Neanderthal Americans

[jcrawford]

Neanderthal Americans are alive and well, and living in New York City. As evidence and proof of this claim, I shall offer myself up as a modern living specimen and representative of millions of white Anglo-Saxon and Caucasian Americans who are racially descended from historic races of European, Near East and Middle Eastern human beings who have recently been dehumanized in natural history by neo-Darwinist race theorists as a different and separate human 'species.'

Since there is really no scientific evidence that most white Anglo-Saxon Americans of Caucasian and Neanderthal ancestry are really Homo sapiens of any sort, and that such a term is nothing more than a neo-Darwinist 'label' which doesn't stick very well and is easily removed once one discovers, realizes and admits one's own Neanderthal or Asian racial origins, the biological label, 'Homo sapiens' may be reserved and applied to only those humans who racially associate and identify themselves with common ancestors and descendents of African monkeys and apes, in the same way, and to the same degree and extent which homosexuals may self-identify and classify themselves, sexually and biologically, for civil rights purposes.

[McCulloch]

Truth and Falsehood are religious concepts.

Wow, I must have been asleep during that philosophy class. Please explain why Truth and Falsehood are religious concepts.

[McCulloch]

I have to wonder why you bring race into it. In the opening post you make reference to "white Anglo-Saxon and Caucasian Americans who are racially descended from historic races of European, Near East and Middle Eastern human beings" and yet you claim that Noah was Neanderthal. If Noah was a Neanderthal, then all of humanity is descended from the Neanderthal and your reference to specific races within humanity is somewhat pointless, isn't it?

[micatala]

In other words, in order to be a neo-Darwinist race theorist, one must first choose to be an atheist.

Yes, you are very religious, as most neo-Darwinist racial theorists of human evolution out of Africa are.

Pardon me, but you seem to be very confused.

This reminds me of the passage in 1984, where the narrator is describing an example of double-think. While giving a major speech, Big Brother goes from talking about being at war against country A and in the middle of the speech, he switches to being at war against country B and at peace with country A. The whole crowd immediately switches their thinking and forgets they have been at war with country A for who knows how long.

Never mind the facts. Just keep parroting the party line, even if the line switches.

[jcrawford]

Since there is no way of going back in time to prove either eventuality, it all boils down to choosing between a world conceived by neo-Darwinist theorists or a world created by God.

A false dichotomy.

It's not a dichotomy at all. It's a choice between two worldviews and philosophies.

First off, one can accept neo-Darwinism as the best explanation we have for the history and diversity of life as we know it, and accept that the world was ultimately created by God.

Not without first creating a false neo-Darwinist synthesis which may border on schizophrenic delusion.

Also, the idea that we would have to go back in time to have an idea of what might have happened in the past is strange to say the least.

Not as strange as some strange neo-Darwinist ideas.

It completely ignores the fact that events that occurred in the past sometimes (certainly not always) leave traces that we can see today. If I walk along the beach and find myself following a set of footprints, I do not need to go back to the time when those footprints were being made to learn something about them and how they were made. I could probably tell, for example, whether the footprints were made by a four or two-footed being, perhaps the approximate size of the being, its rate of travel, etc.

Yes, but you would already know the time that those footprints were made based on the most recent rainfall, high tide or strong winds within the last 30 days.

You would, it seems, negate all such inferences and simply say that all our knowledge of everything that happened in the past that was not directly observed and recorded by humans must be accepted entirely on faith or guesswork.

That would be a reasonable conclusion based on logical observations and highly intelligent inferences.

This is completely illogical, it seems to me.

How can any reasonable conclusions based on logical observations and intelligent inferences be found to be "completely illogical?"

I find most neo-Darwinist theories to be very intelligently designed based on their logical assumptions and premises.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:

jcrawford wrote:
Since there is no way of going back in time to prove either eventuality, it all boils down to choosing between a world conceived by neo-Darwinist theorists or a world created by God.

A false dichotomy.

It's not a dichotomy at all. It's a choice between two worldviews and philosophies.

It is a false dichotomy because it incorrectly asserts that two ideas are inherently contradictory and incompatible, when they in fact are not, and further there is an implied assumption that the two ideas are the only choices. It is only a choice between two world views if you add in a whole lot of straw-man assumptions and misunderstanding about what evolution says.

Not without first creating a false neo-Darwinist synthesis which may border on schizophrenic delusion.

Not as strange as some strange neo-Darwinist ideas.

I find most neo-Darwinist theories to be very intelligently designed based on their logical assumptions and premises.

At first, it seemed that you were happy to consistently argue against neo-Darwinism. Now it seems you want to take over both sides of the argument. Maybe the rest of us should just sit on the sidelines and leave you to argue with yourself?

[jcrawford]

Truth and Falsehood are religious concepts.

Wow, I must have been asleep during that philosophy class. Please explain why Truth and Falsehood are religious concepts.

Since the mental concepts of Truth and Falsehood are ideational in nature and have no molecular or atomic structure which may be observed by physicists, their reality may only be said to reside in the spiritual worlds of metaphysics, philosophy, psychology and religion.

[jcrawford]

If Noah was a Neanderthal, then all of humanity is descended from the Neanderthal and your reference to specific races within humanity is somewhat pointless, isn't it?

Noah's Neanderthal descendents were originally divided into nations and tribes. Due to geographic isolation and changing climatic conditions during and after the Ice Age, the diverse nations and tribes developed various morphological, racial and cultural features which are still in evidence today.

[jcrawford]

In other words, in order to be a neo-Darwinist race theorist, one must first choose to be an atheist.

Yes, you are very religious, as most neo-Darwinist racial theorists of human evolution out of Africa are.

Pardon me, but you seem to be very confused.

This reminds me of the passage in 1984, where the narrator is describing an example of double-think. While giving a major speech, Big Brother goes from talking about being at war against country A and in the middle of the speech, he switches to being at war against country B and at peace with country A. The whole crowd immediately switches their thinking and forgets they have been at war with country A for who knows how long.

Never mind the facts. Just keep parroting the party line, even if the line switches.

I see. You must think that A (atheism) and B (religion) are mutually exclusive and that religious atheism is an oxymoron even though there are several other well-known atheistic religions in the world today besides neo-Darwinism.

[jcrawford]

Not without first creating a false neo-Darwinist synthesis which may border on schizophrenic delusion.

Not as strange as some strange neo-Darwinist ideas.

I find most neo-Darwinist theories to be very intelligently designed based on their logical assumptions and premises.

At first, it seemed that you were happy to consistently argue against neo-Darwinism. Now it seems you want to take over both sides of the argument. Maybe the rest of us should just sit on the sidelines and leave you to argue with yourself?

Since arguing intellectually with oneself about creationism and neo-Darwinism may be seen as an advanced stage of schizophrenia, I should rather choose to post on another forum site should you choose to sit on the sidelines in avoidance of further discussion or debate.

[Cathar1950]

McCulloch get a grip! Every thing he has said has been pointless and racist. I do not believe there is any one that stupid even a Neanderthal with funny vocal cords can do better. Jerry Springer might want him on his show. He has not even said anything sane. I have nothing against nuts or stupid people but John has to be faking it.