Darwinian theory considers the evidence available to it, fossils, rocks, DNA and such, show me where evolution theory examines anything religious, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t.
Exhuming and examining human fossil remains from religious burial sites in Israel is a religious undertaking.
! What has that got to with the theory of evolution? Your talking about archaeology.
And what do you claim for decent from Noah, do you not considerate to be superior, and likewise dismiss the scientific claims?
Possibly, but that is not taught in public schools.
Likewise evolution is not taught at Sunday school or in church.
This argument is getting more bizarre by the day, how can you Ã¢â‚¬Å“racially denyÃ¢â‚¬Â if you just state the scientific facts.
The Out of Africa Model of human evolution is a racist theory, not a scientific fact.
So you keep stating, where is the racist bit?
The current explanations of manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s origin are considered factual enough from a scientific POV, stating such a POV is not a racist act.
Stating that all Asians and Caucasians are descended from modern African people is based on a racial theory of Asian and Caucasian ancestry and origins.
ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s origins, there is nothing inherently racist about such remarks, quote some text from your sources so we might have some point to discuss.
You seem to be calling it racist on the basis that itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s different. Like in the example I posted earlier
E.g. (a modern interpretation demonstrating that being different is not racist): People of different Ã¢â‚¬ËœracialÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ heritage need to adopt different strategies when long exposure to the sun is unavoidable - Whites, especially red heads, need to cover up as much as possible and apply SPF 30+ sun block at least every hour. Blacks have a natural defence against the sun and need take similar precautions only if exposure is expected to be longer that 30 min. Sun exposure ages the skin no matter what colour.
Do you think there is a racist comment in that text? If so please explain why.