No you were not. You were doing two things:
1. Filibuster the thread and fill it with nonsense pictures so that people will not see the evidence presented by the opponents of evolution against your stupid theory.
2. Confuse the issue. As the Bible says - you shall know them by their deeds. The words of the Nazis are meaninglessm just as the words of Clinton and his gang were meaningless. The words of a liar are always meaningless. The actions of the Nazis however are indeed evidence. There is nothing in Christianity to justify the mass murders of Nazism, nothing at all. All humans are children of God in Christianity - no distinctions. There is nothing in Christianity about killing the sick and the lame. On the other hand there is plenty in the degenerate Darwin supporting such views:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.
" Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man."
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 21.
"Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplicaiton; and if he is to advance still higher he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would soon sink into indolence, and the more highly gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 21.
"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
Darwin to Graham, July 3, 1881.
In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. ~~This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same nclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors. Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 2.
Mind reading again?
1. Filibuster the thread and fill it with nonsense pictures so that people will not see the evidence presented by the opponents of evolution against your stupid theory.
No, Gore, it's counter-argument. You don't like it (my mind reading act), because you can't counter it.
It's not my theory. It's the best scientific theory we have. If and when a better one comes along, the theory of evolution will be abandoned. Will you then whine that science can't make up its mind?
2. Confuse the issue. As the Bible says - you shall know them by their deeds. The words of the Nazis are meaninglessm just as the words of Clinton and his gang were meaningless. The words of a liar are always meaningless. The actions of the Nazis however are indeed evidence. There is nothing in Christianity to justify the mass murders of Nazism, nothing at all. All humans are children of God in Christianity - no distinctions. There is nothing in Christianity about killing the sick and the lame. On the other hand there is plenty in the degenerate Darwin supporting such views:
Congratulations on confusing the issue. As I posted earlier to Medved, a logical fallacy with a Biblical citation is no more impressive than a logical fallacy without one. All the deeds you ascribe to Darwin's theory were perpetrated by others who merely used his theory as a cloak. They did this much in the same fashion that many have used Christianity as a cloak. Remember "Gott Mit Uns"? Same thing. Remember all the posts about the Inquisition? Same thing. People who will commit evil acts will grab any convenient cover.
We disagree about whether or not the words of a liar have meaning. I believe they do. Perhaps not what the liar intended, but meaning, nonetheless.
Have you learned to count to two?
Have you learned that A + B does not equal 2A when A does not equal B?
Are you aware that a circle is a form of ellipse, exactly as a square is a form of rectangle?
Have you figured out that Malthus being wrong about the food supply increasing arithmetically while the population increases exponentially has nothing to do with the survival of the fittest in the sense that the phrase is used in the theory of evolution?
In short, have you confronted your own mendacity ... using your own definition?
In other words it is more significant that they are civilized than "Caucasian". I might also add that Darwin's view that savage peoples were headed toward extinction was reasonably well justified, as a sheer fact, by his own observation. In South America, in Australia, and possibly elsewhere he saw or heard of native people being warred upon, or even hunted down and killed for bounties. By Christians who were by no means evolutionists, I might add.
Darwin, as I have said, was a culture chauvanist on behalf of his own Victorian civilization, but remarkably free (in the context of his time) of racist views. As I have also noted the book you quote from definitively destroyed the (originally creationist) school of thought that the races of man comprise separate species. Darwin argues that man is a single species, highly variable, but with the variations within races greater than those between them.
Darwin's fascination with the small details of human variation, his omnivorous collection of accounts from a wide variety of observers, his practice of rehearsing and examining the strongest arguments both for and against a point before forwarding his own conclusion, and even his morbid concern with the degeneration of the human stock (steming from the fact that he, and many of his children were sickly, which he feared and suspected was the result of his marrying a second cousin); all of these things provide many opportunities for painting a distorted picture of Darwin's considered and general views.
Your quoting mining is a long and continuous lie. It is intellectual masterbation. You care nothing and know nothing of the real person or of his work. I seriously doubt you have every read a single one of his books straight through, or even a biography.
Why are the quotes you guys offer documenting evolutionary racism 50 to 150 years old? If evolution offers such sound grounds for racism, where are the modern evolutionary racists? There are still plenty of racists around, after all, but they all seem to seize upon other justifications, a good many of them choosing one or another of the major religions.