Bones of Contention.

[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.

[jcrawford]

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

I see that you are quoting from the outdated 1992 edition.

The Ice age, he goes on about that. I guess he doesn’t know that we have had more then one.

In the 2004 edition, Lubenow shows how only one Ice Age was physically possible in the past due to the prerequisite climatological and oceanic conditions necessary to bring on an Ice Age.

I am taking the book back tomorrow.

Ask them to order the 2004 edition.

[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.

Is it not just as 'racist' to assume a Man-Centered view of Nature?

The neo-Darwinist view of nature is a man-centered natural view and anthropocentric philosophy of nature. It's unfortunate that such neo-Darwinist theories about human nature and its non-human origin in Africa are a scientific form of racism though, and are still being taught in U.S. public schools.

[jcrawford]

The only time the American public has been "shown" some real human fossils was in 1984 when the American Museum of Natural History in NYC flew in 40 original specimens from various parts of the world. None of them showed any evidence of having evolved from each other.

Turn on your television. Read a newspaper, magazine, scientific journal, visit a school. Also, in what ways did they not show "any evidence of having evolved from each other"?

The fossil dates and taxons are just manipulated to make it appear that the whole human race evolved from African people and apes.

Please support this claim.

Since there are no original human fossils anywhere in America, but only artificially reconstructed plaster casts in some museums, I don't think you are going see the original human fossils on tv, in the movies, a newspaper, magazine, scientific jounal or a school, since some people might demand a decent burial for the skulls of our human ancestors if ever they should appear in public again.

Human fossils don't show any evidence of having evolved or even having descended from each other. The claim that they do is just a neo-Darwinist race theory which evolutionists use to justify their constant arbitrary re-dating and reassignment of the fossils in shifting categories of their presumed racial 'species' of the past human race.

[perfessor]

The neo-Darwinist view of nature is a man-centered natural view and anthropocentric philosophy of nature.

This is really too funny. Have you actually read Genesis?

[Sender]

The only time the American public has been "shown" some real human fossils was in 1984 when the American Museum of Natural History in NYC flew in 40 original specimens from various parts of the world. None of them showed any evidence of having evolved from each other.

Turn on your television. Read a newspaper, magazine, scientific journal, visit a school. Also, in what ways did they not show "any evidence of having evolved from each other"?

The fossil dates and taxons are just manipulated to make it appear that the whole human race evolved from African people and apes.

Please support this claim.

Since there are no original human fossils anywhere in America, but only artificially reconstructed plaster casts in some museums, I don't think you are going see the original human fossils on tv, in the movies, a newspaper, magazine, scientific jounal or a school, since some people might demand a decent burial for the skulls of our human ancestors if ever they should appear in public again.

Human fossils don't show any evidence of having evolved or even having descended from each other. The claim that they do is just a neo-Darwinist race theory which evolutionists use to justify their constant arbitrary re-dating and reassignment of the fossils in shifting categories of their presumed racial 'species' of the past human race.

There is going to be an announcement on November 5 2005 regarding radiometric dating. Supposedly it will blow holes in that type of dating. If you like I can paste a preview if you are not already familiar with it.

[jcrawford]

J wrote:

You only use that ad hominem label as a desparate counter charge to my referencing Lubenow's charges of scientific racism in all neo-Darwinist theories of the entire human race's origins from African ape ancestors. I'm surprised you don't classify me as a particular 'species' of troll.

I thought he was being funny but Then I noticed you fit the description.
Weird don't you think?

So what description fits best? A Homo sapiens troll, a Neanderthal troll or maybe just an archaic European Homo sapiens troll or an early Asian or African Homo sapiens troll? Surely you wouldn't classify me as a Homo erectus or Australopithicine troll.

crawford said: "That's what I am prepared to do, since I have Lubenow's listing and scientific documentation of 371 fossil specimens of the past human race on hand and can easily refer to them without transcribing the contents of the book."

Sounds like fun. When you going to start?

That's up to you. Which human skull or other fossilized specimen would you care to introduce as preliminary evidence in support of neo-Darwinist race theories about human evolution from common ancestors of non-human African apes in Africa? If you don't have your own list of human fossils, maybe you could reference some of those graciously provided in either the 1992 or 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow.

[jcrawford]

The neo-Darwinist view of nature is a man-centered natural view and anthropocentric philosophy of nature.

This is really too funny. Have you actually read Genesis?

What has Genesis got to do with neo-Darwinist race theories? Have you actually read Darwin?

[jcrawford]

There is going to be an announcement on November 5 2005 regarding radiometric dating. Supposedly it will blow holes in that type of dating. If you like I can paste a preview if you are not already familiar with it.

I received my copy of the latest issue of Acts and Facts from ICR so I am familiar with the announcement, thank you. You might post a link to it for the benefit of others posters if you like, but I think it's a little premature to discuss any of the actual findings until they have been publically released by those scientists doing the research, although Lubenow does make one reference to some recently observed volcanic lava forming igneous rock which was subsequently forwarded for dating tests which discovered the rocks to be several hundred thousand and even a million years old.

Talk about scientifically blasting holes in evolutionist theories and concepts of time substantiated only by unverifiable theories of nuclear decay over vast periods of imaginary time.

[Sender]

There is going to be an announcement on November 5 2005 regarding radiometric dating. Supposedly it will blow holes in that type of dating. If you like I can paste a preview if you are not already familiar with it.

I received my copy of the latest issue of Acts and Facts from ICR so I am familiar with the announcement, thank you. You might post a link to it for the benefit of others posters if you like, but I think it's a little premature to discuss any of the actual findings until they have been publically released by those scientists doing the research, although Lubenow does make one reference to some recently observed volcanic lava forming igneous rock which was subsequently forwarded for dating tests which discovered the rocks to be several hundred thousand and even a million years old.

Talk about scientifically blasting holes in evolutionist theories and concepts of time substantiated only by unverifiable theories of nuclear decay over vast periods of imaginary time.

Thanks for the advice. I was hesitant to even offer. I would have emailed it to you. But you already have it, so all is good.

[Nyril]

There is going to be an announcement on November 5 2005 regarding radiometric dating. Supposedly it will blow holes in that type of dating. If you like I can paste a preview if you are not already familiar with it.

I'd like all the information you can provide on it if you could be so kind. However, since jcrawford said it was from the ICR I am somewhat of the opinion I can guess what it is going to be.

#1. We still hate radioactive decay!
#2. We're going to admit that radioactive decay exists, but god aged your samples so the Earth is still young.