Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
3 online now:
dwise1, Phat (2 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 0/84 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 133 of 331 (567723)
07-02-2010 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
07-02-2010 9:56 AM


...
WTF?
Welcome back Jar!
Although, you do not know me, I always emjoyed reading your posts here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 07-02-2010 9:56 AM jar has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 310 of 331 (606932)
03-01-2011 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by JRTjr
03-01-2011 3:42 AM


Re: Show Me!
JRTjr writes:
You’re absolutely correct. In fact the point I bring out with this is that Dogs have always produced dogs, cat cats, and so on and so forth.
Yes, exactly as evolution predicts. The offspring of something will never be radically different from its parents.
The idea that man came from great apes, from lesser apes from some other life forms all the way back to sea creatures, and then to single celled life forms that somehow just popped on the seen is unproven.
No it isn't. You see, humans are still apes, are still mamals, are still vertebrates, and so on and so forth.
Give me some evidence that your great, great, X x great ancestor was anything other that a human and I will consider it.
No you won't, since this evidence has alteady been provided to you.
Or prove some direct link between fish and amphibians, or amphibians and land animals. Draw me a genealogy showing actual species from one major group to another.
This is the internet. I'm sure you can find the various phylogenetic trees out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by JRTjr, posted 03-01-2011 3:42 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by JRTjr, posted 03-13-2011 3:23 PM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 312 of 331 (606935)
03-01-2011 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by dennis780
03-01-2011 4:53 AM


Re: comparative religion class?
dennis780 writes:
How does someone understand the religion, without accepting it as true?
Since this is about a comparative religion class, I can't see how such a person exists. I mean, he would litterally have to accept every religion that comes up as true. How would that work? Or do you propse that members of each respective religion should teach about it in the class? It would get quite crowded in there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by dennis780, posted 03-01-2011 4:53 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1729 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 324 of 331 (608783)
03-13-2011 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by JRTjr
03-13-2011 3:23 PM


Re: Show Me!
JRTjr writes:
Dear Huntard,
It’s great that you have decided to join our little discussion; I hope you enjoy it.
I'm sure I will.
So, if I understand what you’re saying here {I have been accused of misrepresenting people} is that evolution predicts that once you have a fish it will always produce fish; never anything other than a fish? Correct?
Quite correct. Anything a fish will produce, will be a fish. Of course, you have to realize that with evolution involved, there might come a time when we no longer would refer to it's offspring as a fish, but then, neither would the parents be. There is no line one can draw and say "this is definitely a fish", and on the other side of the line "this is definitely an amphibian" (as an example). There will be many intermediary stages not quite fish and not quite amphibian, and only on either end can we call the creature a fish or an amphibian. Classifications are arbitrary, after all.
Actually, in fact, no one has given me any evidence that mankind has ever been less then mankind.
Mankind never was anything less than mankind. But if you go back far enough, our ancestors weren't mankind, they were something different.
Lets just simplify the question. Can you give me any evidence that you are ancestrally related to any ape?
My parents, come to mind. Also, my little brother, he's quite the ape, as am I, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by JRTjr, posted 03-13-2011 3:23 PM JRTjr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by arachnophilia, posted 03-13-2011 6:10 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022