Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism

UD ^ | February 14, 2009 | Denyse O'Leary

[RFEngineer]

“No, laughter is good for the soul.”

Forgive me then, I thought you were bitter an humorless, like most who buy into the BCL.

[whattajoke]

His book Origins didn’t contain any data.

Really. If I were to pretend this is true, what say you about all of his other books?

It was just a long argument based on practically nothing, except a few minor variations between finches.

Which have thusly been verified and confirmed in the 150 years since. Rather amazing, actually.

He didn’t even discover natural selection. That was discovered some 25 years ealier by a creationist.

Pssst. He was a creationist before examining the evidence. Which maybe someday you and your ilk will do as well. And btw, you (and others) like to pretend Darwin's impact is diminished by mentioning that his idea wasn't original. This is hardly a secret as he work word Wallace before publishing. In fact, Wallace gave Darwin his "blessing" to publish "Origin."

Furthermore, by bringing this up every 10 or so threads of yours, aren't you shining a bright light on the fact that the idea of Natural Selection as a means of evolution was A) independently arrived at by others and B) would have been published on at some point by someone else anyway? Where's your irrational hatred for Wallace?

[allmendream]

Then why were Darwin’s books banned in Nazi Germany?

If Hitler was a “fan” and all....

Well? Why were Darwin’s books banned in Nazi Germany?

[whattajoke]

The way the question is often phrased is ‘should religion be put on an equal footing with evolution in public schools?’ and my reply is, only if the religion you choose is the RIGHT one; i.e. to have an apples to apples comparison you’d a religion which operated on an intellectual basis similar to that of evoloserism and the only candidates would be Rastafari, Santeria, and Voodoo.

LOL. I'd be interested in your data backing up the claim that YOUR religion (not just your Christianity, but your particular brand of Christianity) is the only one "operating on an intellectual basis."

Heck, that wouldn't even fly here on FR, an overwhelmingly Christian site! Just try to post it in the religion forum and stand back from the Catholics, Mormons, and other types of Christians that you don't really believe are "true Christians."

Stand back and listen to the bagpipes. Then imagine the firestorm that you're idea would incur at the state and federal level. Gimme a break.

[whattajoke]

The man with no scientific training whatsoever is the “scientist” we are supposed to worship?

No. No one has asked you (or anyone) to "worship" a dead naturalist. Ever.

Sounds more like L Ron Hubbard than Isaac Newton. lol

The difference being that Hubbard's ideas can easily be shown to be pure hogwash and Newton's were empirically incorrect. Darwin's ideas have only gotten stronger over time.

[whattajoke]

Evolution is a brain-dead ideological doctrine which has brought about two world wars

Wow. Please explain further.

[whattajoke]

You might want to watch Ben Stein’s movie. The interview with Dawkins definitively settles the question of whether there could be such a thing as an idiot with a 180 IQ.

Agreed. I used to think somewhat highly of Stein.

[RFEngineer]

” With apologies to Richie, “Yo no soy marinero.” “

See, you DO have a sense of humor.

[RFEngineer]

“You might want to watch Ben Stein’s movie. The interview with Dawkins definitively settles the question of whether there could be such a thing as an idiot with a 180 IQ.”

Are you accusing me of having a 180 IQ, or being an idiot?

I’m confused......

[ToGodBeTheGlory]

Look, Darwin’s book was all about a few finches, huge stretches of logic, and the rest was an attack on God and His Creation. 150 years later and now we know even the finches were a bust since they are all still finches. When they turn into a dog let us know, until then people of God will rightly laugh at the failure that was Darwin.

[Cedric]

Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

[Cedric]

“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 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.”

[atlaw]

Pretty good. But if you’re going to keep up the ruse, you need to capitalize more, misspell about every third word, and salt your posts with more “evo-combinations.” You know, “evo-slime,” “evo-loser,” “evo-mythomaniac,” “evo-pseudologist,” “evo-menteur à triple étage,” that kind of thing.

[varmintman]

I’m confused.........

If you had a 180 IQ you wouldn't be.

[Cedric]

“Pretty good.” is not a complete sentence.

[Cedric]

about every third word

Learn to use proper grammar, you evo-dunce.

[GodGunsGuts]

The Natural Selection discovered by creationists (before Darwin) was a force for conservation, not a blind information-adding nature-god. In short, natural selection means two different things to creationists and evos. One crucial difference being that there is actual evidence supporting the creationist version, whereas I can’t find any evidence backing up the information-adding evo version at all.

[RFEngineer]

“If you had a 180 IQ you wouldn’t be.”

The light comes on for another BCL advocate....

You do not appear to have a sense of humor.

[atlaw]

“Pretty good.” is not a complete sentence.

Suffices. : )

[Cedric]

Sorta.