Religious Discrimination and Scientific Racism

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:29 am

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly constitutes the nature of religious discrimination and scientific racism, I thought it advisable to start a thread on the matter which might not become too discursive.

I'll open the conversation with the fact that most neo-Darwinist 'scientists' seem to believe, if not assert, that such topics as race, racism, religion and discrimination based on such categories are beyond the purvue of scientific enquiry.

The first question I would pose to supporters of neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution is whether you agree with the above presumptions and propositions. If so, why, and if not, why not?

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:26 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:How many believe or don't believe is not the question or the problem.
They could all be wrong. It is the data and the reasoning that makes the difference. Their blood and genes tell a different story.

What on earth or under heaven are you referring to here, Cathar1950?

Try to be a little more specific on your next post, will'ya?

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:28 am

McCulloch wrote:Jcrawford should spend a bit more time reading evolutionary biologists and less time constructing racist neo-darwinist straw men.

Why? The more I read about "evolutionary biologists' theories of human evolution, the more racist I perceive them to be. You should spend a bit more time reading creationist critiques of neo-Darwinist race theories about human evolution. Then you would be in a position to decide whether you want to be a Christian or a Darwinist.

The evolutionists position is that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa at the same time as other archaic European Homo species were becoming extinct.

That position is just based on a 'politically correct' Anglo-Saxon-African theory and scenerio since there is no 'evidence' that early Asian and archaic European Homo sapiens didn't further evolve into modern Chinese, Japanese, Indian and European people. The only reason neo-Darwinists try to associate modern Asian and European people and their ancestors with African Eve is to link and connect them in the neo-Darwinst racial chain of non-human African ape ancestry.

One possibility is that Homo sapiens may have been partly or completely to blame for this extinction. They have certainly been implicated with other species' extinctions.

Good observation on your part here, McCulloch, since various types of Homo sapiens have been known to sin on occasion in recent human history.

But I am unaware of any evolutionist who holds the position that jcrawford attributes to evolutionists that the archaic Homo species in Europe and Asia before the migration of Homo sapiens from Africa were, in fact, Homo sapiens.

Homo heidlebergensis types of European fossils were first classified as erectus by Anglo-Saxon neo-Darwinists, then as archaic Homo sapiens and finally as racial variants of Homo neanderthalensis.

Your problem is that you remain unfamiliar with Lubenow's theory, not having read his works, and steadfastfully remain true to neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution.

If jcrawford disagrees with the majority of current modern scholarship, at least he should have the decency not to misrepresent their position.

What is the "position" of "the majority of current modern scholarship," if not that all human racial groups descended from one racial group of human beings in Africa which in turn descended from a racial group of African ape ancestors?

Give me a break from neo-Darwinst racial theories of human evolution, will you?

jwu · Post by **jwu** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:38 am

jcrawford wrote: The evolutionists racist "take" on this is that a genetically superior breed, race or tribe of early African Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa about 100tya and outbreeded and replaced all other early Asian and archaic European Homo sapiens who subsequently became extinct and left no descendents themselves. (African Eve theory)

That ancestral scenario is nothing but a racial dream of world conquest by 'scientists,' and belongs in the category of ancient mythology or science fiction.

Except that it doesn't take "genetically superiority" to outcompete in all cases - a numerical advantage can be completely sufficient, or economical advantages. If i recall correctly the latter is currently thought to be the decisive factor. Apparently there was more trade between the sapiens sapiens groups than between the neanderthalensis, which gave the sapiens sapiens an edge in terms of survival. That has little to do with genes, it's a more of a cultural thing.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:15 am

jcrawford wrote:The more I read about "evolutionary biologists' theories of human evolution, the more racist I perceive them to be. You should spend a bit more time reading creationist critiques of neo-Darwinist race theories about human evolution. Then you would be in a position to decide whether you want to be a Christian or a Darwinist.

I am still waiting for someone to provide me with evidence that Lubenow is worth the read. Is Lubenow representative of the creationist position? Please someone cite some independent positive reviews of his work. The picture that I have so far is that Lubenow has apparently spent 35 years researching this stuff. As a result of these efforts, he has published one book, aimed at a popular religious audience. He has not published in any peer reviewed scientific journal and he has not the recognition of his peers. No one cites him as an authority. His theory is ridiculed or ignored by experts in his field. His apostle, jcrawford, pushes Lubenow's theory on various sites and apparently convinces no one. Now, that is just an impression. Someone please prove me wrong.

There are two hypotheses being proposed regarding human origins:

All Homo sapiens originate from Africa. It was there that Homo sapiens evolved from earlier species in the Homo genus. All other species in the genus Homo are now extinct. The appearance of races is due to subsequent geographic isolation and will eventually vanish with increased mobility and intermarriage.

Homo sapiens originated independently in at least three geographic locations, Europe, Asia and Africa. Homo sapiens did not evolve. Our origin apparently involved direct supernatural intervention.

One of these hypotheses is being called scientific and the other one is racist. In the topsy turvy world of at least one creationist, the hypothesis which includes all of humanity as originating from a single common ancestor is called racist and the hypothesis which involves supernatural intervention is called scientific.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:04 pm

The reason that they say mitochondrial eve is a mathematical certainty
is that they compared some 500+ mtDNA sequences and found they
all have a distant common matriarchal lineage.

Think about it...500 people ALL sharing the same mtDNA sequence.

If mtEve did not exist then the odds of 500 people sharing the same mtDNA
sequence would be pretty unlikely.

As to your assertion that each "race" of man evolved separately...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

There's a nice section on how neandertals and modern humans differ.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:17 pm

I don't know how I could be more direct. Every one could belive they came from any place they wanted to. But the genetics and linguistics all point to Africa. The first humans can from there and all humans are related to them. If it makes you feel any better it is not that far from the middle east.
You need to come up with any clear reasonable idea. So far all you have done is call folks that see evolution racist with no justification except a poorly written book and Your personal view of Jesus and the Bible. None of which accounts for different racial attributes or the fact we are all connected.
Do you think they just got off the floating box with Noah and said I guess I will be something else? Try reading another book.

Scrotum · Post by **Scrotum** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:29 pm

I don't know how I could be more direct. Every one could belive they came from any place they wanted to. But the genetics and linguistics all point to Africa. The first humans can from there and all humans are related to them. If it makes you feel any better it is not that far from the middle east.
You need to come up with any clear reasonable idea. So far all you have done is call folks that see evolution racist with no justification except a poorly written book and Your personal view of Jesus and the Bible. None of which accounts for different racial attributes or the fact we are all connected.
Do you think they just got off the floating box with Noah and said I guess I will be something else? Try reading another book.

Thats not really fair. Chimp clearly believes in the bible as the source of everything, hence, Adam and Eve, and Noah's ark (which is the only interesting point here).

We are all decendants from the 8 people coming from the Ark, minus one losing his Penis (Noa). I assume Chimp has scientific evidence for believing this. And he will show us.. Right Chimp?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:22 am

I was speaking to JW.
At least Chimp is open and is not acusing any one of being racist.
I can relate to Christians and Jews and even other faiths. I just can't relate to his ideas or understand them in a rational manner.
Noah lost his penis? I don't remember that. I thought it was just somomy.
Hard to believe I missed that. Not as much as Noah I guess. I bet he did a lot more of his drinking behind locked doors.

Scrotum · Post by **Scrotum** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:31 am

Noah lost his penis? I don't remember that. I thought it was just somomy.
Hard to believe I missed that. Not as much as Noah I guess. I bet he did a lot more of his drinking behind locked doors.

Was it not Noa whom got his penis cut off by one of his sons? I think so. and his son got banished and so forth, (from that w got vampire stories), the caanaites? .... Perhaps it was some other sotry, the Bible has So Sooo many of them

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:45 am

That is possible it was some other ancient story. I would have to look it up. I just don't recall. I have heard other stories. I know one of his sons or grandsons was cursed.
This was to keep Noah from cursing himself because curses went back a generation. Cleaver guy that Noah.