|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:22 pm
No, because if you start saying that anything in the book of genesis is to be taken literately I will have to slap you through the internet, which I'm totally capable of.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:29 pm
enter
enter
spaceHolly Says,
"So you are willing to believe that whatever your science textbook says is real simply because it's in your science textbook?
The Bible is FULL of science that predates whatever human scientist is famous for discovering it. God teaches us things that people never would have agreed with, for example, that the earth is in fact round.
For the heck of it, I will post some examples and where they can be found in a different thread. This is not the correct topic for the discussion currently going on."
enter
enter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:30 pm
I am most likely responding to a debate that is beyond dead within the guild (ever alive in the ED), but I have a couple problems with the terms being thrown around in this thread. As an anthropology major it actually makes me twitch to see people saying "race this" & "race that" as though hair, eye shape and skin pigmentation actually gave humans a subspecies. All humans share the same genus and thus the same race.
Also, it confuses me how people can forget about the Eve Hypothesis as applicable to this debate. Please think about what you're implying before you post erroneous facts and concepts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:26 am
It's sad that you would equate genus and subspecies, though I guess that is not really your field.
Race does not refer to genus as far as humans are concerned. Instead it refers to the categorizations of humans into ancestral groups based on heritable traits. (Such as skin colour, skull shape etc.)
Seems like the sort of thing an Anthropology major would know. 3nodding
Eve was also sadly not used in the sense of "Mitochondrial eve", but rather the biblical woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:43 am
Genus = Classification for a species
arrow Human has no subspecies. That is the point I was trying to make. The term "race" has actually been thrown out in Anthropology. I'll not go into detail...no need to be redundant.
Edit: Thank you for revising your statement. I wasn't trying to provoke mud-slinging and name calling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:47 am
I realized the tone was sort of insulting, if you were offended in any way I apologize.
[tangent]
Actually Species is a classification for Genus. sweatdrop
It goes: (correct me if I'm wrong) Domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
... or did I merely misunderstand you?
... I probably did. [/tangent]
Edit: Actually Homo Sapiens does have a subspecies, or rather we did.
Though I guess extinct ones don't count.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:58 am
Terms are somewhat interchangeable.
I am not a graduate student, I've merely taken two anthropology courses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
