16 Jan 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIndeed, excellent, well thought out post. I think it's also important to note that the implications of evolutionary theory on sex had not been thought through fully in Darwin's time. Matt Ridley's book 'The red queen' is quite excellent on this subject, and Dawkins' 'Selfish gene' has (from memory) some good stuff on it too.
I haven't read The Descent of Man yet; I am still working my way through The Origin of Species. I am somewhat surprised Darwin wrote the things you quote here, but it's certainly not unbelievable.
[b]"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and re ...[text shortened]... win is infallible. Religious people do say this about the Bible.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAThousandYoung Lord of Hungary "...the Saxons dominating the Celts, etc. But you ask a good question; what are "civilized" and a "savage" "races"?"
I haven't read The Descent of Man yet; I am still working my way through The Origin of Species. I am somewhat surprised Darwin wrote the things you quote here, but it's certainly not unbelievable.
[b]"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and re ...[text shortened]... win is infallible. Religious people do say this about the Bible.
Viking domination of the Celts (and Saxons) maybe as judged by DNA evidence. The Saxons never dominated the Celts.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by micarrReally? Well that doesn't really alter my point, but it's interesting to hear. I thought the Angles, Saxons and Jutes took England from the Celts. Was I mistaken?
AThousandYoung Lord of Hungary "...the Saxons dominating the Celts, etc. But you ask a good question; what are "civilized" and a "savage" "races"?"
Viking domination of the Celts (and Saxons) maybe as judged by DNA evidence. The Saxons never dominated the Celts.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe contradiciton in Genesis 2 that says man was created before the animals ought to
Perhaps there is a way to reconcile evolution with the scripture. Can anybody point out where in the scripture it says that evolution never happened?
be enough.
Nemesio
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by whodeyEr, you don't notice the tiny tinge of sarcasm inherent in his rant?
I can't fight it any more. I started reading Darwins descent of Man and have become a new convert. A few questions remain for me, however, after converting to my new faith. Here are some of Darwins quotes in question.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and repl ...[text shortened]... d choosing what they want to teach about Darwins beliefs, they to will see the light.
You seriously think this dude is converted? If you do,
I have a GREAT bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioSure, for people gullible enough to believe the lies of
The contradiciton in Genesis 2 that says man was created before the animals ought to
be enough.
Nemesio
christianity, which is an insult to christ for it to be called that
in the first place, it should by rights be called 'paulinity'.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEngland is of course now Anglo-Saxon and not Celtic however without getting into how you define the terms "Celtic" and "Saxon" (I thin you mean Anglo-Saxon) Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, the Isle of Man and the French region of Brittany are now considered Celtic regions.
Really? Well that doesn't really alter my point, but it's interesting to hear. I thought the Angles, Saxons and Jutes took England from the Celts. Was I mistaken?
The original populations of Great Britain and Ireland today are primarily descended from the ancient peoples that have always inhabited these lands (the ancient Britons) and a wave of invasions - Roman, Viking and indeed Saxon occurred but essentially these were cultural and never affected the bloodline.
From wikipedia:
More recently a number of genetic studies have supported this model of culture being absorbed by native populations. The study by Cristian Capelli, David Goldstein and others at University College, London showed that genes associated with Gaelic names in Ireland and Scotland are also common in Wales, Cornwall and most parts England, and are similar to the genes of the Basque people, who speak a non-Indo-European language. This similarity supported earlier findings in suggesting a largely pre-Celtic genetic ancestry, possibly going back to the Paleolithic. They suggest that 'Celtic' culture and the Celtic language were imported to Britain by cultural contact not mass invasions, either by Indo-Europeans bringing farming or by Celts in 600 BC.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by micarrI looked at the Wikipedia article about Celts and it agrees with you that "Celticness" is a cultural quality, and not one of ancestry.
England is of course now Anglo-Saxon and not Celtic however without getting into how you define the terms "Celtic" and "Saxon" (I thin you mean Anglo-Saxon) Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, the Isle of Man and the French region of Brittany are now considered Celtic regions.
The original populations of Great Britain and Ireland today are primarily desce ...[text shortened]... ntact not mass invasions, either by Indo-Europeans bringing farming or by Celts in 600 BC.
However "Anglo-Saxon" refers to a blending of two separate Germanic tribes in Britain; the Angles and the Saxons, from Anglia and Saxony respectively.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by whodeyForget Darwin! You need to get some proper faith.
I can't fight it any more. I started reading Darwins descent of Man and have become a new convert. A few questions remain for me, however, after converting to my new faith. Here are some of Darwins quotes in question.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and repl ...[text shortened]... d choosing what they want to teach about Darwins beliefs, they to will see the light.
Luckily for you, there happens to be a God who beats Darwin hands down for sexism and racism.
Not only that, He is also the supreme authority on vindictiveness, vanity, jealousy, inconsistency and genocide! To name but a few of his qualities.
Tear up the "Origin of Species" and Burn "The Descent of Man" and.... GET A BIBLE!!!! You know it makes sense!
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by ShallowBlueLOL Gets my recc! (can't believe I'm advocating the bible though....)
Forget Darwin! You need to get some proper faith.
Luckily for you, there happens to be a God who beats Darwin hands down for sexism and racism.
Not only that, He is also the supreme authority on vindictiveness, vanity, jealousy, inconsistency and genocide! To name but a few of his qualities.
Tear up the "Origin of Species" and Burn "The Descent of Man" and.... GET A BIBLE!!!! You know it makes sense!
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by OmnislashGenesis 1
I'm sorry, but I still don't follow. Perhaps I'm just a bit on the dull side tonight. I think you will have to spell it out for me.
Order goes something like this; Heaven and Earth, Light and dark, then he made heaven again (firmament). On the second day, he made earth / dry land (again), and seas. God also made vegetation on the second day. On the third day god made stars, the sun and the moon, and then got tired and couldn't be bother with anything else that day. Makes you wonder really, since he;s god he could have done this all on one day, surely? Anyhoo, fourth day - started fish in the morning, and did birds in the afternoon. Fifth day - terrestrial animals. Did he do whales and dolphins on the fourth or fifth day then? They're way more like terrestrial animals than are the fish, being mammals and all. Maybe that's were he got the idea for mammals, I suppose. Anyways, Sixth day, man, and then woman. Then he had a day off.
Genesis two.
Like this; v4. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-- 7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
So to recap, in Gen 1, all life was created BEFORE man. But in Gen 2, nothing was alive until AFTER man.
http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp