Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bones of Contentions.
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 240 (228320)
08-01-2005 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 12:08 PM


Re: Perplexed Deerbreh
"Regarding "lying for Jesus", yes, I do think that is what is going on in "Bones of Contention." The author accuses evolutionists of racism. This is a serious charge. Does he offer any evidence? No, just poorly founded assertions and misrepresentations about the prevailing thought of evolutionary biology."
May the posters on this forum assume that you are familiar with Lubenow's several theses as documented in detail in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," published by BakerBooks, having read each chapter for yourself? If so, what page does Section 3 on Evolution and Racism start on?
"Misrepresenting someone's position is lying, I am sorry, there is no nicer way to put it."
What page does Section 3 on Evolution and Racism start on?
"The "pattern" was set by the creationists - they constantly misquote, quote out of context, and set up evolutionary strawmen."
What page does Section 3 on Evolution and Racism start on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 12:08 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by deerbreh, posted 08-01-2005 4:48 PM jcrawford has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 240 (228324)
08-01-2005 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by PaulK
08-01-2005 2:38 AM


Re: Oxford Definition of Race.
"If the point is to say that scientists are "racist" in the ordinary sense of the word then we should use that sense."
The point is that neo-Darwinst theories are an extraordinary form of scientific racism, and current cultural and social concepts of race and racism may be inadequate for a scientific discussion of the differences between race, species, science and racism.
"Why should we construct a new definition ? Especially one which uses a VERY wde definition of "race" when no reason is given."
We don't need to construct a new definition of race since Oxford has already done a very professional job and lexicographers ought to know what words mean as much as neo-Darwinists ought to know what evolution of species means.
"The more so when you don't seem willing to discuss applications of the definition."
I'm game for discussion of applications since I use Oxford definitions all the time in my understanding and application of what words like race, racism, human and ape really mean. You don't really expect me to go by neo-Darwinist definitions of words, do you. Is there such a thing as a Darwinist Dictionary of Definitions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 2:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 3:59 AM jcrawford has replied
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 4:09 AM jcrawford has replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 240 (228339)
08-01-2005 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by PaulK
08-01-2005 3:59 AM


Re: Oxford Definition of Race.
"So your reason for trying to construct a new definition of "racism" is that the existing definition seems unlikely to apply and you cannot reasonably argue that it could be extended to encompass evolutionary science."
You seem to be beating around the evolutionist bush here by refusing to acknowledge Oxford's definitions of race and pretending that some other "existing" definition would be more socially or "scientifically" acceptable in our culture. Pardon me if I guffaw.
"In that case why insist on using the word "racism" when it will almsot certainly be misunderstood."
For the same reason that neo-Darwinists use the words "evolution" and "species," since they are almost certain to be misunderstood.
"Is the whole point of the exercise just to find an excuse to label science as "racist"?"
No, no. I am just extrapolating on Lubenow's thesis that neo-Darwinist theories about African people's origins and biological descent from some species on non-human primates 2 million years ago, are a scientific form of abject racism. Lubenow and I both love science but are also concerned about scientific abuses of humanity in the name of racist neo-Darwinist hypotheses or theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 3:59 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 11:29 AM jcrawford has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 240 (228342)
08-01-2005 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by PaulK
08-01-2005 4:09 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
"Is it racist to treat chimpanzees as a seperate and mentally inferior species from modern humans?"
Yes, but chimps can't charge racism in our courts of law.
"If that is racist, then how about the other apes?"
Equally so.
"If that is still racist, how about the other mammals?"
Since when do all mammals have equal representation in the eyes of the law?
"Should adverts for yoghurt drinks containing "good" bacteria be considered racist since they elevate one strain of microorganisms over others ?
Definitely!
"I will note that you specifically stated that this definition was one you considered relevant:
4 a genus, species, breed or variety of animals, plants or micro-organisms."
Well noted.
"I would also like you to explain which "neo-Darwinist" definitions you are refusing to use and why. I've not raised any - I've been talking about common usage for "racism" and "race"."
I have no more idea which neo-Darwinst definitions you are talking about than I do what common usage for "racism" and "race" you are referring to. Please elucidate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 4:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Wounded King, posted 08-01-2005 11:46 AM jcrawford has not replied
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 08-01-2005 12:21 PM jcrawford has not replied
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 2:20 PM jcrawford has replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 240 (228343)
08-01-2005 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by brainpan
08-01-2005 4:16 AM


Re: Oxford Definition of Race.
"Jcrawford has pulled the same ignorant nonsense at libertyforums.com. Imagine my surprise to discover troll-boy taking his show on the road."
Name-calling seems to be a specialty of neo-Darwinist racial taxonomists.
"When I logically boxed him into a corner at the other forum, he started to suggest he may believe in science after all in a desperate attempt to wiggle free."
Both Lubenow and I love and benefit from science. We just happen to share the same disgust and disdain for neo-Darwinist racism posing as science. Really. How long do you think they can get away with associating and identifying aboriginal African people with an African species of apes while proclaiming themselves as pure biological descendents of some clever old Homo sapiens woman?
"It would probably be best if you can just have that ignorant troll banned because I promise all you will ever get from him is never-ending troll maneuvers."
Sure. Call people names. Typical neo-Darwinist taxonomist racial maneuver. Why don't you just read Lubenow's book and wise up to the latest scientific charges against the neo-Darwinist racist taxonomy being taught in U.S. public schools today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by brainpan, posted 08-01-2005 4:16 AM brainpan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by wj, posted 08-01-2005 9:40 AM jcrawford has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 240 (228344)
08-01-2005 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by brainpan
08-01-2005 4:24 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
"If he refuses (or is unable) to answer your questions honestly, I would strongly suggest you try to have him banned. I would like this challenge of yours to serve as a litmus test. I seriously doubt Jcrawford will ever satisfactorily answer your simple, to-the-point questions."
Careful now, brainpan, or you might end up getting labelled an old evolutionist troll yourself. When was the last time you read or reviewed Darwin's Descent of Man? You know, the original 1871 edition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by brainpan, posted 08-01-2005 4:24 AM brainpan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jcrawford, posted 08-03-2005 12:19 AM jcrawford has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 240 (229012)
08-03-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by jcrawford
08-01-2005 6:03 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
"You do realise that the currently accepted theory is that all current humans of whatever "race" are descended from ancestors originating in Africa some 200,000 years ago, don't you?"
Yes, and such a neo-Darwinist theory may be considered racist according to Professor Lubenow and myself.
"And mitochondrial eve was African, because all humans at the time were African?"
That's why neo-Darwinst theories and the so-called "scientific evidence (fossil or genetic) to support them may be considered to be racist because such theories contend that the original African people (as represented by African Eve and her tribe) originated from some species of sub-human or non-human African apes.
NB: Neo-Darwinists don't say that Europeans directly evolved from ape-like creatures in Africa but that they are naturally descended by normal sexual reproduction from a very human species of African people who did evolve from apes! If that's not a racist theory castigating and defaming all African people, I can't imagine what your definition of racism or race is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jcrawford, posted 08-01-2005 6:03 AM jcrawford has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2005 3:17 AM jcrawford has replied
 Message 117 by wj, posted 08-03-2005 6:34 AM jcrawford has replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 240 (229014)
08-03-2005 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Wounded King
08-01-2005 10:14 AM


Re: Oxford Definition of Race.
"If we allow JCrawford's totally unsubstantiated claims to be true, i.e. that H. (sapiens) sapiens, H. (sapiens) neanderthalensis and H. erectus were all actually interbreeding interfertile members of the same species and that indigenous modern humans living in areas previously populated by H. erectus or H. neaderthalensis are in fact descended from those populations, then perhaps there is a case to be made that denying the humanity of those ancestors would be a form of racism as if one were claiming that black people in america must be descended from whites because the slaves imported from Africa were not really human and therefore could not have interbred."
Hey, I like your analogy here. Couldn't have thunk up a better one myself.
"However since no one outside of JCrawford, Marvin Lubenow and his creationist followers is likely to accept the totally unevidenced foundations for his reasoning it all comes apart at the seams rather."
Sort of like Humpety-Dumpety, huh, whom all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put Humpety-Dumpety back together again.
Read Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention." You'll get a psychological kick out of it, a spiritual high and a lot of scientific insight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Wounded King, posted 08-01-2005 10:14 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 240 (229017)
08-03-2005 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Wounded King
08-01-2005 10:14 AM


Re: Oxford Definition of Race.
"Is it racist to distinguish between homo Sapiens and frogs?"
No, but it's racist to call, label or classify any group of people sub-human frogs, pigs or apes. That's why neo-Darwinist theories of human origins, evolution and ancestry are racist. They first asociate aboriginal African people with apes and then claim that the whole human race is biologically descended from African men, women and children who were no different than you and I. Clever, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Wounded King, posted 08-01-2005 10:14 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2005 5:59 AM jcrawford has replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 240 (229022)
08-03-2005 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by PaulK
08-01-2005 2:20 PM


Re: Discussion of definition
"So you don't actually know what "neo-Darwinist definitions" you are talking about."
Only to the extent that neo-Darwinists don't, won't or can't define or differentiate between a human race and species since they tend to divide the whole human race up into neatly compartmentalized species.
"So why exactly did you raise the issue?"
To bring it to the world's attention.
"As for the rest if your answer is serious it confirms that your definition of "racism" is so far from the usual definition that there is really no point in discussing it."
Other posters may be interested in disccusing various concepts of race and species.
"Indeed there's no point in using it except if you want to be misleading."
Calling diversified fossil variations of the human race different and separate species may be equally "misleading."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 2:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2005 1:36 AM jcrawford has replied
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2005 3:07 AM jcrawford has replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 240 (229534)
08-04-2005 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by brainpan
08-01-2005 1:58 PM


Re: Discussion of definition
"You will be doing yourself a huge favor if you can simply have that idiot banned."
Name-calling, labeling, classifying of human beings, with subsequent ad hominem attacks upon them, are the forte of neo-Darwinst taxonomists and evolutionary theorists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by brainpan, posted 08-01-2005 1:58 PM brainpan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by MangyTiger, posted 08-04-2005 8:00 PM jcrawford has replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 240 (229541)
08-04-2005 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by NosyNed
08-03-2005 1:36 AM


Re: compartmentalization
"Since one major definition of species is a population in which individuals can normally reproduce successfully H. sapiens is NOT divided up at all."
That is correct, but since the whole human race over time is divided up into several different and separate "speces" by neo-Darwinist race theories, only H. sapiens is regarded by them as full and equal members of the human race while H. neandertalis, erectus et al, are regarded as sub-human races or "species" for the sole purpose of identifying and associating them with some non-human species of African apes. Problem is though, that neo-Darwinsts don't know whether Neandertal descendents evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in Europe or from H. ergaster in Africa, but still insist that all original African species of humans originated from some unidentified species of non-human African apes.
"Biologists clearly do not in any way suggest that H. sapiens are compartmentalized at all."
That's true. Neo-Darwinst biologists only insist on dividing racial groups up into "species."
"In fact, genetic studies have recently been done to argue that there isn't a biological basis for race separation either."
Some geneticists also claim that there's no basis for dividing the human race up into "species" either.
"Your statement above could not be more wrong."
It could be more right than your statements.
"If you wish to argue that all of the genus Homo are one species you need to give detailed reasons for doing so."
Without going into details, I'll just refer you to the evolutionist theories of Wolpoff and Thorne who regard H. sapiens and erectus as mere variations of one human species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NosyNed, posted 08-03-2005 1:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Chiroptera, posted 08-04-2005 11:51 AM jcrawford has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 240 (229542)
08-04-2005 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by PaulK
08-03-2005 3:07 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
"It's your concept that isn't worth discussing. Do you usually make sure that people fully understand that under your view using antibiotics is an act of racist genocide ? "
I'm non-plussed by your 'non-sequitor' rebuttal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2005 3:07 AM PaulK has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 240 (229543)
08-04-2005 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by PaulK
08-03-2005 3:17 AM


Re: Discussion of definition
"I guess that your imagination missed the fact that racism is discrimination on the basis of race."
Mere guessing is the hallmark of amateurs since racism may only be based on one's prior concept and definition of race.
"However, if you really believe that Europeans and Asians are so awful that Africans should be insulted at the idea that they share a recent common ancestor it is likely that you are racist."
Since you offer no universal working defintion of race, I daresay to question your beliefs about what constitutes racism and to utterly reject your ad homimen comments about my being a racist. As a committed supporter of neo-Darwinst theories, you don't deny that the first people to evolve from some non-human species of African apes were Africans, do you?
Try to keep the discussion on topic, will you, and refrain from ad hominem attacks in the future. Otherwise, you might run the risk of being branded an evolutionist troll instead of a reasonable observer, judge and commentator of scientific theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2005 3:17 AM PaulK has not replied

  
jcrawford
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 240 (229545)
08-04-2005 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Wounded King
08-03-2005 5:59 AM


Re: Oxford Definition of Race.
"Do you have any evidence that the 'aboriginal African people', by which I presume you mean H. erectus, are not thought to be ancestral to all humans."
Yeah. Lubenow's documentation in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention."
"Perhaps you mean one of the Australopithecines, in which case you still need to show some support for these being peculiarly ancestral to Africans rather than all modern humans."
No problem since neo-Darwinists still think that H. habilis or rudolfensis directly 'evolved' from apes in Africa and were ancestral to all subsequent species of African 'people' from whom all modern Europeans, Asians and Americans are 'naturally' descended. It's one thing to think that all men are created equal and quite another to theorize that they racially evolved from different 'species' of African apes.
"Exactly which currently extant group of people are you claiming is being classified as sub-human by evolutionary biology?"
Neo-Darwinist racial theorists sub-humanize the whole human race by associating, classifying and identifying our very human ancestors with and as, a non-human form or 'species' of African apes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2005 5:59 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 5:23 AM jcrawford has replied
 Message 140 by MangyTiger, posted 08-04-2005 8:12 PM jcrawford has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024