How did apes evolvle into humans?

[john crawford]

Because racism involves prescriptive statements, whereas scientific theories only invovle descriptive ones. There, that was easy.

:æ:

What about predictive, deductive and objective statements?

 

[notto]

Since it is evolutionist theory regarding human origins, which is being charged with being racist, one might hardly expect those professors of "evolutionary" biology who support and give credence to evolutionist theories about human origins to be supportive with evidence refuting their own beliefs.

Right, so your evidence that the theory of evolution is racist and that it confuses purposely the concept of race and species is a complete lack of evidence to that effect.

The last desperate claim of the creationist. Conspiracy!!!

I guess by that respect, I can claim that Creationism is racist as well. I wonder which theory most modern racist organizations adhere to. Any guesses?

 

[Freodin]

What about predictive, deductive and objective statements?

Are still desricptive, not prescriptive. Methinks you don´t know what these terms mean.

Descriptive is a statment that describes how something is. This statement might be based on prediction, deduction, or observation.

Prescriptive is a statement that prescribes how something ought to be.

 

[RoboMastodon]

Since it is evolutionist theory regarding human origins, which is being charged with being racist,

Oh please, don't try to pass off a passive tense to give yourself more credence. The only one making such a ridiculous claim is you. So correction: "you are charging it with racism" and incorrectly so.

...one might hardly expect those professors of "evolutionary" biology who support and give credence to evolutionist theories about human origins to be supportive with evidence refuting their own beliefs.

There is no evidence against evolution.

 

[Elduran]

"There is only one species of human."

Not according to theories of human evolution out of Africa.

"All races are the same species."

The concept of various species based on different physical characteristics, by definition, when applied to humans may be considered to be one of the major divisions of humankind, hence the meaning of the word, race, is also applied to any genus, species, breed or variety of animals, including persons connected by common descent.

"Can you show us actual scientific work confuses or refuses to define this very specifically?"

No. Evolutionists seem to be very reticent about classifying all of their different human species as fully human members of the human race.

"If you can, I'd like to see it. If you can't, quit making stuff up that you can't back up."

I can back up my claims regardless of what evolutionists say.

Then do so! So far all I've seen from you is rhetoric rather than any form of real evidence. You claim that evolution is racist despite all the evolutionists here telling you that humans are all part of the same species, so unless you have any specific proof that the theory of evolution actually has racist statements in it, you are WRONG.

 

[john crawford]

Two populations can only be said to be different species if they cannot reproduce with each other. Since all human races can easily reproduce with each other, they are the same species.

By calling some of our human ancestors different species who were incapable of inter-fertility and breeding with other humans, evolutionists degrade their full humanity, human status and membership in the human race.

Oxford defines race as being based on perceived physical differences and characteristics such as may be observed in various species of animals and includes persons connected by common descent.

 

[notto]

By calling some of our human ancestors different species who were incapable of inter-fertility and breeding with other humans, evolutionists degrade their full humanity, human status and membership in the human race.

No, you are claiming that it is a degradation. If it is reality (which the evidence points to), it can't be racist. Racism is a claim that one is better because of their race within a species, not because of their species.

It would appear that your claim is that evolution is specieist. You should drop the racism thing and stick to what you actually seem to be talking about.

Again, evolution is descriptive, not proscriptive. If the description is reality, then nothing is implied by it and it isn't racism.

Can you provide a cite for your oxford dictionary claim? I'm guessing that you are mixing the oxford definition with a follow on by Lubenow. Probably using an outdated defintion. Back in Darwins time, species and race was interchangable but today, racism is based on the distinctions within the human species.

If your attack is based on a bad definition, it would seem that you just need to read the dictionary better.

 

[RoboMastodon]

By calling some of our human ancestors different species who were incapable of inter-fertility and breeding with other humans, evolutionists degrade their full humanity, human status and membership in the human race.

Oxford defines race as being based on perceived physical differences and characteristics such as may be observed in various species of animals and includes persons connected by common descent.

So evolution is racist against the human race?

 

[Freodin]

So evolution is racist against the human race?

You got it! Therefore it is dangerous, and should not be taught to children, old people and those easily impressed.

On the other hand, the Bible states that God created each kind seperately and humans exclusively in his own image. THIS IS RACIST! BAN THE BIBLE!

And now let´s see if we can indentify the underlying racism in homoeopathy.

 

[Smilin]

Jesus said "He who is not with me is against me." You cannot be both.

And what of those who use our God given rights and abilities to question and search for answers concerning the emergence of life on Earth? To question "WHY?" is not being against the Christian faith. It is merely searching for answers. Much which has led to the cure for polio among other world diseases. Personally, I feel obligated to search and do research on the course of human evolution.

You cannot both say you believe Jesus is telling the truth and that he is lying at the same time. It's one or the other.

Jesus taught nothing on scientific theories/facts/laws concerning evolution, and the origin of life among a host of other scientific topics. So, HOW did he tell the truth concerning evolution? And WHY would your God consider it sacralidge to use the the resources given us to explore the causes of evolution?

Jesus says he was with his Father in the beginning when man was first created. That's why Genesis uses the word; "we" when describing who created the world. And Genesis was written thousands of years before jesus walked on the earth!

Scientific proof on this? Last I researched the writers and exact time frames of the OT was still misunderstood (only through tradition). Ancient scholars through traditions assume that Moses was the writer of the Genesis count. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Jews and all anient people will confirm that.

Through tradition, not documented historical records. Show me the proof!

If you believe Christ's words in the bible, then why would you not believe Genesis?

Science has proven the Earth as well as the Universe wasn't created in seven literal days. That's my primary reason. I have many more if you're interested.

If you only believe part of the bible, then how do you know which parts are true and which are not? Just a guess?

Given the bible as composed by many writers, using multiple languages, i.e. Latin, Greek, Hebrew, (to name just a few) then all were translated into into old Engilish. Do you realize the problems and the complexities associated with the translation of the ancient writings for just ONE foreign language into English? It is VERY DIFFICULT. The problem is compounded by the multiple foreign languages that were attempted to be translated into a common language readable by all. (The old English style of the KJV) An order of magnitude for this (although a noble effort) fell short in the accurate translations into a common text known as the KJV. I can cite MANY innacuracies/translation errors associated with this effort if you wish.

WHY should I take faith in an interrpreation of the Bible from a host of scriptures/texts written in a multitude of other languages?

So yes, those who believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, will go to heaven. Those who don't will not go to heaven. Jesus has shown the world he has the power from God to know about how man was created & heaven & hell. You have not.

And what of those millions of Native Americans who perished before Christ was taught to them. Will your GOD calleously cast them into a 'supposed' hell for eternal torture simply for not hearing or knowing? A very calleous God I do not believe in or follow. So I submit there are MANY paths to the Creator (referred to you as God).

And you have the knowledge who will receive heaven and who will be condemned? (smirk) You are elevating yourself in the Christian faith as the one will sit in judgement of others. According to The Bible that is CHRIST'S job given to him by God. (and sin by you as documented in your Bible)

I suggest you fall to your knees and beg for forgiveness of your ignorance, elevating yourself above others in order to pass judgement, and mimmicking Christ's duties concerning judgement.

JUDGEMENT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO YOU CARICO!!

May God forgive you for your sin of elevating yourself above others in order of passing judgemnt, Carico. Personally, I find your self-elevating belief that "I am better than the rest of you, and you all will burn in hell", (Which I don't believe in a literal hell...b.t.w.) as demeaning, arrogant, and downright rude.

 

[Nathan Poe]

"There is only one species of human."

Not according to theories of human evolution out of Africa.

Um, nope. One species. Humans. Homo Sapiens.

"All races are the same species."

The concept of various species based on different physical characteristics, by definition, when applied to humans may be considered to be one of the major divisions of humankind, hence the meaning of the word, race, is also applied to any genus, species, breed or variety of animals, including persons connected by common descent.

may be, but isn't... ecept of course, by Creaionists.

"Can you show us actual scientific work confuses or refuses to define this very specifically?"

No. Evolutionists seem to be very reticent about classifying all of their different human species as fully human members of the human race.

Because there is only one Human Race still alive today. If you want to categorize different ehtnic groups as different species, you're on your own there.

"If you can, I'd like to see it. If you can't, quit making stuff up that you can't back up."

I can back up my claims regardless of what evolutionists say.

Then by all means, any time you want to begin...

 

[john crawford]

Right, so your evidence that the theory of evolution is racist and that it confuses purposely the concept of race and species is a complete lack of evidence to that effect.

The "evidence" is obvious insofar as theories of human evolution reduce many of our human ancestors to the less than human status of a different species thus refuting and denying their full humanity and membership in the human race. Just because Homo sapiens who devise evolutionist theories about human origins don't mind degrading our human ancestors by classifying their ancestors in a subhuman "species" regression back to non-human ape-hood doesn't mean that the neo-Darwinist theory of human evolution out of Africa is not a modern form of scientific racism.

 

[Rfiord]

Well the Way i see it, If you share my faith of Christanity, We were created By God Not evolved from apes, God Made us all unique.

 

[Rfiord]

But the way i see things isnt the way others see things, i didnt come to debate just to share mythoughts and that is what my opinon is.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=RoboMastodon

"The only one making such a ridiculous claim is you. So correction: "you are charging it with racism" and incorrectly so."

Actually, my charge of racism against neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of Africa are based on Professor Lubenow's detailed studies and theses as well as his own resultant charges of racism in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention." He's been studying the facts and theories about human fossils for at least 40 years. I've never even seen a fossilized human skull. Have you?

"There is no evidence against evolution."

There is plenty of evidence that neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution from non-human ape-like creatures in Africa, are a form of scientific racism, though.

 

[john crawford]

You claim that evolution is racist despite all the evolutionists here telling you that humans are all part of the same species, so unless you have any specific proof that the theory of evolution actually has racist statements in it, you are WRONG.

Since neo-Darwinists merely speculate that Neanderthal and Homo erectus people and their ancestors were not fully human and were not members of the human race but were instead a distinct and separate sub-human "species," any theory which they dream up and imagine to explain human origins out of Africa is a form of scientific racism according to both Lubenow's and the Oxford dictionary's superlative definition of the words, race and racism.

 

[pantsman52]

Since neo-Darwinists merely speculate that Neanderthal and Homo erectus people and their ancestors were not fully human and were not members of the human race but were instead a distinct and separate sub-human "species," any theory which they dream up and imagine to explain human origins out of Africa is a form of scientific racism according to both Lubenow's and the Oxford dictionary's superlative definition of the words, race and racism.

.....what?

 

[corvus_corax]

Since neo-Darwinists merely speculate that Neanderthal and Homo erectus people and their ancestors were not fully human

If by this you mean that these werent Homo sapiens sapiens then those neo-Darwinists are correct

and were not members of the human race but were instead a distinct and separate sub-human "species,"

Again, quite correct
They were not members of the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species
They were a distinct and seperate species (and/or subspecies, depending upon which Homo we are specifically referring to) within the Homo genus, just like Homo sapiens sapiens

 

[nvxplorer]

I have yet to make sense of John Crawford's claim.

John, are you saying that because African-Americans have been discriminated against, any theory that has man evolving out of Africa is racist toward African-Americans?

What I just wrote doesn't make sense, either, but I'm seriously trying to understand what Mr. Crawford is saying.

John?

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=notto

"No, you are claiming that it is a degradation."

Evolutionist theories are all about gradualism in time and the gradations of simple/lower to more complex/higher biological systems. Classifying the first people in Africa as an evolutionary "species" incapable of fertilization and interbreeding capacities with living men and women is a degrading form of scientific racism because it reduces the first African people to a non-human status more closely related to an extinct species of non-human ape-like creatures in Africa.

"If it is reality (which the evidence points to), it can't be racist."

Why not? Is there no racism in reality? The evidence points to the reality of scientific racism in current theories of human evolution out of the continent of Africa and out of sub-human creatures found there.

"Racism is a claim that one is better because of their race within a species, not because of their species."

Not according to Lubenow or the Oxford dictionary's defintion of race and racism.

"It would appear that your claim is that evolution is specieist."

Dividing human beings into different species based only on perceived physical characteristics is a form of scientific racism according to Lubenow and Oxford.

"You should drop the racism thing and stick to what you actually seem to be talking about."

Why should I drop the "racism thing" if you don't drop your evolutionist "thing?" What is it that you actually think that I seem to be talking about?

"Again, evolution is descriptive, not proscriptive. If the description is reality, then nothing is implied by it and it isn't racism."

The mere description and classification of the physical characteristics of people in accordance with biological concepts of human evolution out of Africa is a form of scientific racism according to Lubenow and leading dictionary definitions of race and racism.

"Can you provide a cite for your oxford dictionary claim?"

No. I don't even know if the Oxford Dictionary is on-line. Perhaps the Encyclopedia Brittanica or Americana is and could shed some light on the many menaings of race and racism.

"I'm guessing that you are mixing the oxford definition with a follow on by Lubenow. Probably using an outdated defintion."

I'm using the American edition of the Oxford dic, published by the OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS in 1996. (New York Oxford) Lubenow published his thesis concerning the scientific racism inherent in neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution out of Africa in 2004, so I don't know how more updated one could be considering the fact that Oxford didn't even have a definition of racism in their dictionary prior to the 1940's.

"Back in Darwins time, species and race was interchangable but today, racism is based on the distinctions within the human species."

Fortunately, concepts of race and racism are social constructs and science has nothing to say about such beliefs other than to label some members of the human race as different 'species," in accordance with racist theories of human evolutionism.

"If your attack is based on a bad definition, it would seem that you just need to read the dictionary better."

What does your dictionary or "science" say that race and racism are based on?