Bones of Contention.

[jcrawford]

Creationist professor Marvin Lubenow contends in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" that all neo-Darwinist theories about the origins and evolution of the human race are a scientific form of racism. Being somewhat familiar with the several claims, arguments and ramifications of his thesis, I am prepared to defend his claim that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are theoretically racist should anyone care to debate and substantiate their claim to the contrary.

[QED]

Ho, ho, ho. You've got a long way to go in repeatedly refuting a scholar named Lubenow.

I am a young-earth creationist. I think that an outside age for the earth is perhaps 15,000 years, which is as far as we could really stretch the chronologies of Genesis, and even that is stretching them quite a bit

source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /bones.asp

Obviously he's a highly esteemed Scholar. Pity his geology lets him down so badly. I suppose some might argue that timescales are irrelevant to this debate. Would that be the case?

[jcrawford]

I am a young-earth creationist. I think that an outside age for the earth is perhaps 15,000 years, which is as far as we could really stretch the chronologies of Genesis, and even that is stretching them quite a bit

Obviously he's a highly esteemed Scholar. Pity his geology lets him down so badly. I suppose some might argue that timescales are irrelevant to this debate. Would that be the case?

What do geologists know about "timescales" other than what neo-Darwinists tell them, based on their "fossil record" embedded in sedimentary and volcanic layers of geological history? Geology is simply the study of the mineral composition of the crust of the earth and geologists can't date gold, coal, diamonds or oil by either geological or chemical analysis alone.

You seem to have an anti-creationist mentality. Wait till November when creation scientists publically expose the fraudulent system of radiometric dating. Till then, let's stick to the topic, lest we both become lost in extra-dimensional concepts of both space and time.

After all, the time has come, the Walrus said: "to talk of cabbages and kings.

[Jose]

What do geologists know about "timescales" other than what neo-Darwinists tell them, based on their "fossil record" embedded in sedimentary and volcanic layers of geological history? Geology is simply the study of the mineral composition of the crust of the earth and geologists can't date gold, coal, diamonds or oil by either geological or chemical analysis alone.

You seem to have an anti-creationist mentality. Wait till November when creation scientists publically expose the fraudulent system of radiometric dating. Till then, let's stick to the topic, lest we both become lost in extra-dimensional concepts of both space and time.

After all, the time has come, the Walrus said: "to talk of cabbages and kings.

Actually, it's the geologists who gave the biologists their time scale. It's not based on the fossil record--although the fossils are used very successfully by oil geologists to identify which strata are which in their drilling cores.

Y'know, I've chatted here with QED quite a bit. He doesn't seem to me to have an anti-creationist mentality. I'd suggest that it's a "realism" mentality. You know--look at what's real, and make inferences from that.

I might also point out that creationists have been "exposing the fraudulent system of radiometric dating" ever since they heard about it, but so far their expose's have had no effect at all on the science. It's kinda like the Great Expose of Neo-Darwinian Racism that Lubenow seems to have dreamed up. It's so far outside of reality that we can't take it seriously.

And, by the way, it's
"'The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings'

'But wait a bit,' the oysters cried, 'before we have our chat,
For some of us are out of breath, and all of us are fat.'
'No hurry,' said the Carpenter; they thanked him much for that."

...or words to that effect

[jcrawford]

At first, you posted a definition that was really 8 conflicting definitions and you refused to specify which of the 8 you were using.

Come on micatala. Dictionary definitions of words are all we have to go by, whether a word has only one meaning or eight. Don't you know what a good dictionary definition of the meaning of the word, 'mean,' means? If you refuse to specify which of the 8 meanings of the word, 'mean,' means, how can anyone know which meaning you are using in any given context and meaning?

In addition, simply posting the definition doesn't do any good if you refuse to use it appropriately, according to its actual meaning and usage, or if you refuse to use it consistently in the same manner, but change defintions on the fly in order to suit your purpose of falsely slandering evolutionary biology.

Dear Micatala; what do you think neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are all about, if not changing the dictionary and philosophical meanings of such words as human, ape, science, knowledge, 'species,' history, natural, race, racism and hundreds of other words?

If you really would rest your case, that would be fine with me.

Of course resting my case "would be fine" with you. Why should neo-Lubenowists rest their case though, while neo-Darwinist race theorists continue to dominate academic and 'scientific' standards in the U.S. public school systems at the cultural and monetary expense of non-racist and non-Darwinist American taxpayers, students and public highschool science teachers?

Admit it, Micatala. Neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution in and out of Africa are scientifically racist theories. If you can't see that obvious fundamental scientific fact, why should anyone give 'scientific' credence and legitimacy to any neo-Darwinist racial theories which claim that all Asian and European people naturally descended from fully human and modern Homo sapiens people like African Eve and her tribe, but that African Eve's tribe originally 'evolved' and descended from a more primitive tribe of African people (H. erectus), which in turn evolved and originated from a non-human species of African monkey or ape ancestors.

Really, micatala. Are you so totally ignorant of the details of neo-Darwinist race theories and models, that you can no longer associate modern African people with the original desendents of African ape ancestors like Charles Darwin and his grandfather Erasmus, did?

[jcrawford]

Actually, it's the geologists who gave the biologists their time scale. It's not based on the fossil record--although the fossils are used very successfully by oil geologists to identify which strata are which in their drilling cores.

Your ignorance about the history and 'science' of both oil exploration and geology and neo-Darwinist infuences in geology, biology and zoology is painfully obvious.

Y'know, I've chatted here with QED quite a bit. He doesn't seem to me to have an anti-creationist mentality. I'd suggest that it's a "realism" mentality. You know--look at what's real, and make inferences from that.

Of course. Christ's resurrection is not real, but neo-Darwinist racism is. Ok, have it your way, Jose.

I might also point out that creationists have been "exposing the fraudulent system of radiometric dating" ever since they heard about it, but so far their expose's have had no effect at all on the science.

Wait till November. They're going to blow the lid off of racist radiometric dating systems.

It's kinda like the Great Expose of Neo-Darwinian Racism that Lubenow seems to have dreamed up. It's so far outside of reality that we can't take it seriously.

That's the beauty of Lubenow's thesis. The courts have no choice but to acknowledge and recognize his creationist beliefs about neo-Darwinist racism as a bona fide and valid religious belief which justifies the teaching of non-Darwinist geology and biology in both private and public high school 'science' classes.

And, by the way, it's
"'The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings'

'But wait a bit,' the oysters cried, 'before we have our chat,
For some of us are out of breath, and all of us are fat.'
'No hurry,' said the Carpenter; they thanked him much for that."

...or words to that effect

Right on Jose. I knew you would make a poetic contribution to this 'scientific' discourse sooner or later.

I especially like the part of the verse where the oysters cried, 'before we have our chat, For some of us are out of breath, and all of us are fat.'

Sounds like a perfect description of neo-Darwinist race theorists according to Walrus Carpenters.

[jcrawford]

Jcrawford,

You haven't made any coherent rebuttal to my disection of the passages
from Lubenow's book. "Did so" doesn't qualify as an adequate rebuttal.

Here's some reading on mitochondrial eve...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

Quoting neo-Darwinst racists doesn't prove human evolution from African apes especially when said racial theorists claim their own 'non-evolutionist' genetic descent from a modern 'species' of Homo sapiens in Africa while associating and ascribing apish ancestry to African Eve's ancestors who neo-Darwinists say were the progenitors of the whole human race. Who do you think neo-Darwinist race theorists are fooling anyway, with their modern form of scientific racial theories? Real scientists?

[Chimp]

Are you advocating your "debate" technique? Evade and misdirect.

It's not relevant whether you claim my statements, quotes or linked
articles are racist...you have made the claim that you are ready to
debate them. Do so...so far you have ascribed the label "racist" to
any position that is not yours. Which wouldn't be a problem if you then
defended your assertion.

Please rebut post #308
I assume you haven't because Lubenow's words are not defendable.
The reasons I keep coming back to this post are:
1) It's the only Lubenow material you have posted
2) It's the central premise to his racism charge.
3) If it is proved incorrect, his thesis is moot.

[QED]

I think there's a problem that won't go away here. To me it seems as if jcrawford refuses to accept the very singular argument that is able to dismiss Lubenow's controversial allegation claiming it to be 'off-topic'. Thus he would continue to brush-off the refutation of the premise (occupying over 33 pages of discussion already) which currently serves as nothing more than a shop-window for Lubenow's product and a magnet for ill-feelings.

Is it not the case that his premise, that neo-darwinist evolution is racist, hinges on the misrepresentation that all evolution proceeds towards "superiority". By then refusing to discuss any attempts to show that this is a misrepresentation (by claiming the detail of any such discussion to be off-topic) it becomes impossible to debate with him the merits of the premise. Is this a reasonable assessment?

[jcrawford]

It's not relevant whether you claim my statements, quotes or linked
articles are racist...you have made the claim that you are ready to
debate them. Do so...so far you have ascribed the label "racist" to
any position that is not yours. Which wouldn't be a problem if you then
defended your assertion.

Please rebut post #308
I assume you haven't because Lubenow's words are not defendable.
The reasons I keep coming back to this post are:
1) It's the only Lubenow material you have posted
2) It's the central premise to his racism charge.
3) If it is proved incorrect, his thesis is moot.

All right. I'll rebut post #308 although I will have to do it piece meal.

[jcrawford]

Lubenow on Racism: (From Bones of Contention, BakerBooks, 2004)

Racism centers around three elements. First, racism always involves differences in population groups. Often the differences involving racism are ethnic, tribal, cultural, or even religious. Racism is not about the differences that are found among individuals. The popular word for those differences is the term diversity.

I have no problem with this qualification of racism, although, one must ask why Lubenow does this. We all know what racism is.

I don't know why Lubenow does this, but if you have no problem with this qualification of racism, then we can at least use it, since I'm not sure that "we all know what racism is," or even what the word 'race' means.

Second, the crucial factor in racism is “inherent superiority.” Throughout most of history, this “inherent” superiority was based on some vague belief that one’s own group was for some reason superior to others.

Again he is stating the obvious.

Ok, good. Nothing is being rebutted here then.

Since the 1800s and the rise of evolution with its “scientific racism,” the emphasis has been on genetic superiority.

This is an unsupported claim. Lubenow has made no connection from racism to science.

He includes over 1000 scientific quotes and footnotes to the many chapters in his book on the scientific racism in neo-Darwinism.

Evolution concerns itself with mutation over time, not whether a certain trait or organism is superior than another.

New survival traits and skills due to the natural selection of advantageous and beneficial mutations and adaptations decide whether mutations are superior or inferior.

Claims to the contrary are mistaken, and deliberately deceptive. Lubenow does, rather lamely, attempt to correlate a racist's notion of superiority to his "genetic superiority. Why? Why would Lubenow twist things so?

Lubenow takes an historic view of evolutionism and refers to many horrible 19th and 20th century practices by neo-Darwinist 'scientists.'