What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Astrid]

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.

A fragment of wood with an iron spike
driven through an ankle bone and into
a knot and thus hard to recover,
was found some years ago.

I think- most all crucifixion were left
on display like hanged pirates, until
till dust they did decay.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL​

Actually it was inspired by European (mostly French) philosophers, not the bible. Possibly also based on a poem by John Milton. But you never let facts get in the way, do you?

London has one of the largest mosques in Western Europe today.

Religious tolerance is a good thing. It's part of being equal and allowing the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And He treats them like slaves?

How does one treat a slave?

1 Peter 2:16

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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

 

[Hans Blaster]

God used England to give the world Isaac Newton,

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

 

[dlamberth]

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

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL​

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.

 

[renniks]

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?

really? All I'm doing is quoting him.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

really? All I'm doing is quoting him.

Quoting but putting your own words. And you never answered my question:
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?

 

[renniks]

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.

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

And funny how you refuse to notice that during the whole book, he talks about ALL animals as 'races' not just humans.

 

[renniks]

Quoting but putting your own words. And you never answered my question:
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?

Self righteous crusade? Dramatic much?
Don't just take my word for it.

Rutledge Dennis examined Darwin’s role in scientific racism for The Journal of Negro Education and found that in Darwin’s world view, “talent and virtue were features to be identified solely with Europeans” (243)
"and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (201). ( Descent of Man)
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=side&pageseq=214

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Self righteous crusade? Dramatic much?
Don't just take my word for it.

Rutledge Dennis examined Darwin’s role in scientific racism for The Journal of Negro Education and found that in Darwin’s world view, “talent and virtue were features to be identified solely with Europeans” (243)
and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (201).
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=side&pageseq=214

Please try and answer my question:
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?

 

[renniks]

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".

And since we don't know, we should not act as if the ToE is fact.

 

[HitchSlap]

really? All I'm doing is quoting him.

All I'm doing is quoting the bible:

Psalm 14:1
"... There is no God..."

 

[renniks]

All I'm doing is quoting the bible:

Psalm 14:1
"... There is no God..."

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?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

Because you're making it to be something that it is not. You are deadset on making out Darwin to be this super evil and racist person when he was no more racist than your average Victorian era upper class gentleman.
You're thinking in a horribly abstract black and white mentality and you somehow think that doing so proves the theory of evolution to be wrong, when it all does it show you to be an incredibly ignorant person.

 

[renniks]

Please try and answer my question:
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?

That's not how he described the lower forms of men as he saw them. Why are you denying the obvious? I'm not saying he was a devil, good grief, he was just a man, but to put something in a book is far more serious than just casually mentioning it.
Look at how most people still view " Neanderthal man" due to evolution theory. As an almost animal creature barely able to think. That's Darwins influence as well as the natural conclusion if the ToE is correct. It's also terribly demeaning to your fellow man.

 

[renniks]

Because you're making it to be something that it is not. You are deadset on making out Darwin to be this super evil and racist person when he was no more racist than your average Victorian era upper class gentleman.
You're thinking in a horribly abstract black and white mentality and you somehow think that doing so proves the theory of evolution to be wrong, when it all does it show you to be an incredibly ignorant person.

Nope that's just your projection. I don't see him as any more evil than anyone else.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's not how he described the lower forms of men as he saw them. Why are you denying the obvious? I'm not saying he was a devil, good grief, he was just a man, but to put something in a book is far more serious than just casually mentioning it.
Look at how most people still view " Neanderthal man" due to evolution theory. As an almost animal creature barely able to think. That's Darwins influence as well as the natural conclusion if the ToE is correct. It's also terribly demeaning to your fellow man.

Why are you refusing to answer a very simple question. So I'll ask it again:
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?

And all you do with your posts is just show time and again that you do not know what you are arguing against or even about.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nope that's just your projection. I don't see him as any more evil than anyone else.

I'm just using your owns posts as the basis for my comments. You have a serious personal vendetta against Darwin personally and it's both sad and creepy.