Jump to content


Photo

Neanderthals And Racial Origins


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

#41 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 21 December 2005 - 06:53 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.


! What has that got to with the theory of evolution? Your talking about archaeology.


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.


Likewise evolution is not taught at Sunday school or in church.


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.


So you keep stating, where is the racist bit?


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.


That’s origins, there is nothing inherently racist about such remarks, quote some text from your sources so we might have some point to discuss.

You seem to be calling it racist on the basis that it’s different. Like in the example I posted earlier

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.


Do you think there is a racist comment in that text? If so please explain why.

#42 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

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

Posted 22 December 2005 - 07:03 PM


What has that got to with the theory of evolution?  Your talking about archaeology. 


Exhuming human fossils in Israel and labeling some of them Neanderthals is part of evolutionary paleoanthropology.

Likewise evolution is not taught at Sunday school or in church. 


Racial theories of human evolution shouldn't be taught in churches or public schools.

That’s origins, there is nothing inherently racist about such remarks, quote some text from your sources so we might have some point to discuss.


Theories which claim that Asians and Caucasians descended from one woman in Africa are racist.

http://www.onehumanr...qa_articles.asp

#43 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 23 December 2005 - 05:02 PM

I have to admit, and dislike the admition, that I am confused at this point. I came in late. Looked like a good start.
Is this about racism? Origins? It seems the thread was pointed one way and has gone another. Having read through a few Neo-Darwinism sites I can't support the idea that they are racist. In fact I tend to agree with at least one of the argument; African origin. I don't see why this is a problem for Creation. Neo-Darwinism apears to be an extension of Darwin's concept, "revamped" to include recent discoveries; ie. Darwin had no idea of the intricate design of a cell.
As for Neanderthal. The most reasonable answer for me and many YEC is that "he" is Man before Noah. Having lived to around the age of 1000 (969 is the eldest recorded, Methuselah), their bones continued to gain size as we do today. The notable genetic differences would be due to mutation of our (genes, DNA) due to the high comparitive degree of solar radiation after the flood.

#44 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

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

Posted 24 December 2005 - 05:07 PM

  As for Neanderthal. The most reasonable answer for me and many YEC is that "he" is Man before Noah. Having lived to around the age of 1000 (969 is the eldest recorded, Methuselah), their bones continued to gain size as we do today. The notable genetic differences would be due to mutation of our (genes, DNA) due to the high comparitive degree of solar radiation after the flood.

View Post


If pre-flood Man was Neanderthalish in morphology and Neanderthal Noah was 600 when the flood ocurred (950 at death), it is safe to assume that upon dying at 600 Shem also had Neanderthal traits and that these traits only completely disappeared when Man's life span reached 120 years as formerly decreed by God.

http://www.skepticsa.../lifespans.html

#45 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 25 December 2005 - 01:02 PM

If pre-flood Man was Neanderthalish in morphology and Neanderthal Noah was 600 when the flood ocurred (950 at death), it is safe to assume that upon dying at 600 Shem also had Neanderthal traits and that these traits only completely disappeared when Man's life span reached 120 years as formerly decreed by God.

http://www.skepticsa.../lifespans.html

View Post


I agree and did not intend to remove Noah from the Neanderthal lineage. I was merely using Noah as a point of reference in time. According to orthodonical and osteological studies, we (humans) would have the same features as Neaderthal given 1000 year life-span.

I do not understand the implication of racism you implied with neo-darwinism and by extension darwinism as first stated.

#46 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

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

Posted 26 December 2005 - 08:06 PM

I agree and did not intend to remove Noah from the Neanderthal lineage. I was merely using Noah as a point of reference in time. According to orthodonical and osteological studies, we (humans) would have the same features as Neaderthal given 1000 year life-span.

  I do not understand the implication of racism you implied with neo-darwinism and by extension darwinism as first stated.

View Post


I base my arguments on the writings of Jack Cuozzo and Marvin Lubenow and call the current Out of Africa Model of extinction and replacement of all indigenous Asians and Caucasians by invading African colonialists a neo-Darwinist racial theory which if taught in public schools and museums is a form of scientific racism similar to what was taught in Germany in the 1930's.

http://www.csustan.e...wintoHitler.htm

#47 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 02 January 2006 - 05:23 AM

I base my arguments on the writings of Jack Cuozzo and Marvin Lubenow and call the current Out of Africa Model of extinction and replacement of all indigenous Asians and Caucasians by invading African colonialists a neo-Darwinist racial theory which if taught in public schools and museums is a form of scientific racism similar to what was taught in Germany in the 1930's.

http://www.csustan.e...wintoHitler.htm

View Post


I cheated, did not read the book, only the available critiques and rebutals.
It seems as though neo-Darwinism is an attempt to raise certain people above (in a ToE sense) other people. This then does separate it from ToE. regardless of Darwin being correct or not, I believe the majority of ToEists do not claim superiority over other people through ToE. By piling all evolutionists into such a basket is unfair.
There are many morality issues raised by ToE. I do not believe racism is one. ToE (as I understand it) would argue for equality of the "races" because different "evolutions" of a given specie are not able to procreate together. Therefore all humans are, in terms of evolution, on the same level and equal in developement.

#48 jcrawford

jcrawford

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 January 2006 - 07:19 PM

  There are many morality issues raised by ToE. I do not believe racism is one. ToE (as I understand it) would argue for equality of the "races" because different "evolutions" of a given specie are not able to procreate together. Therefore all humans are, in terms of evolution, on the same level and equal in developement.

View Post

Yes, that's the politically correct "racial equality' rhetoric neo-Darwinists use to cover up the details of their theories of human evolution out of Africa. If you examine the step-by-scenarios of the theoretical models they propose though, you will see the racial implications at every point. For instance, the so-called racial equality they proclaim is spuriously based on their Out of Africa Replacement Theory that all racial groups within H. sapiens today are descended from one racial group of H. sapiens in Africa and that all former racial groups throughout the world became extinct after being replaced by this super race within H. sapiens which 'migrated' or marched out of Africa to racially conquer the world.

The effect of this theory is that all Asian and Caucasian ancestors prior to this invasion of an African super race of H. sapiens, are eradicated from history and modern Asian and Caucasians are racially forced to have African ancestral origins imposed on them by of all things, "science."

At the other end of the human evolution spectrum presented by neo-Darwinist race theorists, it is only so-called "primitive" African people who actually 'evolve' from monkey and ape ancestors into the first so-called human 'species' on earth. Such depictions of African people are racist.

#49 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 05 January 2006 - 02:39 AM

Yes, that's the politically correct "racial equality' rhetoric neo-Darwinists use to cover up the details of their theories of human evolution out of Africa. If you examine the step-by-scenarios of the theoretical models they propose though, you will see the racial implications at every point. For instance, the so-called racial equality they proclaim is spuriously based on their Out of Africa Replacement Theory that all racial groups within H. sapiens today are descended from one racial group of H. sapiens in Africa and that all former racial groups throughout the world became extinct after being replaced by this super race within H. sapiens which 'migrated' or marched out of Africa to racially conquer the world.

The effect of this theory is that all Asian and Caucasian ancestors prior to this invasion of an African super race of H. sapiens, are eradicated from history and modern Asian and Caucasians are racially forced to have African ancestral origins imposed on them by of all things, "science."

At the other end of the human evolution spectrum presented by neo-Darwinist race theorists, it is only so-called "primitive" African people who actually 'evolve' from monkey and ape ancestors into the first so-called human 'species' on earth. Such depictions of African people are racist.

View Post


Maybe I am reading something into your words. Is there a problem if we are all decended from Africans? That is possible. It seems you have a concern at the idea of being decended from Africans. In view of biblical history it is even likely. Areas of Africa are likely resting places for Noah's Ark. Current population histories tend toward the region as a likely origination point of human expansion. I have read studies with good arguments for human expansion from Africa throughout the world in a timeline, following population growths, which would begin only a few thousand years ago.

#50 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 08 January 2006 - 07:13 PM

What has that got to with the theory of evolution?  Your talking about archaeology. 


Exhuming human fossils in Israel and labeling some of them Neanderthals is part of evolutionary paleoanthropology.


If for no other reason than for the sake of consistency, they have to be labelled something. This is no different from a YEC proponent being versed with labelling of the geological layers of the earth, (e.g. Devonian, Jurassic), else you might as well be writing in French. Even if you disagree with the interpretation we must at leat agree on a naming convention.


Likewise evolution is not taught at Sunday school or in church. 


Racial theories of human evolution shouldn't be taught in churches or public schools.


You have yet to prove your claim that evolution is racial in nature. Claiming such things as Africans are black, homo sapiens originated in Africa, or that Whites are more susceptible to skin cancer are statements of fact, they are not racist comments.


That’s origins, there is nothing inherently racist about such remarks, quote some text from your sources so we might have some point to discuss.


Theories which claim that Asians and Caucasians descended from one woman in Africa are racist.

http://www.onehumanr...qa_articles.asp


What is racist about descending from an African woman, to me that makes us the same race not different.


From the link you provided:

One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that people groups have evolved separately. Thus, different groups are at allegedly different stages of evolution, and so some people groups are more backward than others.  Therefore, the other person may not be as fully human as you.


I feel this is what you may be referring to, yes? In which case I would claim that when people wish to discriminate for personal benefit, any excuse will do: nationality, religion, skin colour, intelligence, wealth, s@x, stature, class, etc are all used at some point in history to ‘justify’ actions.

Also from the link

The truth, though, is that the so-called 'racial characteristics' are only minor variations among the people groups. Scientists have found that if one were to take any two people from anywhere in the world, the basic genetic differences between these two people, even within the same group, would typically be around 0.2 %. Furthermore, the so-called 'racial' characteristics that many people think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.), account for only 6% of this 0.2% variation—which amounts to a mere 0.012 % difference genetically!2 In other words, the so-called 'racial' differences are absolutely trivial.


Indeed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users