JonR:
Well said. The distinction you drew between religious faith and faith based on experience (I beleive the sun will rise tomorrow) is valid.
Yes, all of my evidence was refuted, (since Singledad found the website I got the evidence from and its refutation, this was pretty much inevitable.)
Singledad:
Dammit I’m a “faux-creationist” not a “pseudo-creationist”! 
I understand.
Scylla: I stand corrected. :rolleyes:
And it wasn’t too hard to find the website; it’s been cited in this very thread.
I propose the following definitions, to thin out the semantic arguments. The following words all (in an applicable context) indicate acceptance of a proposition or premise for the reasons noted:
[ul][li]belief: acceptance by unspecified means[/li][li]faith: acceptance without regard to empirical evidence[/li][li]confidence: acceptance due to inductive reasoning[/li][li]empirical proof: acceptance based on direct observation[/li][li]deductive proof: acceptance based on deduction from direct observation[/ul][/li]
My objective is only to restrict our use of each of these words to a specific denotation for the purposes of this discussion.
DavidB
I don’t think very many of us in this thread, pro or con, are professional scientists. In fact, the only pro I’ve noted posting on this topic is batgirl, and she’s in the Creationist camp.
I don’t think it’s fair to require a person to be a professional scientist to participate in this discussion. I think it is fair to require a non-pro to refrain from asserting that they have the exclusive and irrefutable interpretation of the scientific method.
To be frank, I already posted my opinion of CalifBoomer in the pit, and I don’t pay much attention to his messages.
Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.
I hardly think this is the place for insults like that.
:d&r:
[faux-creationist hat on:]
Singledad said:
"I propose the following definitions, to thin out the semantic arguments. The following words all (in an applicable context) indicate acceptance of a proposition or premise for the reasons noted:
belief: acceptance by unspecified means
faith: acceptance without regard to empirical evidence
confidence: acceptance due to inductive reasoning
empirical proof: acceptance based on direct observation
deductive proof: acceptance based on deduction from direct observation
My objective is only to restrict our use of each of these words to a specific denotation for the purposes of this discussion."
I cannot accept this as it would limit my abilit to misdirect and obfuscate meaning, thus severely hampering my arguments.
[Faux-creationist hat off:]
You sound like someone who jumped into the deep end before he learned how to swim and then complained that he nearly drowned. But I respect your honesty. I am not a scientist, either. I just do my best to read the latest pop-sci magazines like Discover; National Geographic, Popular Science and its sibling, Popular Mechanics (Their latest issue has a tongue-in-cheek, April Fool’s test of a Toyota pick-up fitted out with the latest UFO hunting gear! :); Smithsonian; and I’ve even been known to peruse Scientific American on occaision, only to go away scratching my head, hoping Discover will do an easier-to-understand article on the same subject! :o Also, I go to science museums and watch PBS and the Discovery Channel.
If I can do this stuff, so can you.
Now that is a low blow. Remember, YOU picked your job, your job did not pick you. If you’re working too hard and it’s too stressful, find a place where you’re more comfortable. I realize this may not be easy to do.
Again, I like your honesty. Maybe you ARE reading those magazines I mentioned above.
I believe this is the default position. IOW, the alternative must be proven. If you say there is something “outside of observable nature,” you need to provide evidence for this belief for us to consider. You need to show us why we should accept more than the evidence gathered by experimentation and observation. If your evidence stands up to close scrutiny, you will have validated your belief (or hypothesis) and elevated it to scientific theory.
“Physician, heal thyself.”
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
David B has been busy. He wrote the latest Mailbag article: www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mancestor.html which answers the question, “Did all humans descend from the same ancestor?”
Yes. (And he did NOT mean Adam & Eve!)
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
andros: Did I say something wrong? Or were you just being humorous? 
Just in case:
by “pro”, I meant “professional scientist.” And I explicitly noted that “The only pro I’ve noted (sic) is…” If there are others, I will certainly mention you as well once I notice (my originally desired word) you as well.
My point is, that your assertion that the rest of nature developed thru evolution, except humans, which were specially created, is a little confusing. On what basis do you make this claim?
-Dave
“Violence is the last refuge of the ignorant.”
-I. Asimov
Attempting to, and in poor taste, and not succeeding. My apologies to Batgirl and all.
(“pro” is a fairly common police term for “prostiture.”)
Pay no attention to the
-andros-
behind the curtain
er, “prostitute.” But you figured that out already.
ARG said:
Glory be! Hallelujah! Maybe this is the first piece of evidence for miracles that I’ve been looking for! 
I had said to CalifBoomer: “Hmmm. Then maybe you shouldn’t act like you know beans about science.” SingleDad responded:
You’re right. I didn’t mean to imply that one had to be a scientist to discuss science here. I do, however, think that somebody should at least be familiar with the scientific method, which CalifBoomer clearly is not. Furthermore, he should not attack science and then try to use the fact that he is not a scientist as a defense when his flaws are pointed out or questions are asked of him that he does not want to answer.
Jab said:
What? You doubted me?!
Which brings up a tangentially interesting question for creationists: How did races come about? (I’ve seen creationists answer this before, and I think they generally use some religious mumbo jumbo, but I don’t know that I’ve seen even an attempt at a “scientific” answer, though I’m sure they have one out there somewhere.)
“Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most beautiful in all of science.”
– Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine
David:
That is actually a very good question. I’ve often wondered that myself. I’d like to see how a Creationist answers it.
Spent a lot of time with some pretty rabid Christian Christian folks (relatives by marriage.)
Heard two answers about the question of race.
God created the races when he confused language after the tower of Babel fiasco
I hesitate to mention this; Not my viewpoint; but the other answer is that GOd didn’t create race. He only created white people. Other races either evolved from apes or are creations of Satan.
Certainly that doesn’t speak to all fundamentalists, but those were two views I heard vocalized at a fundamentalist church function I got invited to in Maryland.
Though I fancy myself intolerant ot that kind of atitude I have to admit I kept my mouth shut, coinsidering the company I was in. Not that that’s an excuse.
You have the right to pick your own battles at the time of your own choosing. That’s not an excuse, that’s a good reason.
Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.
Well, I don’t know the theory, but I can tell you what I can deduce from what I know.
There are 3 races(subspecies) in the world. White, Yellow and Black. All the other “races” that we know fall into these three category. These 3 different subspecies have slight physiological differences. I don’t know what makes “yellow” physiologically different, except that their eyes helped with the dust in the Gobi desert. So I will, for the most part, leave them out of my discussion. Black and White have physiological differences as we all know in the skin. A few of the 5 strata in their skin vary in size. They also vary in melanocytes–not number, but in about of melanin that they produce.
Now, according to current scientific knowledge the common ancestor used to live in a huge forested area deep in Africa(This location is derived from Mitochondrial DNA similarity). A huge earthquake then made from that forested area the great rift plains of Africa. Now we have two groups of animals. One if the forested area which supposedly evolved into current day primates and who caught and forced onto the plains. Those on the plains eventually evolved upright walking(This is advantageous because since there are no hiding places the taller you are, the farther you can see the predator/prey) extreme cephalization(head on top of bodies – you can see farther because you’re talltr) and intelligence(You’re ripped from your environment, no longer have your tool of superiority[trees], can’t run that fast, might not be able to fight that well… you better get something you can use.}
About the time the early Hominids came into existence(I believe–can’t remember clearly) they started to radiate around the continents. Those who moved into Europe never developed the extra melanin that was needed to combat UV while the African strain of hominids did since it was advantageous to their well being(The mechanism that causes this is termed bell-curve evolution. What it entails is that the ones who have a desirable trait are more likely to reporduce then the ones that don’t and this causes a gradual shift toward that trait until it is the norm and the bell curve of extreme-normal-extreme norm
Ex ______ Ex
_/ _ is reestablished.
Oh yea, heres a little tid-bit of info. Many american indians have asian features because they decended from “yellows” who crossed the bering(sp?) strait
~bored2001
damn bell curve
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial”>code:</font><HR><pre>
Norm
Ex ______ Ex
_/ _
Lets see if this works..I’m most familiar with the Creationist viewpoint that states black people are the descendants of Ham (Noah’s son): destined to always fetch wood and carry water. Wasn’t this used as justification for slavery?
Races are a fine demonstration of evolution in action. Groups of people who are isolated from each other so they cannot interbreed have developed variations in physical characteristics. Some of these are advantageous: light skin is fine for a Swede who gets little exposure to bright sunlight, while those living near the equator benefit from a little protection.
However, many racial characteristics probably have no “benefit”. Differences arise when populations are isolated from each other; maybe given another million years different races would have evolved into fully separate species. It’s not gonna happen, though- our populations aren’t isolated anymore.
Well, the story I used to hear is that blacks are all descended from Cain, that black skin is the “mark of Cain,” and that his descendants were to have this “mark” as well. Then someone pointed out that Cain’s mark was supposed to protect him from harm. (Who was supposed to harm him when Adam & Eve were the only other humans on Earth? :rolleyes
By inference, whites were supposed to be descended from other children Adam & Eve had after losing Cain & Abel. I never heard who the ancestors of Asians were supposed to be. One of Noah’s three sons, maybe?
As far as the shape of Asian eyes, it’s also supposed to protect the eye from freezing and minimize the glare of sunlight off of snow. Thus, it may have originated among the first inhabitants of Mongolia and Siberia.
Finally, there is supposed to be a connection between skin color and the body’s ability to produce Vitamin D from sunlight. In Equatorial regions where the days and nights are of nearly-equal length all year long, dark skin is needed for protection from ultra-violet light, but this reduces the efficiency of Vitamin D production. But since there is an abundance of sunlight year-round, the body is still able to produce enough of the vitamin. A balance between protection and the need for Vitamin D exists.
In the far north or south, one does not need dark skin because of the relative weakness of sunlight. However, the lack of sunlight would mean a concurrent lack of Vitamin D for dark-skinned people. Those who were not born with light skin would perish from Vitamin D deficiency. Those who WERE born light-skinned remained healthy, were able to hunt and gather food and live to pass on their mutated trait to their offspring.
If American Indians are (mostly)* descended from Asians who crossed the Bering sea, this stil applies. It seems obvious to me their reddish skin tone is a mutation of the yellowish skin tone of Asians, a mutation necessary to endure the more intense sunlight of the Americas, which are of lower latitiudes than the bulk of Asia. Also, the climate here tends to be more sunny.
*I say “mostly” because there is new evidence that Europeans may have successfully crossed the Atlantic more than 23,000 years ago. They may have interbred with the Asians who may have crossed the Bering Strait (or used boats to follow the North Pacific coastline) far earlier than we thought. I mentioned this before on another thread, and if the Search Engine works, I’ll find it. Wish me luck.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
The Search Engine works!
Here we go: http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/000620.html
It’s an old thread entitled “American origin of Homo Sapiens?” And it was 18,000 years ago those Europeans may have come acros from what is now Spain and Portugal.
Oh, well, if I had a perfect memory, I wouldn’t need to write anything down!
When all else fails, ask Cecil.