Scientific Racism and Supremacy.

[Paul of Eugene]

(sigh) whatever Darwin's shortcomings, and we all have shortcomings, that is even in our theology - it has no bearing on the science of evolution. Jefferson, who wrote all men are created equal, kept slaves. Wanna repudiate his writing that all men are created equal, because he didn't live up to it? Of course not.

So why keep dragging up Darwin's shortcomings?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
(sigh) whatever Darwin's shortcomings, and we all have shortcomings, that is even in our theology - it has no bearing on the science of evolution.

So why keep dragging up Darwin's shortcomings?

Although Darwin was probabably no more racist, sexist and chauvinistic than Jefferson and other leading lights of their respective cultures, the difference between them is that Jefferson promulgated and enshrined noble ideas whereas Darwin incorporated a form of scientific racism in his hypothetical writings. This would have been harmless, insignificant and forgivable if he had not also applied his concepts of the origin of species to the human race as he did in "Descent of Man."

The racist idea that neo-Darwinist scientists can divide the human race into sub-divisions of species based on some morphological differences in their fossilized skeletons simply for purposes of developing and establishing an evolutionist continuum of human descent from non-human Anthropoid apes in Africa is appalling in itself.

The fact that high school science teachers can teach such racist theories in public schools without being confronted with the intrinsic racism inherent in such theories as the human race's descent from African apes according to the evolutionary origin of human species is not only a travesty of education, science and government but a travesty of morality, inequality and justice as well.

 

[UTEOTW]

"So you conceed that sexual selection and natural selection have no ability whatsoever to add new information to the genome - and are responsible only for selecting existing information. Yet this is the only mechanism Darwin can give for his hypothesis."

We have learned a few things since Darwin. He did not even know of DNA even though he did specualte that there must be some hereditary means.

But again you are dividing things that cannot be divided. Selection mechanisms have no means on their iwn to create genetic variety, they can only select from what is there. Duplication and mutation provide the variety.

Perhaps one day we will get from you a quantifiable definition of information that allows us to judge whether certain processes add to the information of the genome or not?

I keep asking ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67.html#000009 , http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67/2.html#000015 ) and you keep dodging.

Maybe you can answer my criticism of how even your favorite information hobby horse, Gitt, uses "information" in such a way that mutations are new information.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67/2.html#000016

 

[Gup20]

But again you are dividing things that cannot be divided. Selection mechanisms have no means on their iwn to create genetic variety, they can only select from what is there. Duplication and mutation provide the variety.

And you rely entirely upon marrying concepts that have yet to be proved or demonstrated. You have a handful of debatable cases in which you claim information is increased, none of which are above reproach, and you rest the entire religious dogma of evolution upon it - mutation. The only reason you cannot divorce selection with mutation is because it is the only game in town and the whole of evolution hinges upon it. However, in order for evolution to be true, this must have happened billions upon billions of times. Yet all you have is a few examples that are debatable. You would rather argue about the definition of information than open your eyes and use common sense.

Common sense tells us that there is no such thing as perpetual motion. It tells us that everything dies. It shows us that everything wears out and runs down. Everything in the universe tends to follow this trend. Unless you are an evolutionist... then you hold DNA as an exception to the laws of thermodynamics.

Common sense also tells us that when you call another person a "lower form of life" and describe how that person is "less evolved" and compare that person to a domesticated animal then refer to yourself and your own ethnicity as higher race who is more evolved that one is clearly advocating racist views. When one says that a man CAN attain a higher intelligence than a woman CAN, one is advocating sexist views.

Darwin was not the author of racism or sexism... but his doctrine is the only racist doctrine still taught as fact and unimpeachable truth in our public school systems today. His sexist teachings are presented as factual observations. Therein is the foundational principles upon which evolution was born.

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.

The opposite is also true. If something is rooted in evil, how can can the result of it growing and being nourished result in something good? Evolution is certainly a philosophy which was born in evil - and has been nourished primarily by atheism - and now has grown into a beast reflecting and mirroring the deception in which it was conceived.

 

[jcrawford]

Theories about the origin of species and the evolution of the human race are a form of scientific racism when applied to human beings because dividing and separating our human ancestors into different species reduces and degrades them to an inferior and unequal biological status regarding their human capacity of inter-fertility, sexual reproduction and breeding with all other members of the human race.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Oh. You want to deny evolution by saying some of these were really all human, just different races, and others were not human, and there was a clear difference in kind, and etc.

OK Here's a link to some of our known hominid kinfolk:

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

Please let us all know which ones are fully human and should not be insulted by saying they couldn't breed with us and had lower capacity than us and which ones its ok to say that kind of thing about them.

Oh, and it would be nice if you had some reasons for making the judgments you choose to make.

After all, if you want us to stop maligning some other kindred inappropriately, it seems only fair to ask you where you draw the line.

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

"You want to deny evolution by saying some of these were really all human, just different races, and others were not human, and there was a clear difference in kind, and etc."

This is the crux of the matter since all of our 'human' human ancestors may simply be considered, categorized or classifed as diverse physical types and varieties of full and equal members of the human race. Speculating and theorizing that any of the 'human' human ancestors of our human race are less than human to varying degrees is a form of scientific racism even if data is claimed as evidence in support of such a racial theory. Theoretical evolutionists seem to have no choice but to categorize and classify our many human ancestors as separate 'species' since if they all shared full and equal membership in one human race or "species," there would be no justification for theorizing that one race or species of humans evolved into or from another in accordance with racial theories of their unequal descent from some common non-human ancestor in Africa, even though 'naturally' selected by the principles of a 'natural' theory.

"OK Here's a link to some of our known hominid kinfolk: Please let us all know which ones are fully human and should not be insulted by saying they couldn't breed with us and had lower capacity than us and which ones its ok to say that kind of thing about them."

Take any of the so-called Homo sapiens, erectus, ergaster and neandertalis fossilized human skulls. To speculate or theorize that any of them are not full and equal memmbers of the human race on the basis of the different characteristics of their physical morphologies, and to subsequently categorize and classify any of them as separate species without being able to physically test for their interfertility and human capacities of sexual reproduction and cross-breeding with each other, is a superficial, artificial and racial division of humankind into several more or less advanced or primitive conditions of human development, progress and civilization.

"Oh, and it would be nice if you had some reasons for making the judgments you choose to make."

Gee, I'm trying. Please bear with me. After all, Darwin's theory of the human race's evolution out of Africa was neither fully developed nor constructed in a day.

"After all, if you want us to stop maligning some other kindred inappropriately, it seems only fair to ask you where you draw the line."

Absolutely.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
. . . Take any of the so-called Homo sapiens, erectus, ergaster and neandertalis fossilized human skulls. To speculate or theorize that any of them are not full and equal memmbers of the human race on the basis of the different characteristics of their physical morphologies, and to subsequently categorize and classify any of them as separate species without being able to physically test for their interfertility and human capacities of sexual reproduction and cross-breeding with each other, is a superficial, artificial and racial division of humankind into several more or less advanced or primitive conditions of human development, progress and civilization. . .

So you accept then that the homo erectus, ergaster, and neanderthals were all in our family tree in some way? What was your method of choosing them and elminating the others? What criterion did you use?

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

"So you accept then that the homo erectus, ergaster, and neanderthals were all in our family tree in some way?"

Of course, since they are all human.

"What was your method of choosing them and elminating the others?"

What other human fossil skull specimens did I eliminate?

"What criterion did you use?"

My assessment of fossilized human skulls is based on Lubenow's analysis of them in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention."

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Oh, you mean the fellow who is thouroughly debunked here?

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

They say there he repeats the shopworn fallacy that if species A spawns species B then species A must dissapear - as if wolves are gone now that dogs are here. They quote him thusly:

"It is thus basic to evolution that if species B evolved from species A, that species A and species B cannot coexist for an extended length of time".

Is that an accurate statement of his belief or is he misrepresented?

The report also characterizes his handling of neanderthals as out of touch with the data

Rudolf Virchow in 1872 argued that the bones from Neandertal were those of a normal human being, deformed by rickets; the idea was revived by Francis Ivanhoe in 1970. It has not received wide support, mainly because the skeletons of people who suffered from rickets, even very severe rickets, simply do not resemble those of Neandertalers. Gloriously ignorant of this simple fact, and relying entirely on the authority of Virchow and Ivanhoe (which by p.156 has become a "large body of evidence"), Lubenow goes right ahead and proposes that not only Neandertalers but even Homo erectus were modern human beings deformed by rickets!

That guy?

 

[Gup20]

PoE -

Can you point us to anyone who has done IQ testing of Neanderthals? How about anyone who has spent any ammount of time observing Neanderthals in their natural environment?

You have to realize that no scientist has ever had the opportunity to speak with a Neanderthal, therefore the hypothesis regarding them are not provable - and as such is more guesswork or faith than science.

Darwin maintained that men were far superior to women in intelligence and ability because men had larger brains than did women. Here we see the same idiotic sentiment conveyed to these evolutionary pre-humans - basing their intelligence and 'humanity' upon physical characteristics such as size and shape. In reality, it is probably less than 0.1% of our DNA that is responsible for those differences in size.

Moreover, we can see today that women are just as smart as men. We can also see that small people are just as intelligent as 'normal size' people. Are pygmies, for example, not human?

However, with a Biblical perspective we see that all human beings are decendants of Adam and Eve. Because Adam and Eve sinned, death came upon them and all their offspring. Therefore all races that experience death are the same race under Adam and Eve.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Personally, I have no idea about the intelligence level of the Neanderthals.

Darwin as a man of his times spoke accordingly except where his genius made him see things ahead of his times.

Biblically, death comes to mankind due to the sin of mankind; biblically, we have no basis for saying death did or did not come for other species before the fall of man. Since the fossil record is clear that carnivorous animals lived millions of years before men, this evidence helps me to intepret the Bible to be referring only to the death of mankind - the descendents of Adam - when it speaks of all dying with His fall.

The hominids that lived and breathed before Adam did so without an immortal soul. Adam was, by definition, the first man with an immortal soul.

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

"Oh, you mean the fellow who is thouroughly debunked here?"

Yes, that fellow.

"They say there he repeats the shopworn fallacy that if species A spawns species B then species A must dissapear - as if wolves are gone now that dogs are here. Is that an accurate statement of his belief or is he misrepresented?"

Since Lubenow is only talking about theories of human evolution, relating or applying his thesis to dogs and wolves would be a misrepresentation. Validation of his thesis lies in the fact that theoretical evolutionism must confer extinct species status on Neandertal, erectus and ergaster types, rather than recognize them as diverse varieties of the human race, in order for the evolution of the human race to theoretically occur in the first place. That's why theoretical evolutionists have to 'kill off' all other so-called human species in order to claim that only Homo sapiens are full and equal members of the human race.

Creationists like myself and Lubenow regard classifying any 'human' ancestors of the human race as extinct species instead of racially diverse members of the whole human race, as a form of scientific racism, albeit wholly theoretical.

"The report also characterizes his handling of neanderthals as out of touch with the data."

Yes, since, as Lubenow points out in his topical analysis of the demise of Carlton Coon's evolutionist career, one of the first obligations of neo-Darwinist theorists of human evolution out of African primates in Africa is to naturally select and "thoroughly" debunk and discredit all the claims of their critics and opponents, especially if charges of scientific racism are being made.

"That guy?"

Yes, that "guy."

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

"biblically, we have no basis for saying death did or did not come for other species before the fall of man."

That's not true since biblically, there was no death before human sin.

"Since the fossil record is clear that carnivorous animals lived millions of years before men, this evidence helps me to intepret the Bible to be referring only to the death of mankind - the descendents of Adam - when it speaks of all dying with His fall."

The "fossil record" says nothing about "millions of years" or time itself since it has only been ordered, arranged and misdated in accordance with concepts and beliefs of theoretical evolutionism.

"The hominids that lived and breathed before Adam did so without an immortal soul."

The hominidae "family" is just a superficial, artificial and false taxon, created by theoretical evolutionism for the sole purpose of confusing people with apes by lumping them together in one phylogenetic category. That's a form of scientific racism against the human race.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

You can't say the Biblical references to death after Adam's fall refer to anything but human death. To say otherwise is to put your own interpretation into the words, and to ignore the evidence.

The fossil record is dated by scientific verifiable means.

The hominidae "family" are based on objective assessment of the evidence. Great variations in brain size, for example, are not "superficial".

 

[Gup20]

The fossil record is dated by scientific verifiable means.

Scientific method for dating = how do we know the age of the rock - well what fossils did you find in them? How do we know the age of the fossils? Well which rocks did you find them in.

Moreover, radiometric dating has a multitude of problems of it's own. First - it is based entirely upon assumptions that cannot be proven. A specific example would be decay rates. They are assumed (a uniformitarian assumption) that the decay rates have always been the same. However, we have seen billion fold accelerated decay in the lab - therefore we know a change in acceleration rates is possible and it should not be assumed that they have always been at present rates. Yet ALL dating methods use this assumption.

Bottom line is that without observation or written record there is no way to know exactly what happened in the past. So the 'fossil record' is far from clear.

The hominidae "family" are based on objective assessment of the evidence. Great variations in brain size, for example, are not "superficial".

These findings are far, far from objective. They deliberately omit the written historical record of Genesis. Moreover, they are based on assumptions that man came from another animal.

Look at the "brain size" of an infant or a child. These are not as large as even their own parents. So then are these children not human? Do they not have the same genetics as anyone else? Do they not share their family's lineage?

If you take Genesis as your primary assumptive framework (world view) you would realize that in the beginning God declared all of his creation good. Then AFTER sin, came corruption of that design. Moreover we can currently observe changes in animals in the direction of genetic loss. It stands to reason, then, that the further back in time you go, the more diverse the genome would be. Why don't we see these features in people today? For the same reason that thousands of animal species go extinct every year - things die. If too many die, then that gene pool goes extinct and is seen no more. Why? Because information does not spontaneously arise from nothing. How often do we see new information arising in a genome? According to evolution it should be happening constantly. But that is the opposite of what we see. We see animals going extinct. We see genetic losses. We see death and decay. This negative trend (de-evolution) is observable and happens routinely (such as winged beetles loosing their wings, or fish loosing their eyes). Or genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia. We routinely see these examples of genetic loss daily... but evolutionists are hard pressed to find a handful of debatable examples of information gaining systems. And as a matter of fact, upon inspection MOST information gaining examples used by evolutionists turn out to be examples of information losses. For example, increased resistance to pesticides by some bugs has been found to occur. Evolutionists claim this is an example of information gain - after all these pesticides are man made. Upon further inspection it turns out that the bugs who are immune have lost the ability to metabolize many nutrients. While making them impervious to the pesticide, it is directionally a loss of information - the exact opposite of what is required for molecules to man evolution.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Scientific method for dating = how do we know the age of the rock - well what fossils did you find in them? How do we know the age of the fossils? Well which rocks did you find them in. "

Your caricature, not reality. You gotta throw some other dating processes in there, such as radiometric techniques, to get the absolute dates. Of course, you also have no explanation for just why we can identify index fossils in the first place. Just why is it that numerous divisions can be made in which a narrow range of fossils are exclusively found together in diverse locations AND that when the individual layers can be directly dated that they always date to the same age? There is no answer in your paradigm.

"Moreover, radiometric dating has a multitude of problems of it's own. First - it is based entirely upon assumptions that cannot be proven. A specific example would be decay rates. They are assumed (a uniformitarian assumption) that the decay rates have always been the same. However, we have seen billion fold accelerated decay in the lab - therefore we know a change in acceleration rates is possible and it should not be assumed that they have always been at present rates. Yet ALL dating methods use this assumption."

WHen you make this claim once, I can take it as a mistake. When you make it multiple times after being shown the error (and as usual not objecting to the problems pointed out) then it becomes more than simple error. I'll just repeat my previous response to this claim.

DO you realize that you case for accelerated decay takes place in a fully ionized atom? Do you understand what this means? This means that it has been heated to such a degree that not only has it melted AND vaporized, but also so much energy has been added that the temperature has increased to the point that ALL of the electrons, all 66 of them, have been driven away! How on earth do you think that this has ANYTHING to do with normal conditions? Where is the logic that says that such extreme conditions should have any bearing on the processes we are trying to understand? This is evidence that the YEers wil go to any length, stretch any truth if they think it might support them. In the end, they merely expose the weakness of their position for there is no logical case to be made for how atoms under such extreme conditions have any bearing on what happens at the conditions actually experienced.

Furthermore, how decay takes place is relatively well known and you have no evidence to offer that the properties that govern decay were different in the past.

Furthermore, we can directly observe decay rates in the past by observing radiometric processes in the distant universe. Hint, they are the same.

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

"The fossil record is dated by scientific verifiable means."

That's a modern scientific myth beyond the realm of verification because the 'time' the "scientists" wish to date is already pre-supposed to exist according to their theories.

"The hominidae "family" are based on objective assessment of the evidence."

The Hominidae family is as artificial and false a taxon as Homo habilis is.

"Great variations in brain size, for example, are not "superficial."

Great variations in human skull and brain size don't indicate anything other than great diversity in human sizes. You wouldn't deny membership in the human race to pygmies by classifying them as a separate species, would you?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

"The fossil record is dated by scientific verifiable means."

That's a modern scientific myth beyond the realm of verification because the 'time' the "scientists" wish to date is already pre-supposed to exist according to their theories.
</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the deep time of the universe isn't a theory its a discovery. Supernova 1978A was clearly over 100,000 light years away simply because of the spreading light echo from the supernova - you know its going to be a light year wide in a year from the time of the explosion, you see how big it looks, you can get the distance by trigonometry.

And of course, you have to deny the reality of all those radioactive decay events, regardless of how often they are proved right over and over again. . . .

All you've got against the known age of the earth and the universe is denial, denial, denial. Well, some of us don't believe we can afford to give in to that kind of psychological defense mecahnism.

The Hominidae family is as artificial and false a taxon as Homo habilis is.

"Great variations in brain size, for example, are not "superficial."

Its not just the size of the brain alone. The teeth are different, you know . . check out this site

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1376905.htm

Professor Peter Brown: Mike Morwood came to my office with this tooth... I immediately looked at the crown of the tooth and the shape of the root and it was clear that while there was um, human-like, it can't have been a human tooth. Because it had a series of roots, compressed to form a single root, and the crown of the premolar, was very elongated in this direction here.

Narration: Peter Brown knew that the pre-molars of modern humans have single roots with small, round crowns... while apes and primitive humans have multiple roots and an elongated crown...

Professor Peter Brown: And the tooth reminded me, immediately of the... teeth you find in early human relatives, like Homo erectus and australopithecines.

You, above:

Great variations in human skull and brain size don't indicate anything other than great diversity in human sizes. You wouldn't deny membership in the human race to pygmies by classifying them as a separate species, would you?

Nah, Pygmy teeth are like ours, their jaws are like ours, there chins are like ours, they're part of us for sure. Pygmy brains are nearly as large as the brains the rest of us carry around. These Habilus guys were pinheads, with brains coming in at a mere 380cc . . .

They were most likely the result of being stuck on an island for a few million years and have nothing to do with the evolution of our own species, being isolated from the rest of us hominids and doing their own thing.

 

[jcrawford]

QUOTE = Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

"Supernova 1978A was clearly over 100,000 light years away simply because of the spreading light echo from the supernova - you know its going to be a light year wide in a year from the time of the explosion, you see how big it looks, you can get the distance by trigonometry."

Those are just calculations based on conceptual and theoretical mathematical models of time and have nothing to do with the actual and recorded history of the human race. Human time is more than a mere mathematical calculation. It is also a highly subjective and ephemeral experience.

"And of course, you have to deny the reality of all those radioactive decay events, regardless of how often they are proved right over and over again."

Radioactive decay dating is like mtDNA dating. One has to pre-suppose the existential quality and nature of 'time' prior to one's calculations and recordings of it.

"All you've got against the known age of the earth and the universe is denial, denial, denial. Well, some of us don't believe we can afford to give in to that kind of psychological defense mecahnism."

Unfortunately, in that case, one may be unwittingly forced into supporting racial theories of human evolution out of Africa which according to Professor Lubenow, are totally racist.

"Its not just the size of the brain alone. The teeth are different, you know . . check out this site."

Comparing, associating and equating the African teeth of our "early human relatives, like Homo erectus and australopithecines" is obviously a form of scientific racism.

"Pygmy teeth are like ours, their jaws are like ours, there chins are like ours, they're part of us for sure. Pygmy brains are nearly as large as the brains the rest of us carry around. These Habilus guys were pinheads, with brains coming in at a mere 380cc."

You admit then, that pygmies are utterly human and Homo habilis "pinheads" represent an evolutionist taxon of extinct species of African apes since no human skull cranial cavities less than 500 cm have ever been classified or considered as human.