Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phototoxin wrote: IF you have faith in something (weather science or religion)

I think I may have figured out your problem with this. You don't know what faith is. If you think that that believing that a meter will still be a meter each time you measure it is the same as believing a secret invisible friend in the sky is giving you secrets, than you don't know what faith is. It isn't a religion versus science issue as a great number of researchers on the subject are people of faith.

Faith is something you take on trust without the same validation as in science.

In a scientific experiment one can run controls. I might have 'faith' that the science will work but it is validated by the controls.

Faith has no controls, that's why its faith.

Phototoxin wrote:Faith is something you take on trust without the same validation as in science.

In a scientific experiment one can run controls. I might have 'faith' that the science will work but it is validated by the controls.

Faith has no controls, that's why its faith.

This is confusing becuase at first you argue that faith in science and faith in god are essentially the same and now you are arguing that science is actually different in that it is based on observable, measurable phenomena as opposed to, you know, things based on the opposite.

Phototoxin wrote:
Actually eugenics is still in effect today - e.g; 98% of babies/foetuses with downs syndrome are terminated in utero.

That isn't eugenics. Khan aside, eugenics is the systematic, purposeful manipulation of the human genome in order to create a certain sort of being. Simply aborting lots of kids is not eugenics.

If you're a medical researcher, as you've claimed in the past, then you should really familiarize yourself with ideas such as this.

Phototoxin wrote:
In addition that's like saying you have 'faith' in stem cells. I might have the potential to perform magic and heal people with my mind.

Wait, what?

Are you now saying that making any positive choice is tacit to faith? I mean, that's an argument that can be made, but it basically reduces your "Lol, you have Faith!" argument to triviality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:Faith is something you take on trust without the same validation as in science.

In a scientific experiment one can run controls. I might have 'faith' that the science will work but it is validated by the controls.

Faith has no controls, that's why its faith.

This is nonsense. Your first sentence is contradictory, your second is not connected to the nature of faith, and your third is a tautology.

Phototoxin wrote:Don't patronise me.

I don't mean to patronise you, but you need to understand that science doesn't "prove" things, it provides the best model to explain the observed phenomena, and then looks for evidence to challenge that phenomena, either to adjust or overthrow that model.

Evolution is the best model we have, and not only is it the best it's an extremely good one, demonstrating tremendous powers of prediction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:-completely ignoring the past 5 pages in order to keep blood pressure down and inserting opinion on the matter-

I have no problem with the guy teaching creationism side by side with evolution. We went over the creation mythos of several different religions in addition to evolution and I honestly don't see it as a bad thing. If we're going to advocate a fair and balanced view then we should teach both the leading religion's (or multiple religious ideas on the matter) in addition to the secular modern view on the subject and each should be given a neutral tone in explanation that doesn't favor one or the other.

It is good to have all manner of religious teachings in school. But these can be taught in social studies or similar classes.

In science class you teach science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:That is not mutation that is seletive breeding. If I get all the people with pointy noses and breed them, then select the offspring that express pointiest noses (as not all will) and breed them and so on eventually I will have a group that has the Pointy/Pointy set of genes so no matter what, as long as they're bred with another Pointy/Pointy will produce Pointy/Pointy offspring. The children haven't evolved (much) they've just been made into a bloodline.

As I pointed out earlier we've observed speciation. That is to say we took a population of fruitflies, split it into two groups, placed pressures on it to drive natural selection (intense temperature changes iirc). When the two populations were re-introduced to each other they were no longer capable of interbreeding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:I agree with your propaganda statement in the sense that schools really are the main point of influence for this type of issue. Thus, why not give all sides with as much data as possible for each and letting the individual decide which to believe based on the data?

Because there is no scientific data to give them on creationism. Because there's no science in creationism. There's just a list of doubts about evolution, many of which are disingenuous, and the rest based on evolution not knowing the full story just yet.

Science holds facts and reason above democracy.

You do not 'teach the contraversy'. You teach the theory which best fits the available evidence, and which has demonstrated predictive power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:I daresay science is a popularity contest, any attempt to make an idea known to the population is a popularity contest. If science had a breakthrough and the vast majority of the population disregarded it as insane, science will be fighting to sway public opinion. Without public opinion on the scientists side politicians who favor their work will not be elected and the science will die/be forgotten/locked away for awhile, especially if it is a hot topic issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but government funds often need to be acquired before research can begin. No funds = no project. Also, scientists are not infallible and can be corrupted and pushed to skew data one way or another. Heck, look at Global Warming and the divide that says some scientists swear on their life that the world is coming to an end and on the other scientists swear on their life that it isn't. (Not meaning to go off topic, but its an example). So based on that it should be taught as an understanding of a popular theory. There is also the point that this is a debate still going on around the country and to show only one side of the debate would be bias in itself because it doesn't give a counter argument in which it falls under the catagory of propaganda. While I realize from the responses which way Dakka seems to lean I think it should be kept in mind that this is only an issue at all because it is a public debate, if it weren't it wouldn't be news worthy.

You're describing failings of the political system and their effect on science. The solution to that problem isn't to politicise science further by teaching more unscientific junk.

Oh, and for the record 97% of climatologists active in the field believe global warming is real and it is caused by man. The 'scientific contraversy' there is exactly as made up as the contraversy over evolution.

Last I checked we do teach the geocentric model of the solar system, we teach it repeatedly. I learned about the theory in history, earth sciences, physics, chemistry (not sure why, really...) and astronomy.

Yes, but they're not taught in science class. Creationism can be taught, but you teach it in a social studies class. Not in science class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:In science. My school district always put a lot of emphasis on the history and development of science. So we learned about various discarded theories before learning about natural selection, we learned how Newton overturned aristotle, etc.

I think this sort of thing could be really valuable in science class. I think when the emphasis is placed on current theories, there's a tendency for kids to not to understand the procress that produces that knowledge.

Teaching science as an on-going process, where more observations lead to adjustments in theories or their outright replacement by better theories would be wonderful.

In fact, teaching how evolution developed from Darwin's original thoughts to it's modern understanding could be invaluable.

Understanding the scientific process is probably more important than knowing a list of scientific facts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:Actually eugenics is still in effect today - e.g; 98% of babies/foetuses with downs syndrome are terminated in utero.

That is not eugenics, unless the motivation for the termination was the desire to wipe down syndrome from the face of the Earth.

Firstly I call BS as embryonic stem cells have not actually cured anything as of yet. But all this money gets pumped into it.. it's bizzare!

In addition that's like saying you have 'faith' in stem cells. I might have the potential to perform magic and heal people with my mind.

Right, because we haven't done something then no amount of reason and scientific knowledge could ever allow us to make a useful prediction over whether we will be able to achieve it in the future. It's all just a matter of faith.

This is exactly the problem with the drive to get creationism into classrooms. It is built around an attack on science, and the result is that people end up with much reduced appreciation for the quality and effectiveness of scientific thought.

To the point where they believe that science cannot make useful predictions about the future value of scientific research. And that's a big problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:In a scientific experiment one can run controls. I might have 'faith' that the science will work but it is validated by the controls.

I don't think you understand the number of ways in which we can test something. It doesn't have to be by direct observation alone.

For instance, you might say "if evolution is true, and whales evolved from land mammals then we will find a species of mammal that spent an increasing amount of it's life in shallow waters". Well, we found a species of bear in Kazakhstan that's exactly like that.

We can keep making tests like this, and to the extent that they have continuously supported evolution, and at worst required an adjustment to evolution, is the extent to which we are required to accept evolution.

Nothing to do with faith.

Phototoxin wrote:
Actually eugenics is still in effect today - e.g; 98% of babies/foetuses with downs syndrome are terminated in utero.

Actually no it isnt, its a flawed, discredited system which believes that through artificial selection you can produce humans which are both extremely intelligent and physically excellent, intelligence is not genetic.
Through generations of perfect breeding you can supposably create "super" humans, physically I can see a plausible side to it.

The termination of foetuses with down syndrome is not Eugenics, some people do not feel they can care for a disabled child, better they decide then rather then have the kid and dump it.

That isn't eugenics. Khan aside, eugenics is the systematic, purposeful manipulation of the human genome in order to create a certain sort of being. Simply aborting lots of kids is not eugenics.

Removing said kids from the gene-pool isn't eugeinc? I think you clearly don't ealise the depth of the situation. If you elect to kill off people/foetuses with percieved defects then that is eugenic in nature.

But you need to understand that science doesn't "prove" things

Please alert me to where I said science infallibly proves things 100%, always, every time.

For instance, you might say "if evolution is true, and whales evolved from land mammals then we will find a species of mammal that spent an increasing amount of it's life in shallow waters". Well, we found a species of bear in Kazakhstan that's exactly like that.

That supports it doesn't show, and it's a bit of a leap from water-bear to whale.

dogma wrote:

Luco wrote:The amount of data for the relative time span isn't that much...

Sure, radiometric dating is absolutely insignificant.

Some of it, as we figure out which method is inaccurate past a certain point we need to revise.

Albatross wrote:

Luco wrote: So you crowbar secularism at an early age? You're belief is just that, a belief and is no different in that regard to religion (also a belief). Reasons are irrelevant for that a belief is a belief regardless as to how you back it up. You can convince people you're right all day long, but its still belief vs belief and 'pushing' religion on someone really isn't any different than 'pushing' secularism on someone.

Who's talking about pushing secularism? The only thing I'm talking about pushing in the science classroom is science. Creationism ain't it.

That aside, I would be in favour of a completely secular state. I think it's the only sensible way to run public life. Religion should be private, and a matter of entirely personal choice based on a sober assessment of the facts once one reaches adulthood. Children should be as free from religious indoctrination as they are from indoctrination into communism or notions of white supremacy. So in a way, yes, schools should be secular, because they are places of secular, NOT religious, education.

But that's not the same as actively pushing atheism, and the assertion that god does not exist. God should not be mentioned in school at all.

As a whole yes, however for a contested issue in a public forum both should be discussed because its a contested issue. 'The Christians/Jew/whoever believe this is how man came to be' is hardly indoctrination except in hyperbole.

@Coldfire.
The only real thing I disagree with is race, we are constantly changing and evolving with certain races having different physical traits from muscle fibers to health concerns. I am hardly the same as my Gaelic ancestors 3,000 years ago.

Also use that point as a reminder than I'm not anti-evolution.

@Howard
My apologies, I misunderstood your meaning in that regard.

sebster wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Don't patronise me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:-completely ignoring the past 5 pages in order to keep blood pressure down and inserting opinion on the matter-

I have no problem with the guy teaching creationism side by side with evolution. We went over the creation mythos of several different religions in addition to evolution and I honestly don't see it as a bad thing. If we're going to advocate a fair and balanced view then we should teach both the leading religion's (or multiple religious ideas on the matter) in addition to the secular modern view on the subject and each should be given a neutral tone in explanation that doesn't favor one or the other.

It is good to have all manner of religious teachings in school. But these can be taught in social studies or similar classes.

In science class you teach science.

No problems with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebter wrote:

Luco wrote:I daresay science is a popularity contest, any attempt to make an idea known to the population is a popularity contest. If science had a breakthrough and the vast majority of the population disregarded it as insane, science will be fighting to sway public opinion. Without public opinion on the scientists side politicians who favor their work will not be elected and the science will die/be forgotten/locked away for awhile, especially if it is a hot topic issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but government funds often need to be acquired before research can begin. No funds = no project. Also, scientists are not infallible and can be corrupted and pushed to skew data one way or another. Heck, look at Global Warming and the divide that says some scientists swear on their life that the world is coming to an end and on the other scientists swear on their life that it isn't. (Not meaning to go off topic, but its an example). So based on that it should be taught as an understanding of a popular theory. There is also the point that this is a debate still going on around the country and to show only one side of the debate would be bias in itself because it doesn't give a counter argument in which it falls under the catagory of propaganda. While I realize from the responses which way Dakka seems to lean I think it should be kept in mind that this is only an issue at all because it is a public debate, if it weren't it wouldn't be news worthy.

You're describing failings of the political system and their effect on science. The solution to that problem isn't to politicise science further by teaching more unscientific junk.

Oh, and for the record 97% of climatologists active in the field believe global warming is real and it is caused by man. The 'scientific contraversy' there is exactly as made up as the contraversy over evolution.

I saw an entry for a journal from a professor at the university of alaska that said it was bunk. I can attempt to find it again if you'd like. PM of course, no need to get too far off topic.

Phototoxin wrote:Removing said kids from the gene-pool isn't eugeinc? I think you clearly don't ealise the depth of the situation. If you elect to kill off people/foetuses with percieved defects then that is eugenic in nature.

No. Eugenics is deliberately removing people from the genepool for the purpose of having a cleaner genepool.

If a person chose to abort their baby because she (or some group that was making the choice for her) didn't want the "weak" genetics of the down syndrome child to continue in the human race, then it would be genetics.

If she simply doesn't want to raise a down syndrome child, it isn't eugenics. I don't necessarily agree with her choice, but it doesn't mean big, scary words like eugenics automatically apply.

This is a simple matter of words having meanings.

Please alert me to where I said science infallibly proves things 100%, always, every time.

On page 5 of this thread you stated;
"that scientifically speaking it is the best understanding that fits the model and is supported - although not definitively proved - based on the knowledge we have."

You noted that science hasn't proven evolution, which would only be worth noting if you thought science could prove anything. Which it can't, because that isn't what science sets out to do.

That supports it doesn't show, and it's a bit of a leap from water-bear to whale.

You haven't understood. The point is that if you can use a model to make accurate predictions about future observations, you have a powerful model. In this case the theory of evolution said "if evolution is true and whales evolved from a land based mammal, we should be able to find a hybrid species somewhere". When we later found such a hybrid species, this lent more evidence towards evolution.

That there are countless such predictions that were later verified is strong evidence, because predictive power is one of the most important tests of a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:No problems with that.

Cool, then you agree that evolution should be taught in science class and not intelligent design or any other pseudo-scientific religious argument?

I saw an entry for a journal from a professor at the university of alaska that said it was bunk. I can attempt to find it again if you'd like. PM of course, no need to get too far off topic.

Unless he was an active researcher in the field of climatology, it really isn't that remarkable. Plenty of scientists in totally different fields haven't hestitated to come in and speculate wildly about a climatology, a field they have no actual expertise in. Which is always funny to see, because the people who are actually knowledgeable in that field typically go off their nuts. Then some time later one of them will go wandering into someone else's field and make their own grossly ill-informed declarations.

If he actually is working in climatology please do find it an email me. Be interesting to see. Because the debate in that field is fascinating, and quite diverse, but hardly anyone would still claim the whole idea is bunk, these days the most you get among the experts is "it's not yet established that the amount of effect caused by man will lead to material impact" or something like that.

sebster wrote:

Please alert me to where I said science infallibly proves things 100%, always, every time.

On page 5 of this thread you stated;
"that scientifically speaking it is the best understanding that fits the model and is supported - although not definitively proved - based on the knowledge we have."

You noted that science hasn't proven evolution, which would only be worth noting if you thought science could prove anything. Which it can't, because that isn't what science sets out to do.

So you understand 'big scary words' like eugenics but not 'although *not* definitively proved'?

sebster wrote:

That supports it doesn't show, and it's a bit of a leap from water-bear to whale.

You haven't understood. The point is that if you can use a model to make accurate predictions about future observations, you have a powerful model. In this case the theory of evolution said "if evolution is true and whales evolved from a land based mammal, we should be able to find a hybrid species somewhere". When we later found such a hybrid species, this lent more evidence towards evolution.

That there are countless such predictions that were later verified is strong evidence, because predictive power is one of the most important tests of a model.

Ahh yes the old 'you don't/haven't understood' - I get this a lot when arguing with Christians.

That is indeed a powerful model, but similarly the water-bear isn't a hybrid whale-bear. Additionally such a creature could have diverged and evolved separately and giving us an apparent hybrid but actually not be an ancestor. Evolution would take place, we would conclude it, but based on false assumptions. Thankfully with genetics we can link this stuff up more. ( As I'm assuming they did with your water-bear-whale thing?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:No problems with that.

Cool, then you agree that evolution should be taught in science class and not intelligent design or any other pseudo-scientific religious argument?

I saw an entry for a journal from a professor at the university of alaska that said it was bunk. I can attempt to find it again if you'd like. PM of course, no need to get too far off topic.

Unless he was an active researcher in the field of climatology, it really isn't that remarkable. Plenty of scientists in totally different fields haven't hestitated to come in and speculate wildly about a climatology, a field they have no actual expertise in. Which is always funny to see, because the people who are actually knowledgeable in that field typically go off their nuts. Then some time later one of them will go wandering into someone else's field and make their own grossly ill-informed declarations.

If he actually is working in climatology please do find it an email me. Be interesting to see. Because the debate in that field is fascinating, and quite diverse, but hardly anyone would still claim the whole idea is bunk, these days the most you get among the experts is "it's not yet established that the amount of effect caused by man will lead to material impact" or something like that.

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:No problems with that.

Cool, then you agree that evolution should be taught in science class and not intelligent design or any other pseudo-scientific religious argument?

I never intended my point to be that evolution shouldn't be taught, it is the leading theory after all. I just think that while there is a social debate on the subject that creationism should be given a space to make its point. If this is in social studies then so be it.

I will attempt to find it for you.

Phototoxin wrote:
So you understand 'big scary words' like eugenics but not 'although *not* definitively proved'

It isn't his fault that you, apparently, lack the ability to construct intelligent sentences.

Phototoxin wrote:
Unless he was an active researcher in the field of climatology, it really isn't that remarkable.

What is being researched has no bearing on what one might know.

Phototoxin wrote:So you understand 'big scary words' like eugenics but not 'although *not* definitively proved'?

The point is that if you acknowledge that nothing is ever proven with science then you'd understand that your sentence earlier claiming that evolution wasn't proven was not only pointless, it was nonsensical.

Evolution as a scientific theory hasn't reached a standard of evidence that science doesn't and can't attempt to achieve.

What does that mean?

Ahh yes the old 'you don't/haven't understood' - I get this a lot when arguing with Christians.

But you didn't understand the point I was trying to make. What am I supposed to do when explaining something to someone who missed the point, carry on pretending he did for the sake of manners?

That is indeed a powerful model, but similarly the water-bear isn't a hybrid whale-bear. Additionally such a creature could have diverged and evolved separately and giving us an apparent hybrid but actually not be an ancestor. Evolution would take place, we would conclude it, but based on false assumptions. Thankfully with genetics we can link this stuff up more. ( As I'm assuming they did with your water-bear-whale thing?)

There's a limit to the genetic testing you can do with fossils that are millions of years old, but the bone structure did have strong similarities to the ancestors of modern bears, and also to whales.

It's hardly the only instance. Hell Darwin himself had no idea how the traits of the parents are passed down to offspring, his concept merely predicted that there must be some such mechanism. Genetics came along much later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:I never intended my point to be that evolution shouldn't be taught, it is the leading theory after all. I just think that while there is a social debate on the subject that creationism should be given a space to make its point. If this is in social studies then so be it.

I will attempt to find it for you.

Creationism, in the greater sense, should certainly be taught in any class that looks at religion. All the great creation myths should be taught.

The problem comes with intelligent design, which is the pseudo-science they're trying to get shoved into science class. It isn't really a religion, it's just an attempt to get religion (and particularly Christian religion) put into science class by people who really, really don't like what science has to say about the age of the Earth and the origin of the species. Outside of this context, it really has no relevance to anything, it has no religious or moral teachings, it has no greater historical significance.

If you were to teach Christianity in religious studies, you could dedicate a footnote to 'Some Christians believe that the Bible is literally true and that they are capable of scientifically proving it, and overthrowing what they believe to be a materialist dogma is modern scientific. They haven't met with much success to date." And that'd be it.

If the intelligent design people agreed to leave science class alone and just have their ideas taught in social studies, they'd disappear overnight. They'd have no reason exist.

Despite your flamebait it seems that you cannot use a forum properly as you've misquoted me.

It isn't his fault that you, apparently, lack the ability to construct intelligent sentences.

Phototoxin wrote:
Unless he was an active researcher in the field of climatology, it really isn't that remarkable.

Luco wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Luco wrote: So you crowbar secularism at an early age? You're belief is just that, a belief and is no different in that regard to religion (also a belief). Reasons are irrelevant for that a belief is a belief regardless as to how you back it up. You can convince people you're right all day long, but its still belief vs belief and 'pushing' religion on someone really isn't any different than 'pushing' secularism on someone.

Who's talking about pushing secularism? The only thing I'm talking about pushing in the science classroom is science. Creationism ain't it.

That aside, I would be in favour of a completely secular state. I think it's the only sensible way to run public life. Religion should be private, and a matter of entirely personal choice based on a sober assessment of the facts once one reaches adulthood. Children should be as free from religious indoctrination as they are from indoctrination into communism or notions of white supremacy. So in a way, yes, schools should be secular, because they are places of secular, NOT religious, education.

But that's not the same as actively pushing atheism, and the assertion that god does not exist. God should not be mentioned in school at all.

As a whole yes, however for a contested issue in a public forum both should be discussed because its a contested issue.

Cool, let them discuss it in the canteen. It has no place in the classroom.

'The Christians/Jew/whoever believe this is how man came to be' is hardly indoctrination except in hyperbole.

Yes it is when given parity of credibility with evolution in science class. That's what propaganda is - creating an atmosphere of acceptance by means which are not always easily identifiable as propagandist on their own terms. A good propagandist can convince people to indoctrinate themselves. By allowing the scientific parity of creationism, it opens the door for a wider assault on science by those who most certainly (and quite rightly) see science as a threat to religious fundamentalism. Because hey, if we can teach kids that instead of evolving, they may have been created by god, why can't we teach them that the earth may be only 6,000 years old? It's a chilling thought, mostly because if the roles were reversed (and christian fundamentalism is becoming incredibly powerful in the States...), I doubt they would 'teach the controversy'.

@Coldfire.
The only real thing I disagree with is race, we are constantly changing and evolving with certain races having different physical traits from muscle fibers to health concerns.

Alternatively, god might have done it....

If we could please avoid making rude and sndie comments about each other linguistic capability, intelligence, learning etc etc, that'd be good.

There's no need for it.

Ta.

Who? Me? I didn't think I had, but sorry to anyone who thinks I have.








Woah, that felt weird. I think I need to lie down.

This was a reference to earlier proceedings and posts, fret not.

Phototoxin wrote:Despite your flamebait it seems that you cannot use a forum properly as you've misquoted me.

It isn't his fault that you, apparently, lack the ability to construct intelligent sentences.

Phototoxin wrote:
Unless he was an active researcher in the field of climatology, it really isn't that remarkable.

Says the dude that clearly can't use the quote button.

@phototoxin: sometimes, at a time like this, it's useful to redraft your argument.

Basically, take a moment, think about what you're trying to say, and than restate what your point is.

It's good practice, because it does two things: it keeps your responses and posts on message, and it forces you to check to make sure you're still correct.

Albatross wrote:

luco wrote:'The Christians/Jew/whoever believe this is how man came to be' is hardly indoctrination except in hyperbole.

Yes it is when given parity of credibility with evolution in science class. That's what propaganda is - creating an atmosphere of acceptance by means which are not always easily identifiable as propagandist on their own terms. A good propagandist can convince people to indoctrinate themselves. By allowing the scientific parity of creationism, it opens the door for a wider assault on science by those who most certainly (and quite rightly) see science as a threat to religious fundamentalism. Because hey, if we can teach kids that instead of evolving, they may have been created by god, why can't we teach them that the earth may be only 6,000 years old? It's a chilling thought, mostly because if the roles were reversed (and christian fundamentalism is becoming incredibly powerful in the States...), I doubt they would 'teach the controversy'.

@Coldfire.
The only real thing I disagree with is race, we are constantly changing and evolving with certain races having different physical traits from muscle fibers to health concerns.

Alternatively, god might have done it....

lol, yes. I'm getting tired though I'm glad you seem to have found that bit amusing. Though if it makes you feel any better I'd still teach the controversy if it were reversed. Then again I'm not a teacher so I guess that's a moot point. I don't have issues with saying it may be 6000 years old according to Christians if taking the genesis account literally, though it would go hand in hand with the creation and not its own little bit. Seeing as some flames seem to be sparking I would like to thank you for the interesting conversation as well as everyone else who has responded to my posts.

@phototoxin
No real luck with the global warming is bunk part as of yet, I think the one I was thinking of was more of the 'it isn't humanities fault' as opposed to the 'it isn't happening' that I had remembered it being. However, if I do come across it I will certainly send you a link. Cheers.

@sebster:
Honestly, if its taught somewhere i'm more or less happy. Then again I'm also sleeping after this, so I'm going to nod and agree. (Didn't want you to feel ignored or anything)

[ohlookthequotebuttonisfubared=Polonius]@phototoxin: sometimes, at a time like this, it's useful to redraft your argument.

Basically, take a moment, think about what you're trying to say, and than restate what your point is.

It's good practice, because it does two things: it keeps your responses and posts on message, and it forces you to check to make sure you're still correct.

[/ohlookthequotebuttonisfubared]

No point as I cannot construct sentences, understand or use the quote button.

Luco wrote:
@Coldfire.
The only real thing I disagree with is race, we are constantly changing and evolving with certain races having different physical traits from muscle fibers to health concerns. I am hardly the same as my Gaelic ancestors 3,000 years ago.

That wasnt my point, the human race is constantly changing, Native Africans have developed dark skin to protect them from the harsh sun, Asians from my understanding developed their eyes to protect them from sandstorms which used to plague Asia etc, etc.

My point is that evolution explains why we can breed with one another, we all originate from a common species and our genetic structures arent so different as to restrict white people to white people or black people to black people. The idea of an "inferior race" or "pure blood" is bunk as really and trully the human race is one and we can all trace our linage back to our orginal ancestors in Africa.

The idea that god made black people then he made white people is horrid in my opinion, it makes it out like they are different factions with no explanation as to why we are so similar.

Anyway my statement was against bigoted ideals, sorry if I wasnt clear on that

ColdFire wrote:That wasnt my point, the human race is constantly changing, Native Africans have developed dark skin to protect them from the harsh sun, Asians from my understanding developed their eyes to protect them from sandstorms which used to plague Asia etc, etc.

Given we originated in Africa, it's more that they kept their dark skin, and we adapted to the colder northern climate by developing lighter skin.

My point is that evolution explains why we can breed with one another, we all originate from a common species and our genetic structures arent so different as to restrict white people to white people or black people to black people. The idea of an "inferior race" or "pure blood" is bunk as really and trully the human race is one and we can all trace our linage back to our orginal ancestors in Africa.

Actually, the idea of distinct races in humanity is false. There are no consistant gene groups among the groups we call black, nor are there any consistant genes among the people we call white, asian or latino.

What drives us to seperate the races is actually based more on social and economic distinctions than anything in our genetic make up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:No point as I cannot construct sentences, understand or use the quote button.

So that's it? Taking your toys and going home?

sebster wrote:

ColdFire wrote:That wasnt my point, the human race is constantly changing, Native Africans have developed dark skin to protect them from the harsh sun, Asians from my understanding developed their eyes to protect them from sandstorms which used to plague Asia etc, etc.

Given we originated in Africa, it's more that they kept their dark skin, and we adapted to the colder northern climate by developing lighter skin.

My point is that evolution explains why we can breed with one another, we all originate from a common species and our genetic structures arent so different as to restrict white people to white people or black people to black people. The idea of an "inferior race" or "pure blood" is bunk as really and trully the human race is one and we can all trace our linage back to our orginal ancestors in Africa.

Actually, the idea of distinct races in humanity is false. There are no consistant gene groups among the groups we call black, nor are there any consistant genes among the people we call white, asian or latino.

What drives us to seperate the races is actually based more on social and economic distinctions than anything in our genetic make up.

Yes but Africans had an ancestor before they had dark skin, they developed dark skin at a time when the world was divided between blistering hot deserts and a freezing north, I say the ancestors of Africans developed dark skin because its believed they were not always that way.

As for your other quote Im a little confused, How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I believe that there are distinct human races, I just said there isnt, there are just humans who have developed different characteristics due to their environments they developed, I never said anything to the contrary.

ColdFire wrote:Yes but Africans had an ancestor before they had dark skin, they developed dark skin at a time when the world was divided between blistering hot deserts and a freezing north, I say the ancestors of Africans developed dark skin because its believed they were not always that way.

So what colour skin were humans before then? Becuase that would imply they originated from another area.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ColdFire wrote:Yes but Africans had an ancestor before they had dark skin, they developed dark skin at a time when the world was divided between blistering hot deserts and a freezing north, I say the ancestors of Africans developed dark skin because its believed they were not always that way.

So what colour skin were humans before then? Becuase that would imply they originated from another area.

No it wouldnt, Africa's temperature like every where in the world has varied from time to time, in the time frame where Africa's ancestors developed dark skin Africa was almost entirely desert under an extreme, baking sun, before that it was roughly similar to modern Africa. Its believed their skin colour may have been tan but not as dark as modern Africans are today.

ColdFire wrote:Yes but Africans had an ancestor before they had dark skin, they developed dark skin at a time when the world was divided between blistering hot deserts and a freezing north, I say the ancestors of Africans developed dark skin because its believed they were not always that way.

I don't really get the point of this, to be honest.

As for your other quote Im a little confused, How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I believe that there are distinct human races, I just said there isnt, there are just humans who have developed different characteristics due to their environments they developed, I never said anything to the contrary.

Fair enough. It's just that you said "our genetic structures aren't so different" when there's actually no genetic differences that mark one race from another.

sebster wrote:

ColdFire wrote:Yes but Africans had an ancestor before they had dark skin, they developed dark skin at a time when the world was divided between blistering hot deserts and a freezing north, I say the ancestors of Africans developed dark skin because its believed they were not always that way.

I don't really get the point of this, to be honest.

As for your other quote Im a little confused, How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I believe that there are distinct human races, I just said there isnt, there are just humans who have developed different characteristics due to their environments they developed, I never said anything to the contrary.

Fair enough. It's just that you said "our genetic structures aren't so different" when there's actually no genetic differences that mark one race from another.

I merely said developed because if an organism did not have a characteristic before but now it does, it developed it.

As for the other quote, perhaps my wording is off, characteristics would have probably been a batter word because our physical characteristics do define us.

ColdFire wrote:I merely said developed because if an organism did not have a characteristic before but now it does, it developed it.

Fair enough.

As for the other quote, perhaps my wording is off, characteristics would have probably been a batter word because our physical characteristics do define us.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that there's no actual group of physical characteristics that collectively define one race against another. It's a weird mix of characteristics that get grouped up to define different races, with no actual genetic underpinning.

I mean, what's Greek guy? White, black, or what? He's typically got darker skin than many people we'd call black.