-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Racism in our Ancestral Trees
- Thread starter jcrawford
- Start date
Two very simple questions.
Do you deny that you have posted on other boards under different names that would lead us to believe that you are the poster known as Karl elsewhere? I am not the first here to suspect as much.
Second, is Lub's book informative enough that you can present a factual paragraph or two on what you learned from him that substantiates your assertion that Neanderthals were "perfectly human and neither a separate race or species, most Neandertal people managed to reproduce children which interbred with other tribes and equally 'evolved' into modern folk after the Ice Age was over." Your lack of a response to this question after a whole bunch of requests seems to indicate that your assertion is built on nothing more than shifting sands and has no actual rock of fact beneath it.
Do you deny that you have posted on other boards under different names that would lead us to believe that you are the poster known as Karl elsewhere? I am not the first here to suspect as much.
Second, is Lub's book informative enough that you can present a factual paragraph or two on what you learned from him that substantiates your assertion that Neanderthals were "perfectly human and neither a separate race or species, most Neandertal people managed to reproduce children which interbred with other tribes and equally 'evolved' into modern folk after the Ice Age was over." Your lack of a response to this question after a whole bunch of requests seems to indicate that your assertion is built on nothing more than shifting sands and has no actual rock of fact beneath it.
Of course I deny that I am either 'Karl' or a troll and am ready to forgive you for calling me either.
As far as quoting paragraphs or scientific notations in Lubenow's book, I just feel that would only lead to more time-consuming demands for more quotes ad infinitum, and that such snippets and excerpts would not do Lubenows theses justice when anyone can get their own copy for about 20 bucks, plus tax.
If one can't afford to keep up with the latest assessments of the human fossil record, then one may not be scientifically equipped to refute any of Lubenow's findings.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
I located a review of BONES OF CONTENTION by Marvin Lubenow.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html
In this review, the author states that Lubenow depends on the idea that one species cannot evolve from another if the other is still around.
The author says this is a main point of Lubenow's argument, and the obvious falseness of this idea (remember dogs and wolves, both still alive today) is a serious blow to Lubenow's credibility.
So, JC, is this particular idea - that a species catagorically cannot continue to exist if another has evolved from it - rightly ascribed to Lubenow, or did the reviewer get Lubenow's ideas wrong?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html
In this review, the author states that Lubenow depends on the idea that one species cannot evolve from another if the other is still around.
The author says this is a main point of Lubenow's argument, and the obvious falseness of this idea (remember dogs and wolves, both still alive today) is a serious blow to Lubenow's credibility.
So, JC, is this particular idea - that a species catagorically cannot continue to exist if another has evolved from it - rightly ascribed to Lubenow, or did the reviewer get Lubenow's ideas wrong?
Contrary to talkorigin's review, Lubenow ascribes that idea to neo-Darwinist theorists who contend that H. neanderthalensis and erectus could not have evolved into H. sapiens outside of Africa but became extinct in Asia, the Near East and Europe through replacement by African Homo sapiens migrations out of Africa.
Lubenow disproves this extinction theory by documenting through the fossil record that H. erectus and neanderthalensis survived extinction by interbreeding with H. sapiens and evolving into the modern men and women of today. He shows how all of the so-called different 'species' of human fossils are simply morphological variations (due to the Ice Age) indicating great physical diversity within the historic human race.
The only reason neo-Darwinst strategists insist on any of our human ancestors becoming an extinct 'species' is to be able to associate such "primitive" human forms with non-human African primates. That's why Lubenow contends that theoretical scenarios based on the pre-supposed speciation of humans in the past are a scientific form of racism regarding our human ancestors.
The inherent racism in all theories, scenarios and models of human evolution out of Africa is one of Lubenow's main theses in the 2004 edition of his "Bones of Contention"
I'm just using the good professor's thesis, scientific documentation and notation, to formulate and substantiate my own perception of racism inherent in all neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution in and out of Africa.
Could you explain to us once again the motivation of these racist scientists? I am trying to understand just what group you think they are showing bias against considering that the theory is that all humans, including Neanderthals and H. erectus and H. hablis and Lucy and all the others are said to share a single common ancestor.
Neo-Darwinist theories are biased against former members of the human race such as are represented by the fossilized remains of the Neanderthals, H. sapiens, erectus and habilis.
Neo-Darwinist theories of human ancestry out of Africa are biased against people of Asian, African and European descent.
That has got to be a classic statement. 
We should have a log of these sorts of things.
The theory of evolution is racist because it is biased against everyone!
You sound more and more like you are trying to pull our legs because I am not quite sure how you would logically come to that conclusion and then type it out without thinking about it for a second. I am not sure that even you believe what you are typing.
We should have a log of these sorts of things.The theory of evolution is racist because it is biased against everyone!
You sound more and more like you are trying to pull our legs because I am not quite sure how you would logically come to that conclusion and then type it out without thinking about it for a second. I am not sure that even you believe what you are typing.
If you think about it for a moment, prejudice against a whole race of people might be equal to bias against a particular few, since no one ever gets to meet the whole race but only encounters a few. Similarly, bias and prejudice against a few members of the human race may be understood as prejudice against the whole. What's that old adage again? The whole is greater than the summation of it's parts?
The moral of the story is that neo-Darwinist racial theorists can't scientifically divide the whole historic human race up into different and separate 'species' any more than they can divide the present human race up into different and separate races.
Get my genetic drift, kemosabee?
No, actually, I don't. My best guess is that you cannot find any actual facts to contradict evolution and you cannot find any actual alternative explanation that deals with the whole of the observations we have, so instead you are clinging to this strange assertion of racism which is of dubious origin and of no consequence.
"Best guess" and "actual facts" are curious terminology in a scientific discourse.
A lot of "learned" people have said "evolution" is a scientific fact.
There is a very serious credibility gap here.
Selah,
Bro. James
A lot of "learned" people have said "evolution" is a scientific fact.
There is a very serious credibility gap here.
Selah,
Bro. James
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Bro James: It is a valid method to ascribe the correct degree of uncertainty to a statement. That is far more "scientific" than to assert false certainty. Now we are dealing here with UTE's making a guess about JC, and strictly speaking, that's not even a science matter, its a part of the debate dynamics.
Your allegation that Ute's willingness to be unsure about JC's motives is somehow a sign that evolution isn't credible is one of the strangest leaps of logic I have ever seen.
Your allegation that Ute's willingness to be unsure about JC's motives is somehow a sign that evolution isn't credible is one of the strangest leaps of logic I have ever seen.
It should be noted that Marvin Lubenow is not a scientist. He is Senior Pastor at First Baptist Church in Fort Collins, Colorado. While he does have an M.S. in antropology from Eastern Michigan University, the bulk of his study is in the form of a Th.M. degree (Masters in Theology) from Dallas Theological Seminary. His doctorate degree from Christian Heritage College is honorary.
It is inappropriate to refer to him as "Dr Lubenow" in regards to the area of science. His book "Bones of Contention" list him as "Dr. Marvin Lubenow". Either the book is philosophical and not scientific in nature, or it is fraudulently missrepresenting the author.
Now, I'm not takng a side one way or another in this arguement. However, if a pastor with a Th.D. published a book filled with supporting evolution, and listed himself as "Dr" on the cover, he would likewise be dishonest. Conversely, the aforementioned use of "Dr" on Lubenow's book is likewise dishonest.
Neither the 1992 or 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" list or refer to the author as Dr. Marvin Lubenow. His work is usually referred to as scholarly, something your research doesn't indicate.
For all who may be wondering who is being dishonest here, I highly recommend actually looking at the cover or credits to Lubenow's book.
Where does it say all Doctoral Thesis Writers accepted by the College are honest?
We do an "error of halo" many times. e.g. If the Doc said it, it must be true. The RCC calls it infallibility--but only when ex officio. How does one know when the powers that be are "ex officio or ex inebrio (too much vino)?"
There is only one infallible standard--The Word of God.
Let God be found true--and every man a liar.
Selah,
Bro. James
We do an "error of halo" many times. e.g. If the Doc said it, it must be true. The RCC calls it infallibility--but only when ex officio. How does one know when the powers that be are "ex officio or ex inebrio (too much vino)?"
There is only one infallible standard--The Word of God.
Let God be found true--and every man a liar.
Selah,
Bro. James
I sould have been more specific. The Answers in Genesis website sells the book as "Bones of Contention" by "Dr. Marvin Lubenow". It is not Lubenow's book per se that is dishonest. Rather, AIG is being dishonest wth its bookstore description. Any description referring to him as "Dr" in regards to science is false. I admit that he himself doesn't appear to have done this, though others who cite him have.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Well, just to be on the other side, perhaps the target audience would be more impressed by a Christian Heritage doctorate than by scientific credentials, so maybe in the context of that targe audience it's not such a bad sin to call him Dr . . .