header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Non-Believer Humor

 (Read 12173 times)

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18200
  • Liked:
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #56 on: July 20, 2018, 04:52:05 PM »
This is some excellent spin.  Completely wrong, but great spin nonetheless.
For someone who portrays themselves as so "scientific", it's surprising that you'd even post this.
My my my Pitchy that is how the human race is defined by most people in science any more, your thinking of ethnic groups, which is subjective
 the early 20th century, many anthropologists taught that race was an entirely biologically phenomenon and that this was core to a person's behavior and identity, a position commonly called racial essentialism.[56] This, coupled with a belief that linguistic, cultural, and social groups fundamentally existed along racial lines, formed the basis of what is now called scientific racism.[57] After the Nazi eugenics program, along with the rise of anti-colonial movements, racial essentialism lost widespread popularity.[58] New studies of culture and the fledgling field of population genetics undermined the scientific standing of racial essentialism, leading race anthropologists to revise their conclusions about the sources of phenotypic variation.[56] A significant number of modern anthropologists and biologists in the West came to view race as an invalid genetic or biological designation.[59]
The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were the anthropologists Franz Boas, who provided evidence of phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors,[60] and Ashley Montagu, who relied on evidence from genetics.[61] E. O. Wilson then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies".[62]
Human genetic variation is predominantly within races, continuous, and complex in structure, which is inconsistent with the concept of genetic human races.[63] According to Jonathan Marks,[35]
Quote
By the 1970s, it had become clear that (1) most human differences were cultural; (2) what was not cultural was principally polymorphic – that is to say, found in diverse groups of people at different frequencies; (3) what was not cultural or polymorphic was principally clinal – that is to say, gradually variable over geography; and (4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal -was very small.
A consensus consequently developed among anthropologists and geneticists that race as the previous generation had known it – as largely discrete, geographically distinct, gene pools – did not exist.
Subspecies
The term race in biology is used with caution because it can be ambiguous. Generally, when it is used it is effectively a synonym of subspecies.[64] (For animals, the only taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies;[65] there are narrower infraspecific ranks in botany, and race does not correspond directly with any of them.) Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations.[66] Studies of human genetic variation show that human populations are not geographically isolated,[67] and their genetic differences are far smaller than those among comparable subspecies.[68]
In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. Wright argued that, "It does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other."[69] While in practice subspecies are often defined by easily observable physical appearance, there is not necessarily any evolutionary significance to these observed differences, so this form of classification has become less acceptable to evolutionary biologists.[70] Likewise this typological approach to race is generally regarded as discredited by biologists and anthropologists.
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #57 on: July 20, 2018, 05:56:01 PM »
My my my Pitchy that is how the human race is defined by most people in science any more, your thinking of ethnic groups, which is subjective
the early 20th century, many anthropologists taught that race was an entirely biologically phenomenon and that this was core to a person's behavior and identity, a position commonly called racial essentialism.[56] This, coupled with a belief that linguistic, cultural, and social groups fundamentally existed along racial lines, formed the basis of what is now called scientific racism.[57] After the Nazi eugenics program, along with the rise of anti-colonial movements, racial essentialism lost widespread popularity.[58] New studies of culture and the fledgling field of population genetics undermined the scientific standing of racial essentialism, leading race anthropologists to revise their conclusions about the sources of phenotypic variation.[56] A significant number of modern anthropologists and biologists in the West came to view race as an invalid genetic or biological designation.[59]
The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were the anthropologists Franz Boas, who provided evidence of phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors,[60] and Ashley Montagu, who relied on evidence from genetics.[61] E. O. Wilson then challenged the concept from the perspective of general animal systematics, and further rejected the claim that "races" were equivalent to "subspecies".[62]
Human genetic variation is predominantly within races, continuous, and complex in structure, which is inconsistent with the concept of genetic human races.[63] According to Jonathan Marks,[35] Subspecies
The term race in biology is used with caution because it can be ambiguous. Generally, when it is used it is effectively a synonym of subspecies.[64] (For animals, the only taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies;[65] there are narrower infraspecific ranks in botany, and race does not correspond directly with any of them.) Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations.[66] Studies of human genetic variation show that human populations are not geographically isolated,[67] and their genetic differences are far smaller than those among comparable subspecies.[68]
In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. Wright argued that, "It does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other."[69] While in practice subspecies are often defined by easily observable physical appearance, there is not necessarily any evolutionary significance to these observed differences, so this form of classification has become less acceptable to evolutionary biologists.[70] Likewise this typological approach to race is generally regarded as discredited by biologists and anthropologists.
For a minute, I'll play your "there's no such thing as race" game, even though there are clear physical and biological traits among races.  
Clearly 2 people (adam and eve), via lots of incest, resulted in a wide range of different physical traits among humans across the world.  If you don't believe in evolution, how did that happen?

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2018, 02:01:37 PM »
Bump....for Jesus.

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #59 on: July 26, 2018, 04:51:59 PM »

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #60 on: July 26, 2018, 05:20:51 PM »

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #61 on: July 26, 2018, 06:01:31 PM »

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #62 on: August 01, 2018, 02:22:43 PM »

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #63 on: August 01, 2018, 03:45:47 PM »

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18200
  • Liked:
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #64 on: August 02, 2018, 01:46:30 PM »
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #65 on: August 02, 2018, 03:25:46 PM »

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18200
  • Liked:
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #66 on: August 02, 2018, 03:55:46 PM »
I am just a cyber-stalking troll who wants to try and bully someone  and can't 
s in evidence in so many places you have eyes and do not see, ears and do not hear and a brain and do not think 

Thanks for proving so many of my points 

Look up in the sky. Its that damned bird point, flying over your head, yet again . 


For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Divine Nature, so that they are without excuse...but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools...Romans 1:18-22.

President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #67 on: August 05, 2018, 01:45:07 PM »

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #68 on: August 05, 2018, 01:50:55 PM »

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Non-Believer Humor
« Reply #69 on: August 21, 2018, 05:19:30 PM »

 

Associate Links/Search