|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 15, 2014 10:22:10 GMT 10
The flame war. ---I didn't start it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 15, 2014 10:32:26 GMT 10
What do you mean it wasn't personal?! For one, since he knows I'm a Christian, his comment was inclusive.And his comment was mean spirited negative, and didn't add a single thing to the conversation. It was a sweeping generalization; and it was unscrupulous. If I am wrong, express what NEW information was contributed as a result of that comment; and I'll happily concede. *You once scorned Skip for doing that exact thing. It's not 'okay' just because your buddy did it, this time.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 15, 2014 10:45:35 GMT 10
You know what? Forget it. I see that you are willing to make exceptions when your friends are being unethical.
If I can't trust you to act ethically; I can't trust you to be truthful. Ergo, there is no point in discussing ANYTHING.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 15, 2014 10:51:47 GMT 10
EG, I am going to make one last ditch effort to reason with you.
Here's Slarti's statement sans the "Christian" part: "Most __________ are uneducated" Fill it with any other creed or race. Correct or not--Is it socially acceptable?
In ANY OTHER given context, how is this not hate speech?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 15, 2014 10:57:10 GMT 10
Not, hate speech? "Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of e.g. race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.[1][2]
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech*If it's not, then you all owe Skippy an apology. Pick a side.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 15, 2014 11:08:34 GMT 10
Look Occam's, you're the one that brought up the survey showing that the majority of American Christians are poorly educated when it comes to the time-line of Human existence. I find it appalling that such ignorance can exist in modern America. You brought it up, not me, not Slarti. You then took it as some personal affront and accused Slarti of starting a "flame-war". I think any reasonable person would see that you have over reacted to an observation about the obviously poor level of education in America. Slarti didn't use the term: "Most Americans", did he? Why do you suppose he didn't?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 15, 2014 11:24:32 GMT 10
For the sake of harmony:
Might I suggest that 'uneducated', was simply a poor choice in terms? It presupposes too much; which is why it doesn't sit well with me. 'Misinformed, confused, deceived', are much better adjectives.
My contention with 'uneducated' is that it isn't specific enough. A person can possess good schooling despite his/her belief in a Young Earth.
I know, b/c I have a lot of educated YE friends. I find that slarti's remark degrades them.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 15, 2014 12:28:34 GMT 10
American Ignorance is a bit of an inside joke among Canadians, EG. We even record it for some of our television shows up here.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 22, 2014 10:39:23 GMT 10
However... Prior evidence has indicated that Neanderthals ceremonially buried their dead; and were capable of constructing tools. Begs the Question: On what standard are they presented as being distinct from modern man?
(Genuine question, no sarcasm intended.)
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 28, 2016 15:08:22 GMT 10
However... Prior evidence has indicated that Neanderthals ceremonially buried their dead; and were capable of constructing tools. Begs the Question: On what standard are they presented as being distinct from modern man? (Genuine question, no sarcasm intended.) Genuine answer: Chromosomal evidence suggests there is a difference in the number of Chromosomes between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. Hence, there is some doubt that interbreeding would be successful. However, there is some DNA evidence to suggest that there was indeed some interbreeding going on at that time. More research is required. The picture is in fact quite complex and research is constantly pushing back the boundaries. The picture keeps changing in the sense that it's becoming more and more complex. This isn't good news for creationists since the picture is emerging of a variety within human species that is getting richer and richer. Neanderthals were not any less human than us homo sapiens sapiens (so good they named us twice). In fact where the research is at today reveals no fewer than twelve distinct human species - each of them distinctively human - but differing from each other in the same way that a horse will differ from a donkey or a zebra. As Europeans, which is ethnically what we are even if we live in Australia or Canada, it's a proven fact that we each carry 3% of Neanderthal DNA. In Siberia the research has determined that there was a human (not humanoid, human!) species called Denisovan and that Han Chinese carry 3% Denisovan DNA. Intriguingly the research finds that Native Americans carry Denisovan DNA and - and here's the barbeque stopper (Aussie expression, Occam) - so do the Australian Aborigines. The how and the why is unknown at this stage. As you say, more research required! Other human species have been found - the "hobbit" is the most spectacular and most recent find to date - but the picture is far from complete. Imagine it. Twelve (and counting!) distinct human species on different parts of the planet. Are we all descended from homo erectus? Did they interact? Clearly the DNA admixture with us being 3% Neanderthal and Native Americans/Australian Aborigines 3% Denisovan suggests that they did interact. And intimately! Australia is a very interesting case because it was the first landmass to be colonised exclusively by modern humans - our species. There were no other types of humans here, or if there were they are utterly unknown to science. The colonisation of Australia by modern humans - the ancestors of the Australian Aborigines - stretches so far back in history, 50 000 years, that it can be said that modern humans colonised Australia when the only humans in Europe were Neanderthals. It's a fascinating field of research because it's so cutting edge. When I went to school nobody knew about DNA. Since then we've had the genome project. We don't need fossils anymore, our origins are written in our genes and DNA. Sadly Australian Aborigines have proved reluctant to make themselves available to participate in DNA and genome research and who can blame them. Their bodies used to be dismembered and shipped off to institutes of anatomy in the northern hemisphere as scientific curiosities, thinking that they might prove to be the "missing link" between apes and people. Reconciliation is badly needed with these people. But whatever I learned at school about "early man" has been so vastly superseded by subsequent research over the decades that it's irrelevant. The picture is rich, diverse and utterly fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 28, 2016 15:13:18 GMT 10
There are so many hares to follow down so many burrows that it's easy to lose sight of the absolute kickass crunch question: if our species of human started off as one of at least twelve distinct human species, possibly more, watch this space, how did we end up being the only ones left with the others just a small genetic relic in our DNA? Debate rages in scientific journals. I kinda hope it never gets resolved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 14:56:03 GMT 10
... if our species of human started off as one of at least twelve distinct human species, possibly more, watch this space, how did we end up being the only ones left with the others just a small genetic relic in our DNA? Probably by doing what we are as a species are best at...obliterating any other species (and even variations within our own) which threatens our existence.
|
|
|
Post by sonex on Feb 1, 2016 15:19:03 GMT 10
I like your reply Grim and agree with it. I also think it may be because we had and have a bigger better brain. Survival doesn't only depend on size and speed, it depends on the brain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 15:39:11 GMT 10
Indeed Sonex And our brain development probably accelerated once we started cooking our food, making more and different amino acids and other proteins readily available. We are the only primate to do so.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 1, 2016 16:00:31 GMT 10
Apparently the other human species (plural) weren't more "brutish". They were as clever as us. Is a horse smarter than a donkey or a zebra? The research suggests it wasn't down to brainpower. Something more basic. More physical. One indicator is our hips which allow for a more gracile walking gait. Remember that early humans spread out over the Afro/Eurasian supercontinent by walking. The jury's out on the issue. I like it when researchers say "I don't know"
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 20, 2016 15:30:42 GMT 10
Fair points! Mind you 15 million years pales to insignificance when you consider that the Wollemi Pine has not only been around for 200 million years but it's still going! I've seen specimens of the Wollemi Pine tree in botanical gardens in Switzerland and Belgium, as well as a beauty in Kew Gardens in London where they call it (tongue in cheek) the "Pinosaur" since the species easily dates to the dinosaurs. The National Botanical Gardens in Canberra have a magnificent specimen, as you would expect. I love that botanical gardens around the world are collaborating to conserve the species. Which makes me think! Where in Canada can you see a Wollemi pine tree? Here's a site www.greenhousecanada.com/crops/flowers/wollemi-pine-11143 Somewhere in Ontario which would place it not far from you Occam! The data on the site is mostly correct but I do take issue with 90 million years. Australian data shows the species was a very early type of tree which dates it back to the early Mesozoic. It's possibly even older than the dinosaurs. It's a fragment of when Australia was part of the southern hemisphere supercontinent Gondwana along with South America and India. It's a stupendous find of global importance.
|
|