muck.

Nope, that wasn't the only refutation.

 

[renniks]

the mean spirited deliberate misrepresentation of one
phrase in Darwins book to make him a racist, and thus
make his work invalid is a shameful thing, unworthy of
any reasonable person.

One phrase? Surely you jest. Darwin was racist. It's not debatable.

 

[Frank Robert]

Some people believe what the Bible teaches about man's origin, while others believe in what an outright racist had to say. Since it cannot be proven that natural selection acting on random mutation was responsible for the complexity and diversity of life, I might as well go with the Bible.

A few gaping flaw in your argument is that
1. Science does not claim it proves anything.
2. Science does not claim to know everything.
3. The ToE is more than random mutation and natural selection, it also includes neutral theory, selective pressure, population genetics, etc that account for complexity and diversity of life.
4. Christianity does not preclude evolution, but Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible preclude evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

Nope, that wasn't the only refutation.

Right you have many other childish memes to waste time. If you believe your interpretation of the bible excludes evolution then your argument is not with evolution but with people who do not share your belief.

 

[Frank Robert]

So is humouring the source, which I quit doing some time back.

If I ever need a dose, I've an uncle who was red guard,
cultural rev., Mao all the way, and never got over it.

Do NOT get him started (if you speak Chinese), unless,
well..just don't.

You're right, it is absurdly obvious that it a waste of time.

 

[renniks]

Right you have many other childish memes to waste time. If you believe your interpretation of the bible excludes evolution then your argument is not with evolution but with people who do not share your belief.

I've never posted a meme here. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today?

Who said anything about the Bible?
I find the whole nothing to everything ToE implausible to the nth degree regardless.

Design is obvious to plenty of folks who are not even religious. Most people on the face of the earth through history believe in a creator for obvious reasons. It's not far fetched. It's not childish. It's simple logic. An artful and obviously designed creation demands a creator.
And the idea that it happened randomly? Lol, no one should take it seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, just drag out the designer. Prop him up right here and have him explain what happened.

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

 

[Ophiolite]

One phrase? Surely you jest. Darwin was racist. It's not debatable.

I can never remember if that would be slander or libel, but I refer you to post #181. Once you have read the book I'll graciously accept your retraction.

 

[Astrid]

I can never remember if that would be slander or libel, but I refer you to post #181. Once you have read the book I'll graciously accept your retraction.

Aggravated ignorance.

 

[Frank Robert]

I've never posted a meme here. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today?

Meme Synonyms

 

[Frank Robert]

I find the whole nothing to everything ToE implausible to the nth degree regardless.

Since you only pitted childish memes against evolution, I may have incorrectly assumed that only logical reason for you anti-science stance was a literal interpretation of the bible.

 

[renniks]

If you mean Darwin, I'll attribute your statement to ignorance. If such is the case I strongly urge you to educate yourself on that point before digging an even deeper hole. I suggest you (and anyone else who hold's such an ill informed notion) read Darwin's Sacred Cause by Adrian Desmond and James Moore.

Let's read what he said:
Darwin explains that the “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect” (36). The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout " Descent of Man"... At one point, Darwin says that savages have “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command” (97). Darwin’s specific consideration of intellectual capacities is very alarming...He begins with animals: “No one supposes that one of the lower animals reflects whence he comes or whither he goes,—what is death or what is life, and so forth” (62). His remarks soon expand to humans. “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 the remotest times successful tribes have supplanted other tribes. … At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations” (160).
Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (201).

 

[renniks]

Since you only pitted childish memes against evolution, I may have incorrectly assumed that only logical reason for you anti-science stance was a literal interpretation of the bible.

Since I've never used even one childish meme, you are baring false witness. I will look forward to your apology.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let's read what he said:
Darwin explains that the “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect” (36). The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout " Descent of Man"... At one point, Darwin says that savages have “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command” (97). Darwin’s specific consideration of intellectual capacities is very alarming...He begins with animals: “No one supposes that one of the lower animals reflects whence he comes or whither he goes,—what is death or what is life, and so forth” (62). His remarks soon expand to humans. “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 the remotest times successful tribes have supplanted other tribes. … At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations” (160).
Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (201).

As I said, when you have read the book, rather than cherry picking from Darwin's works, then I'm happy to re-engage the discussion. Or you can remain ignorant of the matter.

 

[renniks]

As I said, when you have read the book, rather than cherry picking from Darwin's works, then I'm happy to re-engage the discussion. Or you can remain ignorant of the matter.

What he himself said is more important to me than what another person said about him. Whether or not he acted up on his beliefs is irrelevant.

 

[Ophiolite]

What he himself said is more important to me than what another person said about him. Whether or not he acted up on his beliefs is irrelevant.

Oh dear. I suppose I'm talking to a brick wall, but I'm an optimist.

• You have selected a handful of words from the hundreds of thousands he wrote.
• You seemingly view words as being more important than actions.
• The other person analysed his words, his actions, his family's role in fighting slavery.
• They present the argument far more effectively and thoroughly than I ever could. Refusing to explore that merely suggests you don't want to risk being convinced you are wrong.
  
• You ignore the undercurent of racism inherent in society at that time. I don't go around pointing out "the racism of most Western Christians as evidenced by their deceitful representation of Christ as a tall, often blonde, European". I don't think it unreasonable to ask for the same restrain from you.

 

[renniks]

Oh dear. I suppose I'm talking to a brick wall, but I'm an optimist.

• You have selected a handful of words from the hundreds of thousands he wrote.
• You seemingly view words as being more important than actions.
• The other person analysed his words, his actions, his family's role in fighting slavery.
• They present the argument far more effectively and thoroughly than I ever could. Refusing to explore that merely suggests you don't want to risk being convinced you are wrong.
  
• You ignore the undercurent of racism inherent in society at that time. I don't go around pointing out "the racism of most Western Christians as evidenced by their deceitful representation of Christ as a tall, often blonde, European". I don't think it unreasonable to ask for the same restrain from you.

The man said what he said. His distain for certain races is obvious. If I lived a virtuous life, but you found writings after I died in which I despised people for thier ethnicity you would be right in judging me as racist whether I ever acted that way or not.
And his beliefs about race dovetail with his ToE. It's an inherently racist idea.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The man said what he said. His distain for certain races is obvious. If I lived a virtuous life, but you found writings after I died in which I despised people for thier ethnicity you would be right in judging me as racist whether I ever acted that way or not.
And his beliefs about race dovetail with his ToE. It's an inherently racist idea.

Except that Darwin wasn't being racist on purpose. The Victorian era was not a period where racial equality was a thing, and while Darwin does show the racial thinking of that time period, that's not unusual nor him being an outlier.

 

[Shemjaza]

Depends what you mean by evolution. I don't deny natural selection and neither does any creationists that I'm aware of.

What I mean by evolution is the Theory of Evolution... of which natural selection is a part, as is the conclusion of universal common descent.

That, is basic biology, which you deny without coherent justification or evidence.