Civil. Respectful. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Challenging.
|
Bones of Contention.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 35, 36, 37 Next
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
jcrawford
First Post |
 Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:24 pm Post subject: Bones of Contention. |
 |
|
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.
|
|
 |
jcrawford  Guru Joined: 22 Jul 2005 Total posts: 1520 Gender: Undisclosed
9890.85 tokens
|
Post 241:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CJK wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Is it not just as 'racist' to assume a Man-Centered view of Nature? |
The neo-Darwinist view of nature is a man-centered natural view and anthropocentric philosophy of nature. It's unfortunate that such neo-Darwinist theories about human nature and its non-human origin in Africa are a scientific form of racism though, and are still being taught in U.S. public schools. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcrawford Guru Joined: 22 Jul 2005 Total posts: 1520 Gender: Undisclosed
9890.85 tokens
|
|
Post 242:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| palmera wrote: |
| Quote: |
The only time the American public has been "shown" some real human fossils was in 1984 when the American Museum of Natural History in NYC flew in 40 original specimens from various parts of the world. None of them showed any evidence of having evolved from each other.
|
Turn on your television. Read a newspaper, magazine, scientific journal, visit a school. Also, in what ways did they not show "any evidence of having evolved from each other"?
| Quote: |
The fossil dates and taxons are just manipulated to make it appear that the whole human race evolved from African people and apes.
|
Please support this claim. |
Since there are no original human fossils anywhere in America, but only artificially reconstructed plaster casts in some museums, I don't think you are going see the original human fossils on tv, in the movies, a newspaper, magazine, scientific jounal or a school, since some people might demand a decent burial for the skulls of our human ancestors if ever they should appear in public again.
Human fossils don't show any evidence of having evolved or even having descended from each other. The claim that they do is just a neo-Darwinist race theory which evolutionists use to justify their constant arbitrary re-dating and reassignment of the fossils in shifting categories of their presumed racial 'species' of the past human race. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| perfessor Scholar
Joined: 31 May 2004 Total posts: 412 Location: Illinois Gender: Male
3880.73 tokens
|
|
Post 243:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jcrawford wrote: |
| The neo-Darwinist view of nature is a man-centered natural view and anthropocentric philosophy of nature. |
This is really too funny. Have you actually read Genesis? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Sender Sage
Joined: 18 Aug 2005 Total posts: 556 Gender: Male
2930.78 tokens
|
|
Post 244:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jcrawford wrote: |
| palmera wrote: |
| Quote: |
The only time the American public has been "shown" some real human fossils was in 1984 when the American Museum of Natural History in NYC flew in 40 original specimens from various parts of the world. None of them showed any evidence of having evolved from each other.
|
Turn on your television. Read a newspaper, magazine, scientific journal, visit a school. Also, in what ways did they not show "any evidence of having evolved from each other"?
| Quote: |
The fossil dates and taxons are just manipulated to make it appear that the whole human race evolved from African people and apes.
|
Please support this claim. |
Since there are no original human fossils anywhere in America, but only artificially reconstructed plaster casts in some museums, I don't think you are going see the original human fossils on tv, in the movies, a newspaper, magazine, scientific jounal or a school, since some people might demand a decent burial for the skulls of our human ancestors if ever they should appear in public again.
Human fossils don't show any evidence of having evolved or even having descended from each other. The claim that they do is just a neo-Darwinist race theory which evolutionists use to justify their constant arbitrary re-dating and reassignment of the fossils in shifting categories of their presumed racial 'species' of the past human race. |
There is going to be an announcement on November 5 2005 regarding radiometric dating. Supposedly it will blow holes in that type of dating. If you like I can paste a preview if you are not already familiar with it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcrawford Guru Joined: 22 Jul 2005 Total posts: 1520 Gender: Undisclosed
9890.85 tokens
|
|
Post 245:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cathar1950 wrote: |
J wrote:
| Quote: |
| You only use that ad hominem label as a desparate counter charge to my referencing Lubenow's charges of scientific racism in all neo-Darwinist theories of the entire human race's origins from African ape ancestors. I'm surprised you don't classify me as a particular 'species' of troll. |
I thought he was being funny but Then I noticed you fit the description.
Weird don't you think? |
So what description fits best? A Homo sapiens troll, a Neanderthal troll or maybe just an archaic European Homo sapiens troll or an early Asian or African Homo sapiens troll? Surely you wouldn't classify me as a Homo erectus or Australopithicine troll.
| Quote: |
crawford said: "That's what I am prepared to do, since I have Lubenow's listing and scientific documentation of 371 fossil specimens of the past human race on hand and can easily refer to them without transcribing the contents of the book."
Sounds like fun. When you going to start? |
That's up to you. Which human skull or other fossilized specimen would you care to introduce as preliminary evidence in support of neo-Darwinist race theories about human evolution from common ancestors of non-human African apes in Africa? If you don't have your own list of human fossils, maybe you could reference some of those graciously provided in either the 1992 or 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcrawford Guru Joined: 22 Jul 2005 Total posts: 1520 Gender: Undisclosed
9890.85 tokens
|
|
Post 246:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| perfessor wrote: |
| jcrawford wrote: |
| The neo-Darwinist view of nature is a man-centered natural view and anthropocentric philosophy of nature. |
This is really too funny. Have you actually read Genesis? |
What has Genesis got to do with neo-Darwinist race theories? Have you actually read Darwin? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcrawford Guru Joined: 22 Jul 2005 Total posts: 1520 Gender: Undisclosed
9890.85 tokens
|
|
Post 247:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| upnorthfan wrote: |
There is going to be an announcement on November 5 2005 regarding radiometric dating. Supposedly it will blow holes in that type of dating. If you like I can paste a preview if you are not already familiar with it. |
I received my copy of the latest issue of Acts and Facts from ICR so I am familiar with the announcement, thank you. You might post a link to it for the benefit of others posters if you like, but I think it's a little premature to discuss any of the actual findings until they have been publically released by those scientists doing the research, although Lubenow does make one reference to some recently observed volcanic lava forming igneous rock which was subsequently forwarded for dating tests which discovered the rocks to be several hundred thousand and even a million years old.
Talk about scientifically blasting holes in evolutionist theories and concepts of time substantiated only by unverifiable theories of nuclear decay over vast periods of imaginary time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Sender Sage
Joined: 18 Aug 2005 Total posts: 556 Gender: Male
2930.78 tokens
|
|
Post 248:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jcrawford wrote: |
| upnorthfan wrote: |
There is going to be an announcement on November 5 2005 regarding radiometric dating. Supposedly it will blow holes in that type of dating. If you like I can paste a preview if you are not already familiar with it. |
I received my copy of the latest issue of Acts and Facts from ICR so I am familiar with the announcement, thank you. You might post a link to it for the benefit of others posters if you like, but I think it's a little premature to discuss any of the actual findings until they have been publically released by those scientists doing the research, although Lubenow does make one reference to some recently observed volcanic lava forming igneous rock which was subsequently forwarded for dating tests which discovered the rocks to be several hundred thousand and even a million years old.
Talk about scientifically blasting holes in evolutionist theories and concepts of time substantiated only by unverifiable theories of nuclear decay over vast periods of imaginary time. |
Thanks for the advice. I was hesitant to even offer. I would have emailed it to you. But you already have it, so all is good. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Nyril Scholar
Joined: 19 Oct 2004 Total posts: 430 Gender: Undisclosed
2707.05 tokens
|
|
Post 249:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There is going to be an announcement on November 5 2005 regarding radiometric dating. Supposedly it will blow holes in that type of dating. If you like I can paste a preview if you are not already familiar with it. |
I'd like all the information you can provide on it if you could be so kind. However, since jcrawford said it was from the ICR I am somewhat of the opinion I can guess what it is going to be.
#1. We still hate radioactive decay!
#2. We're going to admit that radioactive decay exists, but god aged your samples so the Earth is still young. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| perfessor Scholar
Joined: 31 May 2004 Total posts: 412 Location: Illinois Gender: Male
3880.73 tokens
|
|
Post 250:
Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jcrawford wrote: |
| perfessor wrote: |
| jcrawford wrote: |
| The neo-Darwinist view of nature is a man-centered natural view and anthropocentric philosophy of nature. |
This is really too funny. Have you actually read Genesis? |
What has Genesis got to do with neo-Darwinist race theories? Have you actually read Darwin? |
My point, which evidently flew over your head, was that a man-centered natural view and anthropocentric philosophy of nature is hardly an innovation of "neo-darwinism". It has been around at least since Genesis was written, and probably long before that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index
-> Science and Religion |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 ... 35, 36, 37 Next
|
| Page 25 of 37 |
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
