More 'Hobbits' found

[john crawford]

Yes, it does teach that. The problem you have with your argument in every time that you present it is that the decendants are all people, not just African peoples. It would be racist to say that Africans were a degenerate half-breed race inferior to other men (as you seem to be saying that people are saying about the 'Hobbits'), but it would not be racist to say that they, along with everyone else, stems from the same bloodline.

Just because neo-Darwinists don't "say" that the original African people who first evolved from ape ancestors were "a degenerate half-breed race inferior to other men" doesn't mean that it isn't obviously implied by the evolutionist image of non-human ape-like creatures in Africa gradually mutating and 'evolving' into less ape-like looking African beings over hundreds of thousands of years. The nice thing to know is that the human fossil record itself shows that fully developed human beings lived in Africa 2 mya and show no evidence of having ever mutated from African ape ancestors. That fact aside, neo-Darwinists still so closely associate and identify the morphology and physical appearance of the first African people with apes that the first 'species' they classify as a human taxon, Homo habilis, is a mixture of African pygmy and australopithicine ape fossils.

Now, I say that there are several ways we can approach this species. It is entirely possible that they are all long extinct, and we may have to cope with that. However, if we are lucky enough, we will have a variety of options to explore.

Hopefully, we might explore the possibility of Indonesian dwarfs or pygmies being considering just another former racial variant of the human race and species known as Human speciensis.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

Just because neo-Darwinists don't "say" that the original African people who first evolved from ape ancestors were "a degenerate half-breed race inferior to other men" doesn't mean that it isn't obviously implied by the evolutionist image of non-human ape-like creatures in Africa gradually mutating and 'evolving' into less ape-like looking African beings over hundreds of thousands of years. The nice thing to know is that the human fossil record itself shows that fully developed human beings lived in Africa 2 mya and show no evidence of having ever mutated from African ape ancestors. That fact aside, neo-Darwinists still so closely associate and identify the morphology and physical appearance of the first African people with apes that the first 'species' they classify as a human taxon, Homo habilis, is a mixture of African pygmy and australopithicine ape fossils.



Hopefully, we might explore the possibility of Indonesian dwarfs or pygmies being considering just another former racial variant of the human race and species known as Human speciensis.

Not to keep harping on the same subject, but your source of information for refuting this point is garbage (see post 55). Now if you have some real science, bring it on and we'll be able to have some decent conversation.

 

[john crawford]

I see that their cranial capacity is in range of actually being human. While they very well maybe a different species, what particular about them makes them not just midgets with no chin?

Their cranial capacity is actually less than the average cranial capacity of Australopithecus afarensis and africanus apes combined, so there goes another 100 years of neo-Darwinist dreams of human evolution out of Africa down the drainbowl of theoretical science. How they got their skulls and bones shrunk so small is another unfathomable mystery of neo-Darwinist fantasies about human evolution out of Africa.

Whether or not they were chinless midgets, dwarfs, pygmies or were some unique and rare Indonesian racial breed of humanity within the whole former human race and species, is insignificant compared to the fact that, if they really were human, then they may be reasonably and scientifically classified as just another former racial variant of our own magnificently racially diversified species, Human speciensis.

Remember. You read it first here on Christianforums.

 

[john crawford]

Not to keep harping on the same subject, but your source of information for refuting this point is garbage (see post 55).

What makes you assume that Lubenow is my sole "source" of scientific information, or that post 55 is "garbage," or that I'm not capable of making points independently of what others say, or that you are "harping" at all?

Now if you have some real science, bring it on and we'll be able to have some decent conversation.

Ok. I've just scientifically created (or 'invented,' if you prefer) a new human species name. It's called Human speciensis, in which all former neo-Darwinist racial groups in the human fossil record, which are arbitrarily labeled as different and separate 'species,' are subsumed under the modern idea, concept and scientific classification of one human race and species, namely, Human speciensis. Remember. You first read and learned about Human speciensis here on Christianforums and nowhere else, and that Christianforums gets all praise and credit for being the first known publishers of the original concept and theory of one human species originally discovered and named Human speciensis by John Crawford.

Care to have a decent conversation about the creative art and science of human speciology?

 

[john crawford]

No it's not, the cranial capacity is about 380 cc, our cranial capacity is 1350+ cc.

The average cranial capacity of anatomically modern 'Homo sapiens' fossils is 1531 cc.

Any cranial capacity in the human race's fossil record less than 1000 cc is automatically and arbitrarily classified as a different and separate human 'species' by neo-Darwinist race theorists of human evolution out of Africa.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

What makes you assume that Lubenow is my sole "source" of scientific information, or that post 55 is "garbage," or that I'm not capable of making points independently of what others say, or that you are "harping" at all?

Couple points : (1) Actually post 55 was my refutation to your point. (2) Hot damn, more sources. Lets see if any of them are valid. (3) Sure you can make points independently of the sources you have, but those opinions should be based on real evidence.

Care to have a decent conversation about the creative art and science of human speciology?

Naw, I’d rather take a look at the science behind the observations and try to find out based on that knowledge what happened.

Their cranial capacity is actually less than the average cranial capacity of Australopithecus afarensis and africanus apes combined, so there goes another 100 years of neo-Darwinist dreams of human evolution out of Africa down the drainbowl of theoretical science. How they got their skulls and bones shrunk so small is another unfathomable mystery of neo-Darwinist fantasies about human evolution out of Africa.

Why don’t you pull up some of those references to back this up? Or is this conjecture pulled out of the blue?
Additionally, how does this debunk evolution? Because as far as I know it fits in just fine.

And just to round this knowledgefest out, do you have a reference for this?

The nice thing to know is that the human fossil record itself shows that fully developed human beings lived in Africa 2 mya and show no evidence of having ever mutated from African ape ancestors.

Because real evidence would might poke some good holes in evolution.

 

[serventofthelord]

The average cranial capacity of anatomically modern 'Homo sapiens' fossils is 1531 cc.

Any cranial capacity in the human race's fossil record less than 1000 cc is automatically and arbitrarily classified as a different and separate human 'species' by neo-Darwinist race theorists of human evolution out of Africa.

 

[john crawford]

Ah you are right. Good call. Its about 900 in exteremely low cases.

Such "exteremely low cases" significantly reduce one's chances of being labeled a true (pure) Homo sapiens and significantly increase the possibility of one's being identified and 'associated' with Asian or African Homo erectus fossil individuals whose cranial capacities average 941 cc.

Don't 'ya just love measuring the internal capacities of human skulls as the sole criteria and determinant for signs of racial or species intelligence among human beings?

 

[john crawford]

Couple points : (1) Actually post 55 was my refutation to your point. (2) Hot damn, more sources. Lets see if any of them are valid. (3) Sure you can make points independently of the sources you have, but those opinions should be based on real evidence.

What more evidence are you looking for beyond the fact that I have eyes, ears, a nose and a brain?

Naw, I’d rather take a look at the science behind the observations and try to find out based on that knowledge what happened.

You're obviously hanging out on a different branch of the human family tree than I am, if you don't want to discuss the art and science of human speciology. Maybe you're a neo-Darwinist hominid, for all I know. How would I know what you are unless you correctly identify yourself?

Why don’t you pull up some of those references to back this up? Or is this conjecture pulled out of the blue?

What's your hang-up with references? Can't you think for yourself? Don't you know that most scientific discoveries are quite by accident and that theories to account for them are just pulled out of the blue?

Additionally, how does this debunk evolution? Because as far as I know it fits in just fine.

How does what debunk evolution and fit in "just fine?" You don't even include a quote as to what you are referring to for the benefit of other posters.

And just to round this knowledgefest out, do you have a reference for this?

A reference for what?

Because real evidence would might poke some good holes in evolution.

Now you're becoming gramatically incoherent.

 

[john crawford]

The average cranial capacity of anatomically modern 'Homo sapiens' fossils is 1531 cc.

Any cranial capacity in the human race's fossil record less than 1000 cc is automatically and arbitrarily classified as a different and separate human 'species' by neo-Darwinist race theorists of human evolution out of Africa.

That's a great quote, servantofthelord.

What do you think about the ancestral origins and descendents of Human speciensis?

 

[Jet Black]

Any cranial capacity in the human race's fossil record less than 1000 cc is automatically and arbitrarily classified as a different and separate human 'species' by neo-Darwinist race theorists of human evolution out of Africa.

that's really fascinating, even though it is utterly wrong, but fascinating because you are also saying that Christianity is racist also.

It is very interesting to note that Christian racist theories are also present, for example Bowden, Menton Taylor and Gish, all creationists by the way, consider peking man to be an "ape" even though he had a cranial capacity of between 900-1200cc and the same for java man, who had a cranial capacity of 940cc. So while the evolutionist racists consider them to be other species of humans, creationist racists don't even grant them that, and would keep Java man and Peking man in Zoos.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Don't 'ya just love measuring the internal capacities of human skulls as the sole criteria and determinant for signs of racial or species intelligence among human beings?

One would, if it were so. It isn't, so it's about as lovable as any other strawman.

Once again it's the creationists' complete lack of appreciation at the real breadth and depth of professional scientific study that's shown up here. Just another variation on the "they make up whole animals from a single fragment of bone" canard.

 

[Jet Black]

Don't 'ya just love measuring the internal capacities of human skulls as the sole criteria and determinant for signs of racial or species intelligence among human beings?

don't ya just love the way that creationists do just that all the time, classifying fossils as "people" or "not people" purely on the basis of cranial capacity, or whatever other bizarre quasi arbitrary criteria they choose? I mean, by your bizarre definition of racism, even though evolutionists say that Peking man is another species of human, at least he is human right? and would be accorded certain rights, though he might be regarded as a mentally limited person or something, but creationists would stick him in a cage with the chimps for company., and would be quite within their rights to eat him, since he is "not a person" after all. Even peking man is quite different from me, I would not eat him because he is too closely related to me, but Duane Gish might tuck into a nice plate of Peking man stew.

 

[Jet Black]

Once again it's the creationists' complete lack of appreciation at the real breadth and depth of professional scientific study that's shown up here. Just another variation on the "they make up whole animals from a single fragment of bone" canard.

tragic isn't it? and it's one of the reasons that I am not a big fan of the skulls comparison picture on Talkorigins with respect to evidence against creationism. I think it is a great image for those studying evolution, but far too simple to really be able to get into depth about how the different species are organised and what their properties are.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

Well john, its nice to know you don’t know how to read posts in the forums here. Let my clarify some of my statements so a 3 year old and you can understand.

Couple points : (1) Actually post 55 was my refutation to your point. (2) Hot damn, more sources. Lets see if any of them are valid. (3) Sure you can make points independently of the sources you have, but those opinions should be based on real evidence.

What more evidence are you looking for beyond the fact that I have eyes, ears, a nose and a brain?

I am looking for more sources beyond the crack Lubenow.

Why don’t you pull up some of those references to back this up? Or is this conjecture pulled out of the blue?

What's your hang-up with references? Can't you think for yourself? Don't you know that most scientific discoveries are quite by accident and that theories to account for them are just pulled out of the blue?

I can think for myself. But why do we believe what we do? We have to have a point of reference to back up our claims. I could claim the FSM made my breakfast this morning but without evidence who would believe me? So why am I hung up on references? Because anyone can say anything they want. The ones I want to listen to have their opinions grounded in the real world.

Furthermore, most scientific discoveries out of the blue? I’m sure all those nobel prizes just accidentally fell into the receivers laps.

Additionally, how does this debunk evolution? Because as far as I know it fits in just fine.
And just to round this knowledgefest out, do you have a reference for this?

How does what debunk evolution and fit in "just fine?" You don't even include a quote as to what you are referring to for the benefit of other posters.
A reference for what?

I’m sorry you weren’t able to read the quote I posted right above my inquiry. Lets try again:

How they got their skulls and bones shrunk so small is another unfathomable mystery of neo-Darwinist fantasies about human evolution out of Africa.

How does this refute evolution and where is a reference supporting your claims?

Because real evidence would might poke some good holes in evolution.

Now you're becoming gramatically incoherent.

If you can’t follow the progression of conversation why don’t you get a grade schooler to explain it to you.

 

[john crawford]

It is very interesting to note that Christian racist theories are also present, for example Bowden, Menton Taylor and Gish, all creationists by the way, consider peking man to be an "ape" even though he had a cranial capacity of between 900-1200cc and the same for java man, who had a cranial capacity of 940cc. So while the evolutionist racists consider them to be other species of humans, creationist racists don't even grant them that, and would keep Java man and Peking man in Zoos.

Java man was originally called 'Pithecanthropus' (Ape-man) by neo-Darwinist race theorists and is still considered by them to be an intermediate sub-human 'species' (Homo erectus) between non-human African primates and fully human folks like you, me and Duane Gish. As for myself, I prefer to regard Java and Peking man racial variants of the one human race and species, Human speciensis. After all, we're both Human speciens, aren't we, even though you may have considered yourself to be a neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens until now.

Creationists don't put human beings in zoos like neo-Darwinists once did with Ota Benga. http://www.onehumanrace.com/docs/ota_benga.asp

Neither are creationists body snatchers who dig up and ship human remains to British and American museums to be put on display. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/bodysnatchers.asp

 

[john crawford]

tragic isn't it? and it's one of the reasons that I am not a big fan of the skulls comparison picture on Talkorigins with respect to evidence against creationism. I think it is a great image for those studying evolution, but far too simple to really be able to get into depth about how the different species are organised and what their properties are.

If one wants to delve into the details of the human fossil record in any depth, one has to read Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" where 371 human fossil specimens are presented and scientifically related to in "depth about how the different species are organised and what their properties are."

In the meantime, all neo-Darwinist 'theories' of human evolution out of Africa based on genetics and the human fossil record remain intrinsically, inherently and inescapably racist insofar as they continue to be premised on Charles Darwin's original presupposition that African people originated and descended from non-human African ape ancestors, and that all human racial groups thereafter originated by 'natural selection' from African people like those early "ape-like progenitors" of African Eve's tribe.

 

[ChrisPelletier]

If one wants to delve into the details of the human fossil record in any depth, one has to read Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" ...

Please everyone referr yourself back to my post 55. Again, Lubenow = No scientific backing.

 

[Jan87676]

Who wears short shorts?

 

[Loudmouth]

If one wants to delve into the details of the human fossil record in any depth, one has to read Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" where 371 human fossil specimens are presented and scientifically related to in "depth about how the different species are organised and what their properties are."

Why should I read a book on fossils by a non-paleontologist?

In the meantime, all neo-Darwinist 'theories' of human evolution out of Africa based on genetics and the human fossil record remain intrinsically, inherently and inescapably racist insofar as they continue to be premised on Charles Darwin's original presupposition that African people originated and descended from non-human African ape ancestors, and that all human racial groups thereafter originated by 'natural selection' from African people like those early "ape-like progenitors" of African Eve's tribe.

You are wrong. Neo-Darwinism says that all of us, including current Africans, share common ancestory with a single tribe in Africa. Current Africans are no closer to that common ancestor than any other group of people. That's what neo-Darwinism says.