Surely this will silence a lot of you...

Only by judging people as individuals, could we avoid injustice and enable all people to make the maximum contribution to society. There is not such thing as a superior "race"* per se, in the sense that every member of one "race"* is superior to every member of another "race"*. Neither is there such a thing as "racial"* equality in the sense that the average strength or intelligence of one "race"* is equal to the average strength or intelligence of every other "race"*. By judging people as individuals, one could perhaps identify a (superior) socio-biological class which might be a cross section of all "races"*

no offence but how is this rascist? its not politically correct thinking but, he says take everyone on thier own merit no matter what race they are

your objecting to his thoughts on the use of eugenics to make man kind smarter faster stronger ?

if he had said breed only the smartest fastest strongest caucasians then yepp racist. but he didnt

infact he was looking to re-introduce the best of all peoples and from them make a better human race, then the weaker races would be outcompeted

everything he says is unification of the best, as i say not politically correct by a long way but even further from bieng racist

p.s. did you actually watch that video you posted on eugenics?? the first 40 seconds disprove your argument that Darwin and his Cousin were racist.

and i quote

"He proposed positive eugenics encouraging the reproduction of eminient men and thier families whos acomplitments he had tied to the progress of civilisation"

"but like his cousin charles darwin his work was used as justification for some of the greatest crimes " (people subverted it to suit thier needs)

[edit on 17/9/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun



In the use of the word 'races', I think he was referring to 'civilized' man.
English, German, Nordic.......
Not the 'anthropomorphic ape'.

reply to post by Clearskies


Your interpretation of "civilised man" is more racist than his. But it hardly matters because you're argument is obscenely frivolous, not to mention, irrelevant.

You wanna contribute constructively to this thread or just drag it off topic?

[edit on 9/17/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by Clearskies

 

Your interpretation of "civilised man" is more racist than his. But it hardly matters because you're argument is obscenely frivolous, not to mention, irrelevant.

How so?
Darwin used those terms, I just pointed it out.
How do you think it was 'frivolous' or 'irrelevent'?

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies


Because this thread is about the church! Not your opinion that Darwin was racist.

Because you keep going on it is both frivolous and irrelevant.

reply to post by Clearskies

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man* will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races* throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes&, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.

*civilised european, savage are anyone considered less civilised (there were plenty of people who considered Americans in this group)

& gorilla, chimpanze, orangutan. Anthropromorphus ape would be any ape that looks or acts in a similar manner to humans it was mentioned alongside civilised and uncivilised mankind meaning a third group

so you are complaining about racism against other apes bieng clumped into 1 group instead of bieng mentioned each by name?

even the civilised isnt racism its a comparison of what they considered civilised, how that comparison is used later COULD makes it racist

you got it spot on when you said

I think he was

its racist becasue your making it so, and could you provide sources for that last batch of quotes please so we better understand the context they are stated in

and yes it also frivilous and offtopic (sowwy ), but im not going let someone sit there calling darwin racist anymore then i would let someone tell the world the nazi party wasnt racist



[edit on 17/9/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by CaptainG0705


seriously???

the church of england is about as pc as you can get and are not true to God IMHO


hardly credible but does this mean you are going to believe in God cos i think they still do, just about

david

Originally posted by noobfun
its racist becasue your making it so, and could you provide sources for that last batch of quotes please so we better understand the context they are stated in

I put the source on page three, if you had bothered to look at anything I've written.
Gottago!

don't come back without something on topic and correct.

hello

hands up those who have actually read Darwins theory or regurgitating the words they have been told?

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species.

Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified,

has this been done, err NO!

oh as for the fossil record your man has this to say

The noble science of Geology loses glory from the extreme imperfection of the record. The crust of the earth with its imbedded remains must not be looked at as a well-filled museum, but as a poor collection made at hazard and at rare intervals

david

blimey this is so laughable

david



[edit on 17-9-2008 by drevill]

reply to post by drevill


You're in the wrong thread drevill. After all the church recanted that the earth was not the centre of the universe when it was proved, as they have done this time.

To deny evolution is to deny all of biology, not to mention some very long standing principals in physics, geology and chemistry.

No layman would suspect how rich the fossil record has become, more so than expected by previous generation palaeontologists.

It used to be that all the remnants of homo sapian sapian's ancestors would only fit on a pool table, and now you will need a whole pool!

Originally posted by Clearskies

Originally posted by noobfun
its racist becasue your making it so, and could you provide sources for that last batch of quotes please so we better understand the context they are stated in

I put the source on page three, if you had bothered to look at anything I've written.
Gottago!

so all those quotes are from the same book?

'favoured races' by James L. Hart ?

again did you actually read the source? only the bits in speech marks are from origin which pretty much go "race" "race" "origins of race" "favoured race"

he is using rediculously small out of context words and snatch phrases to bolster his words and to portray his meaning

i refer only to the sources on page 3, which are from section 4 of the book. your quotes on page 4 dont even appear to be from this book, a find on this page search of each page gave no results


so thats like me using a copy of 'mein kampf' to show jesus was a nazi ........

********************************
sorry normal service has been resumed hopefully to stay on topic now.

the timming is interesting a few days before msn released the story of Rev Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society trying to get creationism taught in UK schools theres a thread around here somewhere

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17/9/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 17/9/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


No, it was my post in the middle of page three.
I'll just give you the quote from Darwin's Descent of man, chapter 6;
Here
"On the birthplace and antiquity of man";

At some future period,
not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p.
236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his
nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a
more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and
the gorilla.

Also, here in chapter 7;
He is NOT talking about monkeys, but humans!

"In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate."

[edit on 17-9-2008 by Clearskies]

Epic lulz @ the original article!!

Last days apostates- what else is new?

Originally posted by Good Wolf
To deny evolution is to deny all of biology, not to mention some very long standing principals in physics, geology and chemistry.

False! Evolutionary science is only an aspect of biology. It is not all of biology, therefore not a denial of all biology if you do not accept evolution on a wholesale level.

Also... evolution is supported by physics? Oh, please explain. This I have to see. No copying and pasting Wiki articles- I want to hear your own words.

reply to post by AshleyD


Right AshleyD!
B-I-N-G-O!!!

watch this:

www.youtube.com...

the chances of natural occurence are so slim that if it was any other subject you'd be called a conspiracy theorists for believing it. thats the chances of the universe being able to support life. was it fine tuned? or just coincidence?

the universe was set in place, but what were the chances of life starting here on earth after that?

and how?

i won't dimiss either scenerio untill this question is known for a fact.

life needs information. where did the information come from? how else would cells know how to grow/divide etc? DNA is majorly important, it is information, where did the information come from?

theres a lot of stuff going of in our make up.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

what if life was designed by a creator to evolve? to adapt? what then?would that make both scenerios true? are there really only two choices?

is there any reason why this is not a possible scenerio? if nobody knows then it should not be discounted.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by lifeform]


edits: typos

[edit on 17-9-2008 by lifeform]

reply to post by The time lord

It does not matter if the Church or some priest accepts evolution because in the end its against what the Bible and their faith teaches. This is a form of adultary in seeing God the way they want to because this is not part of the scripture's and in no part does the Bible describe evolution.

I find it to be the height of blasphemy to deny the nature and mechanics of the very works of god (the creation), in favor of just one of many many versions of bronze age tales written about god. So worshipers of the bible (or any bible for that matter) practice a form of idolatry wherein they place their holy scriptures above and before god - as if they WERE god, because they believe it's his word even though he never wrote a word of it.


Now, in regards to the post directly above mine:

the chances of natural occurence are so slim that if it was any other subject you'd be called a conspiracy theorists for believing it. thats the chances of the universe being able to support life. was it fine tuned? or just coincidence?

I'll let tf00t handle your videos.



and:



[edit on 18-9-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by AshleyD


Firstly evolution is the backbone of modern biology because it explains how things got to where they are now. Take genetics and palaeontology, which are two major parts of biology, they both back evolution and are explained by evolution. Biology is not divided up into unrelated subsets, everything is cross-supporting, as is the relationship between evolution and the rest of biology.

Young earth creationists have to deny gravity (the physics part). All the facts that we observed in space and the wider cosmos tells us that the universe is more that 13 billion years old. It's impossible that universe is anywhere near as young as 6000 years, because they have to deny gravity.

Observe why young earth creationists must deny gravity

And why should we believe that the earth is 6000 years old, the people who said this are basing it on a book that talks about a 'firmament' in the sky. There is no 'firmament', there is no 'deep' and the sun can't stand still in the sky because thats just not how the solarsystem works.

[edit on 9/18/2008 by Good Wolf]

Before you resort to ad homing, consider that the guy who made these videos wasn't a 13yo in his bedroom.

My degrees:
High School Diploma
Minor Chemistry
Minor Physics (Astro-physics)
Bachelors (B.A.) Degree Botany
Ph.D. Molecular Neuroscience
Currently postdoc at an Ivy League University