Happy Darwin Day!

[Ray Martinez]

Today, February 12, is Darwin Day. On this day in 1809, Charles Robert
Darwin, the founder and chief architect of the modern theory of
evolution, was born.

Darwinists, I thought we could celebrate Darwin Day with a quote from
your master:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for
it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of
as at present between the negro or Australian and the
gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London: John
Murray).

[Roger Shrubber]

Mind you, this was prior the the Enlightenment as brought by Randy
Newman. "We'll save Australia, Wouldn't want to hurt no kangaroo,
We'll build a North American Amusement Park there, They've got
surfing too!"

Boom

[wiki trix]

Einstein could have been a child molester, but would that have
effected the validity of his theories? The Theory of Evolution is not
a theory about how politically correct Darwin would be according to
current societal norms. It stands on its own merits.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<4ae0fc0a-fc91-4736...@dp10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

And it would not have done anything for his theories, if he had been
the kindest, gentlest, patient person ever in the history of the human
race. Contrast that with Christianity which depends entirely on the
character of Jesus, of which by the way we have no verifiable first
hand testimony.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[wiki trix]

OK. I guess that should have been "affected" rather than "effected"...
just in case anyone was going to jump on me about that.

[Burkhard]

Quite. And how many of the indigenous cultures that Darwin was able to
visit are still around? Not that many, so his prediction was not far
off. Did he cause this extinction? No, he just observed it and
extrapolated. The dirty deed was done by others, first and foremost of
course the missionaries and their churches, Forced adoption to "save"
children for their "savage" parents and out them into "good Christian
homes" e.g. Pretty much did it for indigenous communities
in Australia and North America - here some stories that highlight the
leading role of various churches in the destruction of tribal cultures

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/mobile/article/native-americans-expose-the-adoption-era-and-repair-its-devastation-65966

http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/western-colonization-as-disease-native-adoption-cultural-genocide

So don't shoot the messenger - Darwin merely reported what he saw -
take it up with your fellow religionists who played such a leading
role in making his predictions come to pass.

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 13, 3:33�pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4ae0fc0a-fc91-4736-80f7-a90fc371d...@dp10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Partisan points.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/mobile/article/native-ameri...
>
> http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/western-colonization-as-dis...

>
> So don't shoot the messenger - Darwin merely reported what he saw -
> take it up with your fellow religionists who played such a leading
> role in making his predictions come to pass.

Very predictable whitewash.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Inability to refute noted

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:1d72654f-d46f-4f6b...@n6g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

Interesting that you would take a strawman to such lengths to indict "religionists". "Civilized races" have not "exterminated"
the "savage races", nor have "the apes" been exterminated, nor is the "break" now between the "Caucasian"
and some ape as "low" as baboons.

[Ray Martinez]

Darwinists slander their opponents routinely for the very reasons you
deny: the tactic assumes all credibility will then be lost.

In the context of the lowest, your master, in the quote, placed
Africans with the gorillla. Since the ToE still says human evolution
began in Africa, your belief that the theory has merits is quite
despicable to say the least. Then again, one could not expect anything
else from a theory advocate.

Ray

[Burkhard]

On Feb 14, 2:17�am, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:1d72654f-d46f-4f6b...@n6g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> >http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/mobile/article/native-ameri...
>
> >http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/western-colonization-as-dis...

>
> > So don't shoot the messenger - Darwin merely reported what he saw -
> > take it up with your fellow religionists who played such a leading
> > role in making his predictions come to pass.
>
> Interesting that you would take a strawman to such lengths to indict "religionists". "Civilized races" have not "exterminated"
> the "savage races", nor have "the apes" been exterminated, nor is the "break" now between the "Caucasian"
> and some ape as "low" as baboons

True to a degree, I have to admit to rhetorical oversimplification to
bring home the point he is not just shooting the messenger, but as
usual himself in the foot.

The Victorians generally did not distinguish carefullly enough
between culture and biology.
But if one then takes for the sake of the argument what Darwin
described at face value, and adjusts for Victorian vocabulary, my
picture is more or less accurate. He described in often harrowing
detail how indigenous cultures were destroyed before his eyes. Few of
those he was still able to spdescribe were to survive the next 50
years or so. And yes, as the links I posted show, organised religion
played a big part in this.


As for the disappearance of the other great apes, again I'd say his
predictions turned out true - have you checked recently how many
gorillas there still are?

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/13/13 7:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 12, 7:49 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 9:12 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Today, February 12, is Darwin Day. On this day in 1809, Charles Robert
>>> Darwin, the founder and chief architect of the modern theory of
>>> evolution, was born.
>>
>>> Darwinists, I thought we could celebrate Darwin Day with a quote from
>>> your master:
>>
>>> "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
>>> civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
>>> throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
>>> anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
>>> no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for
>>> it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
>>> hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of
>>> as at present between the negro or Australian and the
>>> gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London: John
>>> Murray).
>>
>> Einstein could have been a child molester, but would that have
>> effected the validity of his theories? The Theory of Evolution is not
>> a theory about how politically correct Darwin would be according to
>> current societal norms. It stands on its own merits.
>
> Darwinists slander their opponents routinely for the very reasons you
> deny: the tactic assumes all credibility will then be lost.

You haven't shown any instances of "Darwinists" slandering anyone. In
any case, it's still the evidence that matters, not the character of the
person.

>
> In the context of the lowest, your master, in the quote, placed
> Africans with the gorillla.

First of all, Darwin is not the "master" of anyone. He was a brilliant
scientist, but no one who accepts science considers him his/her master.
Second, Darwin's statement did not place Africans "with" the
Gorillas. He stated there was a divide or "break" between humans and
other apes. The unfortunate (and completely false) idea that some
human populations were less well developed than Caucasians was just as
common among creationists.

> Since the ToE still says human evolution
> began in Africa, your belief that the theory has merits is quite
> despicable to say the least.

You still have never explained why it is supposedly "despicable" that
humans evolved in Africa, rather than any other continent. Modern
evolutionary theory confirms that all modern population of humans are
fully human, and the populations that still live in Africa are no closer
to any other ape species. The theory of evolution gives no support at
all to racist ideas.

> Then again, one could not expect anything
> else from a theory advocate.

Ray, of course, has nothing genuine to find fault with about the theory
of evolution, or it's advocates, so he merely engages in name calling.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

It's very predictable that Ray can't defend his use of ad hominem.

DJT

[wiki trix]

On Feb 13, 9:19�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 7:49�pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 9:12 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Today, February 12, is Darwin Day. On this day in 1809, Charles Robert
> > > Darwin, the founder and chief architect of the modern theory of
> > > evolution, was born.
>
> > > Darwinists, I thought we could celebrate Darwin Day with a quote from
> > > your master:
>
> > > "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> > > civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
> > > throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
> > > anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> > > no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for
> > > it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
> > > hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of
> > > as at present between the negro or Australian and the
> > > gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London: John
> > > Murray).
>
> > Einstein could have been a child molester, but would that have
> > effected the validity of his theories? The Theory of Evolution is not
> > a theory about how politically correct Darwin would be according to
> > current societal norms. It stands on its own merits.
>
> Darwinists slander their opponents routinely for the very reasons you
> deny: the tactic assumes all credibility will then be lost.

Monkey see monkey do. Do you have an argument? Or are you guilty of
what you admit is an error?

> In the context of the lowest, your master, in the quote, placed
> Africans with the gorillla.

We are all Africans. And gorillas are African. What is your problem?

> Since the ToE still says human evolution
> began in Africa, your belief that the theory has merits is quite
> despicable to say the least.

Why?

> Then again, one could not expect anything
> else from a theory advocate.

You have not made any case.

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:76f5e8b2-e471-4abd...@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

Irrelevant, the "Caucasian" are not responsible for such things, nor
is "a more civilized state". But gorillas do not contitute the whole of
"anthropomorphous apes", which you consider "man" to include.
As well, you might notice that the "negro" and "Australian" still
survive. Perhaps all not "full blooded", but certainly not "destroyed"
or made "extinct". If "race" is real, new "races" would be born,
or integrated into one or more of the original "civilized races".
Darwin was just wrong, for "not distinguishing carefully enough
between culture and biology" or whatever reason, about many
things important to his supposedly scientific understanding.

[Ray Martinez]

I'm very satisfied with your replies; these admit plainly that the ToE
is gutter racism masquerading as science. That's why I titled the
topic "Happy Darwin Day!"----I knew the quote would not harm happiness
among Darwinists, but receive affirmation.

Ray (anti-selectionist/species immutabilist)

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, this is just your own assertion, which derives no support from
anything in the previous posting. There is nothing racist about the
theory of evolution.

> That's why I titled the
> topic "Happy Darwin Day!"----I knew the quote would not harm happiness
> among Darwinists, but receive affirmation.

You seem to find "satisfaction" in lying about Darwin. That speaks
volumes about yourself, but doesn't harm Darwin's reputation in the least.

DJT

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d5ccaf7e-d75d-40b3...@h9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

No, he did not. He placed "the negro" with "the savage races" of man,
not with "the apes". He said that the "civilized races" would "exterminate
and replace" the "savage races", so that all that would be left would
be "man in a more civilized state" separated by a "greater break" between
man and ape.

[Ray Martinez]

More affirmation: Darwin the racist protected and approved; quote
messenger stabbed and shot.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

PS: Expect a reply tomorrow, Glenn.

[wiki trix]

In what way is ToE is racism? That is the big hole in any point you
are trying to make. Please fill in.

[Dana Tweedy]

No, Ray. The "messenger" is being informed that one already knows his
message is a lie. Darwin was for his time no more racist than
others, and actually quite a bit less racist than most.

Whatever Darwin's personal beliefs may have been, it's still the
evidence that matters, and the evidence is what you keep running away
from.

DJT

[Harry K]

How's that book coming? Got beyond the title page yet?

Harry K

[wiki trix]

I have no idea if Darwin was more or less racist than others in his
time, but even if he was racist, that has no bearing on the efficacy
of his theories. Also, as the theory goes, I do not consider it's
correct application to lend much support to racism. However, even if
it hypothetically did show, for example, that one race was closer to
chimps than other races - that would not be racist. That would be a
fact of nature to be accepted, whether you liked it or not. As far as
I can tell, that has not been an outcome of the theory nor any
observation related to it. However, if something is true or not, that
has nothing to do with its acceptability to society at some particular
time.

But hat about the following?

List of Papal Bulls on Jews...

http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/Papal_Bulls_Jews.htm

Slavery, racism and genocidal supported by Bible...

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and
the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not
to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the
slave is his property.

Leviticus 25:44-45 Your male and female slaves are to come from the
nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy
some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their
clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

When God commands the Israelis to exterminate the Amalekites...

etc.

[John S. Wilkins]

Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote...

True, and elsehwere Darwin was clearly a monogenist (a single origin for
humans), but there remains an implication in Darwin's passage that shows
a serious confusion and a holdover from oldthink.

In assuming that (contrary to his own views on evolution) negroes and
Australians (meaning aborigines) were "closer" to apes than Caucasians,
Darwin shows that he has not shaken off the older Christian view of a
great chain of being. This is entirely unsupported by his own theories.

Moreover, by arguing that "civilisation" is a measure of evolvedness,
Darwin shows that he is not clear on the distinction between biological
evolution and cultural change. For him, a "race" is both a biological
thing ("negroes") and cultural thing ("civilised"), and so he mistakes
cultural advancement for evolutionary advancement.

I think this passage indicates the confusion in Darwin's head once he
began to give into the prevailing criticisms by those around him. 12
years of qualifying his original, and more correct, ideas on evolution
have left him in a mess.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[John S. Wilkins]

Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote...

> > On Feb 14, 2:17 am, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > > "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote...

If you come back in 30 years it is entirely unlikely there will be in
the wild any gorillas, orangutans, or bonobos, and the common chimp will
be under severe threat. That leaves the anthropomorphous apes (=
Hominidae) almost empty but for humans. Our nearest relatives would then
be Hylobatids (gibbons), which are very "monkeylike", as are the
baboons.

As to the extermination of "races", if you take it in the cultural
sense, a great many races have been destroyed. If you take it in the
biological sense (of geographical variety), modern society is in the
process of massive mixing of populations. There will still be races in
the latter sense, but they will be different races (a Brazilian or
Carribean race, for example).

So in any charitable interpretation, Darwin is not exactly wrong,
although his intent is.

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 13 de febrero de 2013 03:49:33 UTC, wiki trix escribi�:

in its time, Darwin was rather enlightened and not a racist, like most of
his contemporaries. I remember to have read some comments that prove his
was worried by slavery.
This text you mentioned was probably a pessimistic rant about the way
English gentlemen were treating aborigines in Australia and other places.
He was fearing they would end exterminating them. He commented that white
people were treating aborigines as if they were animals of other species.

Eridanus

[Burkhard]

On Feb 14, 3:13�am, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:76f5e8b2-e471-4abd...@e10g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

You think so? Depends a bot of what you mean with "responsible",I
guess. A nice piece of context for the Darwin quote would be the work
of his contemporary, Robert Ballantyne: The Gorilla Hunters: A Tale of
the Wilds of Africa. Long descriptions on how Europeans bring
enlightenment to "dark Africa", by killing lots of gorillas,
obviously, but also by th interaction with the natives.Ballantine
carefully distinguishes between "bad savages" who reject Christ,are
often cannibals or pirates and find a sticky end at the hands of the
Europeans, and "good savages" who embrace Christ,and in doing so also
abandon pretty much all of their previous identity . You can get the
book here if you are interested in Victorian novels
http://www.christianbook.com/ballantyne-gorilla-hunters-tale-wilds-africa/r-m-ballantyne/9781934554029/pd/554029

That was what people would observe, that was the prevailing cultural
attitude, and some people were able to anticipate that this would lead
in the long run to a destruction of both the natural environment in
Africa and elsewhere in the colonies, and the civilisations they
encountered there

> But gorillas do not contitute the whole of
> "anthropomorphous apes",

Gibbons and orang Utans are also not doing well. Nor is there a time
limit in his analysis. Just the (accurate) extrapolation from what he
observed that as countries in Africa, in terms of population growth,
developing industry etc etc became more like what he knew from
Europe and the US, these species were in trouble. The time of his
writing saw the first conservation movement coming into existence as a
response to this emerging new insight (not just by him of course) The
Sierra club for instance as oldest preservationist organisations was
still a few decades of.

> which you consider "man" to include.

Eh,no? Neither does Darwin. When he was writing the passage,he still
worked on his classification system and is arguably not using
"anthropomorphous" as a settled term of art, but as a shorthand for
"great apes other than humans)here a good analysis:
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/04/03/darwin-and-the-african-apes/

> As well, you might notice that the "negro" and "Australian" still
> survive. Perhaps all not "full blooded", but certainly not "destroyed"
> or made "extinct". If "race" is real, new "races" would be born,
> or integrated into one or more of the original "civilized races".
> Darwin was just wrong, for "not distinguishing carefully enough
> between culture and biology" or whatever reason,

Well yes, that's what I said. But once you correct for the mistake of
conflating the two terms,and express it as "the cultures of aboriginal
Australia and the tribal societies of Africa disappear, he was not far
off, and to the extend that they still exist,then only because we
changed course in our attitudes over the last few decades - it is a
correct observation and prediction about the future of the cultures,
rendered muddled,confused in some aspects plain wrong by using
inappropriate biological categories.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Your interpretation of what Darwin said is correct. During the voyage of
the Beagle, Darwin observed the way white settlers in Australia would hunt
and kill or enslave Aborigines, and this was one of the things he saw that
led him to his conclusion. What he was unable to observe is the way in
which white Australian society eventually was able to turn itself around,
although by then the aboriginal population was very small. It's in his
book, Voyage of the Beagle, and it was an observation, not something he was
hoping would happen.

As for what will happen to apes like the gorillas, Darwin wrote of
centuries, and the gorillas already have few habitats left, with populations
in the hundreds, and these are constantly being encroached by humans. Only
the strictest enforcement of wildlife preserves has saved them from
extinction so far, but they might well be extinct in the wild by now if it
were not for the park rangers.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Harry K]

It's not nice to point out a theist's hypocrisy!!

Harry K

[chris thompson]

On Feb 12, 9:12 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Today, February 12, is Darwin Day. On this day in 1809, Charles Robert
> Darwin, the founder and chief architect of the modern theory of
> evolution, was born.
>
> Darwinists, I thought we could celebrate Darwin Day with a quote from
> your master:
>
> "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
> throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for
> it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
> hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of
> as at present between the negro or Australian and the
> gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London: John
> Murray).

Here's something interesting from a web site with which you might have
something in common, Ray:

"Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was born into a family which vigorously
opposed slavery. His grandfathers, the humanist and evolutionist
Erasmus Darwin and the Unitarian pottery magnate Josiah Wedgwood I,
provided finance and helped form an anti-slavery lobby group in
support of the work of the evangelical Christian William Wilberforce
in parliament.

This resulted in the passing of the Slave Trade Act of 1807 (which
made it illegal for British ships to carry slaves), and the Slavery
Abolition Act of 1833 (which made slavery illegal throughout the
British Empire)."

http://creation.com/darwin-slavery-and-abolition

Chris

[Greg Guarino]

On 2/13/2013 9:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Since the ToE still says human evolution
> began in Africa, your belief that the theory has merits is quite
> despicable to say the least.

Exactly how does "human evolution began in Africa" support the idea that
evolutionary theory is racist?

It could support such a contention, *if* current evolutionary theory
held that the adaptations that "make us fully human" were incomplete
when humans migrated out of Africa; the "migrated" population developing
full human-hood later on. But is that what current theory holds?

In short, no. We appear to have possessed all of the fancy whiz-bang
human features that we are so insufferably proud of prior to leaving
Africa. Thus modern-day Africans have them as well; there is no
evolutionary evidence that I know of that says that any of the many
population groups in Africa is any less well-equipped with those
features, and thus, no support for racism in evolutionary theory.

[Mark Buchanan]

The book 'Darwin's Sacred Cause' details his anti-slavery passion
throughout his life.

One of the arguments against abolishing slavery in the 19th century was
the belief that there were 'centers of creation' - god created various
species where they were found. This included humans so it was OK to have
black slaves because god created them separately.

Mark

[Burkhard]

On Feb 14, 3:51�pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/2013 9:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > Since the ToE still says human evolution
> > began in Africa, your belief that the theory has merits is quite
> > despicable to say the least.
>
> Exactly how does "human evolution began in Africa" support the idea that
> evolutionary theory is racist?

Well, obviously. Just as the notion that the Greek were the first to
invent democracy is a slur on the Greeks that paints them as tyrants,
or the idea that printing was first developed in China is an anti-
Chinese rumour that tries to depict them as illiterate. Never mention
either fact to a Greek or Chinese, as it deeply upsets them.
Ehhhhh....

[Mike Dworetsky]

Both Darwin, and his wife Emma Wedgwood, came from strongly anti-slavery
families. They were very active in the movement that led to the abolition
of slavery in Great Britain and the Empire in 1833 (during the voyage of the
Beagle).

[wiki trix]

On Feb 14, 12:16�pm, "Mike Dworetsky"

So is this a debate about whether Darwin was a great guy versus Darwin
was a crappy guy? Why would anyone care now? Especially now that he is
long gone? What does any of this have to do with the theory he
proposed? If Peter Higgs had been a child molester, or if Hitler had
instead predicted the Higgs Boson, would either of those hypothetical
scenarios have had any bearing on the verification results that have
now come out of LHC on the Higgs particl detection?

"Ad hominem" is Latin for "against the person." -> Def.: Any attempt
to discredit a view by calling attention to the character, actions or
personal circumstances of those who hold it rather than the reasoning
they provide in support of it.

Lets stay focused. Arguing that Darwin was nice plays into his hands.

[Kermit]

On 12 Feb, 18:12, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Today, February 12, is Darwin Day. On this day in 1809, Charles Robert
> Darwin, the founder and chief architect of the modern theory of
> evolution, was born.
>
> Darwinists, I thought we could celebrate Darwin Day with a quote from
> your master:
>
> "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
> throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for
> it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
> hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of
> as at present between the negro or Australian and the
> gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London: John
> Murray).

Yes, but he loathed slavery, while my family, Southern Baptists, went
to war to maintain the institution of slavery in the US.

Modern physical anthropologists will tell you that there is no
persuasive evidence that any large group of people is superior to
another, either physically or morally (barring minor adaptations to
climate).

In any event, he was only the person who established evolutionary
science (with contributions from Wallace). He is not a prophet who is
considered The Authority. Attacking his character only shows that you
still have no clue what science is about. Science is a way of studying
how the world works. Gathering more data and learning constantly does
not require learning dusty words of self-appointed seers. *Everybody
is doubted, and all theories are tested. Only verifiable evidence is
used, and the fit of the models to the data is what is valued.

kermit

[Glenn]

"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message news:1kyanwt.czwggs1q9su73N%jo...@wilkins.id.au...

Change is not "destroyed", and certainly not "exterminated".

[Glenn]

"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message news:1kyannu.1ad21a816z0kerN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...

Everything you said is dependent on the premise that he wasn't in a
"mess" before he made this one. Did Darwin appear to regard "civilised"
as non-evolutionary?

[wiki trix]

On Feb 14, 4:54�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "John S. Wilkins" <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in messagenews:1kyanwt.czwggs1q9su73N%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
>
>
>
> > Glenn <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote...

Change == Destruction + Creation

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b5208e90-0187-4448...@vh9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Smoking bat shit again?

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 14, 12:58�pm, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 12 Feb, 18:12, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Today, February 12, is Darwin Day. On this day in 1809, Charles Robert
> > Darwin, the founder and chief architect of the modern theory of
> > evolution, was born.
>
> > Darwinists, I thought we could celebrate Darwin Day with a quote from
> > your master:
>
> > "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> > civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
> > throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
> > anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> > no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for
> > it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
> > hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of
> > as at present between the negro or Australian and the
> > gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London: John
> > Murray).
>
> Yes, but he loathed slavery, while my family, Southern Baptists, went
> to war to maintain the institution of slavery in the US.

"Yes, but" means he wasn't the worst, just slightly above. Leave it to
a Darwinist to find some "good" in the quote. If the quote had been
written by anyone else beside Charles Darwin, that is, the founder of
modern evolutionary theory, these "find some good" attempts would not
be attempted.

> Modern physical anthropologists will tell you that there is no
> persuasive evidence that any large group of people is superior to
> another, either physically or morally (barring minor adaptations to
> climate).
>
> In any event, he was only the person who established evolutionary
> science (with contributions from Wallace). He is not a prophet who is
> considered The Authority. Attacking his character only shows that you
> still have no clue what science is about. Science is a way of studying
> how the world works. Gathering more data and learning constantly does
> not require learning dusty words of self-appointed seers. *Everybody
> is doubted, and all theories are tested. Only verifiable evidence is
> used, and the fit of the models to the data is what is valued.
>
> kermit

Like I said: If the quote had been written by anyone else beside
Charles Darwin, that is, the founder of modern evolutionary theory,
these "find some good" attempts would not be attempted. Pure biassed
hypocrisy at work, plain and simple.

Ray

[Burkhard]

Don 't forget Death, Dream, Desire and Delirium (who once was Delight)
Destiny and Despair

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 14, 7:51�am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/2013 9:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > Since the ToE still says human evolution
> > began in Africa, your belief that the theory has merits is quite
> > despicable to say the least.
>
> Exactly how does "human evolution began in Africa" support the idea that
> evolutionary theory is racist?

Rhetorical point that demands an exemption for Darwin and evolutionary
theory.

But if a Klansman were to spew hateful comparisons between Africans
and apes our Darwinist (Greg Guarino) would have no problem
understanding the gutter racism----that's why I recognize his question
to be rhetorical, demanding an exemption.

Yet in every single depiction of human evolution, found in a wide
range of evo literature, an African is not shown as representing
modern humans, but usually a young white woman. Thus the gutter racism
implication is both acknowledged and avoided.

> It could support such a contention, *if* current evolutionary theory
> held that the adaptations that "make us fully human" were incomplete
> when humans migrated out of Africa; the "migrated" population developing
> full human-hood later on. But is that what current theory holds?
>
> In short, no. We appear to have possessed all of the fancy whiz-bang
> human features that we are so insufferably proud of prior to leaving
> Africa. Thus modern-day Africans have them as well; there is no
> evolutionary evidence that I know of that says that any of the many
> population groups in Africa is any less well-equipped with those
> features, and thus, no support for racism in evolutionary theory.

Necessary partisan rhetoric.

Ray

[Burkhard]

On Feb 14, 11:45�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 7:51 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/13/2013 9:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > Since the ToE still says human evolution
> > > began in Africa, your belief that the theory has merits is quite
> > > despicable to say the least.
>
> > Exactly how does "human evolution began in Africa" support the idea that
> > evolutionary theory is racist?
>
> Rhetorical point that demands an exemption for Darwin and evolutionary
> theory.
>
> But if a Klansman were to spew hateful comparisons between Africans
> and apes our Darwinist (Greg Guarino) would have no problem
> understanding the gutter racism----that's why I recognize his question
> to be rhetorical, demanding an exemption.

Klansman tend to be anti-Darwin, precisely because they don't like
the idea that the human races are so closely related, and everything
that makes us "human" was already there when our ancestors still lived
in Africa. Or as john O'Mannique puts it

"It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: all of the
significant evolution in our species occurred in populations with
brown and black skins living in Africa. When language, music, and art
evolved, they evolved in Africans. Lighter skins evolved in some
European and Asian populations long after the human mind evolved its
present capacities. "


Klansman rather dislike this line of reasoning and with that darwin:

"In the words of a commentator from the period the KKK had become '...
at once anti-Negro, anti-Alien, anti-Red, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew,
anti-Darwin, anti-Modern, anti-Liberal, Fundamentalist, vastly Moral,
militantly Protestant.'"
(Smith, Page Redeeming the Time: A People's History of the 1920s and
the New Deal, vol.8, New York, 1987, p.3).

"Separate creation" and/or the curse of Ham fits their warped ideology
much better, after all
William Joseph Simmons, the founder of the "second clan", was a
preacher for the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical_records/dspDocu...

"This image shows a photograph from the early 1920s, probably in
Portland, in which robed and hooded Ku Klux Klan members share a stage
with members of the Royal Riders of the Red Robe, a Klan auxiliary for
foreign-born white Protestants. A large banner reading �Jesus Saves�
occupies a prominent position on the wall at the rear of the stage and
testifies to the strong role that Protestantism played in the KKK
philosophy of �100 percent Americanism.�

and

"The Klan philosophy of �100 percent Americanism� rested primarily on
three attributes: belief in a philosophy of white supremacy; adherence
to Protestant or �American� Christianity; and the superiority of
native-born Americans. Given Oregon�s long history of racial exclusion
and the fact that almost 90 percent of the state�s population in the
early 1920s was native-born, white, and protestant, Klan organizers
had little trouble enrolling new members."

see for references Saalfeld, Lawrence J. Forces of Prejudice in
Oregon, 1920-1925. Portland, Ore.: 1984.
Horowitz, David. Inside the Klavern: The Secret History of a Ku Klux
Klan of the 1920s. Carbondale, Ill.: 1999.

>
> Yet in every single depiction of human evolution, found in a wide
> range of evo literature, an African is not shown as representing
> modern humans, but usually a young white woman. Thus the gutter racism
> implication is both acknowledged and avoided.

Shows quite dramatically that you haven't read a biology book younger
than a 100 years I'd say.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Feb 14, 6:45�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 7:51�am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/13/2013 9:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > Since the ToE still says human evolution
> > > began in Africa, your belief that the theory has merits is quite
> > > despicable to say the least.
>
> > Exactly how does "human evolution began in Africa" support the idea that
> > evolutionary theory is racist?
>
> Rhetorical point that demands an exemption for Darwin and evolutionary
> theory.

No exemption necessary. There is nothing in modern evolutionary theory
that holds that Africans (in any of the many widely varying groups)
are in any way less "evolved" as regards those traits we recognize as
central to making us human. That's because those traits developed in
Africa, before the (relatively recent) spread of humans to other
places.

> But if a Klansman were to spew hateful comparisons between Africans
> and apes our Darwinist (Greg Guarino) would have no problem
> understanding the gutter racism----that's why I recognize his question
> to be rhetorical, demanding an exemption.

It's not rhetorical. I asked you how there could be any support for
racism in modern evolutionary thought, which holds that humans had
already acquired all of their special "human" qualities in Africa.

>
> Yet in every single depiction of human evolution, found in a wide
> range of evo literature, an African is not shown as representing
> modern humans, but usually a young white woman. Thus the gutter racism
> implication is both acknowledged and avoided.

Show us these, would you? But even if you find some, what of it?
Here's the story in two sentences.

Some apes slowly evolved into humans, in Africa.
Some of those "fully evolved" humans left Africa and acquired mostly
superficial changes as a result of local conditions and isolation.

Where's the racism?

> > It could support such a contention, *if* current evolutionary theory
> > held that the adaptations that "make us fully human" were incomplete
> > when humans migrated out of Africa; the "migrated" population developing
> > full human-hood later on. But is that what current theory holds?
>
> > In short, no. We appear to have possessed all of the fancy whiz-bang
> > human features that we are so insufferably proud of prior to leaving
> > Africa. Thus modern-day Africans have them as well; there is no
> > evolutionary evidence that I know of that says that any of the many
> > population groups in Africa is any less well-equipped with those
> > features, and thus, no support for racism in evolutionary theory.
>
> Necessary partisan rhetoric.

Should be easy to argue against then. Got anything?

[wiki trix]

On Feb 13, 9:07 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 3:33 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <4ae0fc0a-fc91-4736-80f7-a90fc371d...@dp10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >  wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 12, 9:12 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Today, February 12, is Darwin Day. On this day in 1809, Charles Robert
> > > > Darwin, the founder and chief architect of the modern theory of
> > > > evolution, was born.
>
> > > > Darwinists, I thought we could celebrate Darwin Day with a quote from
> > > > your master:
>
> > > > "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> > > > civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
> > > > throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
> > > > anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> > > > no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for
> > > > it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
> > > > hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of
> > > > as at present between the negro or Australian and the
> > > > gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London: John
> > > > Murray).
>

> > > Einstein could have been a child molester, but would that have
> > > effected the validity of his theories? The Theory of Evolution is not
> > > a theory about how politically correct Darwin would be according to
> > > current societal norms. It stands on its own merits.
>

> > And it would not have done anything for his theories, if he had been
> > the kindest, gentlest, patient person ever in the history of the human
> > race. Contrast that with Christianity which depends entirely on the
> > character of Jesus, of which by the way we have no verifiable first
> > hand testimony.
>
> Partisan points.

That is your best retort? Sad. Lets try again. Einstein could have

been a child molester, but would that have effected the validity of

his theories? Do you have an answer or not?

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:84d13bcd-f0a1-49cc...@zw3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Perhaps, but in the quoted passage above, there are several theories;
that there are "races, including "civilised" and "savage" , that there
exists a "break" between them and between them and apes,
supposedly on a scale of high to "low".
Seems there was something that affected the validity of those theories.

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 13, 7:31�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[....]

Charles Darwin:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for
it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of
as at present between the negro or Australian and the
gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London: John
Murray).

[....]

> > In the context of the lowest, your master, in the quote, placed
> > Africans with the gorillla.
>
> No, he did not. He placed "the negro" with "the savage races" of man,
> not with "the apes".

He never mentioned "the negro" among the "savage races." You have
assumed "savage races" includes "the negro." Your assumption is most
likely correct.

> He said that the "civilized races" would "exterminate
> and replace" the "savage races", so that all that would be left would
> be "man in a more civilized state" separated by a "greater break" between
> man and ape.

Your interpretation does not account for the last statement in the
quote: "....instead of as at present between the negro or Australian
and the gorilla."

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 14, 6:51 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Your quote doesn't say anything about Charles himself. And I said
nothing about slavery.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

If Einstein was as such you would not be making this point.

The real point is, once again, Darwinists use slander against anyone
who opposes their theory because they believe credibility effectively
lost. So it does matter who you are and what one may have done.

Ray

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2186b293-b73e-46b3...@l4g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 13, 7:31 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> Charles Darwin:
>
> "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace
> throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for
> it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
> hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of
> as at present between the negro or Australian and the
> gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London: John
> Murray).
>
> [....]
>
> > > In the context of the lowest, your master, in the quote, placed
> > > Africans with the gorillla.
> >
> > No, he did not. He placed "the negro" with "the savage races" of man,
> > not with "the apes".
>
> He never mentioned "the negro" among the "savage races." You have
> assumed "savage races" includes "the negro." Your assumption is most
> likely correct.

It is not an assumption, but a conclusion drawn from known premises.
Since the civilised races would exterminate the savage races in such
a manner as to exclude the negro from the races that remained,
negros were necessarily a member of the "savage races", those that
would be exterminated.

>
> > He said that the "civilized races" would "exterminate
> > and replace" the "savage races", so that all that would be left would
> > be "man in a more civilized state" separated by a "greater break" between
> > man and ape.
>
> Your interpretation does not account for the last statement in the
> quote: "....instead of as at present between the negro or Australian
> and the gorilla."
>

Yes, it does, in any meaningful use of "account for". Didn't you learn
to "connect the dots" in elementary school?

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:65076858-a40b-40ac...@w9g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...

True, you want to pin "racist" on Darwin, not "slavery". Darwin could
be a racist and oppose slavery of all races. He could have thought
that "the negro" was lower down on the ladder and part of "savage
races" and arguably, not a racist.

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 14, 7:11 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:2186b293-b73e-46b3...@l4g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

We essentially agree then that it was his intended meaning even though
he didn't actually say it.

> > > He said that the "civilized races" would "exterminate
> > > and replace" the "savage races", so that all that would be left would
> > > be "man in a more civilized state" separated by a "greater break" between
> > > man and ape.
>
> > Your interpretation does not account for the last statement in the
> > quote: "....instead of as at present between the negro or Australian
> > and the gorilla."
>
> Yes, it does, in any meaningful use of "account for". Didn't you learn
> to "connect the dots" in elementary school?

Your interpretation does not account for the "present...." and its
placement of "the negro" with "the gorilla." But since you insist it
does, then we agree that Darwin did as such.

Ray

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f7b23c9a-0a2f-4103...@m4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Yes, he did "actually say it". His reference and comparisons to what
he regarded "man" included and what "ape" included was about as
explicit as one can get.

>
> > > > He said that the "civilized races" would "exterminate
> > > > and replace" the "savage races", so that all that would be left would
> > > > be "man in a more civilized state" separated by a "greater break" between
> > > > man and ape.
> >
> > > Your interpretation does not account for the last statement in the
> > > quote: "....instead of as at present between the negro or Australian
> > > and the gorilla."
> >
> > Yes, it does, in any meaningful use of "account for". Didn't you learn
> > to "connect the dots" in elementary school?
>
> Your interpretation does not account for the "present...." and its
> placement of "the negro" with "the gorilla." But since you insist it
> does, then we agree that Darwin did as such.
>

Yes, it does. I told you up front that "He placed "the negro" with

"the savage races" of man, not with "the apes".

Your "placement" is where Darwin referred to "the break"
between man and ape.

Your powers of comprehension leave much to be desired.

[wiki trix]

On Feb 14, 9:45�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:84d13bcd-f0a1-49cc...@zw3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

So "races" "civilized" and "savage" are theories? Sound more like
words. But they may have a backstory that constitutes a racist theory
of some sort, so, for argument's sake, let's say that these words were
express as part of some sort of racist theory. Well, that theory must
be evaluated against the available evidence. As far as I know, there
is no scientifically valid evidence for such a theory. So that theory,
if it ever was suggested or promoted by Darwin, has failed. And if
that was the case, then Darwin was wrong about that particular theory.
Whoopty-Do. Of course, it would be a fallacy to conclude that Darwin
being wrong about one theory automatically implies that all of
Darwin's theories are therefore wrong. Only the evidence counts.
Newton was wrong about Alchemy. Does that say anything about his other
contributions to science?

[Glenn]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:23d6c097-a826-4b30...@rq16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

As opposed to stick figures?

>But they may have a backstory that constitutes a racist theory
> of some sort, so, for argument's sake, let's say that these words were
> express as part of some sort of racist theory. Well, that theory must
> be evaluated against the available evidence. As far as I know, there
> is no scientifically valid evidence for such a theory. So that theory,
> if it ever was suggested or promoted by Darwin, has failed. And if
> that was the case, then Darwin was wrong about that particular theory.
> Whoopty-Do. Of course, it would be a fallacy to conclude that Darwin
> being wrong about one theory automatically implies that all of
> Darwin's theories are therefore wrong. Only the evidence counts.
> Newton was wrong about Alchemy. Does that say anything about his other
> contributions to science?
>

Does it?

[wiki trix]

Actually, if Einstein was as such I would very much be making this
point. Here, lets try this one: Patrick Naughton is one of the main
programmers who developed the Java programming language. The FBI
arrested Naughton in 1999 and he was prosecuted for intent to have sex
with a minor. Does that make Java an inferior programming language?

> The real point is, once again, Darwinists use slander against anyone
> who opposes their theory because they believe credibility effectively
> lost. So it does matter who you are and what one may have done.

No. The real point is not about whether Darwinists use slander against
anyone. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy no matter which direction it
is used in. And the fact that you point this out on the other side,
and then use it yourself shows you to be a hypocrite.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 14/02/2013 23:45, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 14, 7:51 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/13/2013 9:19 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> Since the ToE still says human evolution
>>> began in Africa, your belief that the theory has merits is quite
>>> despicable to say the least.
>>
>> Exactly how does "human evolution began in Africa" support the idea that
>> evolutionary theory is racist?
>
> Rhetorical point that demands an exemption for Darwin and evolutionary
> theory.
>
> But if a Klansman were to spew hateful comparisons between Africans
> and apes our Darwinist (Greg Guarino) would have no problem
> understanding the gutter racism----that's why I recognize his question
> to be rhetorical, demanding an exemption.
>
> Yet in every single depiction of human evolution, found in a wide
> range of evo literature, an African is not shown as representing
> modern humans, but usually a young white woman. Thus the gutter racism
> implication is both acknowledged and avoided.

Strangely, on at least two occasions, in order to "support" an assertion
of the dissimilarity of humans and apes, Ray has posted the URL of a
young white woman.

>
>> It could support such a contention, *if* current evolutionary theory
>> held that the adaptations that "make us fully human" were incomplete
>> when humans migrated out of Africa; the "migrated" population developing
>> full human-hood later on. But is that what current theory holds?
>>
>> In short, no. We appear to have possessed all of the fancy whiz-bang
>> human features that we are so insufferably proud of prior to leaving
>> Africa. Thus modern-day Africans have them as well; there is no
>> evolutionary evidence that I know of that says that any of the many
>> population groups in Africa is any less well-equipped with those
>> features, and thus, no support for racism in evolutionary theory.
>
> Necessary partisan rhetoric.
>
> Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Simon Buck]

If Darwin were alive today and said these words then I would think less of him,
a bit like James Watson:- great work, fantastically well done, you deserve the
fame, money and acollades - err, you said what? - yup, time to retire and
possibly shut up now (not that my opinion counts for anything).

However, as has been said previously on this thread, compared to the standards
of his time, he was relatively enlightened, I'm not sure if he was on the
cutting edge of prevailing thought but if not, I don't think he was that far
behind. If we're being fair then we should judge him by the standards of his
own time.

Why do some people feel it necessary to defend Darwin? Because so much
rubbish is frequently written about him, unfair, untrue rubbish and Ray,
I don't think you're being fair in this thread at all.

And just trying to be fair myself (atheist), what about William Wilberforce -
an evangelical christian who did a really good thing, for christian reasons!

Of course, as has been said many times, it wouldn't change the value of
Darwin's work one bit if every single false accusation had been true.
Cheers
Simon

[Greg Guarino]

On 2/14/2013 8:21 PM, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
> On Feb 14, 6:45 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> But if a Klansman were to spew hateful comparisons between Africans
>> and apes our Darwinist (Greg Guarino) would have no problem
>> understanding the gutter racism----that's why I recognize his question
>> to be rhetorical, demanding an exemption.

One additional thing. If a Klansman or a biologist (or a plumber) were
to make ignorant and hateful comparisons between Africans and
(non-human) apes I would have no trouble identifying it as racism. But
you have made no attempt to show us any such biologists (other than one,
who is dead).

I have little doubt that there are some biologists who are indeed
racist, although I'd wager they are to be found in far lower proportions
than say, among Christians. The question is, does anything in the
accepted modern view of evolutionary biology support the idea that
Africans are somehow inferior?

You have not made any attempt to show that there is anything in current
evolutionary theory that suggests so; that there are any human beings
(in Africa, or anywhere else) that are "closer" in evolutionary terms to
(non-human) apes than are other human beings.

Darwin, in my limited knowledge, seems to have been less racist than
average for his time, but might be judged racist by us (and me) today.
If he thought that Africans are "closer" in evolutionary terms to
(non-human) apes than Europeans are, subsequent investigation has shown
him to be wrong. By current scientific understanding, we are all
descendants of (in poor wording) a "fully-evolved", "fully human",
*African* population.

[Mark Buchanan]

On 2/14/2013 3:09 PM, wiki trix wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:16 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
> <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>> On 2/14/2013 7:05 AM, eridanus wrote:
>>>> El mi�rcoles, 13 de febrero de 2013 03:49:33 UTC, wiki trix escribi�:

>>>>> On Feb 12, 9:12�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Today, February 12, is Darwin Day. On this day in 1809, Charles
>>>>>> Robert
>>
>>>>>> Darwin, the founder and chief architect of the modern theory of
>>
>>>>>> evolution, was born.
>>
>>>>>> Darwinists, I thought we could celebrate Darwin Day with a quote
>>>>>> from
>>
>>>>>> your master:
>>

>>>>>> "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries,
>>>>>> the
>>
>>>>>> civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and
>>>>>> replace
>>
>>>>>> throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the
>>
>>>>>> anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,
>>>>>> will
>>
>>>>>> no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider,
>>>>>> for
>>
>>>>>> it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
>>
>>>>>> hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead
>>>>>> of
>>
>>>>>> as at present between the negro or Australian and the
>>
>>>>>> gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London:
>>>>>> John
>>
>>>>>> Murray).
>>

>>>>> Einstein could have been a child molester, but would that have
>>
>>>>> effected the validity of his theories? The Theory of Evolution is
>>>>> not a theory about how politically correct Darwin would be according to
>>
>>>>> current societal norms. It stands on its own merits.
>>

>>>> in its time, Darwin was rather enlightened and not a racist, like
>>>> most of his contemporaries. I remember to have read some comments
>>>> that prove his was worried by slavery.
>>>> This text you mentioned was probably a pessimistic rant about the way
>>>> English gentlemen were treating aborigines in Australia and other
>>>> places. He was fearing they would end exterminating them. He
>>>> commented that white people were treating aborigines as if they were
>>>> animals of other species. Eridanus
>>
>>> The book 'Darwin's Sacred Cause' details his anti-slavery passion
>>> throughout his life.
>>
>>> One of the arguments against abolishing slavery in the 19th century
>>> was the belief that there were 'centers of creation' - god created
>>> various species where they were found. This included humans so it was
>>> OK to have black slaves because god created them separately.
>>
>>> Mark
>>
>> Both Darwin, and his wife Emma Wedgwood, came from strongly anti-slavery
>> families. They were very active in the movement that led to the abolition
>> of slavery in Great Britain and the Empire in 1833 (during the voyage of the
>> Beagle).
>>
>> --
>> Mike Dworetsky
>>
>> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
>
> So is this a debate about whether Darwin was a great guy versus Darwin
> was a crappy guy? Why would anyone care now? Especially now that he is
> long gone? What does any of this have to do with the theory he
> proposed? If Peter Higgs had been a child molester, or if Hitler had
> instead predicted the Higgs Boson, would either of those hypothetical
> scenarios have had any bearing on the verification results that have
> now come out of LHC on the Higgs particl detection?
>
> "Ad hominem" is Latin for "against the person." -> Def.: Any attempt
> to discredit a view by calling attention to the character, actions or
> personal circumstances of those who hold it rather than the reasoning
> they provide in support of it.
>
> Lets stay focused. Arguing that Darwin was nice plays into his hands.
>
>
This entire thread is based on ad hominem.

(Is the above statement ad hominem?)

Mark

[wiki trix]

Hello?

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 14, 7:50�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:f7b23c9a-0a2f-4103...@m4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Again, your comments do not account for the last words in the quote,
everything after the word "present."

Since we both agree, but have come to said agreement in a different
manner, your negative comments indicate that you are implacable.

Ray

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:254a4290-121b-4700...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Again, yes they do.

>
> Since we both agree, but have come to said agreement in a different
> manner, your negative comments indicate that you are implacable.
>

We do not agree. For one, you claim "he didn't actually say that" and I said he did.

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 15, 3:13 am, Simon Buck <svb1...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Friday, 15 February 2013 03:29:24 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:

> > On Feb 14, 7:11 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:2186b293-b73e-46b3...@l4g2000pbn.googlegroups.co m... > > On Feb 13, 7:31 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > [....] > > > Charles Darwin: > > > "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the > > civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace > > throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the > > anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will > > no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for > > it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may > > hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of > > as at present between the negro or Australian and the > > gorilla" ("Descent of Man" 1871:201; Vol.1, 1st edition; London: John > > Murray). > > > [....] > > > > > In the context of the lowest, your master, in the quote, pl

Darwin's mother lives in each Darwinist.

Objective people know differently: his racist character placed
Africans with gorillas under a pretext of conducting legitimate
science. The same seen and confirmed in various turn of the century
exhibitions where Darwinists caged Africans with apes as evidence of
human evolution.

Again, expect a new round of "see no evil" points by various
incarnations of Darwin's mother.

Ray

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:707fbeb6-f6bf-4ce5-acf9

censored

>
> Objective people know differently: his racist character placed
> Africans with gorillas under a pretext of conducting legitimate
> science.

That is a lie, and you know it. Darwin did not "place" Africans "with" gorillas.

He described a future "break" between man and ape.

Don't delude yourself into thinking you speak for objective people.

[wiki trix]

Why is it racist to place anyone close with gorillas? I have no
problem being a very close relative of gorillas. Are you racists
towards gorillas? How could you tell if humans that were genetically
closer to gorillas that they would not be superior in some way to
other humans that were more distantly related? For example,
Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons were both closely related to gorillas.
But if Cro-Magnons where closer than Neanderthals or if it was the
other way around, how would you conclude which of those two species
was superior? WHat would "superior" mean? How can you be sure we have
not gone downhill over the last few hundred thousand years?

> The same seen and confirmed in various turn of the century
> exhibitions where Darwinists caged Africans with apes as evidence of
> human evolution.

Darwinists caged Africans? Sounds more like P.T. Barnum. Do you have
any supporting information on that?

> Again, expect a new round of "see no evil" points by various
> incarnations of Darwin's mother.

You again miss the point, which I have asked you several times. Let's
assume that Darwin was a racist. Does that change the validity of his
theory?

William Shockley (1956 Nobel Prize in Physics) was by some accounts a
racist. Does that mean that devices based on his transistor theory do
not work? If that is so, how is your computer able to post to this
news group?

James Watson (1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine) was by some
accounts a racist. Does that mean that his theory on the structure of
DNA is all wrong?

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/17/13 3:36 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:13 am, Simon Buck <svb1...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Friday, 15 February 2013 03:29:24 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:

snip

>> Of course, as has been said many times, it wouldn't change the value of
>> Darwin's work one bit if every single false accusation had been true.
>> Cheers
>> Simon
>
> Darwin's mother lives in each Darwinist.

No, Darwin's mother died a long time ago. Your accusations about Darwin
being a racist are irrelevant to the fact of evolution, as well as being
exaggerated. By the standards of his time, Darwin was much less racist
than others, including creationists.


>
> Objective people know differently:

You don't know anything about what objective persons know.

> his racist character placed
> Africans with gorillas under a pretext of conducting legitimate
> science.

As already pointed out by several persons, Darwin did not place African
populations with gorillas. He stated there was a "break" between the
populations. Your urge to smear Darwin with racism reveals you have no
genuine gripe against Darwin, or his work.

> The same seen and confirmed in various turn of the century
> exhibitions where Darwinists caged Africans with apes as evidence of
> human evolution.

Your use of plurals here is another exaggeration. The case you refer to
was a single case of one Congolese citizen, who being brought to the US
by Missionaries, voluntarily chose to stay. He was permitted to stay in
the Bronx Zoo's primate exhibit and was allowed free run of the grounds.
At no point was he confined or "caged".

Racist attitudes toward non Caucasian people were very common at
that time and were hardly confined to "Darwinists". By modern
standards, the treatment of Ota Benga was inexcusable, but by the
standards of the time, he was treated very well.

>
> Again, expect a new round of "see no evil" points by various
> incarnations of Darwin's mother.

Again, one can expect to see Ray continue to lie, and distort, and flee
from the truth, because he does not have a leg to stand on. Human
evolution is a fact, and no amount of diversion, and name calling is
going to change that.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 17, 3:25�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:707fbeb6-f6bf-4ce5-acf9

>
> censored
>
>
>
> > Objective people know differently: his racist character placed
> > Africans with gorillas under a pretext of conducting legitimate
> > science.
>
> That is a lie, and you know it. Darwin did not "place" Africans "with" gorillas.

"....instead of as at present between the negro....and the gorilla."

> He described a future "break" between man and ape.

Was talking about the "present," not future.

> Don't delude yourself into thinking you speak for objective people.

The quote was written in plain English; as an Evolutionist your
resistance is explained quite easily.

Ray

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:73533d70-b733-43c1...@ru10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 17, 3:25 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:707fbeb6-f6bf-4ce5-acf9
> >
> > censored
> >
> >
> >
> > > Objective people know differently: his racist character placed
> > > Africans with gorillas under a pretext of conducting legitimate
> > > science.
> >
> > That is a lie, and you know it. Darwin did not "place" Africans "with" gorillas.
>
> "....instead of as at present between the negro....and the gorilla."

That's dishonest quotemining, and you know it. It took you some
time to think it up, and you are well aware of your intent to deceive.

>
> > He described a future "break" between man and ape.
>
> Was talking about the "present," not future.

Actually he was talking about the future, and referenced the present of his time.
Adding what came before your quotemine "...instead",

"The break will then be rendered wider ...[than] man... and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of..."

Darwin considered Africans to be men, not apes. You know this as well.

>
> > Don't delude yourself into thinking you speak for objective people.
>
> The quote was written in plain English; as an Evolutionist your
> resistance is explained quite easily.
>

Yes, the quote is quite clear, and you know I'm not resisting any part of it.
If the future "break" he proposed would have been between ape and ape,
the whole paragraph would have made no sense.

I've reserved an opinion of you till now, Ray.
Your behavior is disgraceful, you're a willfully deceptive and dishonest soul.

[Bob Berger]

In article <73533d70-b733-43c1...@ru10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez says...

You're right Ray, the quote was written in plain English. Here it is again from
Chapter 6 of Origins:

"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."

This I copied from:

http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/descent_man/6?term=between the negro

(I hope this link doesn't cause you the level of distress the last one I
directed your attention to did).

Anyway, the English IS plain; Darwin did not place the negro WITH the gorilla,
but rather placed the negro and gorilla on opposite sides of "The break between
man and his nearest allies". In other words, gorillas on one side and man
(including Australians, negros, and caucasians) on the other.

[wiki trix]

On Feb 18, 11:55�pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <73533d70-b733-43c1-b1a9-620a594dc...@ru10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

> http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/descent_man/6?term=betweenthe negro

>
> (I hope this link doesn't cause you the level of distress the last one I
> directed your attention to did).
>
> Anyway, the English IS plain; Darwin did not place the negro WITH the gorilla,
> but rather placed the negro and gorilla on opposite sides of "The break between
> man and his nearest allies". In other words, gorillas on one side and man
> (including Australians, negros, and caucasians) on the other.

Yes. I read it again. You are 100% correct.

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 18, 8:20�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:73533d70-b733-43c1...@ru10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> > On Feb 17, 3:25 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:707fbeb6-f6bf-4ce5-acf9
>
> > > censored
>
> > > > Objective people know differently: his racist character placed
> > > > Africans with gorillas under a pretext of conducting legitimate
> > > > science.
>
> > > That is a lie, and you know it. Darwin did not "place" Africans "with" gorillas.
>
> > "....instead of as at present between the negro....and the gorilla."
>
> That's dishonest quotemining, and you know it. It took you some
> time to think it up, and you are well aware of your intent to deceive.

Evasion of quote continues....and in an attempt to make me stop
quoting this portion of the quote our Evolutionist goes on a "shoot
the messenger" attack.

> > > He described a future "break" between man and ape.
>
> > Was talking about the "present," not future.
>
> Actually he was talking about the future, and referenced the present of his time.
> Adding what came before your quotemine "...instead",

Evasion continues.

> "The break will then be rendered wider ...[than] man... and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of..."

"....as at present between the negro....and the gorilla." Darwin
placed "the negro" with "the gorilla" in the context of "at present."

> Darwin considered Africans to be men, not apes. You know this as well.

You've "misunderstood:" Darwin considered Africans as low as gorillas.

As an Evolutionist, the degree of evasion and anger seen in your
replies indicates you do indeed see a great need to protect Darwin at
any cost.

This is why we reject evolution: if the Evolutionist would attempt to
distort and evade a certain part of a quote, to this degree, then just
think what they do with something complicated, like scientific
evidence?

> > > Don't delude yourself into thinking you speak for objective people.
>
> > The quote was written in plain English; as an Evolutionist your
> > resistance is explained quite easily.
>
> Yes, the quote is quite clear, and you know I'm not resisting any part of it.
> If the future "break" he proposed would have been between ape and ape,
> the whole paragraph would have made no sense.
>
> I've reserved an opinion of you till now, Ray.
> Your behavior is disgraceful, you're a willfully deceptive and dishonest soul.

I am quite happy and relieved to be considered disgraceful, deceptive,
and dishonest by a person who is protecting and defending Darwin's
gutter racism.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

No, you would not. You would do everything except admit Einstein was
as such, just like you are doing with Darwin.

> Here, lets try this one: Patrick Naughton is one of the main
> programmers who developed the Java programming language. The FBI
> arrested Naughton in 1999 and he was prosecuted for intent to have sex
> with a minor. Does that make Java an inferior programming language?

You don't get it: Nobody cares about a no-name, unlike Einstein and
Darwin.

> > The real point is, once again, Darwinists use slander against anyone
> > who opposes their theory because they believe credibility effectively
> > lost. So it does matter who you are and what one may have done.
>
> No. The real point is not about whether Darwinists use slander against
> anyone. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy no matter which direction it
> is used in. And the fact that you point this out on the other side,
> and then use it yourself shows you to be a hypocrite.
>
> Sad. Lets try again. Einstein could have been a child molester, but
> would that have effected the validity of his theories? Do you have an
> answer or not?

According to the way Darwinists behave, the answer is yes: Darwinists
use slander against all who oppose evolution because they believe
credibility is then lost. This is why the Darwinists refuse to admit
Darwin was a staunch racist.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 15, 7:33�am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/14/2013 8:21 PM, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 6:45 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> But if a Klansman were to spew hateful comparisons between Africans
> >> and apes our Darwinist (Greg Guarino) would have no problem
> >> understanding the gutter racism----that's why I recognize his question
> >> to be rhetorical, demanding an exemption.
>
> One additional thing. If a Klansman or a biologist (or a plumber) were
> to make ignorant and hateful comparisons between Africans and
> (non-human) apes I would have no trouble identifying it as racism.

That's what I said earlier.

> But
> you have made no attempt to show us any such biologists (other than one,
> who is dead).
>
> I have little doubt that there are some biologists who are indeed
> racist, although I'd wager they are to be found in far lower proportions
> than say, among Christians. The question is, does anything in the
> accepted modern view of evolutionary biology support the idea that
> Africans are somehow inferior?
>
> You have not made any attempt to show that there is anything in current
> evolutionary theory that suggests so; that there are any human beings
> (in Africa, or anywhere else) that are "closer" in evolutionary terms to
> (non-human) apes than are other human beings.
>
> Darwin, in my limited knowledge, seems to have been less racist than
> average for his time, but might be judged racist by us (and me) today.
> If he thought that Africans are "closer" in evolutionary terms to
> (non-human) apes than Europeans are, subsequent investigation has shown
> him to be wrong. By current scientific understanding, we are all
> descendants of (in poor wording) a "fully-evolved", "fully human",
> *African* population.

Yet when it comes to Darwin our Evolutionist is unable and unwilling
to see the Klansman in him, very predictable.

Ray

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5bd469b0-8848-4eda...@l4g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

You aren't happy, you're hateful, and a liar.

The evidence is your careful and repeated use of a single phrase, taken from
a complex compound sentence in a paragraph, that you hope "we" might
interpret some meaning inconsistent with the sentence and paragraph.

In my experience, hateful liars produce obvious untruths. Hate spawns
stupidity and wants to infect others. You're dining with the devil.

"....instead of as at present between the negro....and the gorilla."

All that can be inferred here is that there is something at present between
the negro and the gorilla, separating the two subjects from each other,
and certainly not evidence that the negro was "placed with" the gorilla.

[wiki trix]

Wrong. I would admit Einstein was bad person on any good evidence, and
I would not care. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that he was not
a good father or husband. He abandoned his first child for example. To
me that is worse than being a racist. No problem with his theories
though. And by the way, I never claimed that Darwin was not a racist.
I have no idea if he was or was not, and I do not care. I would not be
at all surprised to find out that he was racist. Who knows or cares
about such things? But you have never answered my question... What
does any of this have to do with the theories? What is the connection
between a scientist being a bad person with a scientist's theory being
wrong? Are you ever going to answer that?

> > Here, lets try this one: Patrick Naughton is one of the main
> > programmers who developed the Java programming language. The FBI
> > arrested Naughton in 1999 and he was prosecuted for intent to have sex
> > with a minor. Does that make Java an inferior programming language?
>
> You don't get it: Nobody cares about a no-name, unlike Einstein and
> Darwin.

No. You don't get it: Nobody cares about whether anyone cares about no-
name versus big-name. The examples I gave are focused on my question.
Does being a bad person (no-name or big-name) destroy ones ability to
have valid ideas? You have still not answered that question.

> > > The real point is, once again, Darwinists use slander against anyone
> > > who opposes their theory because they believe credibility effectively
> > > lost. So it does matter who you are and what one may have done.
>
> > No. The real point is not about whether Darwinists use slander against
> > anyone. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy no matter which direction it
> > is used in. And the fact that you point this out on the other side,
> > and then use it yourself shows you to be a hypocrite.
>
> > Sad. Lets try again. Einstein could have been a child molester, but
> > would that have effected the validity of his theories? Do you have an
> > answer or not?
>
> According to the way Darwinists behave, the answer is yes: Darwinists
> use slander against all who oppose evolution because they believe
> credibility is then lost. This is why the Darwinists refuse to admit
> Darwin was a staunch racist.

How is the way Darwinists behave relevant? So what if Darwinists
refuse to admit that Darwin was a staunch racist? Darwin may have been
a jerk. All Darwinists may be liars. I have no idea and I do not care.
You have still not ansered the question. How does that impact the
Darwin's theories?

[Burkhard]

On Feb 19, 3:47�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:25�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:707fbeb6-f6bf-4ce5-acf9
>
> > censored
>
> > > Objective people know differently: his racist character placed
> > > Africans with gorillas under a pretext of conducting legitimate
> > > science.
>
> > That is a lie, and you know it. Darwin did not "place" Africans "with" gorillas.
>
> "....instead of as at present between the negro....and the gorilla."

Quite. And the arts you replaced by "..." make it clear he does not
place them together. If you remove parts of what people war saying, it
changes the meaning - a form of lying

>
> > He described a future "break" between man and ape.
>
> Was talking about the "present," not future.

The very first words from the quote YOU provided: "At some future
period...."
Maybe read your own post before hitting send?

>
> > Don't delude yourself into thinking you speak for objective people.
>
> The quote was written in plain English;

Indeed, so what is your excuse that you keep getting it wrong? What
Darwin said has the same syntactic form as : If in the future, all
speakers of Friesean died out, and also the speaker of British
English, the difference between German and English would be much more
pronounced.

Replace in the about Frisian with "Negro" and "British English with
"gorilla", you have pretty much his claim.

OK, but that still means that unlike the linguistic example, in the
biological example, he was
a) wrong
and
b)
by today's more enlightened standards still making a slur on black
people that we would today rightly reject and chastise.

But not for the reason you claim, as he does not say or imply what
you claim he says, is on a par with how Europeans of all religious or
political parties saw themselves at the time, and owes more to pre
modern, (including mainstream religious,) ideas about progress of
human civilisation than to his biological theory

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:cb963226-da29-4c88...@h9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

Perhaps so, but would still not make him a racist even by today's standards.
Give credit where credit is due. Darwin never expressed a true racist
regard for the "race", anymore than for that of birds, for example.

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 19, 12:54�pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 3:10�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Again, we can tell that you don't get the point. Let me say it quite
clearly: The theory isn't scientific, but gutter racism.

From a pro-Darwin website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

***Ota Benga (circa 1883[1] � March 20, 1916) was a Congolese Mbuti
pygmy known for being featured with other Africans in an anthropology
exhibit at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri in
1904, and later in a controversial human zoo exhibit in the Bronx Zoo
in 1906. Benga had been freed from slave traders in the Congo by the
missionary Samuel Phillips Verner, who had taken him to Missouri. At
the Bronx Zoo, Benga had free run of the grounds before and after he
was "exhibited" in the zoo's Monkey House. Displays of non-Western
humans as examples of "earlier stages" of human evolution were common
in the early 20th century, when racial theories were frequently
intertwined with concepts from evolutionary biology.***

Note where it says "Displays of non-Western humans as examples of
'earlier stages' of human evolution were common in the early 20th
century...."

This all started with Darwin. In the late 1830s he was at the London
Zoo comparing dark skinned humans with apes. The point, again,
Darwin's theory is not scientific, but gutter racism. Your inability
to grasp this point is quite telling since I believe you would have no
problem recognizing the same as gutter racism if a Klansman were to
compare Africans with apes.

Ray

[wiki trix]

On Feb 19, 4:25�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:54�pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 3:10�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Wow. Are you ever stupid. I get the point. You do not. You have made
no argument about whether the theory is or is not scientific, or
valid. All you have attempted to do, rather unconvincingly, is to
argue that Darwin was racist. I am willing to assume for argument's
sake that Darwin was a racist of the most hideous kind. And he
sexually abused small animals. And he was a Republican. But you still
never get to the point where you answer my question. Again, how does
being a hideous racist in any way relate to the scientific validity of
his theory? If you cannot answer that question, then at least try to
forget the unrelated question of racism for a moment and answer this:
What do you have to say about the intrinsic scientific validity of the
theory itself? In isolation. I cannot make this any simpler for you.
Try not to fail again.

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 19, 12:41�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:5bd469b0-8848-4eda...@l4g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

See how painful it is to be an Evolutionist? Glenn finally brings
himself to acknowledge the last phrase of the quote!

But he refuses to acknowledge what said phrase says about the present.

"At some future period," Darwin wrote in the beginning, then he ends
the quote in the present, writing "instead of as at present between
the negro....and the gorilla."

If we were talking about no-names----John Doe, Jane Smith, John Jones,
Jane Brown----the points would be recognized instantly, but since we
are talking about the founder of modern evolutionary theory,
Evolutionists like Glenn refuse to acknowledge the points.

Thomas Henry Huxley was well known as "Darwin's bulldog." Darwin
thought so highly of him that he left him a sizable inheritance
despite the fact that they were not related by blood. Let us now
listen to Darwin's bulldog:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_3.html

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average
negro is the equal . . . of the white man. And if this be true, it is
simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed . . . he
will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and
smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by
thoughts and not by bites."

We see the exact same thinking in the Darwin quote.

Will our Evolutionist be able to acknowledge? Or will he smear and
shoot the messenger?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Let me restore what our Darwinist snipped without indicating:

"Your inability to grasp this point is quite telling since I believe
you would have no problem recognizing the same as gutter racism if a
Klansman were to compare Africans with apes."

In response our Darwinist relies on a previously made rhetorical
point: the theory is scientific regardless. Could one expect a
Darwinist to say otherwise? Of course the answer is no: one could not
expect a Darwinist to say otherwise. We can expect him to continue to
snip truth that hurts and we can expect him to keep making his
rhetorical point.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/19/13 1:10 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>
>>>> That is your best retort? Sad. Lets try again. Einstein could have
>>>> been a child molester, but would that have effected the validity of
>>>> his theories? Do you have an answer or not?
>>
>>> If Einstein was as such you would not be making this point.
>>
>> Actually, if Einstein was as such I would very much be making this
>> point.
>
> No, you would not. You would do everything except admit Einstein was
> as such, just like you are doing with Darwin.

You seem to be missing the point, Ray. It doesn't matter if Einstein
were a racist, and it doesn't matter if Darwin was. That neither were
particularly racist is beside the point.

>
>> Here, lets try this one: Patrick Naughton is one of the main
>> programmers who developed the Java programming language. The FBI
>> arrested Naughton in 1999 and he was prosecuted for intent to have sex
>> with a minor. Does that make Java an inferior programming language?
>
> You don't get it: Nobody cares about a no-name, unlike Einstein and
> Darwin.

In science, "names" don't matter. Attacking Naughton in order to
invalidate Java is just as pointless as attacking Darwin to invalidate
evolution. It's the facts and the evidence that matter.

>
>>> The real point is, once again, Darwinists use slander against anyone
>>> who opposes their theory because they believe credibility effectively
>>> lost. So it does matter who you are and what one may have done.
>>
>> No. The real point is not about whether Darwinists use slander against
>> anyone. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy no matter which direction it
>> is used in. And the fact that you point this out on the other side,
>> and then use it yourself shows you to be a hypocrite.
>>
>> Sad. Lets try again. Einstein could have been a child molester, but
>> would that have effected the validity of his theories? Do you have an
>> answer or not?
>
> According to the way Darwinists behave, the answer is yes: Darwinists
> use slander against all who oppose evolution because they believe
> credibility is then lost.

That's your own error. "Darwinists" don't use slander against those who
oppose evolution. They point out that those who oppose evolution have
no evidence or science on their side.

> This is why the Darwinists refuse to admit
> Darwin was a staunch racist.

No, the reason is that Darwin was not a "staunch racist". He did live
in a time where racist attitudes were common. Darwin in fact opposed
some of the racism of his time period. Many creationist contemporaries
of Darwin were much more racist in their opinions than Darwin ever was.
Dismissing evolution as "gutter racism" is wrong.

DJT

[wiki trix]

I have no dog in this fight. I do not know if Darwin was correct. His
theory is very interesting, but I do not actually know if he correct
or not. Biological diversity could be an illusion for all I know. I
also have no idea if Darwin was racist or not. I would expect that,
like most people, he probably was to some extent. I do not know to
what extent, and I do not care. But you have still not answered the
question. Try it this way... If Hitler solved the FLT problem, would
the fact that he was evil invalidate his mathematical proof? This is a
yes or no question, in case you were wondering.

[wiki trix]

This line of talk will only confuse him. Please avoid defending
Darwin's character so that he can focus on the real question here. I
would recommend that everyone in this thread temporarily assumes that
Darwin was a hideous racists and rapist, at least for argument's sake.
Ray needs to focus on the question I have asked him about ten times in
this thread. How does quality of character impinge on veracity of
theory. Let's try to keep this ultra-simple so that we can actually
get an answer out of him.

[Malte Runz]

"Ray Martinez" skrev i meddelelsen
news:5bd469b0-8848-4eda...@l4g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

(snip)

> You've "misunderstood:" Darwin considered Africans as low as gorillas.

So what. It can still be shown that humans and gorillas are genetically
closely related and share a recent common ancestor. Chimps are even closer.
Cats and dogs are relatives too. Even fish. Say hello to your cousin yeast!

That's what I celebrate on Darwin's Day.

> Evasion of quote continues....and in an attempt to make me stop
> quoting this portion of the quote our Evolutionist goes on a "shoot
> the messenger" attack.

Evolutionists refuse to accept that Darwin was a racist, you say.

(snip)

> I am quite happy and relieved to be considered disgraceful, deceptive,
> and dishonest by a person who is protecting and defending Darwin's
> gutter racism.

And now Evolutionists defend Darwins racist beliefs...?

You can't have it both ways, so choose your strawman.


--
Malte Runz

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/19/13 2:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:54 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip

>>
>>>> Here, lets try this one: Patrick Naughton is one of the main
>>>> programmers who developed the Java programming language. The FBI
>>>> arrested Naughton in 1999 and he was prosecuted for intent to have sex
>>>> with a minor. Does that make Java an inferior programming language?
>>
>>> You don't get it: Nobody cares about a no-name, unlike Einstein and
>>> Darwin.
>>
>> No. You don't get it: Nobody cares about whether anyone cares about no-
>> name versus big-name. The examples I gave are focused on my question.
>> Does being a bad person (no-name or big-name) destroy ones ability to
>> have valid ideas? You have still not answered that question.
>>
>>

Why no answer, Ray? What are you afraid of?

>>
>>
>>
>>>>> The real point is, once again, Darwinists use slander against anyone
>>>>> who opposes their theory because they believe credibility effectively
>>>>> lost. So it does matter who you are and what one may have done.
>>
>>>> No. The real point is not about whether Darwinists use slander against
>>>> anyone. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy no matter which direction it
>>>> is used in. And the fact that you point this out on the other side,
>>>> and then use it yourself shows you to be a hypocrite.
>>
>>>> Sad. Lets try again. Einstein could have been a child molester, but
>>>> would that have effected the validity of his theories? Do you have an
>>>> answer or not?
>>
>>> According to the way Darwinists behave, the answer is yes: Darwinists
>>> use slander against all who oppose evolution because they believe
>>> credibility is then lost. This is why the Darwinists refuse to admit
>>> Darwin was a staunch racist.
>>
>> How is the way Darwinists behave relevant? So what if Darwinists
>> refuse to admit that Darwin was a staunch racist? Darwin may have been
>> a jerk. All Darwinists may be liars. I have no idea and I do not care.
>> You have still not ansered the question. How does that impact the
>> Darwin's theories?
>
> Again, we can tell that you don't get the point.

Who is the "we", Ray?

> Let me say it quite
> clearly: The theory isn't scientific, but gutter racism.

You can say it clearly, but you remain wrong. There is nothing racist
about evolution. It's a scientific theory, supported by the evidence.

>
> From a pro-Darwin website:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga

What does this have to do with Darwin? Also, where do you get the idea
that Wikipedia is "pro Darwin"?

>
> ***Ota Benga (circa 1883[1] � March 20, 1916) was a Congolese Mbuti
> pygmy known for being featured with other Africans in an anthropology
> exhibit at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri in
> 1904, and later in a controversial human zoo exhibit in the Bronx Zoo
> in 1906. Benga had been freed from slave traders in the Congo by the
> missionary Samuel Phillips Verner, who had taken him to Missouri. At
> the Bronx Zoo, Benga had free run of the grounds before and after he
> was "exhibited" in the zoo's Monkey House.

Which contradicts your claim that Benga was "caged". He had free run of
the grounds.

> Displays of non-Western
> humans as examples of "earlier stages" of human evolution were common
> in the early 20th century, when racial theories were frequently
> intertwined with concepts from evolutionary biology.***

Just as creationists of the time "intertwined" racial theories with the
belief that God created humans. It was a common belief among religious
creationists that non Caucasian races were either created inferior, or
suffering under "Curse of Ham".

>
> Note where it says "Displays of non-Western humans as examples of
> 'earlier stages' of human evolution were common in the early 20th
> century...."

Note that it doesn't address the question Wikitrix was asking. Anyone
can misuse a scientific theory, but that does not mean the theory is
wrong.

>
> This all started with Darwin.

Actually, the exploitation of African and other non white populations as
curiosities goes much farther back than Darwin.

One such example is the "Hottentot Venus" in 1810
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/books/review/Elkins.t.html?_r=0

PT Barnum put people, including an African American woman, Joice Heth on
display in 1835, and the "Siamese Twins" Chang and Eng in 1837.

A Medici Cardinal in the 16th century had a collection of humans from
different races in a menagerie.

Christopher Columbus brought a group of American Indians to the court of
Spain after his first voyage to the New World. For more, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo

> In the late 1830s he was at the London
> Zoo comparing dark skinned humans with apes.

Actually, he was comparing apes and all other humans. Note that Darwin
never stated that "dark skinned" humans were the only ones closely
related to other ape species.

> The point, again,
> Darwin's theory is not scientific, but gutter racism.

You have not established your 'point'. You've just asserted it to be
true, and have not supported it with any evidence. What is not
scientific about the theory of evolution? Where does the theory of
evolution suggest that any population of human is closer to any ape
species than any other human population? Where does Darwin's
mechanism of variation and natural selection indicate that any human
population is less "advanced" than any other?

> Your inability
> to grasp this point is quite telling since I believe you would have no
> problem recognizing the same as gutter racism if a Klansman were to
> compare Africans with apes.

Klansmen usually deny that humans are related to apes. They are nearly
all creationists. Darwin, on the other hand, did not compare African
populations alone to other ape species. Darwin held that not only all
humans were related to other ape species, and that humans were apes.

He did not suggest that African populations were less than human, or
less worthy than other populations. Those are all fantasies you have
concocted in your own mind.



DJT

[Malte Runz]

"wiki trix" skrev i meddelelsen
news:71418497-289d-4a83...@zw3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Hunnertandten!

I can't see Martinez even try to wiggle his way out of this one.


--
Malte Runz

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/19/13 1:02 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:20 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:73533d70-b733-43c1...@ru10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 17, 3:25 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:707fbeb6-f6bf-4ce5-acf9
>>
>>>> censored
>>
>>>>> Objective people know differently: his racist character placed
>>>>> Africans with gorillas under a pretext of conducting legitimate
>>>>> science.
>>
>>>> That is a lie, and you know it. Darwin did not "place" Africans "with" gorillas.
>>
>>> "....instead of as at present between the negro....and the gorilla."
>>
>> That's dishonest quotemining, and you know it. It took you some
>> time to think it up, and you are well aware of your intent to deceive.
>
> Evasion of quote continues.

There's no "evasion", Ray. You failed to read the quote correctly, and
you have altered the quote to change the meaning.

> ...and in an attempt to make me stop
> quoting this portion of the quote our Evolutionist goes on a "shoot
> the messenger" attack.

The "messenger" is openly lying, and Glen is aware of this.

>
>>>> He described a future "break" between man and ape.
>>
>>> Was talking about the "present," not future.
>>
>> Actually he was talking about the future, and referenced the present of his time.
>> Adding what came before your quotemine "...instead",
>
> Evasion continues.

No evasion, just trying to show where you altered the quotation.

>
>> "The break will then be rendered wider ...[than] man... and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of..."
>
> "....as at present between the negro....and the gorilla." Darwin
> placed "the negro" with "the gorilla" in the context of "at present."

Darwin was saying there was a "break" between "the negro" and "the
gorilla" at present, not that the two groups were the same. Darwin
specifically stated the two were separate groups. He was saying that
"the negro" ie, the population of humans were separate from the "the
gorilla", ie, the population of animals called "gorillas". He was not
placing them together.

>
>> Darwin considered Africans to be men, not apes. You know this as well.
>
> You've "misunderstood:" Darwin considered Africans as low as gorillas.

No, you got it wrong again, Ray. Darwin, like most of the European
scientists of his time, considered some African populations to be less
civilized than Caucasians, thus "lower" on the human scale. (It's now
known there is no such "scale". All human populations are equal). He
did not say that Africans were as "low" as the Gorilla. In fact, the
whole theory of evolution makes "higher" and "lower" meaningless in
regards to populations within species.

>
> As an Evolutionist, the degree of evasion and anger seen in your
> replies indicates you do indeed see a great need to protect Darwin at
> any cost.

Ray, it's you who is evading, and ignoring the facts. Any "anger" is
due to you blatant dishonesty. There's no need to protect Darwin, as
his personal opinions don't matter.

>
> This is why we reject evolution:

You reject evolution because you were told to, not for any sane reason.

> if the Evolutionist would attempt to
> distort and evade a certain part of a quote, to this degree, then just
> think what they do with something complicated, like scientific
> evidence?

Ray, you are the one distorting the quotation. You are also implying
that scientist would distort scientific evidence, something you have no
evidence to back up. That is another example of your own dishonesty.

>
>>>> Don't delude yourself into thinking you speak for objective people.
>>
>>> The quote was written in plain English; as an Evolutionist your
>>> resistance is explained quite easily.
>>
>> Yes, the quote is quite clear, and you know I'm not resisting any part of it.
>> If the future "break" he proposed would have been between ape and ape,
>> the whole paragraph would have made no sense.
>>
>> I've reserved an opinion of you till now, Ray.
>> Your behavior is disgraceful, you're a willfully deceptive and dishonest soul.
>
> I am quite happy and relieved to be considered disgraceful, deceptive,
> and dishonest by a person who is protecting and defending Darwin's
> gutter racism.

Darwin had no "gutter racism", and your own bad behavior does not get
excused by accusing others falsely.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/19/13 3:21 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:41 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

snip

>>
>> In my experience, hateful liars produce obvious untruths. Hate spawns
>> stupidity and wants to infect others. You're dining with the devil.
>>
>> "....instead of as at present between the negro....and the gorilla."
>>
>> All that can be inferred here is that there is something at present between
>> the negro and the gorilla, separating the two subjects from each other,
>> and certainly not evidence that the negro was "placed with" the gorilla.
>
> See how painful it is to be an Evolutionist? Glenn finally brings
> himself to acknowledge the last phrase of the quote!

What is "painful" about this? Darwin's statement, taken out of context
as it is, seems offensive to modern ears, but Darwin was expressing a
common thought of the time. It was the same thing most creationists
thought.

>
> But he refuses to acknowledge what said phrase says about the present.

Because Dariwn's use of "at present" does not matter to the meaning of
the phrase. Darwin was talking about a time in the near future,
contrasting it with the present.

>
> "At some future period," Darwin wrote in the beginning, then he ends
> the quote in the present, writing "instead of as at present between
> the negro....and the gorilla."

Meaning there is a gap between the two populations. Darwin did not
mean to say the two groups were on an equal level.

>
> If we were talking about no-names----John Doe, Jane Smith, John Jones,
> Jane Brown----the points would be recognized instantly, but since we
> are talking about the founder of modern evolutionary theory,
> Evolutionists like Glenn refuse to acknowledge the points.

Again, it doesn't matter what the "name" of the person might be. If
someone else wrote what Darwin did, it would still not be a statement
that "negroes" and "gorillas" were on the same level.

You made a mistake, Ray. You need to admit you were wrong.

>
> Thomas Henry Huxley was well known as "Darwin's bulldog." Darwin
> thought so highly of him that he left him a sizable inheritance
> despite the fact that they were not related by blood. Let us now
> listen to Darwin's bulldog:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_3.html
>
> "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average
> negro is the equal . . . of the white man. And if this be true, it is
> simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed . . . he
> will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and
> smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by
> thoughts and not by bites."
>
> We see the exact same thinking in the Darwin quote.

Actually, it's quite different from what Darwin said. Note too that
Abraham Lincoln made similar statements to Huxley's statement above. It
was a common belief of the time. It's now considered to be wrong.

>
> Will our Evolutionist be able to acknowledge? Or will he smear and
> shoot the messenger?

When the "messenger" is openly lying, and distorting the truth, he
should be shown the error of his ways.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/19/13 1:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Feb 15, 7:33 am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/14/2013 8:21 PM, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 14, 6:45 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> But if a Klansman were to spew hateful comparisons between Africans
>>>> and apes our Darwinist (Greg Guarino) would have no problem
>>>> understanding the gutter racism----that's why I recognize his question
>>>> to be rhetorical, demanding an exemption.
>>
>> One additional thing. If a Klansman or a biologist (or a plumber) were
>> to make ignorant and hateful comparisons between Africans and
>> (non-human) apes I would have no trouble identifying it as racism.
>
> That's what I said earlier.

What Darwin said was indeed racist, but not remarkably so, considering
the times. His opinions and statements were very mild, compared to his
contemporaries. It would be unusual to find a single scientist of
Darwin's time (evolutionist or not) who thought Whites and Blacks were
equals.

>
>> But
>> you have made no attempt to show us any such biologists (other than one,
>> who is dead).
>>
>> I have little doubt that there are some biologists who are indeed
>> racist, although I'd wager they are to be found in far lower proportions
>> than say, among Christians. The question is, does anything in the
>> accepted modern view of evolutionary biology support the idea that
>> Africans are somehow inferior?
>>
>> You have not made any attempt to show that there is anything in current
>> evolutionary theory that suggests so; that there are any human beings
>> (in Africa, or anywhere else) that are "closer" in evolutionary terms to
>> (non-human) apes than are other human beings.
>>
>> Darwin, in my limited knowledge, seems to have been less racist than
>> average for his time, but might be judged racist by us (and me) today.
>> If he thought that Africans are "closer" in evolutionary terms to
>> (non-human) apes than Europeans are, subsequent investigation has shown
>> him to be wrong. By current scientific understanding, we are all
>> descendants of (in poor wording) a "fully-evolved", "fully human",
>> *African* population.
>
> Yet when it comes to Darwin our Evolutionist is unable and unwilling
> to see the Klansman in him, very predictable.

That's because Darwin was very different from a Klansman. Darwin
believed that all humans were related to apes, including the Caucasian
populations. The Klan tends to claim that whites are favored by God,
and were created by God to be superior. Creationism is just as open to
misuse by racists as genuine science is.

DJT

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7d2f20c0-0998-40d3...@y2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...

I've already acknowledged that "the messenger" is a deceiver and liar, hugging the spirit of evil.
Your arguments are riddled with illogical and irrational reasoning.
Addressing every lie that pops out of your mouth serves no purpose.

It may very well be that you are a gutter racist at heart. That you are is more likely than
most of the evolutionists here. You'd have different "reason" though. Got a few amens?

[Dana Tweedy]

A Klansman is most likely to consider evolution to be false, and believe
that Caucasians are specially created superior to apes, and other human
races. Evolutionary theory indicates that such thinking is wrong.
Other ape species are no more "inferior" to humans than any other human
population is inferior to a single group with lighter colored skin.

Also, Ray, considering your own quote mining of Darwin's quote, you
don't have a lot of room to talk about "snipping".

>
> In response our Darwinist relies on a previously made rhetorical
> point: the theory is scientific regardless.

That is true. Evolution is a scientific theory, regardless of the
morality or opinions of the first person to exspouse the theory.

> Could one expect a
> Darwinist to say otherwise?

Yes, one could, but it doesn't matter, as the statement is true.

> Of course the answer is no: one could not
> expect a Darwinist to say otherwise.

Ray, you are using your own dishonesty as a guide for how you see others
again. Just because you are partisan, and can't admit your own errors,
that does not mean others are the same.

> We can expect him to continue to
> snip truth that hurts and we can expect him to keep making his
> rhetorical point.

Once again, Ray assumes the truth hurts others as much as it hurts him.
Ray has no problem with butcher up Darwin's quote, leaving out places
where it shows he's wrong, but gets upset when he thinks someone has
done the same thing.


DJT

[John S. Wilkins]

Malte Runz <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote:

> "wiki trix" skrev i meddelelsen
> >

> > On Feb 18, 11:55 pm, Bob Berger <Bob_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez says...
> > >
> > > >On Feb 17, 3:25 pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > >>"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >

You don't know Ray all that well, do you?
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[Dana Tweedy]

While I understand what you are saying, I think it is necessary to
remind Ray that Darwin's racism was no worse than others of his time,
including the creationists Darwin was arguing with.

Part of Ray's claim is that evolution is derived from Darwin's own
racist beliefs. Those beliefs in fact played little, or no part in
Darwin's thinking regarding the relationship between humans and other
apes. Ray is trying to imply that creationism does not share any
racist attitudes, and that racism in science originated with Darwin.

Of course, anyone who has studied the attitudes and beliefs of
Victorian science would know that racism was commonly assumed, and any
proper English gentleman (including Paley) would have believed that
Europeans were the pinnacle of creation. Darwin's theory helped change
this thinking, and led to modern scientific consensus that race is
biologically unimportant.

Also, getting a straight answer out of Ray is much like getting
blood from a turnip. Try as you might, he will refuse to give in to
honesty, or simplicity. Lying and deception is second nature to Ray.


DJT

[Glenn]

"Malte Runz" <malte...@forgititl.dk> wrote in message news:51240805$0$56783$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...

Then you got something in your eye. Wiggling is his favorite excercise.

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 19, 3:05�pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" �skrev i meddelelsennews:5bd469b0-8848-4eda...@l4g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...

>
> (snip)
>
> > You've "misunderstood:" Darwin considered Africans as low as gorillas.
>
> So what.

My on-going point well supported: The Evolutionist makes a special
exemption for Darwin. If any other person, beside Darwin, had said
these things, opposition to my points would not exist.

> It can still be shown that humans and gorillas are genetically
> closely related and share a recent common ancestor. Chimps are even closer.
> Cats and dogs are relatives too. Even fish. Say hello to your cousin yeast!

The underlying assumption: discovery of similarity and patterns of
similarity, strewn across a wide range of species, means evolution and
common descent has occurred.

Said assumption necessitates apes, at some point, to have evolved into
Africans. This is what happens when God is rejected as Creator: one
must lie in the gutter with Darwin to explain the origin of mankind.
Of course the modern theory confirms Darwin: human evolution began in
Africa.

At the turn of the century and just beyond, Africans were rountinely
caged with apes to show the "truth" of evolution. The Darwinists here
seek to minimize, whitewash, and engage in damage control. The theory
is anything but scientific; it is gutter racism at its very worst.

This is what you get when God is eliminated.

> That's what I celebrate on Darwin's Day.

A sanitized view to say the least.

> > Evasion of quote continues....and in an attempt to make me stop
> > quoting this portion of the quote our Evolutionist goes on a "shoot
> > the messenger" attack.
>
> Evolutionists refuse to accept that Darwin was a racist, you say.
>
> (snip)
>
> > I am quite happy and relieved to be considered disgraceful, deceptive,
> > and dishonest by a person who is protecting and defending Darwin's
> > gutter racism.
>
> And now Evolutionists defend Darwins racist beliefs...?
>
> You can't have it both ways, so choose your strawman.
>
> --
> Malte Runz

Our Darwinist refuses to see any evil, as predictable and biassed as
it gets.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Feb 19, 3:10�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/19/13 2:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Feb 19, 12:54 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >>>> Here, lets try this one: Patrick Naughton is one of the main
> >>>> programmers who developed the Java programming language. The FBI
> >>>> arrested Naughton in 1999 and he was prosecuted for intent to have sex
> >>>> with a minor. Does that make Java an inferior programming language?
>
> >>> You don't get it: Nobody cares about a no-name, unlike Einstein and
> >>> Darwin.
>
> >> No. You don't get it: Nobody cares about whether anyone cares about no-
> >> name versus big-name. The examples I gave are focused on my question.
> >> Does being a bad person (no-name or big-name) destroy ones ability to
> >> have valid ideas? You have still not answered that question.
>

> Why no answer, Ray? �What are you afraid of?

I'll keep answering it; Once again: There is no validity whatsoever to
the "brilliant" idea that apes, long ago, slowly evolved into
Africans. It becomes a necessity when God is rejected as Creator of
Adam and Eve. One could obtain Darwin's "idea" from any Nazi or KKK
oriented website. Again, when God is rejected as Creator of Adamkind
the company one must keep is the worst imaginable. Perhaps you could
recruit your new good friend Peter Nyikos to come over here and supply
intellectual aid and comfort for your cause. Just recently he has said
some nice things about you. But beware, Peter also supplies
intellectual aid and comfort to Holocaust deniers, but he is an
Evolutionist nonetheless.

> >>>>> The real point is, once again, Darwinists use slander against anyone
> >>>>> who opposes their theory because they believe credibility effectively
> >>>>> lost. So it does matter who you are and what one may have done.
>
> >>>> No. The real point is not about whether Darwinists use slander against
> >>>> anyone. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy no matter which direction it
> >>>> is used in. And the fact that you point this out on the other side,
> >>>> and then use it yourself shows you to be a hypocrite.
>
> >>>> Sad. Lets try again. Einstein could have been a child molester, but
> >>>> would that have effected the validity of his theories? Do you have an
> >>>> answer or not?
>
> >>> According to the way Darwinists behave, the answer is yes: Darwinists
> >>> use slander against all who oppose evolution because they believe
> >>> credibility is then lost. This is why the Darwinists refuse to admit
> >>> Darwin was a staunch racist.
>
> >> How is the way Darwinists behave relevant? So what if Darwinists
> >> refuse to admit that Darwin was a staunch racist? Darwin may have been
> >> a jerk. All Darwinists may be liars. I have no idea and I do not care.
> >> You have still not ansered the question. How does that impact the
> >> Darwin's theories?
>
> > Again, we can tell that you don't get the point.
>
> Who is the "we", Ray?

Anti-evolutionists.

> > Let me say it quite
> > clearly: The theory isn't scientific, but gutter racism.
>

> You can say it clearly, but you remain wrong. �There is nothing racist
> about evolution. �It's a scientific theory, supported by the evidence.

Evolution began, in part, at the London Zoo after Genesis was
rejected.

Darwin "scholars" refused to break the bad news gently, so I and
others will break the bad news not so gently.

> > �From a pro-Darwin website:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga
>
> What does this have to do with Darwin? �Also, where do you get the idea

> that Wikipedia is "pro Darwin"?

It's a secular site that exists to promote evolution and slander
Christianity and Bible.

> > ***Ota Benga (circa 1883[1] � March 20, 1916) was a Congolese Mbuti
> > pygmy known for being featured with other Africans in an anthropology
> > exhibit at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri in
> > 1904, and later in a controversial human zoo exhibit in the Bronx Zoo
> > in 1906. Benga had been freed from slave traders in the Congo by the
> > missionary Samuel Phillips Verner, who had taken him to Missouri. At
> > the Bronx Zoo, Benga had free run of the grounds before and after he
> > was "exhibited" in the zoo's Monkey House.
>

> Which contradicts your claim that Benga was "caged". �He had free run of
> the grounds.

After he did his stint in the cages with apes. How could you miss that
part Mrs. Darwin?

Ray

> > Displays of non-Western
> > humans as examples of "earlier stages" of human evolution were common
> > in the early 20th century, when racial theories were frequently
> > intertwined with concepts from evolutionary biology.***
>
> Just as creationists of the time "intertwined" racial theories with the

> belief that God created humans. � It was a common belief among religious

> creationists that non Caucasian races were either created inferior, or
> suffering under "Curse of Ham".
>
>
>
> > Note where it says "Displays of non-Western humans as examples of
> > 'earlier stages' of human evolution were common in the early 20th
> > century...."
>

> Note that it doesn't address the question Wikitrix was asking. �Anyone

> can misuse a scientific theory, but that does not mean the theory is
> wrong.
>
>
>
> > This all started with Darwin.
>
> Actually, the exploitation of African and other non white populations as
> curiosities goes much farther back than Darwin.
>

> � �One such example is the "Hottentot Venus" in 1810http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/books/review/Elkins.t.html?_r=0

>
> PT Barnum put people, including an African American woman, Joice Heth on
> display in 1835, and the "Siamese Twins" Chang and Eng in 1837.
>
> A Medici Cardinal in the 16th century had a collection of humans from
> different races in a menagerie.
>
> Christopher Columbus brought a group of American Indians to the court of

> Spain after his first voyage to the New World. �For more, see:

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo
>
> > In the late 1830s he was at the London
> > Zoo comparing dark skinned humans with apes.
>

> Actually, he was comparing apes and all other humans. �Note that Darwin

> never stated that "dark skinned" humans were the only ones closely
> related to other ape species.
>
> > The point, again,
> > Darwin's theory is not scientific, but gutter racism.
>

> You have not established your 'point'. �You've just asserted it to be
> true, and have not supported it with any evidence. � What is not
> scientific about the theory of evolution? � Where does the theory of

> evolution suggest that any population of human is closer to any ape

> species than any other human population? � �Where does Darwin's

> mechanism of variation and natural selection indicate that any human
> population is less "advanced" than any other?
>
> > Your inability
> > to grasp this point is quite telling since I believe you would have no
> > problem recognizing the same as gutter racism if a Klansman were to
> > compare Africans with apes.
>

> Klansmen usually deny that humans are related to apes. � They are nearly
> all creationists. �Darwin, on the other hand, did not compare African

> populations alone to other ape species. Darwin held that not only all
> humans were related to other ape species, and that humans were apes.
>

> � He did not suggest that African populations were less than human, or
> less worthy than other populations. � Those are all fantasies you have