Bones of Contention.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:24 pm

Creationist professor Marvin Lubenow contends in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" that all neo-Darwinist theories about the origins and evolution of the human race are a scientific form of racism. Being somewhat familiar with the several claims, arguments and ramifications of his thesis, I am prepared to defend his claim that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are theoretically racist should anyone care to debate and substantiate their claim to the contrary.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:20 am

jcrawford wrote:You must understand Jose, that genetics is only a science and like all 'sciences,' if left unchecked to itself, with no public monitoring and criticism, it may become capable of saying and doing anything.

Science can only "say" what the data show. In the case of human history, the data show that all humans are related, and that we are genetically related to other living things. Our closest relative is the chimp. The genetic data also imply what the archeological and paleontological data reveal: that humans first appeared in Africa. The genetic, paleontological, and phylogenetic data tell us that there is this process that we call evolution, which accounts for not only what we see now among living things, but also what we see among fossils of various ages.

Science does not say or do "anything." If it did, it would be capable of saying that humans were specially created only 6000 years ago. But, it doesn't say that. Nor does it say what your friend Lubenow claims it does. To say these other things, it is necessary to ignore and/or misinterpret and/or misrepresent the data.

It is, to some extent, unfortunate that science doesn't happen to support biblical creation. That it doesn't seems to have led to this ludicrous fight over the teaching of evolution or creationism in the schools. It has led to the construction of ludicrous anti-evolution rhetoric like Lubenow's. This fight distracts us from the real problems that beg for solutions. But those problems are just scientific findings. If we can pretend that evolution is a fake, we seem to be able to pretend that the real problems are also fakes. This does not portend a pleasant future.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:28 pm

Jcrawford IS a troll...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

While reading various reviews of Bones of Contention
I stumbled upon a post in another forum ( http://www.evcforum.net )
The "debate" follows the exact same nonsense.
In all of them he refuses to present data. He merely asserts that He and
Lubenow have it and if you bought the book you would too. He should be
able to make his argument without having to transcribe the contents of the
book.

http://www.evcforum.net

Other forums that jcrawford has posted in...

http://www.libertynewsforum.com/liberty ... rd=science

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimat ... um/66.html

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:47 pm

Very interesting!
You may have a good point.
I think J is just pissed because he came from Africa like the rest of us.
I didn't buy the book and I wouldn't but the library did and I am reading it. What a bunch of crap.
I will be back with my review as soon as I finish. there maybe something interesting on tv tonight.
But the other reviews are right he doesn't understand evolution or Christianity or the Bible. He may also lack social skills.
Maybe J has some stock options or kick backs coming from the book.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:57 pm

J wrote in one of the links:

Since most of us can trace our geographic ancestry back through our parents origins and lineage, and some of us through additional historical documents, is it not a form of scientific racism for evolutionists to then tell us that our human ancestors were all biologically descended from some common ancestor of non-human primates?

What right do evolutionists have to teach a racial theory in public schools which includes everyone in their particular family tree?

I told you he was racist. He doesn't like being told he is from Africa.
You see he knows his Family tree at least to his parents I assume.
I also noticed every one gets tired of his crap.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:08 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:We didn't mutate from Africans they are our ancesters and relatives.

Since genetic mutation and natural selection are the basis of neo-Darwinist theories of evolution, I'm pleased you agree that we didn't "mutate" from ether African people or African apes, even though neo-Darwinist race theorists have 'naturally selected' African people and apes as the original progenitors of the whole human race.

I am not getting the the two adam and eve's mixed up. One is a Myth. The other is Just names given to the to the genetic trail named after the Bible stories.

So which one is the myth? Or are both Eve's a myth? Who's African Adam, btw, and where or what did he come from?

I is not religious dispite you silly claims.

Without scientific evidence to back up your claims, they may very well be religious.

As I read BoC I noticed he uses what he calls
begging the question. (That is acording to ML) having a bias and looking for something and finding it.

Which edition are you reading, 1992 or 2004?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:16 pm

But our genes do mutate.
J wrote:

So which one is the myth? Or are both Eve's a myth? Who's African Adam, btw, and where or what did he come from?

They were named after the first myth.

Without scientific evidence to back up your claims, they may very well be religious.

I think you have been provided all kinds of evidence. your the one lacking evidence and i don't think you all that religious. Just delusional.

Which edition are you reading, 1992 or 2004?

What difference does it make? I doubt he has found anything new since
1992 or the early 1900's.
2001 10th printing. Did he fix the new version?

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:33 pm

micatala wrote:
jcrawford wrote:Where's your 'scientific' evidence in support of such religious bs?
Where's yours? You haven't shown us any credible evidence in 22 pages.

Well, I just wasted an hour replying to your full post and the program asked me to log in again so I lost it. Here's a much shorter version of my reply

In other words, you don't have any scientific evidence to support your false contention.

I have as much "scientific evidence" to support my "false" contention as you do yours.

Really. someone ought to complain to the hosts of this board about deleting replies that take over a half hour or hour to compose since it's very unprofessional and unscientific in this day and age of advanced tech.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:43 pm

Really. someone ought to complain to the hosts of this board about deleting replies that take over a half hour or hour to compose since it's very unprofessional and unscientific in this day and age of advanced tech.

No one deleted the post...you timed out.

You might try composing in a text editor then copy/pasting into the forum.

jcrawford · Post by **jcrawford** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:57 pm

Jose wrote: The genetic data also imply what the archeological and paleontological data reveal: that humans first appeared in Africa. The genetic, paleontological, and phylogenetic data tell us that there is this process that we call evolution, which accounts for not only what we see now among living things, but also what we see among fossils of various ages.

But, Jose. Scientific "data" shouldn't be used in support of racial theories about African apes turning into African people one day in Africa. You don't support scientific theories that say European and Asian people have been more 'scientifically minded" than African folk in history, do you?

Science does not say or do "anything." If it did, it would be capable of saying that humans were specially created only 6000 years ago. But, it doesn't say that.

Some scientists do say that though, Jose, while neo-Darwinist race theorists say that the whole human race descended from African people and their ape-like progenitors.

It is, to some extent, unfortunate that science doesn't happen to support biblical creation.

Real science does support biblical creationism Jose. That's why Lubenow's book is so fantastic. It falsifies modern neo-Darwinist racial concepts of human evolution by simply demonstrating the racial variety within the whole historic human race.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:19 am

Ok read as much of the book as I am going to.
Lubenow says that all the studies of evolution are flawed.

"The flaw is known in logic as begging the question. In begging the question, you assume to be true the very thing you are trying to prove."
P.19

He believes in the inerrancy of the bible.
He knows the only possible reasons some don't belive.

"The Bible claims to be the Word of God in an ultimate sense. These claims are offensive to some. They either are not interested in ultimate truth, do not like the biblical teaching of ultimate truth, or do not believe that it is possible to know ultimate truth”

He has trouble saying what he means I think.
How does one determine not? What does that mean?

“We could ask the questions, How does one know that there is no ultimate truth? How does one determine that Christ’s words are not ultimate truth? What criteria does one use to evaluate his words? The Christian has such a criteria. He believes that Jesus Christ by his resurrection from the dead validated all his claims. Anyone who has power over death commands ultimate power and traffics in ultimate truth. “. P.34

I did not make this up. This is just what he wrote. I copied it just as it is in the book, word for word.
It almost made my grammar and spell checker crash.
In one place he quotes some one and she is talking about continuum as in a scale. He thinks she is talking about unchanging. P.145-146
At one time after going on and on about how similar the fossils are then uses extreme differences to make his own point. It is ok to use the bad data, if it shows that the bible is Gods Word. I guess.
Oh, you can’t be Christian and believe the word of God if you believe in evolution. It is one or the other.
He has a problem with these different species being around at the same time, which evolutionists already have pointed out. They are not necessarily our ancestors, we may just have a common descent or related. There is no reason why they couldn’t live side by side. What he forgets is there have been mass extinctions. They think 70,000 years ago we almost got wiped out. There were just a few of humans left. It took its toll. Some think it was Yellowstone going off.
The Ice age, he goes on about that. I guess he doesn’t know that we have had more then one.
My favorite was when he takes some Christian myth and says that it is evolution making the claim.
The son of Noah or I should say grandson. Some story about one being cursed with being servants, and they we the black people of course. It was a favorite in the South during and after slavery.
The only time I have ever heard that story is in Christian circles. Christian supremacy groups like the Aryan Nation, KKK, and some hicks.
He went on and on about how wrong it was and it was evolutionary thought.
I thought maybe he was racist.
Oh, one more he even used “don’t toss the bay out with the bath water”. I sh-t you not.
I am taking the book back tomorrow.