quote:

---

I must apologize since you have quote the full title of Darwin¹s work and I will repeat it just to confirm his racist ideas, "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." Is there any doubt as to what he meant by "favoured races?"
B. Cole
Response from the editor:
The reader is thinking of race solely in human terms, but Darwin used the word more generally to denote any potentially interbreeding group of organisms within a species. This should be obvious to anyone who has actually read the book (and not just the title). Even in a human context, there is nothing racist about the term "favored races"; every human race that exists today has been favored by natural selection.
Response from Tim Thompson:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". Just to be pedantic, I do not think that the original title has a comma in it.
I know the editor has already made a resonse to this, but I want to add to that. There are two very important points that are being overlooked. The first is language, and an excellent example is the word 'gay'. When you find a reference in 18th or 19th century literature, to 'gay people', they did not mean to imply homosexuality, although today we would come to that conclusion at once. The meanings change with time. The word 'races' did not mean, in 1856, what it means today, so to call the use of the word 'racist' is simply wrong. It presumes that Darwin meant to use the word the way we use it today, and that is the source of the error.
The second important point is read the book. Evidently you have not read the book, or absorbed little if you did. If the book was actually racist, as implied, then we should be able to find the relevant passages in the book, where Darwin describes the differential reproductive success and survival rates for the various human races (in the modern sense).
Since we have been dared to cite the full title, and have complied, then I return the challenge. I dare Mr. Cole, or anyone else, to cite the relevant passages from the pages of Darwins book, where he shows his alleged racism. I contend that there are no such passages to cite, and the implication of racism falls away.

---

quote:

---

"But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (

quote:

---

Wanda and her family escaped the oppressive rule in Red China and settled in America, only to find the school system in America closely paralleled that of communist China! Wanda is becoming more and more skeptical of the theory of evolution after hearing that evolution is racist! Wanda is a very deep thinker and questions everything.

---

quote:

---

The short answer to your question as far as modern science has been able to discover is that shells get on mountain tops by being first fossilized in sedimentary deposits of a marine environment. Mountains formed subsequently; and an ancient sea bed becomes the top of a mountain.

---

quote:

---

While there is a lot I can say about your defense of Hovind, your claim that evolutionists can't refute his logic is bogus.

Why do I say that? Well, not only have they done so, over and over again (in print, where one HAS the time to check out the facts before "saying" them...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/HovindLie.html

and in many other places...

But, the Creationists themselves are finally realizing that the arguments Hovind uses are just plain bad...

Ever hear of Answers in Genesis?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

"When an attempted critique of this AiG article appeared on Kent Hovind's Web site, AiG was somewhat surprised (and disappointed) to note that it frequently and significantly misrepresents and/or misunderstands the statements and positions made in our carefully researched document.

In the interests of maintaining Christian/creationist integrity, we believed we had to respond to Kent Hovind's critique (albeit with a heavy heart), particularly because of the mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good.

Before responding to specifics, it may be worth pointing out the obvious: If these arguments don't convince fellow creationists, why would any creationist think they are going to convince evolutionists? And it would be worth revisiting our articles hyperlinked above for our motivation in compiling these dubious arguments."


Now, as for the "Patriot University pictures", even though you have the real pictures up, and the atheists are noting that, your picture isn't a hell of a lot more impressive than the satire pictures.


So, in regards to coming clean, we're doing that, in regards to the picture, now you should do that with the false claim that evolutionists can't refute Hovind's stuff.

Thank you for reading,

Reynold Hall

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_ignored

Well, I've done it again...

---