DISQUS

The reason is that a large part of Russia's population lives in its european part, to the west ot the Ural mountains. This has historical reasons, as this map shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KievanRu... , where you see the area that was occupied by Russia in 11th century, which is also where ethnic Russians originally come from. The whole eastern part was colonized centuries later and was then (and still is) inhabited by other ethnic groups that actually do look like Asians. So, when today someone speaks about "Russians", they usually mean one ethnic group out of quite a lot that make up the population of today's Russia. And this one group is indeed historically from Europe.

The reason is that a large part of Russia's population lives in its european part, to the west ot the Ural mountains. This has historical reasons, as this map shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KievanRu... , where you see the area that was occupied by Russia in 11th century, which is also where ethnic Russians originally come from. The whole eastern part was colonized centuries later and was then (and still is) inhabited by other ethnic groups that actually do look like Asians. So, when today someone speaks about "Russians", they usually mean one ethnic group out of quite a lot that make up the population of today's Russia. And this one group is indeed historically from Europe.

@ Rick:

“I would assume to believe it the way the majority of man-kind has known it for thousands of years… an inherent belief.”

Inherent beliefs tend to be somewhat subjective. I dare say that our inherent belief is that the Sun rotates around the Earth. It took careful observations of the visible paths of the other planets done by Copernicus to figure that out. The man used science to disprove that inherent belief.

Or how about optical illusions? They are nothing more than hacks to turn our brain's "inherent beliefs" against itself. There's even a whole profession based on that, they are called "illusionists" or "magicians" (and the bible advises to inflict lethal violence upon them, or at least promises that they will burn in hell).

@ JBL:

What aletoledo said (comment #61), and how do you know, that whatever "believers experience" to be god was in any way involved in the creation of the universe or anything else that god is attributed with? Does it introduce itself during the first meeting: “Hello there, I'm God and you know me from ‘How to create a Universe in seven days’ and ‘How to flush your flawed creation down the toilet with a mighty deluge’.”? Sorry if this sounds silly or bashing, but when you make statements about experiencing "The Almighty Creator" first hand, you should at least give a little more detail of why do think it is what you think it is and why do you think all other possible explanations do not apply.

@ Rick:

“I would assume to believe it the way the majority of man-kind has known it for thousands of years… an inherent belief.”

Inherent beliefs tend to be somewhat subjective. I dare say that our inherent belief is that the Sun rotates around the Earth. It took careful observations of the visible paths of the other planets done by Copernicus to figure that out. The man used science to disprove that inherent belief.

Or how about optical illusions? They are nothing more than hacks to turn our brain's "inherent beliefs" against itself. There's even a whole profession based on that, they are called "illusionists" or "magicians" (and the bible advises to inflict lethal violence upon them, or at least promises that they will burn in hell).

@ JBL:

What aletoledo said (comment #61), and how do you know, that whatever "believers experience" to be god was in any way involved in the creation of the universe or anything else that god is attributed with? Does it introduce itself during the first meeting: “Hello there, I'm God and you know me from ‘How to create a Universe in seven days’ and ‘How to flush your flawed creation down the toilet with a mighty deluge’.”? Sorry if this sounds silly or bashing, but when you make statements about experiencing "The Almighty Creator" first hand, you should at least give a little more detail of why do think it is what you think it is and why do you think all other possible explanations do not apply.

Rick, for the sake of a thought experiment, assume you'd one day wake up with amnesia on an uninhabited island. The conditions are not hostile, there's enough food and water etc. How would you know there is a god, if no one told you?

Rick, for the sake of a thought experiment, assume you'd one day wake up with amnesia on an uninhabited island. The conditions are not hostile, there's enough food and water etc. How would you know there is a god, if no one told you?

@ Daniel:

You’ve tackled the problem in your last sentence: It’s IMO rather difficult “without learning a whole lot of biology yourself”. Once you’ve read up on how DNA, genes and all of cellular biochemistry work on the molecular level, lots of things start to make sense. Without that knowledge, there is much room for uneducated guesses and personal takes on why things are the way they are. The other problem are the vast time frames, during which evolutionary changes take place. Everything that takes longer that one human lifespan is already somewhat hard to believe, but millions of years …?

One example of how species can evolve might be dog breeds. They (as far as we can tell) all originate from one species – the wolves (there is some doubt about the exact ancestor, but let’s assume it were wolves). They were artificially selected and evolved into a large number of subspecies, most of which are still able to interbreed. Not all breeds can mate with one another (think Chihuahua and Great Dane, anatomically impossible), although they might both still be able to reproduce with a third one, which makes them valid subspecies. But if you would take that one away, suddenly the two original breeds would be genetically separated. By the definition of species, they are no longer the same one, a speciation event has occurred.

Another great example is Australia with its unique flora and fauna, which strongly correlate with the moment of its separation from the other continents.

@ Arik:

The crucial point about science is that experiments can be repeated by anyone and yield the same results (if they don’t, they are flawed – bad experiments). So if somebody wants to make up his own mind about gravity, they’ll just throw a stone up a couple of times and see it fall back down 100% of the time. For a rational human, that’s proof enough that this is the way it is, regardless of personal beliefs etc. Religion, on the other hand, is based on words, (usually) ancient “reports” of god doing things, but there is no way to assure yourself that any of it is true. Those who follow a religion do so because they have been told that the bible (or any other “holy book”) is true by a large number of people. They grew up and kept hearing “god this” and “god that”, and sooner or later they just take it for granted.

So here is what i believe to be the fundamental difference between scientists/sceptics/agnostics/atheists and believers: The former rely on what they have *experienced* or can check for themselves and make up their own mind about it, while the latter rely on written or spoken opinions of other people, sort of like: “If all those people say it’s true, then it must be.” People seem to be wired either this way or that, and there’s little one can do to change it. Although i think, if a change is possible, then from believing in words to believing in proof, not the other way round. This might imply that relying on proof is the more “advanced” attitude, because one does the thinking and the work of second-guessing themselves, instead of just following the lead of the crowd.

@ Daniel:

You’ve tackled the problem in your last sentence: It’s IMO rather difficult “without learning a whole lot of biology yourself”. Once you’ve read up on how DNA, genes and all of cellular biochemistry work on the molecular level, lots of things start to make sense. Without that knowledge, there is much room for uneducated guesses and personal takes on why things are the way they are. The other problem are the vast time frames, during which evolutionary changes take place. Everything that takes longer that one human lifespan is already somewhat hard to believe, but millions of years …?

One example of how species can evolve might be dog breeds. They (as far as we can tell) all originate from one species – the wolves (there is some doubt about the exact ancestor, but let’s assume it were wolves). They were artificially selected and evolved into a large number of subspecies, most of which are still able to interbreed. Not all breeds can mate with one another (think Chihuahua and Great Dane, anatomically impossible), although they might both still be able to reproduce with a third one, which makes them valid subspecies. But if you would take that one away, suddenly the two original breeds would be genetically separated. By the definition of species, they are no longer the same one, a speciation event has occurred.

Another great example is Australia with its unique flora and fauna, which strongly correlate with the moment of its separation from the other continents.

@ Arik:

The crucial point about science is that experiments can be repeated by anyone and yield the same results (if they don’t, they are flawed – bad experiments). So if somebody wants to make up his own mind about gravity, they’ll just throw a stone up a couple of times and see it fall back down 100% of the time. For a rational human, that’s proof enough that this is the way it is, regardless of personal beliefs etc. Religion, on the other hand, is based on words, (usually) ancient “reports” of god doing things, but there is no way to assure yourself that any of it is true. Those who follow a religion do so because they have been told that the bible (or any other “holy book”) is true by a large number of people. They grew up and kept hearing “god this” and “god that”, and sooner or later they just take it for granted.

So here is what i believe to be the fundamental difference between scientists/sceptics/agnostics/atheists and believers: The former rely on what they have *experienced* or can check for themselves and make up their own mind about it, while the latter rely on written or spoken opinions of other people, sort of like: “If all those people say it’s true, then it must be.” People seem to be wired either this way or that, and there’s little one can do to change it. Although i think, if a change is possible, then from believing in words to believing in proof, not the other way round. This might imply that relying on proof is the more “advanced” attitude, because one does the thinking and the work of second-guessing themselves, instead of just following the lead of the crowd.

Take a look into your single posting template, the first 8 lines are there twice.

Take a look into your single posting template, the first 8 lines are there twice.