Bones of Contentions.

yes. it gets confusing in a hurry.you can either us the qs or quote tags, much in the same way you would use html tags, but in square brackets. it's tricky to SHOW you, but you can look at the message you're replying to in "peek mode" or hit the peek button just about anything. anyhow, basically, it's done like this, except in square brackets:{qs}quoted material{/qs} in brackets looks like: {quote}quoted material{/quote} in brackets looks like:

quote:

---

quoted material

---

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-25-2005 02:44 AM

---

אָרַח

Nozyned: Message 23 of 30
07-24-2005 05:52 PM Reply to: Message 16 by jcrawfordRe: A definition of racism"I think, though no one else has asked directly, that we do need to know what you and Lubenow are using for a definition of racist."I am using the 1996 edition of the American Oxford dicrionary to define race, racial, racism and racist. I think a good definition of race is also necessary since definitions and concepts of racism must refer to race. Lubenow quotes Charles Winick (Dictionary of Anthroplogy) defining racism as "the inherent superiority of certain races and stirs up prejudice and hatred for races said to be inferior."Lubenow also points out that the 1944 edition of the Oxford Universal Dictionary does not even have an entry for "racism," and that Darwinists originally used the terms "species" and "race" interchangably."Others seem to be asking indirectly by discussing different ideas of what may or may not be racist."One of the problems is that evolutionists don't accurately define race and often say that is merely a social concept or construct. Do social scientists define race?"There will probably be multiple meanings for the word and it is necessary for us all to come to some agreement on the terms used before the discussion can continue."Hopefully. If not, then what? End of discussion?"Mirriam webster online gives: (Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary)
racism:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- racist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjectiveCould you connect this definition to the statements you made to show how it applies?"Yes, but I prefer Oxford's definition of race to Webster's since we are dealing with issues concerning the origins of the whole human race.

Dictionary entries for definitions of terms in The American Edition of the The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus published in New York and Oxford by the Oxford University Press in 1996:Race: noun.
1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
2 a tribe, nation, etc., regarded as a distinct ethnic stock.
3 the fact or concept of division into races (discrimination based on race).
4 a genus, species, breed or variety of animals, plants or micro-organisms.
5 a group of persons, animals or plants connected by common descent.
6 any great division of living creatures (the feathered race, the four-footed race).
7 descent; kindred (of noble race; separate in language and race).
8 a class of persons etc., with some common feature (the race of poets).1 and 2 include and refer to stock, tribe, nation, people, folk, clan and family.
7 includes and refers to blood, descent, breed, kin, kindred, family, stock, line and lineage.
8 see CLASS, noun.racial: adjective.
1 of or concerning race (racial diversities; racial minority).
2 on the grounds of or connected with difference in race (racial discrimination; racial tension).racialism: noun. = RACISMracism: noun.
1a a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.
1b antagonism toward other races, especially as a result of this.
2 the theory that human abilities, etc., are determined by race.1 includes and refers to racialism, apartheid, jim crowism, chauvinism and bigotry.racist: noun. see SUPREMACIST.
racist: adjective. racialist, prejudiced, chauvinistic, bigoted.

The relevant definitions for "racism" as it is usually understood are 1) and 2). Are these the ones you intend to refer to ?

It may be that a century ago race and species were used interchangably that is no longer the case. In fact, this next statement of yours is in direct conflict with the above one. There has been much, recent discussion of 'race' in the literature and we have had a discussion of it here. The geneticists (and I don't think in this case it is evolutionary biologists as much as geneticists but it maybe both) are pointing out that there is not a good genetic determination of race (which I guess means the evolutionists would agree).Why is it a "problem" if evolutionists don't define race and how can they be called racist if they don't even define the term?Thanks for suppling the AO definitions in a subsequent post. Now can you logically connect those to evolutionary theory?As noted above, geneticist are specifically denying that your definition 2 of racism:
(2 the theory that human abilities, etc., are determined by race.)
is true.Your definition 1b is a personal matter not one of an area of scientific study.The contention that definition 1 applies because we not that some other species (species not races) have gone extinct isn't sensible to me. Could you elaborate further on Lubenow's logic?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-25-2005 11:04 AM

you're misrepresenting what i've said. i'm speaking on a STRICTLY species average basis, not an individual or racial one.

---

אָרַח

Arachnophalia - Disappointed that you have not responded. Perhaps you are researching the premise.
If your assertion were true, shouldn't we expect people with relatively "Big Heads" (compared to their bodies as you say) to be distinguished today with at least - slightly - higher intelligence? Is brain size or "relative brain size to body size" the primary reason evolutionists propose for some primitive animal slowly evolving into man? If there is no evidence, perhaps it is worth reconsidering.Arach, do you have any evidence or is this a tenet of Darwinian evolution that you have embraced at face value?

Ah, you responded just before my post. Thank you.
Arach, I'm not misrepresenting what you said at all - only repeating your assertion!
So if you are speaking on a "STRICTLY species average basis" shouldn't a statistical sampling bear out your assertion today? If not, then I could only conclude the Darwinian evolutionary premise is highly questionable, and likely wrong...
Do you have any evidence of people with relatively "big heads" being more intelligent today - even on an "average basis"?

What the hell does intellegence have to do with evolution?Do you have even a clue what evolution is or the Theory of Evolution says?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

no. listen. i'm not talking about individuals. i'm talking about one species being compared to another.

---

אָרַח

I'd just like to point out that Neanderthals actually had larger brains than modern humans - 1500cc vs. 1400cc give or take.As far as I know no one has ever shown a correlation between brain size and intelligence anyway.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

PaulK: Message 34 of 40
07-25-2005 03:29 AM Reply to: Message 33 by jcrawford"The relevant definitions for "racism" as it is usually understood are 1) and 2). Are these the ones you intend to refer to ?"Not exlusively, since I find 4, 5 and 6 equally pertinent and don't see why Oxford would include all 8 interpretaions if they were not equally relevent or applicable to a meaningful definition of 'race.'

i was pretty sure proportion did, though. anyways, i could be wrong.

---

אָרַח

My goodness Jar, you seem a bit sensitive. Perhaps you could answer the question rather than getting in a personal tizzy.
It was not my original contention - I don't believe it.I was simply quoting Arachnaphilia - you should ask him since you seem to be offended and you wander how clueless I am.
Here is Arach's original statement: So what do you say Jar? What do you believe was the "magic bullet" or predominant survival mechanism - if not mutational intelligence - that enabled or propelled Homo Sapiens to evolve from some small hairy animal?Best Regards

NosyNed: Message 35 of 42
07-25-2005 11:04 AM Reply to: Message 32 by jcrawford"It may be that a century ago race and species were used interchangably that is no longer the case. There has been much, recent discussion of 'race' in the literature and we have had a discussion of it here. The geneticists (and I don't think in this case it is evolutionary biologists as much as geneticists but it maybe both) are pointing out that there is not a good genetic determination of race (which I guess means the evolutionists would agree)."If geneticists or evolutionists can't, won't or don't scientifically define 'race,' how can we be sure that they don't accidently, inadvertently or intentionally classify some racial variety of the human race (eg: Neandertalensis, erectus and ergaster) as a different and separate "species," since the only true test of our common ancestral humanity is biological interfertily and human fossils don't tell us who they reproduced with or didn't."Why is it a "problem" if evolutionists don't define race and how can they be called racist if they don't even define the term?"If evolutionists can't scientifically distinguish between the historical racial diversity within the human race and human species, because of inadequate definitions or scientific methods of differentiation, they may be inadvertently guilty of associating and identifying some racial observations with, and as different and separate human species. Since the only biological test of true and full humanity lies in interfertilty tests, evolutionists merely assume and postulate that Neandertal and Homo erectus types were a different 'species' and not equal biological members of the one and only human race. That's a racist theory."Thanks for suppling the AO definitions in a subsequent post. Now can you logically connect those to evolutionary theory?"You're welcome. The logical connection is that since neo-Darwinist theorists have no definitive understanding or concept of 'race,' they are prone to make racial and racist remarks about the origin and evolution of the human race."As noted above, geneticist are specifically denying that your definition 2 of racism:
(2 the theory that human abilities, etc., are determined by race.)
is true."That's only because they don't distinguish between race and species concerning the human race and subscribe to racial and racist neo-Darwinist theories of the human race's origin and evolution from an African species of ape. BTW; it's not my defifition of race; it's Oxford's."Your definition 1b is a personal matter not one of an area of scientific study."Again, it's not a personal matter, but a dictionary or scientific defintion of race that is the subject of our inquiry."The contention that definition 1 applies because we not that some other species (species not races) have gone extinct isn't sensible to me. Could you elaborate further on Lubenow's logic?"Lubenow's thesis leads one to conclude that the division of the whole human race into different and separate species by evolutionists is merely a racist ploy to argue that some primitive African people (Homo ergaster, rudolfensis, erectus or habilis) were direct decendents of some species of African apes.