john crawford
Well-Known Member
- Sep 10, 2003
- 3,754
- 9
- 84
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
:æ: said:Because racism involves prescriptive statements, whereas scientific theories only invovle descriptive ones. There, that was easy.
:æ:
john crawford said: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.
john crawford said:What about predictive, deductive and objective statements?
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.john crawford said:Since it is evolutionist theory regarding human origins, which is being charged with being racist,
There is no evidence against evolution....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.
john crawford said: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.notto said:"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.
RoboMastodon said:john crawford said: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.
john crawford said:RoboMastodon said: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.
john crawford said:So evolution is racist against the human race?RoboMastodon said: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.
RoboMastodon said:john crawford said: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.
Carico said:Jesus said "He who is not with me is against me." You cannot be both.
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?Carico said: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.
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.Carico said: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!
Through tradition, not documented historical records. Show me the proof!Carico said:The Jews and all anient people will confirm that.
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.Carico said:If you believe Christ's words in the bible, then why would you not believe Genesis?
Carico said:If you only believe part of the bible, then how do you know which parts are true and which are not? Just a guess?
Carico said: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.
john crawford said:notto said:"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...
notto said: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.
Elduran said: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 said: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.
If by this you mean that these werent Homo sapiens sapiens then those neo-Darwinists are correctjohn crawford said:Since neo-Darwinists merely speculate that Neanderthal and Homo erectus people and their ancestors were not fully human
Again, quite correctjohn crawford said:and were not members of the human race but were instead a distinct and separate sub-human "species,"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?