Jump to content


Photo

Neanderthals And Racial Origins


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
49 replies to this topic

#21 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 14 December 2005 - 07:12 PM

Are you suggesting that Neanderthals began to look like homo Heidelbergensis as time passed on?


Yes, due to their decreased life spans.

You are aware that the mainstream belief is that Neanderthals were descendents of Heidelbergensis right?[/


Right. Neanderthal theory puts it the other way around.

Neanderthal Man: 4-5 BC.
Erect Man: 3-4 BC.
Heidelberg Man: 2-3 BC.
Modern Man: 2 BC to present.

It is believed by some anthropologists that Homo antecessor (an ancestor of Heidelbergensis) was the last common ancestor shared by Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.


We don't belive that.

So I believe the prevailing view is that the Antecessor split off into the Heidelbergensis and Archaic Homo Sapiens.  Heidelbergensis became Neanderthalensis while archaic Homo sapiens became Homo sapiens sapiens.


Yes, I think that is one of the prevailing veiws. Our view is obviously a minority view.

#22 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 14 December 2005 - 07:26 PM

Let me get this right...you're telling us you're a neanderthal?

View Post

I'm classifying myself and others like me as Neanderthal descendents rather than Homo sapiens, since I am Caucasian and not of African origins or descent, as neo-Darwinists claim Homo sapiens are.

Neo-Darwinists associate Homo sapiens with African monkey and ape ancestors. I associate myself and others like me with the Neanderthal descendents of Noah in order to be included in Christ's own ancestral genealogy.

#23 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 14 December 2005 - 07:52 PM

Logically impossible - you and I are both white (assumption) such a discussion is to debate how we got to where we are, the fact that we are the same race (either via Noah or ‘out of Africa’) precludes racism as a factor. 


The Out of Africa Model wherein H. sapiens replaces all indigenous populations throughout Eurasia is genocidal, according the Multiregional Continuity Theory.

There is no evidence (Biblical notwithstanding) to support your position, the time line is quite clear about the emergence of Neanderthal and Homo-Sapiens.


You're only looking at it from a neo-Darinist POV. We say there is no evidence for their time-line.

For the position you have taken I would expect to se a different order in the fossil record.


That can be arranged.

Correct, they evolved in isolation in Europe, descended from Homo heidelbergensis, which came from Africa.


According to the Neanderthal POV, Heidelberg Man is intermediate in 10 generations of Noah's descendents.

Is this a scientific theory’ you have read? because to me it seems as if it’s a Biblical interpretation. 


It's a Bible-based interpretation of the human fossil record.

For your position to be accepted by mainstream science (it is the YEC claim, i.e. that evidence exists proving the Bible correct) you will need some evidence, the Bible may be your starting point but it won’t convince anyone in scientific circles.


At this point, we are only sharing our theory with creation scientists, Christians, theists, other creationists, and Neanderthal lovers as an alternative view of paleoanthropology which offers them an opportunity to be included in both Noah's and Jesus Christ's ancestral family tree going all the way back to Adam and Eve.

#24 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 14 December 2005 - 08:48 PM


Ok I have no problem with what you choose to believe, you have that right enshrined in law, provided you are not claiming it as factual and equal in standing to the current scientific explanation. 


Don't I have the right to believe and claim that it is factual, and equal in standing to current scientific explantions?

Personal belief is not science and that is what position I assumed you were going to argue from.


What is scientific knowledge if not an accumulation of shared personal beliefs?

I suppose you could, actually might be a very good idea.  Just need some consensus and an agreed place to source such information.


I'm using Lubenow's 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" as a source textbook.

I see this as an ‘origins insult’ not a racial one as were obviously the same race.


I see the 'Out of Africa Replacement of Eurasian People Model' as both theoretically racist and genocidal, in terms of our ancestry and "origins."

none, provided the discourse is done with mutual agreement and conducted in a gentlemanly manner, I rather enjoy a good philosophic discussions on such matters.


I try to focus on racist theories and scenarios of human evolution, and don't consider or call anyone on the forum racist.

Neo-Darwinist supremacy theory!  What is that?


Superior theories of human origins.

I can only state that my opinion and subsequent explanations are not intended as personal in any way, but as you initiated the discussion I would have to presume you are willing to discuss such matters and aware of current scientific opinions.

View Post


Yes. I read a lot about current theories of human evolution and follow the current debates closely.

#25 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 December 2005 - 01:29 PM

chance> Ok I have no problem with what you choose to believe, you have that right enshrined in law, provided you are not claiming it as factual and equal in standing to the current scientific explanation. 


Don't I have the right to believe and claim that it is factual, and equal in standing to current scientific explantions?


You can claim such, but not have the law, nor science, back you up. E.g. “I believe my dog is a cat, therefore I am exempt for purchasing a dog licence”.
So basically, No.


Personal belief is not science and that is what position I assumed you were going to argue from.

What is scientific knowledge if not an accumulation of shared personal beliefs?


The consensus bit is important, as is the impersonal nature of science in general, i.e. it’s fact driven, personal belief cannot change the results of a fair experiment.


I see this as an ‘origins insult’ not a racial one as were obviously the same race.


I see the 'Out of Africa Replacement of Eurasian People Model' as both theoretically racist and genocidal, in terms of our ancestry and "origins."


Please explain how you come to that conclusion, or how Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" explains such.


none, provided the discourse is done with mutual agreement and conducted in a gentlemanly manner, I rather enjoy a good philosophic discussions on such matters.


I try to focus on racist theories and scenarios of human evolution, and don't consider or call anyone on the forum racist.


Sound like a fair arrangement to me.


Neo-Darwinist supremacy theory!  What is that?


Superior theories of human origins.


Hmmmmm, IMO if humans are created by God specifically to be masters and stewards of the earth, then an opposing argument is put forward stating man is nothing special, and luck has as much to with his evolving as any thing else, how do you interpret that as being superior to being created by God? Mankind is dethroned, not special, not superior, yes?

#26 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 15 December 2005 - 07:13 PM


You can claim such, but not have the law, nor science, back you up. E.g. “I believe my dog is a cat, therefore I am exempt for purchasing a dog licence”.
So basically, No. 


The cat/dog analogy wouldn't apply to a geneticist who disputes neo-Darwinist theory and claims Neanderthal ancestry for himself and others despite vociferous protest by other DNA genealogists, would it?

Nor would the cat/dog analogy apply to a Jew, Christian or Muslim who claimed ancestral descent from Abraham through the genealogical line of Shem and Noah, who because of their longevity are considered to have had a Neanderthal morphology, would it?

The consensus bit is important, as is the impersonal nature of science in general, i.e. it’s fact driven, personal belief cannot change the results of a fair experiment. 


What constitutes a "fair" experiment is a matter of personal opinions forming a consensus, no?

IMO if humans are created by God specifically to be masters and stewards of the earth, then an opposing argument is put forward stating man is nothing special, and luck has as much to with his evolving as any thing else, how do you interpret that as being superior to being created by God? 

View Post


Neo-Darwinism claims to be a superior belief system insofar as it is claimed to be 'science' rather than religion.

#27 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 December 2005 - 08:08 PM

You can claim such, but not have the law, nor science, back you up. E.g. “I believe my dog is a cat, therefore I am exempt for purchasing a dog licence”.
So basically, No. 


The cat/dog analogy wouldn't apply to a geneticist who disputes neo-Darwinist theory and claims Neanderthal ancestry for himself and others despite vociferous protest by other DNA genealogists, would it?

Nor would the cat/dog analogy apply to a Jew, Christian or Muslim who claimed ancestral descent from Abraham through the genealogical line of Shem and Noah, who because of their longevity are considered to have had a Neanderthal morphology, would it?


Depends 100% on the evidence, personal belief will not count in law nor science. If you have persuasive evidence then you get it peer reviewed. If the argument is substantiated, it becomes the status quo. If there is no evidence it remains a claim and the cat/dog analogy is apt.


The consensus bit is important, as is the impersonal nature of science in general, i.e. it’s fact driven, personal belief cannot change the results of a fair experiment. 

What constitutes a "fair" experiment is a matter of personal opinions forming a consensus, no?


Somewhat, but that is oversimplifying it a bit. Like any complex area of investigation or life, we rely on experts to guide us. No area of human endeavour is exempt from error, but generally speaking science is self-correcting and open to criticism, with little hierarchy, to prevent smothering of ideas.


IMO if humans are created by God specifically to be masters and stewards of the earth, then an opposing argument is put forward stating man is nothing special, and luck has as much to with his evolving as any thing else, how do you interpret that as being superior to being created by God? 


Neo-Darwinism claims to be a superior belief system insofar as it is claimed to be 'science' rather than religion.


I see your point. But strictly speaking Neo-Darwinism is science not a belief system it makes no claims about the supernatural.

I feel you are actually discussing the philosophic ‘fallout’ of such sciences that rely upon or predict, evolution, old earth/universe. These are personal ideologies based on ones world view and it is true that science can clash with YEC especially because YEC makes specific scientific claims. If there were no such claims there would be no problem with science.

#28 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 December 2005 - 08:19 PM

Depends 100% on the evidence, personal belief will not count in law nor science. 


Subjective evidence, and that's what 99.999% of evolutionist scientific facts are, all always subject to personal belief.

This is really quite a hoot.... I've noticed over the years, that its generally liberals(I admit there are exceptions to this rule) , who tend water down law in America by promoting a living Constitution, which is essentially no Constitution at all. Many of these same people are also the ones who water down science by promting origins science as the same thing as observational science.

Terry

#29 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 15 December 2005 - 09:51 PM


Depends 100% on the evidence, personal belief will not count in law nor science.  If you have persuasive evidence then you get it peer reviewed.  If the argument is substantiated, it becomes the status quo.  If there is no evidence it remains a claim and the cat/dog analogy is apt. 


Before the matter goes to court then, I'll just argue from a Neanderthal POV for the sake of debate. I mean, we can't even have a discussion/debate if one side eliminates the POV of the other from the debate. You can deny and argue against my POV during the debate, but if we disqualify each other's credentials as being unworthy of entry into discussion and debate at the outset, then the only recourse is to cancel the discussion/debate, which is something I don't believe anyone wants to do.

Like any complex area of investigation or life, we rely on experts to guide us. 


Accepted. You rely on your experts and authorities. I'll lean on mine. That's a given, even though I prefer not to 'quote-mine.'

No area of human endeavour is exempt from error, but generally speaking science is self-correcting and open to criticism, with little hierarchy, to prevent smothering of ideas. 


Yes, that is a popular concept. However, Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" shows that the older scientists tend to hang on to their theories out of habit when confronted with conflicting observations by the next generation in their profession.

I see your point.  But strictly speaking Neo-Darwinism is science not a belief system it makes no claims about the supernatural. 


Beliefs and belief systems can always be classified as natural or supernatural. Depends who is doing the classifying and whether knowledge itself must be believed in, in order to be retained.

I feel you are actually discussing the philosophic ‘fallout’ of such sciences that rely upon or predict, evolution, old earth/universe.  These are personal ideologies based on ones world view and it is true that science can clash with YEC especially because YEC makes specific scientific claims.  If there were no such claims there would be no problem with science.

View Post


I think that the bottom line is the mystery of human nature, potential and consciousness itself, with the confusion of language thrown in for good measure.

The most that I hope to get out of any discussion/debate is an increase in the clarification and expression of my own thoughts and beliefs.

#30 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 December 2005 - 10:24 PM

Before the matter goes to court then, I'll just argue from a Neanderthal POV for the sake of debate. I mean, we can't even have a discussion/debate if one side eliminates the POV of the other from the debate. You can deny and argue against my POV during the debate, but if we disqualify each other's credentials as being unworthy of entry into discussion and debate at the outset, then the only recourse is to cancel the discussion/debate, which is something I don't believe anyone wants to do.


I quite agree, the evidence must sway a scientific argument else it is a philosophic one. What evidence is there re

I'm classifying myself and others like me as Neanderthal descendents rather than Homo sapiens, since I am Caucasian and not of African origins or descent, as neo-Darwinists claim Homo sapiens are.



No area of human endeavour is exempt from error, but generally speaking science is self-correcting and open to criticism, with little hierarchy, to prevent smothering of ideas. 


Yes, that is a popular concept. However, Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" shows that the older scientists tend to hang on to their theories out of habit when confronted with conflicting observations by the next generation in their profession.


I would agree, conservatism is a very ingrained trait. It’s quite often the young guns that rock the boat.


I see your point.  But strictly speaking Neo-Darwinism is science not a belief system it makes no claims about the supernatural. 


Beliefs and belief systems can always be classified as natural or supernatural. Depends who is doing the classifying and whether knowledge itself must be believed in, in order to be retained.


Not sure I follow, e.g. “I believe my car will start in the morning” could be considered a natural belief system, yes?


I think that the bottom line is the mystery of human nature, potential and consciousness itself, with the confusion of language thrown in for good measure.

The most that I hope to get out of any discussion/debate is an increase in the clarification and expression of my own thoughts and beliefs.


Sounds like a good plan.

#31 Guest_wepwawet_*

Guest_wepwawet_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 December 2005 - 08:00 AM

I'm classifying myself and others like me as Neanderthal descendents rather than Homo sapiens, since I am Caucasian and not of African origins or descent, as neo-Darwinists claim Homo sapiens are.

You do realize there is more to the classification of Neanderthal than a claim of descent? Scientists are not in agreement about Neanderthal man...he is either a subspecies of Homo Sapiens Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis or a different species altogether Homo neanderthalensis. Either way there are specific features which allow us to differentiate between us and the neanderthal. Neanderthal man is extinct. It doesn't matter if the neanderthal were absorbed, killed off, pushed to infertile ground and died off or were raptured....they just don't exist anymore.

It's reasonable to assume that the neanderthal were absorbed into the H. sapiens becuase there are still some recessive neanderthal features that crop up from time to time such as the occipital bun. Some theorists suspect the european tendency towards rudism (red hair, freckles, etc...) is possibly a trait inherited from the neanderthal.

Neo-Darwinists associate Homo sapiens with African monkey and ape ancestors. I associate myself and others like me with the Neanderthal descendents of Noah in order to be included in Christ's own ancestral genealogy.

View Post

Okay...it's the old "I don't wanna be a monkey argument". Rest assured, the divergence in the primate family tree between hominoids and true monkeys happened about 30 million years ago...so neanderthal and H. sapiens both have the same monkey skeleton in the family closet. Apes and chimps of course are much more closely related but still diverged about 3.5 million years ago...about 3 million years before the development of neanderthal or H. sapiens.

You see neanderthal man is not so distinctly different as a species that we can't suggest a developmental path. The question about why neanderthal man was supplanted by H. sapiens is an interesting one, but Africa is seen as the origin of all hominoids...your argument doesn't make you any more distant from the monkey tree than anyone else you see.

#32 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 16 December 2005 - 08:20 PM

I quite agree, the evidence must sway a scientific argument else it is a philosophic one. 


A discussion/debate on human origins cannot be limted to "scientific argument" alone when 'science' itself is based on a set of philosophical principles concerning human knowledge.

“I believe my car will start in the morning” could be considered a natural belief system, yes?

View Post


Only to the extent that one may have faith that all natural sytems will be functioning to allow your car to start in the morning. If the battery is weak or it drops to minus ten degrees overnight, it may not start despite your belief.

#33 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 December 2005 - 02:42 PM

I quite agree, the evidence must sway a scientific argument else it is a philosophic one. 


A discussion/debate on human origins cannot be limted to "scientific argument" alone when 'science' itself is based on a set of philosophical principles concerning human knowledge.


That’s what sciences is, that is the frame of reference that YEC claim proves their POV, that is the position we must argue from.


“I believe my car will start in the morning” could be considered a natural belief system, yes?


Only to the extent that one may have faith that all natural sytems will be functioning to allow your car to start in the morning. If the battery is weak or it drops to minus ten degrees overnight, it may not start despite your belief.


This is compatible within a scientific framework i.e. the natural world, (an axiom). I think you will agree that methodical naturalism is not the same thing as belief in God.

So we are still left with having two options, i.e. is your POV based on science as per the status quo definition of what science is, or, is it based on a belief system?

#34 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 18 December 2005 - 08:51 PM

Either way there are specific features which allow us to differentiate between us and the neanderthal.


Yes, but such physical differences in human fossils do not justify neo-Darwinists classifying any human ancestors as a different or extinct species any more than other physical differences between people today would justify neo-Darwinist racism.

Neanderthal man is extinct.


Only as a neo-Darwinst 'species.' If Neanderthal Man wasn't a separate 'species' at all but simply a human being who gradually devolped and metamorphized into Heidleberg Man and then Modern Man due to climate and dietary changes after the Ice age was over, then he is no more extinct than the original Americans or Aborigines are.

It doesn't matter if the neanderthal were absorbed, killed off, pushed to infertile ground and died off or were raptured....they just don't exist anymore.


They don't exist as they looked in the human fossil record which identifies a certain morphology as Neanderthalish but fails to realize and recognize Heidleberg Man as Neanderthal Man after the Ice Age was over.

Rest assured, the divergence in the primate family tree between hominoids and true monkeys happened about 30 million years ago...


Sorry. I don't believe in science fiction stories about hominoids even 30 thousand years ago.

so neanderthal and H. sapiens both have the same monkey skeleton in the family closet.


That depends on who put them in the monkey closet to begin with. Since humans may be classified in their own family taxon, there is no need for creationists to be in the same family tree with neo-Darwinists.

Apes and chimps of course are much more closely related but still diverged about 3.5 million years ago...about 3 million years before the development of neanderthal or H. sapiens.


You really are seeped in neo-Darwinist indoctrination and dogma, aren't you? When you talk about millions of hominid years to creationists, you only get raised eyebrows and knowing looks cast about.

The question about why neanderthal man was supplanted by H. sapiens is an interesting one, but Africa is seen as the origin of all hominoids...your argument doesn't make you any more distant from the monkey tree than anyone else you see.

View Post


Oh, I see. Just spout some neo-Darwinist racial theories about the origins of Asians and Caucasians in Africa and the matter is settled.

#35 Guest_wepwawet_*

Guest_wepwawet_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 December 2005 - 07:49 AM

Yes, but such physical differences in human fossils do not justify neo-Darwinists classifying any human ancestors as a different or extinct species any more than other physical differences between people today would justify neo-Darwinist racism.

The physical difference in human fossils is not all we have to go by, but they are the basis for the original classification. In the words of song: "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't..." you are either a neanderthal or you are not. You are not, they are extinct.

Only as a neo-Darwinst 'species.' If Neanderthal Man wasn't a separate 'species' at all but simply a human being who gradually devolped and metamorphized into Heidleberg Man and then Modern Man due to climate and dietary changes after the Ice age was over, then he is no more extinct than the original Americans or Aborigines are.

The neo-Darwinists certainly don't define species differently than anyone else as far as I know. Do you have any source references that would show that neo-Darwinists use the term differently than others? The definition of species is a group of related organisms capable of interbreding. If you want to contend that H. heidelbergensis is a descendant of neanderthal man then you'll have to come up with some real evidence. So far scientists pretty much agree it's the other way around.

They don't exist as they looked in the human fossil record which identifies a certain morphology as Neanderthalish but fails to realize and recognize Heidleberg Man as Neanderthal Man after the Ice Age was over.

So all those scientists classifying hominid remains made a collective oopsie that you've managed to catch? I'm sure they're all grateful but have you presented any actual evidence to them? I mean sure...they're just a bunch of neo-Darwinists...(what could they possibly know huh?)...but you should be able to show all this evidence that points to the truth.

We know all sorts of things about the development of modern humans from our ancestors. We even have evidence that H. sapiens and neanderthal didn't interbreed much (Currat and Excoffier, 2004 Modern Humans Did Not Admix with Neanderthals during Their Range Expansion into Europe... oh.. by the way, this is a reference to an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in case you've never seen one before) and certainly neanderthal isn't a major player in our past as would be required if we were all directly descended from neanderthal Noah and his crew.

Sorry. I don't believe in science fiction stories about hominoids even 30 thousand years ago.

But you are willing to believe one author who has gathered an immense amount of criticism for sloppy...even dishonest work? Well I guess as long as he believes what you believe he must be right. You could shorten that sentence to: "Sorry I don't believe in science.".

That depends on who put them in the monkey closet to begin with. Since humans may be classified in their own family taxon, there is no need for creationists to be in the same family tree with neo-Darwinists.

You can't be serious.

You really are seeped in neo-Darwinist indoctrination and dogma, aren't you?

It's what happens when you try to actually read and understand the source material.

When you talk about millions of hominid years to creationists, you only get raised eyebrows and knowing looks cast about.

I would classify those as unknowing looks.

Oh, I see. Just spout some neo-Darwinist racial theories about the origins of Asians and Caucasians in Africa and the matter is settled.

View Post

As opposed to what? Spouting creationist racial thoeries(and that's stretching the use of the word theory farther than I like) about origins? I'm very sorry you believe that neo-Darwinists are some sort of cult...there isn't even a neo-Darwinist club; no membership cards, no perqs, no annual conventions filled with every imaginable form of sin and vice. Not even bingo. More evidence and less assertion would be appreciated.

#36 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 19 December 2005 - 08:34 PM

If you want to contend that H. heidelbergensis is a descendant of neanderthal man then you'll have to come up with some real evidence. So far scientists pretty much agree it's the other way around.


Yes, but their neo-Darwinist theories are racist.

#37 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 December 2005 - 01:40 PM

jcrawford Lets just take a step back here and evaluate what you are saying, i.e. that neo-Darwinist theories are racist

The only reason that I have been able to extract from you so far is that these claims are racist because they are different from the explanation you believe in, correct?

Given that reasoning, why can’t I clam the same thing, and claim that theories that propose decent from Noah are also racist, because they are different from what I believe in?

I really do not think you have not thought your argument through. Evolution and Biblical creation are explanations for our origins, nothing more, and especially not racist. To be racist one has to make claims of superiority, coupled with claims that being less than equal is some how less than human, or not worthy of human rights. Being different and explaining those differences is not being racist.

E.g. (a modern interpretation demonstrating that being different is not racist): People of different ‘racial’ heritage need to adopt different strategies when long exposure to the sun is unavoidable - Whites, especially red heads, need to cover up as much as possible and apply SPF 30+ sun block at least every hour. Blacks have a natural defence against the sun and need take similar precautions only if exposure is expected to be longer that 30 min. Sun exposure ages the skin no matter what colour.

These are just factual statements, there is no racists content.

#38 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 20 December 2005 - 05:16 PM


To be racist one has to make claims of superiority, coupled with claims that being less than equal is some how less than human, or not worthy of human rights. 


Neo-Darwinists claim superiority and supremacy for their so-called 'scientific' theory of Homo sapiens origins in and out of Africa and don't regard Semitic genealogical claims of human descent from Noah as worthy of 'scientific' consideration. They racially deny Asian, Caucasian and Middle Eastern claims of descent from Neanderthal or Heidleberg Man in Asia by racially theorizing that Neanderthal and Heidleberg Man became extinct 'species' of humans who were genocidally eradicated and replaced along with all other human 'species' throughout the greater Asian land mass after some genetically superior breed of neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens marched or migrated out of Africa and conquered the known world within the past 100 TY.

Since such theories are not facts in and of themselves until observed and proven to be factual to the satisfaction of all concerned, the theoretical content is implicitly and inherently racist in terms of accounting for the racial origins of all people.

#39 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 December 2005 - 07:02 PM

chance>
To be racist one has to make claims of superiority, coupled with claims that being less than equal is some how less than human, or not worthy of human rights. 


Neo-Darwinists claim superiority and supremacy for their so-called 'scientific' theory of Homo sapiens origins in and out of Africa and don't regard Semitic genealogical claims of human descent from Noah as worthy of 'scientific' consideration.


Darwinian theory considers the evidence available to it, fossils, rocks, DNA and such, show me where evolution theory examines anything religious, it doesn’t. You are confusing what peoples conclude from what they consider the best explanation.

And what do you claim for decent from Noah, do you not considerate to be superior, and likewise dismiss the scientific claims?



They racially deny Asian, Caucasian and Middle Eastern claims of descent from Neanderthal or Heidleberg Man in Asia by racially theorizing that Neanderthal and Heidleberg Man became extinct 'species' of humans who were genocidally eradicated and replaced along with all other human 'species' throughout the greater Asian land mass after some genetically superior breed of neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens marched or migrated out of Africa and conquered the known world within the past 100 TY.


This argument is getting more bizarre by the day, how can you “racially deny” if you just state the scientific facts. You are linking racial feelings to a differences of opinion about origins.


Since such theories are not facts in and of themselves until observed and proven to be factual to the satisfaction of all concerned, the theoretical content is implicitly and inherently racist in terms of accounting for the racial origins of all people.


The current explanations of man’s origin are considered factual enough from a scientific POV, stating such a POV is not a racist act. It’s no more racists that claiming e.g. the Hindu or Australian Aboriginal origins are of equal standing.

#40 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New York City

Posted 21 December 2005 - 06:13 PM


Darwinian theory considers the evidence available to it, fossils, rocks, DNA and such, show me where evolution theory examines anything religious, it doesn’t. 


Exhuming and examining human fossil remains from religious burial sites in Israel is a religious undertaking.

And what do you claim for decent from Noah, do you not considerate to be superior, and likewise dismiss the scientific claims?


Possibly, but that is not taught in public schools.

This argument is getting more bizarre by the day, how can you “racially deny” if you just state the scientific facts.


The Out of Africa Model of human evolution is a racist theory, not a scientific fact.

The current explanations of man’s origin are considered factual enough from a scientific POV, stating such a POV is not a racist act.


Stating that all Asians and Caucasians are descended from modern African people is based on a racial theory of Asian and Caucasian ancestry and origins.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users