Bones of Contention.

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
jcrawford
Guru
Posts: 1525
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 pm

Bones of Contention.

Post #1

Post by jcrawford »

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.

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #121

Post by Jose »

jcrawford wrote:
McCulloch wrote:How many peer reviewed scientific journals has his hypotheses been published in?
Several.
Ah. A true expert. I present here AiG's entire biography of this goofball:
AiG wrote:Biography

Retired from Christian Heritage College in 1995.

Education

Dr Lubenow has a Master of Theology degree (Th.M.) from Dallas Theological Seminary with a major in systematic theology. He also has a Master of Science degree (M.S.) from Eastern Michigan University with a major in anthropology.

Honors/Awards/Associations

Honorary doctorate awarded by Christian Heritage College, San Diego.

Publications

His book, Bones of Contention, is the leading creationist work in fossil study today.
Wow. Just look at that long list of articles in refereed journals. It also turns out that doing a search of the databases doesn't seem to come up with anything for him, either. In short, he wrote this book, got his creationist friends to publish it, and there we are.

What about his knowledge of the facts? Well, here's a sample:
The "late" erectus fossils are a group of over 100 supposed H. erectus fossils occurring after 300,000 years ago. Many are Australian aboriginals, including over 40 from Kow Swamp, none of which are classified as Homo erectus by anyone except Lubenow.
So, our Supreme Expert thinks that Australian H. sapiens are actually H. erectus. Why can't he tell the difference? People who actually study the bones can tell the difference.

I'll also mention a bit from talk.origins that has been quoted before in this thread:
Lubenow continually resorts to the argument that overlaps between species falsify human evolution. Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force.
This is important. Lubenow doesn't understand evolution. He doesn't understand genetics. In short, it's the same thing we see over and over and over. Someone invents some wacko "proof" that evolution must be wrong by basing their arguments on their own misunderstanding. Then, to make his argument seem compelling, Lubenow invents a private definition of racism.

As it turns out, jcrawford, you've explained to us what the entire goal is here:
jcrawford wrote:In considering the nature of "hominid species," the court would also have to decide whether the children of U.S. taxpayers and voters have the civil right not to be called "hominids" in public schools.

...

Any public high school student who thinks that neo-Darwinist theories about human origins and evolution are racist may consider themselves racially oppressed and ill-treated by high school science teachers who teach such "scientific" theories to adolescents in public schools.
In other words, this is yet another attempt to create emotional resistance to the teaching of evolution in the schools. We presume, of course, that Lubenow would replace it with Genesis.
jcrawford wrote:Have you studied the human fossil record or even read Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention?" I have his extensive listings and data of hundreds of human fossil specimens should you care to discuss any of them in your support of neo-Darwinist racial theories about any of them being different and separate 'human species.'
What you need is to get the real data and not Lubenow's erroneous, misleading, pretend descriptions of the data.
jcrawford wrote:If you still don't get the genetic drift of Lubenow's thesis about neo-Darwinist racial theories, try this scientific 'thought' experiment: Consider the difference between 'different' races and species of humankind and let me know why you think that the fossilized remains of our Asian neandertal and African erectus brothers and sisters shouldn't be regarded as full and equal members of the so-called modern 'Homo sapiens' human race.
How about because their anatomy is very, very different--far outside the range of H. sapiens? Tell ya what...here's a bunch of skulls. by your logic, they are all your species, right? If not, why not?
Image

Just to make it easier, here's a better image of some of 'em.
Image
Panza llena, corazon contento

jcrawford
Guru
Posts: 1525
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 pm

Post #122

Post by jcrawford »

quote="Jose"
As it turns out, jcrawford, you've explained to us what the entire goal is here:
jcrawford wrote:In considering the nature of "hominid species," the court would also have to decide whether the children of U.S. taxpayers and voters have the civil right not to be called "hominids" in public schools....

Any public high school student who thinks that neo-Darwinist theories about human origins and evolution are racist may consider themselves racially oppressed and ill-treated by high school science teachers who teach such "scientific" theories to adolescents in public schools.
In other words, this is yet another attempt to create emotional resistance to the teaching of evolution in the schools. We presume, of course, that Lubenow would replace it with Genesis.
Presumptions aside, why would a judge agree that teenagers in U.S. public schools should be classified by the U.S. government as members of a family of African apes in accordance with neo-Darwinist racial theories and teachings about human evolution out of Africa?
Tell ya what...here's a bunch of skulls. by your logic, they are all your species, right? If not, why not?
Image

Just to make it easier, here's a better image of some of 'em.
Image
These 'images' are just copies of some photographs of some artistic plaster reconstruction of some fossilized and fragmented skulls. I hope that this skull gallery is not the level of 'scientific' presentation that our teenagers are being subjected to in public schools today.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #123

Post by micatala »

jcrawford wrote:Presumptions aside, why would a judge agree that teenagers in U.S. public schools should be classified by the U.S. government as members of a family of African apes in accordance with neo-Darwinist racial theories and teachings about human evolution out of Africa?
You have some erroneous ideas here. You are now not only ascribing false motives to evolutionary biologists, but also false statements.

No one is saying that teenagers are apes. All that evolution says is that human beings (teenagers included) are descended from a non-human ancestor that we have in common with other primates, particularly chimpanzees.

Again, I understand you have a committment to try and denigrate the idea that we are descended from non-human species. Others who have looked at the evidence objectively have determined that our best explanation is that the probability that this is the case is overwhelming. There is no conspiracy or ulterior motive, other than to give the best explanation which takes into account all the evidence we have. The judge and jury have already closed this case long ago.
These 'images' are just copies of some photographs of some artistic plaster reconstruction of some fossilized and fragmented skulls. I hope that this skull gallery is not the level of 'scientific' presentation that our teenagers are being subjected to in public schools today.
Again, the only reason you are disparaging these is because of your emotional committment to denigrate evolution. If you go to talkorigins, you can find some honest discussion of the nature of the fossils on which these are based, including which are complete or mostly complete, and which are more fragmentary. With a little work, one might find information on how one gets from the fossil to the reconstruction. If you have any reason to doubt the veracity of the reconstructions, other than you don't want to believe they are reasonable images of what the entire skulls actually looked like, then have at it. Explain how these are done, and then explain why you think they are wrong.

At any rate, this is orders of magnitude better quality scholarship than Lubenow, so I wouldn't throw stones until you can show you could do better.

jcrawford
Guru
Posts: 1525
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 pm

Post #124

Post by jcrawford »

quote="micatala"
No one is saying that teenagers are apes.
Are you kidding? Subscribers to neo-Darwinst racial theories on other websites call everyone apes because neo-Darwinist biologists have decided to classify humans in the Hominidae family of great apes. Get real, will you?
All that evolution says is that human beings (teenagers included) are descended from a non-human ancestor that we have in common with other primates, particularly chimpanzees.
That's what I call sugar-coating the facts. Are you saying that I am not an ape then? If so, you seem to be in complete disagreement with most other adherents to neo-Darwinism.
Again, I understand you have a committment to try and denigrate the idea that we are descended from non-human species.
Just like you have a commitment to denigrate African people by associating the first African people on earth with some species of non-human apes.
Again, the only reason you are disparaging these is because of your emotional committment to denigrate evolution.

What's wrong with disparaging evolution? It's better than disparaging people, isn't it?
If you go to talkorigins, you can find some honest discussion of the nature of the fossils on which these are based, including which are complete or mostly complete, and which are more fragmentary. With a little work, one might find information on how one gets from the fossil to the reconstruction. If you have any reason to doubt the veracity of the reconstructions, other than you don't want to believe they are reasonable images of what the entire skulls actually looked like, then have at it. Explain how these are done, and then explain why you think they are wrong.
Aw, c'mon. Read Lubenow and all that phoniness will be explained to you. You're at an awful disadvantage here, you know, not being fully familiar with the complete human fossil record which Lubenow provides.
At any rate, this is orders of magnitude better quality scholarship than Lubenow, so I wouldn't throw stones until you can show you could do better.
Talkorigins is just a mouthpeice for neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution out of Africa. They wouldn't know good scholarship if they read it.

USIncognito
Apprentice
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:17 am

Post #125

Post by USIncognito »

You know guys, sushi is a lot more tasty than troll bait...

I'm not saying John Crawford disagrees with a single word he says, but I think he realizes a straw man of positions he does actually hold will elicit a more vehement response. I must applaud the rational responses to such irrational rambling though.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #126

Post by micatala »

Quote:
No one is saying that teenagers are apes.

jcrawford:
Are you kidding? Subscribers to neo-Darwinst racial theories on other websites call everyone apes because neo-Darwinist biologists have decided to classify humans in the Hominidae family of great apes. Get real, will you?
Show me a link to a site where someone says flat out "humans are the same as apes". Also, there is no such thing as a "subscriber to neo-Darwinist racial theories" since there are no "neo-Darwinist racial theories" at least if we are talking about scientific theories, which is what you claimed to be talking about when you started this thread. You are just throwing the word "racial" in there in an attempt to slander the theory. If some crackpot racist wants to describe himself as a "neo-Darwinist", this says nothing about the scientific theory.

In addition, as before, you are changing the terms again, misusing words again. Saying a teenager "is an ape" implies to most people that your are saying they are not human. If you now want to use ape in the larger sense as "family of great apes", this is saying something different. You are again playing on words, attempting to produce a slanderous effect.

This is really getting rather silly. If you refuse to give words their usual meaning based on connotation and context, if you refuse to define your terms and say exactly what you mean, and instead insist on twisting words so that statements imply a meaning other than intended by purposefully playing on the inherent ambiguity of language, then you are being intellectually dishonest. I and others have already spent several pages correcting your erroneous statements point by point with respect to racism. I suppose you now want to dodge and weave about the word 'ape'.

If 'ape' means one of the current non-human species of primates, then no, you are not an ape. I never said you were, and neither would any evolutionary biologist. If you would like to claim that 'most adherents to neo-Darwinism' do think you are an ape, then go ahead and try to provide some evidence for this. Include a discussion of who you are counting as an adherent to neo-Darwinism.
Quote:
Again, I understand you have a committment to try and denigrate the idea that we are descended from non-human species.


Just like you have a commitment to denigrate African people by associating the first African people on earth with some species of non-human apes.
This is a slanderous lie. The only things I am denigrating in this whole thread are the poor arguements put forth by you and Lubenow. My motive is to combat falsehood and poor thinking.

If you don't like talkorigins, there was a nice article on Darwinism in a recent issue of the National Geographic. It's very general, but does give an overview of the immense scope of the evidence for evolution. Or, consult the volumes upon volumes of scientific textbooks, journals, expository articles, etc. that can be found in libraries in the areas of biology, geology, paleontology, genetics, etc.

I understand you think Lubenow is a credible source, but if one examines even the entire creationist literature and compares it with the scientific literature related to evolution, the latter wins hands down. The former tends to suffer from, among other things, egregious errors of logic, refuses to consider all the evidence that we have, and only considers facts that can be manipulated to try and cast doubt on evolution.

The slanderous racist charge that you and Lubenow make is not new. One can find the same charge, with much the same logic, in Henry Morris' THe Troubled Waters of Evolution. The only thing that has changed between Morris and Lubenow is that additional artifacts have been found which are consistent with and lend further support to the theory of evolution, including human evolution.

I have read Morris book, as well as Gish's Evolution: The Fossils Say No and several other creationist books. I suppose I could read Lubenow, and in fact, I did try to see if I could get a copy through our library. Not one library in our whole network of dozens of libraries has stocked this book (even in its older edition). My guess is that no library bought it because those that reviewed it concluded it is utter garbage.[/quote]

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #127

Post by Cathar1950 »

Well said micatala! I wanted to say that only not as well.
some dunderhead said over and over again:
Just like you have a commitment to denigrate African people by associating the first African people on earth with some species of non-human apes.
jcrawford that is just about the weirdist thing I have heard in years.
It has nothing to do with denigrating African people. As I see it we are all African people. You don't know what your talking about. Give it up.
If I broke a rule folks I am sorry. But at some point you got to say,
What?

jcrawford
Guru
Posts: 1525
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 pm

Post #128

Post by jcrawford »

quote="micatala"
Show me a link to a site where someone says flat out "humans are the same as apes".
Neo-Darwinist posters on Beliefnet and Christianforums call people apes all the time, and they have reason to, ever since neo-Darwinist race theorists included members of the human race in the Hominidae family of Great Apes.
Also, there is no such thing as a "subscriber to neo-Darwinist racial theories" since there are no "neo-Darwinist racial theories" at least if we are talking about scientific theories, which is what you claimed to be talking about when you started this thread.
All right. I'll respond to your post peicemeal, since the last time I replied to one of your lengthy posts, I got logged out.

Since neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is a science, then any evidence of inherent racism within any part of evolutionist theory may rightly be called a scientific form of racism after it's discovery by Lubenow.
You are just throwing the word "racial" in there in an attempt to slander the theory.
One can't "slander" a theory.

jcrawford
Guru
Posts: 1525
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 pm

Post #129

Post by jcrawford »

Cathar1950 wrote:Well said micatala! I wanted to say that only not as well.
some dunderhead said over and over again:
Just like you have a commitment to denigrate African people by associating the first African people on earth with some species of non-human apes.
jcrawford that is just about the weirdist thing I have heard in years.
It has nothing to do with denigrating African people. As I see it we are all African people. You don't know what your talking about. Give it up.
If I broke a rule folks I am sorry. But at some point you got to say,
What?
My apologies also, since it is only neo-Darwinist theories which denigrate African people, not posters on this forum.

If we "are all Africans," in accordance with the neo-Darwinist African Eve Model, then why can't some African-Americans complain about the inherent racism in all neo-Darwinst racial theories of African people's evolution from non-human ancestors of Great Apes?

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #130

Post by Cathar1950 »

Since neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is a science, then any evidence of inherent racism within any part of evolutionist theory may rightly be called a scientific form of racism after it's discovery by Lubenow.
You have not shown any evidence of inherent racism with in any part of evolutionary theory.
You have shown that Lubenow has not discovered anything.
Your mistake is that you assume that because the human species came out of Africa as well as other hominids that it is racist. You idea itself smacks of racism by thinking anyone that thinks because we come from Africa is belived to be less then human.

Post Reply