Evolution doesn't just skip races

[chaseter]

However, as I said, the whites didn't invent gunpowder. They simply had trade with China. If the African tribes had trade with China, things would be reversed. Europe wasn't that technologically ahead of Africa for a long time before out weapons upgraded through trade and we were the guys with the biggest (and only) guns. Hell, many African tribes were forging metal when Europeans were still rubbing sticks together for warmth.

Whites did not invent gun powder no but their technology was sufficient enough prior to their trade to be able to allow them to visit China and have successful interaction...Africa's technology was still based on rocks and arrows at the time.

 

[The Question]

Whites did not invent gun powder no but their technology was sufficient enough prior to their trade to be able to allow them to visit China and have successful interaction...Africa's technology was still based on rocks and arrows at the time.

What technology? It was just walking. Maybe riding a horse or a cammel. The Africans were fully capable of that. They simply hadn't, and we had.

 

[WilcofanAshes]

I dunno, She's independently wealthy and you're posting here, he might have something.

Independently wealthy now because she started out as the billionaire daughter of a Hotel tycoon. I can assure you with full confidence that Paris Hilton is exactly as dumb as she seems. The difference is that she doesn't have to care.

 

[chaseter]

What technology? It was just walking. Maybe riding a horse or a cammel. The Africans were fully capable of that. They simply hadn't, and we had.

There is a reason for that. There is a reason why Europeans wanted to be exploritory...technology. Europeans and Africans were not evenly matched prior to gun powder.

 

[chaseter]

Independently wealthy now because she started out as the billionaire daughter of a Hotel tycoon. I can assure you with full confidence that Paris Hilton is exactly as dumb as she seems. The difference is that she doesn't have to care.

I think she is smarter than you are making her out to be.

 

[The Question]

There is a reason for that. There is a reason why Europeans wanted to be exploritory...technology. Europeans and Africans were not evenly matched prior to gun powder.

They were alot closer than the way you're making it out. The fact that Europe had trade with China doesn't prove **** about their technology. Back then, there were only three ways one could travel long distanced a across land: On foot, on a horse, and on a cammel. Three things that the African tribes were just as capable of as most of Europe. The reason Europe had trade with China first is simply because they were the first ones to come across China, which was probably due to the Roman Empire.

 

[chaseter]

They were alot closer than the way you're making it out. The fact that Europe had trade with China doesn't prove **** about their technology. Back then, there were only three ways one could travel long distanced a across land: On foot, on a horse, and on a cammel. Three things that the African tribes were just as capable of as most of Europe. The reason Europe had trade with China first is simply because they were the first ones to come across China, which was probably due to the Roman Empire.

People don't just start walking out somewhere in hopes of finding something. They had heard stories or tales of China and its inhabitants. Feudal Europe was thriving, the same time gun powder was invented in the 10th century. They were already a big player in world economics and had the technology to trade with other nations. Africa was still hunting for antelopes and starting fires with wood.

 

[The Question]

People don't just start walking out somewhere in hopes of finding something. They had heard stories or tales of China and its inhabitants. Feudal Europe was thriving, the same time gun powder was invented in the 10th century. They were already a big player in world economics and had the technology to trade with other nations. Africa was still hunting for antelopes and starting fires with wood.

No. Feudal Europe was pretty ****ty economically. That's why they called them the "dark ages." They heard stories of China because th Roman empire had had some contact with China. Africa hadn't. Simple as that. Also, while yes, African tribes were hunting antilopes and starting fires with wood. But guess what? Europeans were hunting deer and starting fires with wood. They were alot closer than you make them out to be.

 

[chaseter]

No. Feudal Europe was pretty ****ty economically. That's why they called them the "dark ages." They heard stories of China because th Roman empire had had some contact with China. Africa hadn't. Simple as that. Also, while yes, African tribes were hunting antilopes and starting fires with wood. But guess what? Europeans were hunting deer and starting fires with wood. They were alot closer than you make them out to be.

Vikings were traveling the world, Europe was making an empire, and that sh**ty economy as you mention beat out the non existent economy of Africa. Rome was the powerhouse during its heyday because of technology. Roads, aquaducts, medicine, waste management, etc...were all technological advances that made Rome the center of the world so long ago.

And do you actually know why they called it the dark ages? Look it up. Because most of the records and scribes of the time all but vanished. It was dark because we hardly have any record of what happened.

 

[The Question]

Vikings were traveling the world, Europe was making an empire, and that sh**ty economy as you mention beat out the non existent economy of Africa. Rome was the powerhouse during its heyday because of technology. Roads, aquaducts, medicine, waste management, etc...were all technological advances that made Rome the center of the world so long ago.

Vikings were traveling the world because the Scandanavian countries were small and surrounded by water. Most of the African tribes were landlocked. Rome was a powerhouse, but so was Egypt. Egypt had influence all over Africa. And the Egyptians invented all sorts of modern architectural practices, an early version of our current measuring system, paper, and other things. Europe wasn't lightyears ahead of Africa the way you make it out.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

I belive that the White Man took control of the world during the middle ages,when the time was ripe,and Europe basically controled the world for hundreds of years until the United States became a formible power after World War I.

If things were different,blacks..no Africans ruled the world.There is actually a What If Marvel comic which portrays the world in a very good way.History says that with the death of Cleopatra,Egypt collapsed.Rome,arguabally the first White man civilization then arouse.But in this What If tale,Cleopatra did not commit suicide and Egypt remained the dominate force on earth.

Egypt eventually conqured the world and Africa became the most poweful country on the planet,as a result Africans[Blacks] ruled the world and America is called Assyria.Most of the people of the world are tanned skin or black,as a result,Caucasian[white] people are the slaves and minority.

Instead of Thor,its the Egyptian God Ra who is the god of the Avengers,and Captian Assyria,who is the alternate Captian America.I think its a pretty good example of how the world would be if Africans ruled it.

 

[Tangled Web]

Huh???
And just because ice cream has eggs and sugar in it doesn't mean it's fattening. LOL


Are you even listening to yourself?

Dude Darwinism, Natural selection and all that is NOT racist. Believing in those theories does not make one racist. Let's take a look at some of our forefather. Many of them were probably racist, does that make Democracy racist?

 

[hippy fascist]

I love how celldog is always *****ing about rascism yet his avy is cap's shield

Cap being that walking talking blonde haired blue eyed aryan archetype of the ubermensch t:

celldog's hero

 

[GarudA]

Dude Darwinism, Natural selection and all that is NOT racist. Believing in those theories does not make one racist. Let's take a look at some of our forefather. Many of them were probably racist, does that make Democracy racist?

Dude no matter what you say will change his mind, it is a futile situation. Let him think the way he does. He is blinded by his religious ignorance to even learn the truth about Evolution. But he rather believe what DrDino says . You know whats scary the most? That people who are in power in America really think like Celldog. example Bush.

Celldog should check out http://www.talkorigins.org/ and other matterial rather than what websites like DrDino say.

 

[chaseter]

Dude no matter what you say will change his mind, it is a futile situation. Let him think the way he does. He is blinded by his religious ignorance to even learn the truth about Evolution. But he rather believe what DrDino says . You know whats scary the most? That people who are in power in America really think like Celldog. example Bush.

Celldog should check out http://www.talkorigins.org/ and other matterial rather than what websites like DrDino say.

I don't believe in evolution either. And the truth about evolution??? There is a reason why scientists haven't found the link between man and monkey. Religion has been around a lot longer than any scientific thought.

 

[GarudA]

I don't believe in evolution either. And the truth about evolution??? There is a reason why scientists haven't found the link between man and monkey. Religion has been around a lot longer than any scientific thought.

Well man and 'monkey/apes' share something like 98% of their DNA and it's true that reason and rationality is younger than religion. Anything they might of not have found yet does not mean they will never find. This does not mean that one can explain it by looking at The Bible and saying God did it. Seriously I cannot believe people still follow that logic.

And we don't come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor.

Ok now for something amusing. If according to genesis, God created all animals on land at the same time, how come we do not see a time period in the fossil record where all animals ever to walk on land are present in the same time period.

Don't tell me it was satans work

 

[chaseter]

Well man and 'monkey/apes' share something like 98% of their DNA and it's true that reason and rationality is younger than religion. Anything they might of not have found yet does not mean they will never find. This does not mean that one can explain it by looking at The Bible and saying God did it. Seriously I cannot believe people still follow that logic.

And we don't come from monkeys, we share a common ancestor.

Ok now for something amusing. If according to genesis, God created all animals on land at the same time, how come we do not see a time period in the fossil record where all animals ever to walk on land are present in the same time period.

Don't tell me it was satans work

HAHA no I am certainly not a religious fascist. I take into account a lot of scientific fact and incorporate it into my religion. I believe our time is different from that of God's time. What he says is a day maybe a million years of our time. I certainly don't think we were the only lucky planet within a thousand light years to just so happen to have an earth created that can house life. Someone once said the chances of that happening is like taking one of Shakespear's works, cutting out every single letter, throwing it out of a plane and it landing back in perfect order. God created the seas and its creatures first, well according to science life started in the ocean. In God's time that was one day, but in our time it could have been 10 million years...who knows.

If men and monkey came from a common ancestor, how come scientists have not found it yet? We can find nearly every dinosaur or prehistoric creature but we cannot find any links between men and monkey that was within the last 10,000 years.

 

[Danalys]

when find fossils all the time. loads and loads of them that are the ancestors of multiple modern species. we have ancestors of both hominids and apes. it's just that creationists just think of them as apes, unconnected to humans. so you show the gradual progression of these fossils going from ancient ape to human and ancient ape to modern ape and they still don't believe it. i figure we'd have to travel back in time following the birth of every generation untill your great great great...... great great great grand mother looked enough for you like an ape that you just gave up and admitted it. since we don't have time travel we do the best we can, and it all makes sense in terms of evolution. at the gene level and at the fossil level, even between the competition of modern life forms.

 

[GarudA]

HAHA no I am certainly not a religious fascist. I take into account a lot of scientific fact and incorporate it into my religion. I believe our time is different from that of God's time. What he says is a day maybe a million years of our time. I certainly don't think we were the only lucky planet within a thousand light years to just so happen to have an earth created that can house life. Someone once said the chances of that happening is like taking one of Shakespear's works, cutting out every single letter, throwing it out of a plane and it landing back in perfect order. God created the seas and its creatures first, well according to science life started in the ocean. In God's time that was one day, but in our time it could have been 10 million years...who knows.

If men and monkey came from a common ancestor, how come scientists have not found it yet? We can find nearly every dinosaur or prehistoric creature but we cannot find any links between men and monkey that was within the last 10,000 years.

We can't find nearly every dinosaur or prehistoric creature without having evidence of their existence in the first place anyway, and we haven't found "nearly every dinosaur or prehistoric creature" fossil. We've barely scratched the surface. Like I said what we have not found yet does not mean that we will not.

Why do you keep associating humans with monkeys? apes are closer. The monkey association arose from creationist ridicule of evolutionary claims.

I am no expert but it's pretty simple, sometimes when a critter gets infected with a virus, sequences from the virus get copied into it's DNA. If that DNA is passed down to the next generation, it will also contain this errant code. Apes and humans share something like 12 to 14 sequences of this type and not only are the sequences matching, they are also located in the same places.


*Deja vu* This kind of debate has happend countless times and I coming to a point where I just should not open my mouth. I'm just going around in circles. I think I can do better things with the time instead of just typing the samething over and over....

 

[Danalys]

HAHA no I am certainly not a religious fascist. I take into account a lot of scientific fact and incorporate it into my religion. I believe our time is different from that of God's time. What he says is a day maybe a million years of our time. I certainly don't think we were the only lucky planet within a thousand light years to just so happen to have an earth created that can house life. Someone once said the chances of that happening is like taking one of Shakespear's works, cutting out every single letter, throwing it out of a plane and it landing back in perfect order. God created the seas and its creatures first, well according to science life started in the ocean. In God's time that was one day, but in our time it could have been 10 million years...who knows.

If men and monkey came from a common ancestor, how come scientists have not found it yet? We can find nearly every dinosaur or prehistoric creature but we cannot find any links between men and monkey that was within the last 10,000 years.

do you honestly just beleive just someone. hate to tell you but alot of people like to think they know about stuff they haven't got a clue about. then a whole bunch of other people without a clue believe them.

you blabber about probablities you couldn't even calculate yourself,. i wouldn't use arguements you actually don't understand. you should make your own arguements from the facts.

 

[chaseter]

when find fossils all the time. loads and loads of them that are the ancestors of multiple modern species. we have ancestors of both hominids and apes. it's just that creationists just think of them as apes, unconnected to humans. so you show the gradual progression of these fossils going from ancient ape to human and ancient ape to modern ape and they still don't believe it. i figure we'd have to travel back in time following the birth of every generation untill your great great great...... great great great grand mother looked enough for you like an ape that you just gave up and admitted it. since we don't have time travel we do the best we can, and it all makes sense in terms of evolution. at the gene level and at the fossil level, even between the competition of modern life forms.

Lucy is one of the earliest fossil record of humans ever found. She has the characteristics of man. And whomever above said that scientists think that apes and humans have different ancestors is wrong. Evolutionary theorists and scientists think that apes and humans have a common ancestor. The scientific term hominid, coming from the latin term hominidae, encompasses all the species originating after the human/ape ancestral split.

The fact of the matter is that scientists cannot find that link, that common ancestor, between men and ape. We can find a lot of fossils of apes and man, but that one link hasn't and probably won't be found. It is just as close as proving aliens, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, etc... exist. Science shows those creatures can exist, they just haven't found a body, bones, or 100% evidence as proof they exist.

 

[chaseter]

do you honestly just beleive just someone. hate to tell you but alot of people like to think they know about stuff they haven't got a clue about. then a whole bunch of other people without a clue believe them.

you blabber about probablities you couldn't even calculate yourself,. i wouldn't use arguements you actually don't understand. you should make your own arguements from the facts.

A lot of people also can type coherent and complete sentences.

 

[GarudA]

Ok for my last post in this thread I will give you link to article by Sam Harris where he debunks Francis Collins claims.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/

 

[Danalys]

A lot of people also can type coherent and complete sentences.

yeah, and over 90% of them have little understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

[chaseter]

Ok for my last post in this thread I will give you link to article by Sam Harris where he debunks Francis Collins claims.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/

And...what does this prove? That an editor can critique a brilliant scientists that relates his work to his beliefs? People who have religion and people who don't will always argue. It will never stop. Each side will continually try to trump each other by disproving there opponent. Whose to say one side is right or wrong? Once scientists can prove that God doesn't exist...then I will shut up. Until then, I will continue to believe what I believe and state my opinion. I merely told you above that I do not believe in evolution and why. I could almost guarantee you that the editor whom reviewed this book from the link you provided most likely does not share the same religious background as the author. That is like a Shiite Muslim or Communist reviewing our America's consitution...no s*** they won't agree.