Reading List

Who was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man
by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (NavPress 2005)

Before you read it you should be familiar with the Progressive Creationism model of origins
(otherwise known as 'old earth creationism').

See: http://www.reasons.org/ for a web site promoting the model.

The book is not quite enough for the scientific crowd and too much for the general crowd
(but just right for someone like me who has been out of mix for a while).

Fazale discusses fossil finds relating to man.
He goes over the genetics of man and how it relates to our 'closest' relatives.

And he even gets into the DNA of man, with a brief discussion of the 'mutated' GLO pseudogene (vitamin C).

Rob

 

Petrel

That is quite a reading list. Hats off.


Deacon

I would be curious how that particular book deals with the subjects you mentioned.

And I, personally, like stuff that is not quite up to the level of having to be a scientist to grasp it but well above the general public level.

 

"Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow. BakerBooks, 2004 edition.

Any neo-Darwinist theorist of human evolution who hasn't read Lubenow's assessment of the human fossil record doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

"Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow. BakerBooks, 2004 edition.

Any neo-Darwinist theorist of human evolution who hasn't read Lubenow's assessment of the human fossil record doesn't know what they are talking about. </font>[/QUOTE]Thus far, you inability to detail a single good argument from him with references in your posts leads to the inevitable conclusion that this book appears to be totally worthless. When you add in the time or two that you have made specific arguments from the book and how easy they were to find gaping errors, this book does not seem to offer much in the way of scholarship.

Maybe it would make a good paperweight.

 

"Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow. BakerBooks, 2004 edition.

Any neo-Darwinist theorist of human evolution who hasn't read Lubenow's assessment of the human fossil record doesn't know what they are talking about. </font>[/QUOTE]Thus far, you inability to detail a single good argument from him with references in your posts leads to the inevitable conclusion that this book appears to be totally worthless. When you add in the time or two that you have made specific arguments from the book and how easy they were to find gaping errors, this book does not seem to offer much in the way of scholarship.</font>[/QUOTE]In order to scholarly evaluate and criticize scholarship, one must first read the published works of the scholar. This preliminary scholarly requirement, you have obviously scholastically failed at.

Like any fossilized human skull would make a good paperweight. Have you seen any good specimens in public museums lately, other than those plaster casts of the reconstructed ones? Of course not.

 

"In order to scholarly evaluate and criticize scholarship, one must first read the published works of the scholar. This preliminary scholarly requirement, you have obviously scholastically failed at."

I have no evidence to suggest that we are in fact dealing with a scholarly work. Furthermore, most reviews of the work that I have seen point out that the level of scholarship is as low as what I have come to believe based on your tireless promotion of the work and the few points you have tried to raise from the book.

 

Of course not. You haven't even read the book, let alone be in possession of it.

You are just basing this conclusion on your preducially assumed premise that the reviews of Lubenow's scholarly work are themselves scholastic in some way, shape or form.

How do you know that all neo-Darwinist racial beliefs about primitive evolution in Africa are not some modern scientific form of religious beliefs?

After all, believing in 'science' and the 'scientific method' is a form of religious belief, is it not?

Prove otherwise.

 

Which edition (1992 or 2004) are you paraphrasing from, so that we may accurately verify the context in the pages you are referring to.

For instance: how do Lubenow's claims that "Y couldn't have descended from X because X still existed after Y originated," contradict modern neo-Darwinist racial arguments that Homo erectus people in Asia and Europe were wiped out by advancing hordes of African Homo sapiens?

It is incumbent on modern neo-Darwinist theory of human evolution out of Africa to eliminate, if necessary, by genocide, the entire human erectus race on earth, to make way for the evolutionist advancement of superior human beings out of Africa whose ancestors we are told by neo-Darwinists, evolved out of sub-human African ape and monkey ancestors.

 

Thanks for suggesting the addition of tofu in my next batch of delicious Darwin soup. After all, protein is one of the basic building blocks of sound mental health.