Talk:Race

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpeakerOfTheDead (Talk | contribs) at 20:42, May 15, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Since the Great Flood

In my opinion, this part should at least be introduced as "According to Creationists" or "For those who believe in...".Leopeo 16:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Its a conservative fact, see here. Auld Nick 12:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

You mean conservatives wishit were a fact. Which is not the same thing as it being a fact--27102340 12:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I just got blocked by CPAdmin, I guess for removing it (nobody gave me a reason), but then when Speaker made the same edit, it's remained. I don't really understand this place. Brainslug 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Neanderthal

They seem to have forgotten the Neanderthal. As it is currently listed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis on this website it should be listed as one of the races.--TimS 11:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Only if it says so in the Bible. Auld Nick 11:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Was this lifted from a nineteenth century textbook?

Good Freaking God. Newsflash: Asians are not "yellow." Native Americans are not "Red." Stupidpedia strikes again!--27102340 12:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

If this article is going to mention what science once thought about races, then at least get it right. The original physical anthropologists that developed the biological race model had only three races: Caucasians, Mongloids, and Negroids.Prof0705 12:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Whaaa...you mean the scientists, to whom we all genuflect before as barers and guardians of truth and knowledge, have been wrong? Wow. And those scientific facts were once used to promote and justify racism and genocide? My word. RobS 13:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh my God!!Scientists actually make mistakes like every other person on this planet, and if they are proven wrong they actually change their theories?? Wait...Wait...Oh that's right...science is an open system as opposed to a closed system. Duh...Prof0705 13:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

At least we are out of the dark ages, where persecution and genocide was done in the name of Christianity and the Church. Thank heaven. Now we at least have atheists, rationalists, and science to blame for our progressive thinking which results in mass murder. RobS 13:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yah...good thing those white Christian upper-class gentlemen in the 19th century needing some way of justifying racist policies could turn to science to do their dirty work.Prof0705 13:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, isn't science a Bitc*? I mean, instead of living in your cave, following the sheep around, now you have central heat, air, the internet, the internal combustion engine. Dang, science make these Christians so miserable.--27102340 13:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yep. It was science that gave mankind personkind Zyklon B, and the instructions how to use it. RobS 14:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What? So science was wrong in the past. Isn't there something in the Bible about the sins of the fathers? How is that relevant to science today? Part of science's strength is that it changes with new discoveries...-Speaker 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

And it was non-scientific politicans that decided to use it. Same as the atom bomb, dynamite, and napalm. So would you also blame the company that makes the gun used to kill someone, or the person that pulled the trigger?Prof0705 14:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Good point.-Speaker 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My point is that you really sound ignorant villifying science like that. Last time I checked there weren't a whole helluva lot of people with polio or smallpox around anymore. If one day your appendix blows science has made it possible for you to still survive without being bled by leeches. How many peopl are saved by organ transplants every year? Science did that for you. Science in and of itself doesn't kill.Prof0705 14:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Right. Science create napalm, VX gas, Sarin gas, etc., and it's "progress"; then when poltical leaders try to stop the spread of this brilliant knowledge, where are they to be found? RobS 14:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... Union of Concerned Scienists that are against nuclear weapons, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and alot of other scientists that are against such things. Prof0705 14:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh really? Where did these groups stand vis a vis allowing Mr. Saddam Hussein to retain classrooms with students obtaining this knowledge, (i.e. Saddams WMD programs). RobS 14:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) There wasn't much they could do about Saddam.

B) The poison gas? You don't exactly have to be a Nobel-Prize winner to make that stuff.

C) Clear example of the powers that be, abusing science and scientists for their own evil purposes. Every new invention will sooner or later be turned into a weapon by ignorant laymen politicians, scientists regret this, but feel it is no reason to stop progress. MiddleMan

You know the list that RobS gave us all have political ties and backing. So is it the scientists or the politicians?--TimS 15:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) Oh, so they really don't give a rip. So much for the morality of scientists.

B) Precisely the point.

C) See response to A. RobS 15:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

People will find a way to kill each other anyway, they don't need scientists for that. MiddleMan

If you're so angry at science, RobS, then don't use it anymore, turn off your computer, and stop posting at CP :-/. Otherwise you might just have to accept that the issue's a little more complicated than you'd like to think.-Speaker 16:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)