Transcripts of Evo/ID legal battle in Dover, PA

john crawford said:

You haven't read the whole thread, obviously

Click to expand...

Yes, I have.

john crawford said:

or else you're completely oblivious to Lubenowism.

Click to expand...

You mean Marvin Lubenow? The crackpot creationist? What about him?

john crawford said:

You do know what neo-Darwinism is, don't you?

Click to expand...

I do. Sadly, it appears that you dont' since you keep making false statements about what it is and does.

Once again, please explain what is racist about anything you've been talking about. And no, don't just scream "It's racist!" again. Explain WHY it's racist.

john crawford said:

The only way that African men and women get blue, green, gray or hazel eyes is by their parents interbreeding with non-African people of non-African descent from common ape ancestors. Pure African people have dark brown eyes.

Click to expand...

There are no people of non-African descent.

john crawford said:

It would make those who believe in the origin of the human race in Iraq racists, if they chose to impose those beliefs of common ancestral human origins on all other modern racial groups in the world today.

Click to expand...

I was right! You DON'T know what 'racist' means. You need to go look at the actual definition of the word and TRY to understand it.

john crawford said:

You must be kidding. Human beings are classified by neo-Darwinist race theorists as members of the Hominidae family of great apes at the outset. Do you understand what that means? Human beings are classified in the same family as non-human beings to start with. No wonder that neo-Darwinist thoeries of human evolution are racist.

Click to expand...

And tigers are classified with non-tigers. So what? Get over it, John. You can classify yourself as a sponge for all anyone cares, and scientists will continue to classify organisms accurately. If you don’t like it; well, boo-hoo. My heart pumps Kool-Aid.

john crawford said:

The geographic location of the original Garden of Eden was washed away in Noah's day as was the rest of the then known world, according to St. Peter, anyway.

Click to expand...

You didn't answere the other question, would you consider it racist to have descended from Adam and Eve? As in the neo-christian racial theory of origins?

john crawford said:

The only way that African men and women get blue, green, gray or hazel eyes is by their parents interbreeding with non-African people of non-African descent from common ape ancestors. Pure African people have dark brown eyes.

Click to expand...

What a racist comment! Do you want to tell blue eyed African women that they aren’t African? This is an example of racist neo- eye colorism.

john crawford said:

Do you see the difference between comparing people to apes and equating them with apes, as neo-Darwinist ape theorists are wont to do?

Click to expand...

This is merely a deliberate and misleading attempt to use the fact that 'apes' to a biologist does not mean 'apes' to the layman. Yes, scientists (not your silly "neo-Darwinist ape theorists") classify humans as apes. We are apes, just as gorillas and chimpanzees are. We are also mammals, just as horses and cows are. Does saying that equate us with horses, cows, gorillas and chimpanzees? Of course not. It merely notes that we are members of biological groupings that also have, as members, those animals. You are relying on the common usage of ape - to mean a monkey, a chimp or gorilla - to be incensed about the fact that humans are classified, biologically, as apes.

Nice try, but only the gullible would be taken in.

john crawford said:

You must be kidding. Human beings are classified by neo-Darwinist race theorists as members of the Hominidae family of great apes at the outset.

Click to expand...

Humans are apes - in the scientific usage of the word. Which means nothing at all except that we and the other apes are descended from a fairly recent common ancestor.

john crawford said:

Do you understand what that means? Human beings are classified in the same family as non-human beings to start with.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand what that means. You don't, which is no surprise. Humans are animals. We are also vertebrates, mammals, placental mammals, and apes. All of these are groupings that we share with other animals. Saying these simple facts does not demean human beings or equate us with those animals.

john crawford said:

No wonder that neo-Darwinist thoeries of human evolution are racist.

Click to expand...

Since nothing - even in your silliness - in the above post has anything to do with race, your closing claim is merely more evidence that you don't know what 'racist' means.

Just to give you a clue...whatEVER you want to say about all humans...whatever claims you want to make about them - that they are apes, that they are mammals, or that they are descended from peanuts, if you like - canNOT be racist because race doesn't even enter into it. We are talking about ALL humans. Race isn't even a factor.

RightWingGirl said:

How can you be an ape, if humans are not descendents of Apes, but merely of a common ancestor?

Click to expand...

look at my signature. as you can see, an ape is an organism with those characteristics. Humans are apes, because their common ancestor with the other apes was also an ape. This is pretty obvious, you see, chimps and gorillas are both apes, however the common ancestor between humans and chimps is younger than the common ancestor between chimps/humans and gorillas. I will make this more explicit for you:

The common ancestor between humans and chimps existed some 3 million years ago. before this, what would become humans and chimps were just a single species. Now at the same time as this common ancestral species existed, gorillas already existed somewhere else in the world. 10 million years ago however, the gorillas and chimps also existed as one species. so if gorillas and chimps are apes, then their common ancestor was also an ape (since they inherited their ape like characteristics from the ancestor) then they split, and later the non-gorilla line split into the ancestors to humans and the ancestors to modern chimps. now if this common ancestor was an ape, which we have already established, then chimps and humans are apes too. see?

RightWingGirl said:

So all of the human races, groups, varieties, or what have you have all evloved to the exact same level in the Evolution thoery?

Click to expand...

There are no "levels" in evolutionary theory. The idea of a great chain of being was rejected a long time ago. In fact, it was evolutionary theory that led to the destruction of the concept.

As for all the various varieties of humans, there is really no such thing. the differences are only very peripheral, and there is little or no distinct genetic material that exists in only one "race" and can be used to identify that race.

Jet Black said:

There are no "levels" in evolutionary theory. The idea of a great chain of being was rejected a long time ago. In fact, it was evolutionary theory that led to the destruction of the concept.

Click to expand...

Biologically I agree. But at least for me, the phylogene may be seen as a 3D graphic having X, Y and Z coordinates. Supporting both the chain of being and the current universal phylogene.


As.

john crawford said:

Of course not, but to assume, presuppose or hypothesize that Jewish lawyers and Asian female mathematicians biologically descended from African tribes which neo-Darwinist race theorists speculate descended from African monkey and ape ancestors is certainly a racist theory.

Click to expand...

How is this racist? All the so-called human races (or really, culture groups) descend from the same origin. Nobody is saying that Europeans were put here by God, but those Africans, they come from monkeys. Maybe someone said that in the past, I dunno. But in the here and now nobody is saying that. So again, how is our common descent a racist thing?

Theorizing that the whole human race and species originated in any specific part of the globe would be intrinsically, inherently and inescapably racist, since geographical origin is the sole determinant and criteria of what may reasonably be said to be the sole determinant factor of what constitutes a racial group within the human species, Human speciensis.

Click to expand...

I think we are getting to the heart of your misunderstanding... AFAIK, yes, geographical origin puts a human in a particular culture group, with sexually selected traits and, quite often, a particular skin color. However, having evolved in any specific part of the globe is no different than the Creation story in terms of geographical origin. This does not make it racist.

If all the humans but 100 caucasians of Slavic descent died due to a pandemic and over the course of the next 50,000 years their descendants spread over the earth and their melanin levels in their skin adapted to the UV radiation of the geographical residence, would it be considered racist for future scientists to realize that all the humans share a common ancestry to 100 Slavs? Or more strangely that they have DNA which indicates a much older line, one that matches the fossil records found in Africa? Now we have two potential origination points, Europe and Africa? Which would you consider racist?

Behe just testified in a federal court that neo-Darwinist concepts of "natural selection" can't account for DNA, the immune system or blood clotting. So much for neo-Darwinist race theories of human evolution out of Africa.

Click to expand...

Who cares what Behe said? What I gave you was the definition of neo-Darwinism.

Neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of Africa are a form of ignorant and maliciously twisted logic and "reasoning" to begin with, so don't blame other people for misinterpreting or "misusing" neo-Darwinist racial theories.

Click to expand...

Do you have evidence of human speciation events occurring outside of Africa? And if not why do you insist on referring to the only model that currently has evidence as being maliciously twisted logic?

john crawford said:

You must be kidding. Human beings are classified by neo-Darwinist race theorists as members of the Hominidae family of great apes at the outset. Do you understand what that means? Human beings are classified in the same family as non-human beings to start with. No wonder that neo-Darwinist thoeries of human evolution are racist.

Click to expand...

Yes, ALL humans are classified as hominidae. Racism means raising one race over another. Neo-darwinism says we are all equal and we are all hominidae. The Old Testament tells us that the Hebrews were the chosen race. Neo-Darwinism disagrees.

john crawford said:

You must be kidding. Human beings are classified by neo-Darwinist race theorists as members of the Hominidae family of great apes at the outset. Do you understand what that means? Human beings are classified in the same family as non-human beings to start with. No wonder that neo-Darwinist thoeries of human evolution are racist.

Click to expand...

bad bad owl.


As.

Asimis said:

bad bad owl.


As.

Click to expand...

After countless discussions with John, I am convinced that this is the most intelligent and worthwhile response I’ve yet seen. I wholeheartedly agree, As.

Bad owl. Baaaaaaad owl.