jcrawford wrote:Obviously, you have a deep-rooted faith in neo-Darwinism and cannot see the racial implications inherent in theories about the genetic superiority of a breed, tribe or race of Homo sapiens migrating out of Africa to the ultimate detriment by mass extinction of the descendents of early and archaic Homo sapiens in Asia, Europe and all other parts of the world.
Leaving aside the false attributions regarding my position, this statement makes an illogical connection between the history of humans as described by neo-Darwinism and racism.
Sociologists, psychologists, historians and others have described the gruesome events related to the Nazi's extermination of Jews and others during WWII. The researchers have looked at evidence in the form of documents, film, eyewitness testimony, etc. The scholarly record amply documents what happened, and the racist attitudes behind what happened.
Now, by the 'logic' implied in jcrawford's statement above, we would have to conclude that all these sociologists, psychologists, and historians, etc. are all creating racist theories
just because they are describing the events and the doctrine of 'genetic superiority' pushed by the Nazis that went a good ways towards making the race of Jews extinct.
Of course, such a conclusion is ridiculous, and so is jcrawford's. He would have us believe that neo-Darwinism is 'inherently racist' simply because it provides an explanation for the fossil record which includes some populations of ancient hominids becoming extinct. THe implication is that he would consider any theory as racist which includes a description of events where one population of humans contributes to the extinction or negative population growth of another.
The arguement is fallacious, or in the vernacular 'baloney.'
Quote:
Lots of creationists would agree with Jesus Christ that Lubenow presents a very good case
Unfortunately, this is probably true. Fortunately, it is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of Lubenow's arguements. How many creationists do or don't post on this forum is not very good evidence for either the extent of Lubenow's influence, or the validity of his claims. The latter we can investigate independently, and I think ample evidence has been show that Lubenow is full of baloney.
jcrawford wrote:Lots of creationists would agree with Jesus Christ that Lubenow presents a very good case for the Lord's creation of everything in heaven and on earth in His own good time, even if no one else here does.
Leaving aside jcrawford's audacity to speak for our Risen Lord and Savior, I would simply point out that many Christians understand that the type of arguements put forth by Lubenow et. al. are ridiculous and false, and accept that the Lord likely created life as we know it through what many would call natural means, one of which is described in the Theory of Evolution. In my view, the TOE is not anti-biblical or anti-Christian at all, but declares even more powerfully than the six-day creation model the infinite wisdom, power, and subtly of the Almighty.
At any rate, this is again off-topic, as the OP asks how creationists decide where to draw 'the line' between human and non-human fossils, and why they can't seem to agree. So far, jcrawford has only pointed to the one example where all the creationists DO agree, and gave as reason for this the work of one
Bernard Wood.
Looking at the link provided by jcrawford, it seems pretty clear that Dr. Wood is not a creationist, and so what this says about why creationists have trouble distinguishing between human and non-human fossil specimens I'm not sure.
The link does not directly address why or if Dr. Wood believes homo habilis is not a human ancestor, as claimed by jcrawford. It might be asking too much to ask j to identify the article (if it is in the list of recently published articles by Dr. Wood), but I will anyway.
In addition, I will point out that we have already discussed that there is controversy among evolutionary biologists about where homo habilis fits in the phylogeny of modern humans
here, on page two of this thread, which has a link to
the Smithsonian site on the homo habilis controversy.
Again, this is a red herring.
We know what evolutionary biologists think. What we need is evidence from creationists on why or how they distinguish between human and non-human fossils. If you want to use evolutionary biologists' evidence and agree that creationists don't have a clue how to make this decision, and that the history of hominid life as understood by mainstream biology is accurate, then that is fine with me and we can all go on to another thread.
KNM-ER 1813, Homo habilis considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Mehlert (1996) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be ape.
Java Man, Pithecanthropus I, Homo erectus considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) to be ape and by Mehlert
Peking Man, Homo erectus (was Sinanthropus pekinensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) and Gish (1979) to be ape and by Mehlert (1996) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo habilis (or Homo rudolfensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) and Mehlert (1996) to be ape and by Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) and 
Turkana Boy", Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) both considered to be ape by Cuozzo (1998) and human by the rest of the gang.
