According to Darwin in his books. He clearly states that women are more ape like, and less evolved then men. Dont believe me? Read His theorys, and books again. It what he printed... Just another reason why I dont believe in evolution.
30 comments
You know, unlike fundamentalists, scientists did not stop with just one book and rely on that, unchanging, forever; they have sought out new information and have refined the basic theory of evolution considerably since Darwin's day. You could, in fact, say that evolutionary theory itself has evolved. So if, in fact, Darwin ever did say something so absurd, the idea "died out" because it was "unfit," and other ideas that fit the environment of logic and evidence have since taken its place.
~David D.G.
"According to God in his books. He clearly states that women are more ape like, and less evolved then men. Dont believe me? Read His theorys, and books again. It what he printed... Just another reason why I dont believe in the bible."
...riiiight. YOU'RE making the claims, YOU provide the sources.
And of course, your holy book says women are PROPERTY, so...
fundie strategem: if you can't win by playing the ball, attack the man.
It's easy to blacken the name of a man long dead
Since everyone picked on the main points, allow me to nitpick instead...
"It [sic] what he printed..."
Dreadful grammar notwithstanding, I'm fairly certain the brand of quill Darwin used wasn't Hewlett-Packard.
Lies for Jesus!
Just because your book of shit claims women are a lesser species doesn't mean proper books do.
You fuckers rely on the fact that the rest of your idiot friends don't read books (other than the bible (and then not even that)) and will trust the total shit and lies that each other spouts about books they haven't read!
Lies and blind trust in each other's lies.... that's what the babble has done to you.
Around the last turn of the millenium women were seen as less important than men. It's no mystery then - if Darwin thought so too - that he thought so too, but I doubt it. However, evolution has evolved since then. Darwin put the ideas on paper, scientists have since worked on them and reformed them and found new, better ideas, in the same direction.
What was your point again? That you don't know how to write in English? English is my second language, and I have had quite a lot of wine this evening (it's around 11 pm here), what's your excuse?
...wouldn't that contradict evolution?
And even if he did say that, so what? He just started this whole shebang. He isn't the ultimate authority on evolution.
a) it doesn't say that in any of his books
b) even if it did, that would have no effect on the truth value of evolution, only on that particular factoid
c)Most of Darwin's books are about earthworms, not human evolution. There's The Descent of Man and a teeny bit in On the Origin. From the way you structured your little post here it is clear you think all of his books are about human evolution. So I conclude you have not read any of them and are just lying for Jeebus.
Yeah, I recall that line in "Origin of the Species" in which he says that women are to remain silent in the churches, and that he never permits women to hold authority over men.
Oh wait, that was another book.
I suspect Darwin merely touched on the fact that between the genders in a species there are traits that are demonstrated more in one gender than the other. Men have superior strength and size, spacial senses and aggression. Females have greater nuturing abilities, facial recognition and mood perception. Both are traits shaped by enviroment and culture over time, traits that suceeded in continuing family lines.
Modern studies have shown even more differences (not lesser ) such as women having the two hemispheres of their brains being more connected than males.
With that poor grasp of grammar and spelling, you are clearly less educated than most men I know.
But I'd guess that has more to do with your lack of education, than what's between your legs and in your abdomen, dearie.
I see at least seven errors in that very small paragraph, and I've counted only grammatical errors.
Oh, there's one more, but it's a repeat, so we'll still say seven.
I'm fairly certain Charles Darwin understood the theory of evolution by natural selection, given he invented it.
If that is the case, then he would be aware that individuals don't evolve, populations do. Populations of both genders. It is impossible for women to be "less evolved" than men because we share the same genetic material.
Not to mention that the idea of one thing being more evolved than others is complete rubbish.
In conclusion, you made that up.
Since you obviously know so much about it, please tell us all in exactly which of Darwin's books he says that. Title, chapter and exact quote please.
Well? We're waiting.........?
“According to Darwin in his books.”
The need for a citation is approaching critical, captain.
"He clearly states that women are more ape like,”
Women are apes, doofus. So, you’re waying women are more like women than men are like men? Or than men are like women?
“and less evolved then men.”
That’s not even possible. Men can’t reproduce without wmoen (and vice versa), so how would they evolve separately?
"Dont believe me?”
Not even slightly. I’d give better odds on John Lennon having fakes his death.
“Read His theorys, and books again.”
I’m not going to do your homework. Cite?
“It what he printed... Just another reason why I dont believe in evolution.”
I don’t ‘believe’ in evolution, either.
It’s the current front-running theory.
If something replaces it, i’m not out anything.
But if you disbelieve it based on lies, then why would anyone credit whatever you DO believe?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.