ADreamOfLiberty

I don't call myself an expert in anything except maybe software architecture and even then I wouldn't dare to imply that no one else could debate it.

I've never implied that only experts could debate a subject, so we're in agreement.

If the knowledge is true they also know the best arguments to attain that knowledge.

Argumentation is a skill separate from the expertise of any given field, so that's not necessarily true.

Which is simpler, to believe in your conspiracy theory about all the priests lying or to simply accept that they know what they're talking about after decades of study and contemplation?

lol at the king of conspiracy theories trying to hurl it out as a pajoritive.

No one here is claiming all priests are lying. You love knocking down arguments you entirely made up.

I accept entirely that priests know what they're talking about when it comes to the book they've been studying their whole lives. I've made this clear repeatedly, you pretend I haven't because it's inconvenient for you.

It's not exactly an assumption, an informed guess. Yes.

Informed by what? The misconception that lighter-skinned Negroid individuals must necessarily have a Caucasoid ancestor?

I don't know who calls modern Hungarians, Turks, and Romanians "people of color" but they are not SSA10kBC.

I do. I've been in the company of some. But I also acknowledge that they are not a monochromatic geographic group. Just like I acknowledge the government designation of so-called "Black" does not apply to a monochromatic geographic group. And since you've continued to mention SSA10kBC and "dark skin"  in place of so-called "Blacks," let me propose this question: does SSA10kBC and "dark skin" = SO-CALLED "BLACKS"; and SO-CALLED "BLACKS" = SSA10kBC and "dark skin"?

Historical Turks and Hungarians were steppe people that diverged from the indo-europeans before they were indo-europeans. [That's why their language is not indo-european].

Because Indo-European isn't necessarily an "ethnic" group; they're a language-based (linguistic) group. All the more reason I question the reason you're associating strict "Whiteness" to them based solely on migration patterns.

They were also white (reflective) as they are today and as would be expected by the latitude they lived.

The latitude argument does not help your case especially considering Greece/Macedonia shares a latitude  with the "people of color" in the Middle East and parts of South East Asia.

The commonality after the split is the substantiation that it existed before the split. The only alternative is that the trait simultaneously appeared in isolated populations. This is unlikely. Again this observation is the heart of all evolutionary analysis.

Using a "concordance" of genetic clusters and migrations patterns. I would understand if you were talking about the southern most parts of the African Continent and the northern most parts of the European continent where skin albedo can be a somewhat sufficient proxy. But our focus is Greece which neighbors Northern Africa, (which has not escaped my notice that you've excluded) Iraq (formerly the Parthian Empire) the Arabian Peninsula/Plate, the Middle East, etc.

People get around, but one guy/gal in a 100,000

What is the basis of this estimation?

isn't going to alter the gene frequency of the population. i.e. he won't cause the population of the region in a thousand years to have "significant ancestry" in wherever he came from.

And since when is "skin albedo" a reliable proxy for "gene frequency" especially if the geographic groups are relatively close, e.g. Greece and  indigenous North Africa?

You mean you consider it unsubstantiated until it is somehow ruled out that she or her parents were very genetically very unusual for the region they came from?

Genetic abnormalities in relation to the region necessarily resulting in what?

All you've offered so far is this:

- Greece is directly descended from the Indo-Europeans (linguistic group) who migrated from North of the Black Sea.

- Pure Indo-Europeans are exclusively so-called "White," given that in precivilization, skin "albedo," as you allege was a reliable indicator of genetic selection.

- Macedonia during the Helenistic Age comprised of an exclusively so-called "White" population given that pure Indo-Europeans were exclusively so-called, "White."

- Subsaharan Africans 12,000 years ago unlikely provided enough genetically frequent selection in the area for descendants to be labeled so-called "Black."

I've contended:

- Even if we were to analyze the Indo-Europeans of 7000 years ago who were North of the Black Sea as you've proposed, the Hamangia Culture cultivated in that region would indicate an African presence given that the artifacts are very similar to Ethiopian artifacts.

- Migration patterns of Linguistic groups is not an indicator of so-called "Whiteness"

Except the contention was against her being so-called, "Black," not necessarily "dark skinned."

When someone (the people who made this movie) chooses to grasp at tiny probabilities the motivation must be questioned.

TINY PROBABILITIES =/= FALSE.

Now imagine if that wasn't true and we were to try and debate without being experts?

That's right, we'd be wasting our time.

Do you even know what the word expert means? You really think you're an expert because you used Google?

So exactly how many subjects do you consider yourself to be an expert on BTW, because according to you that would apparently be every topic you've ever engaged in.

They would say they study god, and they agree with each other so maybe you should trust the experts.

They study a book claiming there is a God. That is an objective fact.

How do you know that priests do not conduct scientific experimentation?

Because if they did they would show it.

We're in the forum section, this is not a formal debate.

It's like hearsay, if you have time to get to the original authority you don't multiply error by using a proxy.

It's not about time, it's about how much effort should be put into any given discission.

we would just sit here researching until we are qualified experts ourselves.

Priests study for a lifetime, in fact Occam was clergy I believe. Is it the simpler explanation that all these people who study and debate constantly are wrong about god?

Priests are not studying God, they are studying a book that claims there is a God.

If the question is about whether God exists, that's a question best addressed by science. Priests do not conduct scientific experimentation, so they are not valid proxy's for that question.

I haven't read into much of the homosexual literature, but I don't understand how a self-deleting genetic expression (i.e. homosexual sex engage procreate) would be so prevalent amongst humans. In an evolutionary sense, it should be selected against because homosexual sex can't procreate, thus the genes won't be passed on.

Unless it's epigenetic and thus activates in certain conditions, how is biological deterministic homosexuality so prevalent? 

1.) Read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins, a gene isn't self-deleting if it can help reproduce itself. It doesn't need to do that using the exact organism of expression. For example drone hymenopterans don't reproduce, but they help reproduce the genes that created them.

I don't see how homosexuality helps with reproduction at all

I am not convinced this hypothesis is correct for human sexual deviancy even if it is theoretically possible, and even if it was true the sexual deviancy would be a secondary trait; not the one selected for.

Which hypothesis are you referring to? 

3.) oromagi has formed conclusions about this matter, however I found it nearly impossible to confirm anything related to genetics due to paywalls (I really hate the idea of paywalls protecting scientific literature)

If you're able to get the DOI for the paper, you can bypass paywalls by putting the DOI into SciHub.

If homosexuality isn't a choice and can't be change, but it's also not genetic, what then determines it?

It's also certain that since there are no recessive traits (of any commonality) of the people of subsaharan africa circa 10,000 BC [From now on I shall call this group of people SSA10kBC] which give such reflective skin: Steph Curry also has significant ancestry from humans outside that group, probably indoeuropeans by the look of him.

So you're assuming that by the look of him, (and I don't dispute it since I don't know Curry's genealogical history) that he has pure Indo-european ancestry--which you have taken to mean, "white?"

That is the group of people who were north of the black sea 7000 years ago were all white.

A group of strictly so-called "whites" who cultivated the Hamangia culture 7000 years ago despite their geographical neighbors like Hungary and Turkey and even Romania bearing, what we call today, people of "color?"

We know this because they went in different directions and everywhere they went people are white. This is a basic technique of identifying hereditary traits including language and speciation. The common trait after splitting was present before the split.

You haven't substantiated the "trait" before the so-called "split."

Macedon and Hellas were white. Her parents both came from white populations. Whiteness is inherited. She was therefore white.

Please substantiate this. You don't necessarily have to make a reference. A detailed explanation will suffice as well.

The race in question can loosely be defined as SSA10kBC and all those with significant ancestry in that group.

The split between the gene group "Macedonian" and SSA10kBC would be 80,000 years ago (or longer). No one who left before 10k BC would be direct descendants and the subsequent gene outflows from SSA10kBC were insignificant.

And how many so-called "Black" people, or those who governments designate as so-called "Black" are closely descended SSA10kBC? And why are we setting the parameter to that which we consider so-called "Black" as closely descended from Sub-Saharan Africans 10,000 BC?

Not all people with white skin are macedonian, but all macedonians had white skin (at that point). Someone without white skin is someone whose skin is certainly dissimilar to Cleopatra.

Please substantiate.

I can provide my own contention and substantiate that there were in fact so-called "Blacks" in Macedonia, Greece, Rome, (modern day) Germany, (modern day) Scandinavia, Hungary, Turkey, (modern day) Ukraine, Russia, etc.

But that would only be necessary if I were proposing that Cleopatra was indeed so-called "Black." I bear no such obligation. Only those who claim that she would be exempt or excluded from the designation of so-called "Black." And I intend to hold you accountable to providing rigorous argumentation which verifies your position.

Pure indo-europoeans would be in the 1/3 most reflective albedo (all of them).

And this is controlled for chronologically? Or is this an assumption based how census data collects this information since it has started--the census data, that is?

Steph is presumably so-called "Black." And his parents, too, are presumably so-called "Black." And when you compare Steph Curry and his siblings Sydel and Seth, you can tell there's a difference in "reflective albedo" despite their being born (presumably) to the same parents.

My point is this: stating that Indo-Europeans are purely so-called "White" or descended from those, who modern governments would characterize as purely so-called "White" has not been substantiated.

i.e. being the queen of an African country and ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom which spanned from Northeast Africa, the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of the Middle East (You can correct me if I'm wrong.)

Now if we're talking about so-called "race," then I'm still waiting on those who dispute that she is so-called "Black" to substantiate how Cleopatra is "exempt" or "excluded" because she was Macedonian.

So what was the point of "reflective albedo"?

Cleopatra would not qualify for either sense of the word. Her skin would have been in the top 1/3 of reflectivity and she would not have any large proportion of ancestry from subsaharan africa 12,000 years ago (10,000 years before her birth).

Since when were we restricting the parameters to "Subsaharan Africa"? Again, I ask you to explain:

INDO-EUROPEAN =/= SO-CALLED "BLACK."

Any absence of evidence cannot be used to form a conclusion

The disagreement here is apparently that the say so of an expert cannot be used as evidence by any rationally thinking person and therefore should be a priori discarded.

fallacies are implied inference; and your useless  link dumping implies support for a conclusion

It absolutely does imply support for the conclusion.

That doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean that the claim is at the very least credible, and it means if the claim is wrong it goes against the lifetime of study these folks have engaged in.

So applying Occam's razor, the simpler explanation is that sexuality is not a choice, because all I have to assume is that their studies and experience have yeilded an accurate understanding of reality.

as we use Occam's razor to determine what is most reasonable.

If you want to sit and sort through multiple scientific studies every single time you hear about a new discovery or anything you've never heard before be my guest. Most of us don't have that time nor care enough to do so. But if that's your standard for what you are willing to tentatively accept before you share your input with others then you need to be consistent and follow that same standard every single time you argue for anything.

[Sir.Lancelot] He has been reincarnated as a gold digger for the Soviet Union. All his original sins are wiped clean. Blank slate

I've explained to you why you're doing it (social reasoning) all wrong in detail before.

WebMD is not social reasoning, it's an organization of qualified medical experts whose purpose is to provide credible information to the general public.

You haven't explained why it's wrong for any non medical expert to tentatively accept the information it provides, what you've done is conflated the negative connotation to the word authority with expertise as an excuse to hand waive away any information you don't like.

I choose not to eat sometimes and I still get hungry.

I noticed you[DoubleR] said this a few times.  Are you saying that the determining factor in the gay thing is that a man is aroused when another man touches his dong?

Oromagi is gay, so he is already biased on the topic.

There is no evidence that homosexuality stems from a gene that can be passed on, or at the least that it's not something carried only in certain groups which could be selected against like height or skin color.

lol leave it to you to jump right into the muck of authority pokemon. Have fun.

WebMD? Would you be more convinced if I quoted Info Wars?

It would have been more fun if you chose to be aroused. Next time choose differently.

A exampke that is not relevant today

You don't go on Gore sites do you? 

Dude as their economy grows their wages grow.....so does state tax revenues 

It's all about GDP 

Sympathizing with me is unnecessary, I agree.

We will never be able to match their GDP 

People choose that everyday.  And then decide to be sexual again

No scientific agency says homosexuality is not a choice.  In fact t none will say we know what determines sexuality.  Sexuality is not a box checked at birth.  Sexuality fir many changes throughout their lifetime 

Clearly choice is likely a element in determining Sexuality

with the exception of political disagreement = bad guys

This is just about identifying people who disagree politically but also qualify (by whatever measure you wish to employ) as intelligent in your personal estimation.

[DavidAZ] The winner of all the matches would then be convinced that he gets a free ticket to freedom and then sent through some doors only to be shot in the head! No prison over crowding, no multi-decade waits for the death penalty.  Sure, we'll probably get a few falsely accused, but hey, no society is perfect.

[RationalMadman] He said let prisoners kill themselves and consider it a relief.

[IlDiavolo] Why doesn't the US put these inmates to work so they pay their own stay in prison?

Would you agree that people should be able to choose death penalty?

For example, just bullet in the head for those who wish to die.

[oromagi] No.  Death penalty costs the US taxpayer and average of $1 million per execution

[Best.Korea] Even in freedom, people often fail to commit suicide, when they have more means available to them than prisoners do.

[RationalMadman] Oromagi's real self is showing, mask is slipping.