- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Science, Race, Homosexuality, Abortion, and Religion
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:28 am
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:28 am
This is long. Don't read it.
There is no genetic, DNA, or scientific basis for "Race." There is only the human race and everything else is a social or cultural construct. Yet, we revolve our entire lives and orchestrate public policy around the concept of "Race" with absolutely no scientific support for "Race" as anything other than something that we have come up with to rank or differentiate people for purposes of power. The science that tells us that we are all the same is ignored.
There is no genetic, DNA, or scientific basis for homosexual identities being something inborn. We go off of the testimony of gay people that they were born that way and they have no choice. Yet, there is no proof of that from science at all. The human genome has been mapped and there is no "gay" gene. There is homosexual behavior, obviously, but there is no proof of homosexual identity as in the idea that people are inherently born that way. We take the word of homosexuals on that as they assert their own identity. The result is that society is not completely altering itself to accommodate their assertion. Science has no bearing on any of this.
Science now tells us that a fetus/baby at 12 weeks is not a blob of tissue. It is a human being. At 20 weeks, it is developed at an astonishing rate. Babies can survive outside the womb at 24 weeks. Science is clear on this. Still, the only countries that allow for abortion after 20 weeks are China, North Korea, the United States, and Canada. In France, you cannot have an abortion after 12 weeks without a doctor's order that declares the mother's life to be in danger. Science is clear, but it has no affect on the debate.
Religion agrees with Science on Race (we all come from one man/woman), Homosexuality (we are not born that way, but we are all affected by beliefs, choices, and there are deviations in humanity), and Abortion (human life exists in the womb). Yet, Religion is considered to be irrelevant in these discussions even though Race is a social/cultural construct, Homosexuality as an inborn identity is only established off of the testimony/behavior of adherents, and Abortion is illogical apart from the desires of the mother. What makes any of these issues/positions more real or valid than someone with religious belief declaring that they have a view on an issue because of that belief?
I am not saying that religious belief should dominate society because a lot of people do not believe the claims of religion (and I am talking about religious belief in general, at this point). But, at the same time, why should society be altered by unscientific beliefs/desires in regard to Race, Homosexuality, and Abortion while at the same time ignoring the convictions of people of faith? What is the difference between the ways of approaching knowledge?
Just because someone has different physical features, how does that make them different? It is a social construct rooted in nothing more than the historical attitudes and fears of people.
Just because someone says that they are gay, why should we believe their testimony? It cannot be proven. Yes, they engage in behavior that is visible and they say they would not choose it and cannot change, but how is that not the same as religious belief where people die for their faith because they cannot NOT believe in God?
Just because someone says that it is their body and they can do with it what they want, including ending their pregnancy through abortion, how does that make it so? How is that scientifically true?
It seems like we hold the claims of religion to one standard while accepting spurious claims on other issues that are contradicted by science completely. And, we do not even bat an eye over it.
There is no genetic, DNA, or scientific basis for "Race." There is only the human race and everything else is a social or cultural construct. Yet, we revolve our entire lives and orchestrate public policy around the concept of "Race" with absolutely no scientific support for "Race" as anything other than something that we have come up with to rank or differentiate people for purposes of power. The science that tells us that we are all the same is ignored.
There is no genetic, DNA, or scientific basis for homosexual identities being something inborn. We go off of the testimony of gay people that they were born that way and they have no choice. Yet, there is no proof of that from science at all. The human genome has been mapped and there is no "gay" gene. There is homosexual behavior, obviously, but there is no proof of homosexual identity as in the idea that people are inherently born that way. We take the word of homosexuals on that as they assert their own identity. The result is that society is not completely altering itself to accommodate their assertion. Science has no bearing on any of this.
Science now tells us that a fetus/baby at 12 weeks is not a blob of tissue. It is a human being. At 20 weeks, it is developed at an astonishing rate. Babies can survive outside the womb at 24 weeks. Science is clear on this. Still, the only countries that allow for abortion after 20 weeks are China, North Korea, the United States, and Canada. In France, you cannot have an abortion after 12 weeks without a doctor's order that declares the mother's life to be in danger. Science is clear, but it has no affect on the debate.
Religion agrees with Science on Race (we all come from one man/woman), Homosexuality (we are not born that way, but we are all affected by beliefs, choices, and there are deviations in humanity), and Abortion (human life exists in the womb). Yet, Religion is considered to be irrelevant in these discussions even though Race is a social/cultural construct, Homosexuality as an inborn identity is only established off of the testimony/behavior of adherents, and Abortion is illogical apart from the desires of the mother. What makes any of these issues/positions more real or valid than someone with religious belief declaring that they have a view on an issue because of that belief?
I am not saying that religious belief should dominate society because a lot of people do not believe the claims of religion (and I am talking about religious belief in general, at this point). But, at the same time, why should society be altered by unscientific beliefs/desires in regard to Race, Homosexuality, and Abortion while at the same time ignoring the convictions of people of faith? What is the difference between the ways of approaching knowledge?
Just because someone has different physical features, how does that make them different? It is a social construct rooted in nothing more than the historical attitudes and fears of people.
Just because someone says that they are gay, why should we believe their testimony? It cannot be proven. Yes, they engage in behavior that is visible and they say they would not choose it and cannot change, but how is that not the same as religious belief where people die for their faith because they cannot NOT believe in God?
Just because someone says that it is their body and they can do with it what they want, including ending their pregnancy through abortion, how does that make it so? How is that scientifically true?
It seems like we hold the claims of religion to one standard while accepting spurious claims on other issues that are contradicted by science completely. And, we do not even bat an eye over it.
This post was edited on 2/10/14 at 10:37 am
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:33 am to AlaTiger
I will read later, I am at work
But I won't dimsiss it because it is long like other people will
But I won't dimsiss it because it is long like other people will
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:39 am to AlaTiger
quote:
There is no genetic, DNA, or scientific basis for "Race." There is only the human race and everything else is a social or cultural construct.
OK. If you don't like the word 'race' then let's use the word 'breeds.'
This is a dog..
This is another dog...
Can you tell they are two different breeds of the same species? Well, I can do the same with people.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:58 am to AlaTiger
quote:
AlaTiger
If you are a Christian, you should never be surprised at the way the world chooses darkness over truth.
After all, we believe that the world (in a much more religious time), when presented with the Truth Incarnate, tortured and crucified Him to death.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 10:58 am to Zach
It isn't the same thing. There are not "breeds" of human beings.
Look, there is no question here on this issue. Look it up. Any distinction in races for medical/health issues are attributable to localization of people together in reproduction, not because of any real genetic differences.
Plus, when we call Barack Obama "black" and not "white" or when we call people from Russia and Canada "white" as though they have the same ethnic background, it proves that "Race" is simply a social construct and not a genetic or scientific distinction. There is nothing real to it.
Look, there is no question here on this issue. Look it up. Any distinction in races for medical/health issues are attributable to localization of people together in reproduction, not because of any real genetic differences.
Plus, when we call Barack Obama "black" and not "white" or when we call people from Russia and Canada "white" as though they have the same ethnic background, it proves that "Race" is simply a social construct and not a genetic or scientific distinction. There is nothing real to it.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:00 am to uway
quote:
uway
I am not surprised. It is simply that the hypocrisy of it all is interesting. The claim to use "science" as a way to establish truth is clearly bogus and should be disregarded completely, because we obviously only use "science" when we want to. When we don't want to, we just take the word of people or we live by social/cultural constructs.
It is all a joke.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:00 am to AlaTiger
quote:
it proves that "Race" is simply a social construct and not a genetic or scientific distinction.
But race is a genetic distinction. Come on man.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:05 am to AlaTiger
quote:
There is no genetic, DNA, or scientific basis for "Race." There is only the human race and everything else is a social or cultural construct. Yet, we revolve our entire lives and orchestrate public policy around the concept of "Race" with absolutely no scientific support for "Race" as anything other than something that we have come up with to rank or differentiate people for purposes of power. The science that tells us that we are all the same is ignored.
Well there is a gene for skin color, eye color, hair color, etc, but I will agree there is no biological basis for the concept of race that society labels it. African Americans and Europen Americans have >99% similarity of DNA. Race is a completely made up way of classifying people.
quote:
There is no genetic, DNA, or scientific basis for homosexual identities being something inborn. We go off of the testimony of gay people that they were born that way and they have no choice.
I agree 100% with that as long as you add there is no evidence yet. That could change but as of now there is no basis.
quote:
Science now tells us that a fetus/baby at 12 weeks is not a blob of tissue. It is a human being. At 20 weeks, it is developed at an astonishing rate. Babies can survive outside the womb at 24 weeks. Science is clear on this. Still, the only countries that allow for abortion after 20 weeks are China, North Korea, the United States, and Canada. In France, you cannot have an abortion after 12 weeks without a doctor's order that declares the mother's life to be in danger. Science is clear, but it has no affect on the debate.
agree
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:07 am to DeltaDoc
quote:
But race is a genetic distinction. Come on man.
no skin color is a genetic distinction.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:08 am to AlaTiger
I think its just called politics, that is how it seems to work. It is not to hard to influence people, that goes for both political parties. The US is a huge country with many different people and cultures so catering to a groups fears or passion. It seems to work well for political parties.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:08 am to AlaTiger
quote:
Just because someone has different physical features, how does that make them different? It is a social construct rooted in nothing more than the historical attitudes and fears of people.
Are we talking about penises and vaginas again? It sounds too transphobic for my taste. Let's just draw a difference on whether someone has a uterus or not. You don't need a vagina to have a baby, just a uterus.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:09 am to DeltaDoc
quote:
But race is a genetic distinction. Come on man.
No it isn't. That theory has been proven to be completely false.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:09 am to AlaTiger
quote:
It isn't the same thing. There are not "breeds" of human beings.
Oh, yes there are.
quote:
Any distinction in races for medical/health issues are attributable to localization of people together in reproduction
Same with dogs.
quote:
not because of any real genetic differences.
Really? So, if two really dark skinned black people have sex and produce a baby it could be a white with blond hair and blue eyes? Because you don't believe GENES are involved.
quote:
"Race" is simply a social construct and not a genetic or scientific distinction. There is nothing real to it.
So, the physical differences between ...
Kamala, The Ugandan Giant:
And Pee Wee Herman...
..are not "Real."?
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:11 am to Zach
You don't understand genetics or what had been proven on this issue. Stop posting and become educated.
There is no such thing as Race as a scientific/genetic distinction. Yes, there are different physical characteristics like red hair and black hair.
There is no such thing as Race as a scientific/genetic distinction. Yes, there are different physical characteristics like red hair and black hair.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:14 am to AlaTiger
quote:
No it isn't. That theory has been proven to be completely false.
As stated above, eye color, hair color, skin color, and the like all are tied to genes, i.e., genetics...otherwise we would be monoclonal beings. This relates to phenotypes...or gene expression.
Moreover, humans observe stereotypes and process that information for their own benefit. Is a stereotype a definitive truth? No, but it can be an indicator of behavior. This is a natural occurrence.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:18 am to Zach
quote:
Really? So, if two really dark skinned black people have sex and produce a baby it could be a white with blond hair and blue eyes? Because you don't believe GENES are involved.
Actually with skin color that is extremely possible. Take the Barak Obama his skin is black, but he has one gene for white skin from his mom and one gene for black skin for his dad. He had a 50% chance of passing on the white gene to his daughter, but michelle has a 100% chance of passing on a black gene to her daughter so the daughter comes out black. Now lets say one of his daughter marries another black guy that is half white, there is about a 25% chance that their baby would be white.
My cousin that was born last year looks almost native american because the dark skin gene had been recessive in both her dad (my cousin) and her mom (not my cousin) and not expressed. She got both copies and she has skin that is darker than either of her parents and fine black hair but blue eyes.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:33 am to AlaTiger
quote:
There is no such thing as Race as a scientific/genetic distinction. Yes, there are different physical characteristics like red hair and black hair.
And skin color, height, weight, health proclivities, etc. It's the exact same thing as BREEDS in DOGS. Yet you reject that people come in breeds.
You have no idea what you're talking about and that's why I'm gonna have some fun with you.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:36 am to willthezombie
quote:
Actually with skin color that is extremely possible.
No, it's not.
quote:
Take the Barak Obama his skin is black, but he has one gene for white skin from his mom and one gene for black skin for his dad. He had a 50% chance of passing on the white gene to his daughter,
No, it's not like that. Black genes are dominant and white genes are recessive. A black and a white parent cannot produce a white child.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:39 am to AlaTiger
quote:
There is no genetic, DNA, or scientific basis for homosexual identities being something inborn. We go off of the testimony of gay people that they were born that way and they have no choice. Yet, there is no proof of that from science at all. The human genome has been mapped and there is no "gay" gene. There is homosexual behavior, obviously, but there is no proof of homosexual identity as in the idea that people are inherently born that way. We take the word of homosexuals on that as they assert their own identity. The result is that society is not completely altering itself to accommodate their assertion. Science has no bearing on any of this.
Well it appears that its epigenitic, which means they are "born" this way. or at least, its outside their control.
Posted on 2/10/14 at 11:49 am to Zach
quote:
No, it's not like that. Black genes are dominant and white genes are recessive. A black and a white parent cannot produce a white child.
actually there are codominant. That is why BO's dad is real dark and he is light skinned. If the black parent has (i.e.barak obama) had a kid with a white woman using the punnett square S=black skin and s=white skin.
Dad's genotype is Ss Mom's is ss
The four possible genotypes for the child are Ss (black), Ss(black), ss(white) and ss (white). Now since skin color is a codominate and not strictly dominant/recessive the black skin would be light skinned and the white shin would be darker. From a culture perspective you would day that the kid is afican american even though he/she has a 50% of being genotypically white.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News