How did apes evolvle into humans?

[Tomk80]

Neither do apes.

So what's the problem then, other than your total incapability of supporting your case?

Homo sapiens are apes, Homo neanderthalensis are apes, Homo erectus are apes. Chimps are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. Were's the racism?

 

[Tomk80]

So wait. Is it racist that we don't include the first simple bacterial lifeforms, from where all life branched out from, in the human race?

Yes. According to John archaebacteria should be considered human too.

 

[ebia]

Yes. According to John archaebacteria should be considered human too.

Presumably with full human rights. One organism, one vote.

 

[Elduran]

I think referring to the moon as "not the earth" is planet-ist. Makes about as much sense as john's argument...

 

[john crawford]

Thats great John, are you a biologist or anthropologist by chance?
Meaning, have you ever had any kind of formal education on the subject?

No. I'm neither a professional biologist nor anthropoliogist and have no formal education or training in either field. I just suscribe to Lubenow's theories about the intrinsic racism inherent in neo-Darwinist theories of human descent and origin from non-humans in Africa.

 

[dr.p]

Such claims as those found in Genesis are merely based on a racial theory that God chooses certain tribes over others. Rather than recognize the full and equal humanity of all, God selects his chosen people, and therefore is, generally speaking, a racist form of judgement against all other human beings.

Technically, it's more like nepotism. God called Abraham his friend, because Abraham loved God and wanted to do His will. God promised him an everlasting lineage and nations (Gen 13:16, 15:5, 17:4, etc.) And then, building upon that promise with David (2 Sam 7:13), promised an everlasting kingdom -- which is that kingdom established in Christ Jesus.

BUT there's really no -ism involved. If your creator sees that you choose good over evil, and rewards you for it in such an extensive way as He did Abraham, it's nowhere near racism.

Not only that, but God states in the Bible that He chose the nation of Israel as the people that would establish HIS name (also 2 Sam 7:13 and throughout the OT.) So, He's not worried about race... in fact, others were always considered part of the nation if they served Him. Throughout the entire OT and NT, that's the way it worked.... so it's not like God was ever excluding anyone... He just chose them to make His name known to everyone else.

The Bible never says God considers anyone to be worth less than anyone else... there's no racism invovled... it says He considers everyone evil and full of iniquity ... except for those rare few whom He called righteous... and even they messed up.

 

[john crawford]

In one post you have said evolution is racist because you find it offensive, and that it is racist, but not because you find it offensive. Until you make your mind up and stop contradicting yourself, you won't make much sense to anyone else. You need to give a clear, non-contradictory, reason why this is so instead of going in circles.

Thank you for pointing that out to me and please accept my apologies for any confusion. I thought I clarified things in a former post which stated that evolutionist theory about human origins may be found to be offensive because it is racist and not the other way around.

What else about evolution might be considered to be offensive to human beings other than the racial implications of the theory?

 

[dr.p]

Agreed!
However,God (supposedly) choosing the Israelites as his "chosen" people, then systematically (according to the Bible) using them to slaughter the inhabitants of the so-called promise land makes him much more than a racist! It makes him a murderer! Especially since he ordered the slaughter of ALL inhabitants of the cities the Israelites "supposedly" took siege to. This included INNOCENT children as well as the women! IMO, it makes him out to be a savage and a murderer!

And the genocide committed by "His" people upon the Native Americans, and African slaves! That God is much more than a racist my friend! That God is a psycopathic murderer!

Just my opinion on the matter!

You guys seem to have just as skewed a view of what actually happened in the OT as Crawford seems to have of evolution.

As for Native American genocide and African slavery: just because people have done things in God's name, doesn't necessarily mean He told them to. If something is outright evil, God didn't organize it. Don't forget that Hitler, born Jewish, used a thin veil of Christianity for appeal in order to slaughter God's chosen people. That's murder. That's deceit. That's psychotic. That's not the same as what you find in the OT.

And btw, how could the creator of any world be psychopathic? That would mean he's out to kill everyone... and why would he try to save everyone if he just wanted to kill them all?

Me thinks you're missing some things.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=corvus_corax:

"Taken as you said it-
"I am human and believe that scientifically categorizing Eomaia as sub-human or non-human species is scientific racism" Your statement is silly and non-sensical"

Since eomaia are not human beings, I'm only concerned that scientists don't categorize and classify eomaia as human.

"Oh, so ANY theory that states that we came from a pre-Homo genera is racist?"

Yes, according to Professor Lubenow.

"Homo Erectus was not a seperate race (according to the way you are using the term in this quote)...they were a seperate species."

Only according to racial theories of human evolution. Creationists don't have any human ancestors that were a "separate species."

"Methinks you use the Dictionary when the definition applies to your argument, but turn around (as you have here) and throw all definitions out the window."

I don't throw Oxford's definition of race out the window.

"Ive asked before, I'll ask again-
When did the Neandertals begin demanding equal rights?
(Hopefully you'll get my point this time)"

Creationists get your point and equally point out that some of them biologically associate and identify variations of H. neandertalis, erectus and ergaster with their own human ancestors and regard them as full and equal members of our human race.

"So if Creationism were taught in public schools, you would likewise decry the literal biblical teachings that God told his "chosen people" to commit racial genocide? You would then stand up to Biblical racism? Somehow I doubt that you would be up-in-arms about this teaching."

Since creationism is not and should not be taught to adolescents in public schools, I need only decry racial theories of human evolution being currently taught there.

 

[john crawford]

So wait. Is it racist that we don't include the first simple bacterial lifeforms, from where all life branched out from, in the human race?

Generally speaking, and in accordance with dictionary definitions of race, racist and racism, it is racist, but neither bacteria nor any humans seem to object to bacteria's exclusion from the human race by being categorized and classified as a "simple" non-human lifeform.

 

[Nathan Poe]

"Oh, so ANY theory that states that we came from a pre-Homo genera is racist?"

Yes, according to Professor Lubenow.

Chocolate Cake comes from eggs, wheat, and flour, and a host of other things that are not "Chocolate Cake."

Is baking racist because Chocolate cake comes from non-cake?

"Homo Erectus

was not a seperate race (according to the way you are using the term in this quote)...they were a seperate species."

Only according to racial theories of human evolution. Creationists don't have any human ancestors that were a "separate species."

Creationists don't have any theories at all -- Certainly nothing in line with the evidence.

"Methinks you use the Dictionary when the definition applies to your argument, but turn around (as you have here) and throw all definitions out the window."

I don't throw Oxford's definition of race out the window.

Good for Oxford. How about the scientific definition?

"Ive asked before, I'll ask again-
When did the Neandertals begin demanding equal rights?
(Hopefully you'll get my point this time)"

Creationists get your point and equally point out that some of them biologically associate and identify variations of H. neandertalis, erectus and ergaster with their own human ancestors and regard them as full and equal members of our human race.

The alternative would be for Creationists to accept macroevolution, which their pride prohibibits them from doing.

"So if Creationism were taught in public schools, you would likewise decry the literal biblical teachings that God told his "chosen people" to commit racial genocide? You would then stand up to Biblical racism? Somehow I doubt that you would be up-in-arms about this teaching."

Since creationism is not and should not be taught to adolescents in public schools, I need only decry racial theories of human evolution being currently taught there.

You're saying "racial" instead of "racist." What`was your point again?

 

[john crawford]

"Homo sapiens are apes, Homo neanderthalensis are apes, Homo erectus are apes. Chimps are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. Were's the racism?"

Associating, categorizing and classifying any members of the human race or their 'human' ancestors with either sub-human or non-human species in accordance with the principles of evolution is a form of scientific racism found only in neo-Darwinst principles and theories.

 

[john crawford]

Yes. According to John archaebacteria should be considered human too.

Why do you assume and surmise that?

 

[john crawford]

Presumably with full human rights. One organism, one vote.

False presumption and premise = false conclusion.

 

[john crawford]

I think referring to the moon as "not the earth" is planet-ist. Makes about as much sense as john's argument...

Only if planetism and moonism are adequately defined and the differences scientifically explained.

 

[Smilin]

You guys seem to have just as skewed a view of what actually happened in the OT as Crawford seems to have of evolution.

I'm very aware of it, actually.

For example, to prove my point of God being a racist and commanding the genocide of those not among his "chosen":

Deuteronomy 7:2-24 (New International Version)

2and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.(This included women and children) [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles [b] and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (A racist statement.)

As for Native American genocide and African slavery: just because people have done things in God's name, doesn't necessarily mean He told them to. If something is outright evil, God didn't organize it.

He did allow it though to be committed in his name (supposedly)

Don't forget that Hitler, born Jewish, used a thin veil of Christianity for appeal in order to slaughter God's chosen people. That's murder. That's deceit. That's psychotic. That's not the same as what you find in the OT.

How is putting women and innocent children to the sword commanded by him of his chosen people not the same? Life is life in my view. All life is sacred, especially women and children.

And btw, how could the creator of any world be psychopathic?

I dunno, beats me. I'm just expressing my viewpoint is all. There are different ways to view history. Some view and celebrate Columbus as a hero. Others of us view him as the origination of the great genocide committed against the Native Americans. Your view depends upon where you sit on the fence in the matter. If your family was among those slaughtered by the Israelites, I'd assume your viewpoint would be different on the mattter as mine is. I see the Biblical account of God as one of a war God with the thirst for blood and sacrifices. He allowed his own son to be sacrificed to himself...no?

That would mean he's out to kill everyone... and why would he try to save everyone if he just wanted to kill them all?

Good question. Current fundamentalist Christian teaching is that the majority of humanity will perish in everlasting fire!? Doesn't it? I don't prescribe to that thought or teaching, but it is being taught everywhere by most fundamentalist Christians.

Me thinks you're missing some things.

As I said, depends upon where you're sitting. You miss my points as well, given that you are not of Native American descent.

 

[john crawford]

The Bible never says God considers anyone to be worth less than anyone else... there's no racism invovled... it says He considers everyone evil and full of iniquity ... except for those rare few whom He called righteous... and even they messed up.

You impress me with your Christian scholarship.

 

[corvus_corax]

Why do you assume and surmise that?

Because he was speaking of your ancestors.
And, according to your own words-

I believe it does since I am human and believe that scientifically categorizing any of my ancestors as sub-human or non-human species is scientific racism.

(emphasis mine)
Of course, you not only believe that evolution is racist, but you dont believe in evolution at all, so his statement was obviously lost on you

Associating, categorizing and classifying any members of the human race or their 'human' ancestors with either sub-human or non-human species in accordance with the principles of evolution is a form of scientific racism found only in neo-Darwinst principles and theories.

Now, sir, you are changing your tune (or so it appears)
To begin with evolution was supposedly racist due to the "non-sapiens" classification of other members of the Homo genus
Now, however, we have your above statement in which the various species of Homo arent even needed. You appear to be saying that ANY evolution from ANY non-human species is inherently racist.

This, of course, appears to be a completely idiotic statement.

I would appreciate some clarification.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=dr.p:

"You guys seem to have just as skewed a view of what actually happened in the OT as Crawford seems to have of evolution."

At least what happened in the OT is historically documented and not based on theoretical observations about what happened in Africa once upon a time.

"And btw, how could the creator of any world be psychopathic? That would mean he's out to kill everyone... and why would he try to save everyone if he just wanted to kill them all?"

Your point makes good Christian sense to me even though God once drowned all apes and humans in water except Noah's human family and two apes.

"Me thinks you're missing some things."

Might the application of the creationist principle of 'missings links' be in order here?

 

[primate]

Don't forget that Hitler, born Jewish, used a thin veil of Christianity for appeal in order to slaughter God's chosen people. That's murder. That's deceit. That's psychotic. That's not the same as what you find in the OT.

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. (KJV)

Looks the same to me.