[_ Old Earth _] No creationist espouses that evolutionists...

[Heidi]

No creationist espouses that evolutionists claim that primates gave birth to a complete human being. Creationists espouse that evoltuionists claim that primates gave birth to creatures that turned into human beings. That is exactly what the theory of evolution claims. But not only has no one ever witnessed that, (which is what evolutionists count on, by the way), but how, precisely, can that happen without the ancestors of human beings being the offspring of both a primate and a human? :o Afterall, each species is propogated by the act of mating and carry on the genes of both their parents. Isn't that what this common ancestor is supposed to be, half-man, half-beast? How does that not suggest bestiality? :-?

 

[jwu]

Creationists espouse that evoltuionists claim that primates gave birth to creatures that turned into human beings.

What exactly do you mean by "turning into" human beings?

Could you describe that process in detail? How long would it take according to us evolutionists?

But not only has no one ever witnessed that, (which is what evolutionists count on, by the way), but how, precisely, can that happen without the ancestors of human beings being the offspring of both a primate and a human? Afterall, each species is propogated by the act of mating and carry on the genes of both their parents. Isn't that what this common ancestor is supposed to be, half-man, half-beast? How does that not suggest bestiality?

What is a primate? Is it a species or a group of species?

 

[Heidi]

Creationists espouse that evoltuionists claim that primates gave birth to creatures that turned into human beings.

What exactly do you mean by "turning into" human beings?

Could you describe that process in detail? How long would it take according to us evolutionists?

[quote:578ba]But not only has no one ever witnessed that, (which is what evolutionists count on, by the way), but how, precisely, can that happen without the ancestors of human beings being the offspring of both a primate and a human? Afterall, each species is propogated by the act of mating and carry on the genes of both their parents. Isn't that what this common ancestor is supposed to be, half-man, half-beast? How does that not suggest bestiality?

What is a primate? Is it a species or a group of species?[/quote:578ba]

I don't know, that's an excellent question. you tell me. How long did it take for "primates" to turn into human beings? :o Scientists change their minds about this every generation. And again, how did that happen without being the product of a human and an ape? :o

That's another excellent question. Since this fictitious beast has never shown up, it's still called the "missing link." So it must only exist in the minds of scientists or it wouldn't still be missing. :

 

[jwu]

I don't know, that's an excellent question. you tell me. How long did it take for "primates" to turn into human beings? Scientists change their minds about this every generation. And again, how did that happen without being the product of a human and an ape?

That's the whole point - there is no answer to this question, as it requires humans not to be primates. But humans are primates, just like our ancestral species were.

That's another excellent question. Since this fictitious beast has never shown up, it's still called the "missing link." So it must only exist in the minds of scientists or it wouldn't still be missing.

No. Primates are a group of species, many of which are alive today. Chimps are primates. Gorillas are primates. Oran Utans and Bonobos are primates - and us Humans are primates too.
However, note that the term "Primate" describes a group of species, not a species itself. Therefore Chimps cannot interbreed with Gorillas and Humans cannot interbreed with Orang Utans and so on.

PS: You seem to be confused by the terminology. Primate is a taxonomic order. It contains several sub-groups: Lemurs, Apes and Monkeys.
These sub-groups then again are groups of species; e.g. Apes contain the species of Humans, Gorillas, Chimps and so on.

So when one of us evolutionists say that Humans are Apes and some that Humans are Primates, then we are not contradicting ourselves at all.
Just like "we went to Disneyland in a plane" does not contradict "we went to Disneyland in a Boeing" in any way. And that again is not contradicted by stating "we went to Disneyland in a Boeing 747 that was built in 1985" either. Just one is more specific than the other.
The one who is writing this is a Primate, an Ape and a Human. All of these things are correct, just one is more specific than the other.

 

[Heidi]

I don't know, that's an excellent question. you tell me. How long did it take for "primates" to turn into human beings? Scientists change their minds about this every generation. And again, how did that happen without being the product of a human and an ape?

That's the whole point - there is no answer to this question, as it requires humans not to be primates. But humans are primates, just like our ancestral species were.

[quote:27c68]That's another excellent question. Since this fictitious beast has never shown up, it's still called the "missing link." So it must only exist in the minds of scientists or it wouldn't still be missing.

No. Primates are a group of species, many of which are alive today. Chimps are primates. Gorillas are primates. Oran Utans and Bonobos are primates - and us Humans are primates too.
However, note that the term "Primate" describes a group of species, not a species itself. Therefore Chimps cannot interbreed with Gorillas and Humans cannot interbreed with Orang Utans and so on.

PS: You seem to be confused by the terminology. Primate is a taxonomic order. It contains several sub-groups: Lemurs, Apes and Monkeys.
These sub-groups then again are groups of species; e.g. Apes contain the species of Humans, Gorillas, Chimps and so on.

So when one of us evolutionists say that Humans are Apes and some that Humans are Primates, then we are not contradicting ourselves at all.
Just like "we went to Disneyland in a plane" does not contradict "we went to Disneyland in a Boeing" in any way. And that again is not contradicted by stating "we went to Disneyland in a Boeing 747 that was built in 1985" either. Just one is more precise than the other.
The one who is writing this is a Primate, an Ape and a Human.[/quote:27c68]

And where did you get this nonsense? From fallible human beings? :o In the 19th century, scientists were convinced that bleeding people would cure them or that brain size determined intelliegence. They also had a 3 page list of the dieseases that smoking actually cures! That's because that's all they understood at the time. But as time went on, they found out they were wrong even though they were convinced they were not.

You don't realize that the arrogance of man leads him to believe everything he thinks he knows. So which scientists do you believe? Today's scientists or tomorrow's scintists who correct today's scientists? :o

Sorry, but calling a human being an animal doesn't make him one any more than calling him a plant makes him a plant. Again, the differences between animals and humans are obvious for all to see, except of course, for many scientists who cannot tell the difference between the two.

 

[jwu]

Please address the actual points instead of evading them.

However, the classifications of Primate, Ape and so on were made by Carl Linnaeus, a creationist.

You don't realize that the arrogance of man leads him to believe everything he thinks he knows. So which scientists do you believe? Today's scientists or tomorrow's scintists who correct today's scientists?

If tomorrow's scientists come up with new evidence, then i will change my mind accordingly. Until then, today's evidence stands.

Sorry, but calling a human being an animal doesn't make him one any more than calling him a plant makes him a plant. Again, the differences between animals and humans are obvious for all to see, except of course, for many scientists who cannot tell the difference between the two.

Ok, then please name these differences. What so obvious measurable differences are there which distinguish Humans from other animals?

 

[Heidi]

Please address the actual points instead of evading them.

However, the classifications of Primate, Ape and so on were made by Carl Linnaeus, a creationist.

You don't realize that the arrogance of man leads him to believe everything he thinks he knows. So which scientists do you believe? Today's scientists or tomorrow's scintists who correct today's scientists?

If tomorrow's scientists come up with new evidence, then i will change my mind accordingly. Until then, today's evidence stands.

[quote:8e27a]Sorry, but calling a human being an animal doesn't make him one any more than calling him a plant makes him a plant. Again, the differences between animals and humans are obvious for all to see, except of course, for many scientists who cannot tell the difference between the two.

Ok, then please name these differences. What so obvious measurable differences are there which distinguish Humans from other animals?[/quote:8e27a]

You've contradicted yourself, my friend. You have shown that the theories themselves in which you believe are not set in stone, but instead, you believe the minds of scientists who admit their own theories aren't correct! That's like believing people who say their theories are wrong which is an oxymoron. It's also an admission that the theories in which you believe are not coming from a reliable source.

Hello? You really need someone to tell you the differences between humans and apes? Here's how you can find out; go to the jungle or zoos where man put apes and simply observe them. I have yet to see an ape on this forum or ruling the world (althoug some people might disagree with me). Then try to explain what you think makes humans build bridges, form conceptual analyses, read, write, gain spiritual understanding and have the power to rule apes and apes haven't been able to do that since the beginning of recorded history. :

Humans have some characteristics of plants also. We both need food water, and we grow. Does that make us plants? :o

 

[Drew]

Please...someone end this insanity...

 

[jwu]

You've contradicted yourself, my friend. You have shown that the theories themselves in which you believe are not set in stone, but instead, you believe the minds of scientists who admit their own theories aren't correct! That's like believing people who say their theories are wrong which is an oxymoron. It's also an admission that the theories in which you believe are not coming from a reliable source.

What?
Theories are of course not set in stone. They may change in the future or be discarded completely. However, until the evidence which causes this they are considered provisionally correct. After all, exactly that evidence which could disprove them may never be discovered because they are correct and therefore that evidence does not exist.

Hello? You really need someone to tell you the differences between humans and apes? Here's how you can find out; go to the jungle or zoos where man put apes and simply observe them. I have yet to see an ape on this forum or ruling the world (althoug some people might disagree with me). Then try to explain what you think makes humans build bridges, form conceptual analyses, read, write, gain spiritual understanding and have the power to rule apes and apes haven't been able to do that since the beginning of recorded history.

I note that you do not provide any biological criteria, just sociological things. Sorry, Heidi, the ability to build bridges has no bearing whatsoever on a biological classification.
And besides, a bridge is a tool for a specific purpose (getting over a river). Tool use (albeit more primitive tools) has been observed in many species.

 

[cubedbee]

Hello? You really need someone to tell you the differences between humans and apes?

You certainly do. Human refers to one particular species. Ape refers to a superfamily of primates, which includes many species, one of them being humans.

Here's how you can find out; go to the jungle or zoos where man put apes and simply observe them.

Well, man is an ape. So when I go to the zoo, I observe many apes, on both sides of the bars.

I have yet to see an ape on this forum or ruling the world (althoug some people might disagree with me).

No one person rules the world, but the closest would be the President of the US, who is indeed an ape.

Then try to explain what you think makes humans build bridges, form conceptual analyses, read, write, gain spiritual understanding and have the power to rule apes and apes haven't been able to do that since the beginning of recorded history. :

Humans are apes. So apes have been doing all those things since the beginning of human history. Other non-human apes don’t do these things, but who cares? That means humans are the best of the apes. That doesn’t mean humans aren’t apes, any more than it means my car with all kinds of extra gizmos and gadgets isn’t a car. The definition of ape is strictly defined by scientists, has nothing to do with anything you’re writing, and includes humans.

Humans have some characteristics of plants also. We both need food water, and we grow. Does that make us plants? :o

No, Heidi, you need to learn the concept of “definitionâ€Â. Words can’t just mean what we want. There are things called dictionaries which we use to define things. The definition of plant is “Any of various photosynthetic, eukaryotic, multicellular organisms of the kingdom Plantae characteristically producing embryos, containing chloroplasts, having cellulose cell walls, and lacking the power of locomotion.†Humans are not photosynthetic, they do not contain chloroplasts, and they have the power of locomotion. So, clearly humans are not plants.

 

[Heidi]

Please address the actual points instead of evading them.

However, the classifications of Primate, Ape and so on were made by Carl Linnaeus, a creationist.

You don't realize that the arrogance of man leads him to believe everything he thinks he knows. So which scientists do you believe? Today's scientists or tomorrow's scintists who correct today's scientists?

If tomorrow's scientists come up with new evidence, then i will change my mind accordingly. Until then, today's evidence stands.

[quote:a138d]Sorry, but calling a human being an animal doesn't make him one any more than calling him a plant makes him a plant. Again, the differences between animals and humans are obvious for all to see, except of course, for many scientists who cannot tell the difference between the two.

Ok, then please name these differences. What so obvious measurable differences are there which distinguish Humans from other animals?[/quote:a138d]

Boy, you sure do like to people worship! That is not only worshipping fallibility, it is judging which human being is more important than another. Sorry, but if Carl says that humans are primates, then he does not believe the bible. The bible says that man is the only creation he created in his image. Man is also the only creation in whom God breathed life. But if people want to spit on that and equate humans with wild beasts, then they are are free to believe any delusion they want. I prefer to believe an infallible text than men who think they know better than God. That alone shows delusions of grandeur.

 

[jwu]

Boy, you sure do like to people worship! That is not only worshipping fallibility, it is judging which human being is more important than another.

I'd ask you what the heck you are talking about, but then your evasion attempt would be successful.

Sorry, but if Carl says that humans are primates, then he does not believe the bible. The bible says that man is the only creation he created in his image. Man is also the only creation in whom God breathed life. But if people want to spit on that and equate humans with wild beasts, then they are are free to believe any delusion they want.

Yet humans and apes do share enough characteristics down to a genetic level to be classified as a group of species. Ignoring it won't make it go away. And that does not even contradict humans being made in the image of God. After all, chimps don't look exactly like humans, do they? And that even presupposes that "image" in that context refers to physical appearance.

I prefer to believe an infallible text than men who think they know better than God. That alone shows delusions of grandeur.

No, you prefer your fallible interpretation of a text which you believe to be infallible, but which contradicts itself many times.
I freely admit that tomorrow evidence might be uncovered which disproves everything i said on these boards so far. Can you say the same about your position?

 

[Loren Michael]

Please address the actual points instead of evading them.

However, the classifications of Primate, Ape and so on were made by Carl Linnaeus, a creationist.

You don't realize that the arrogance of man leads him to believe everything he thinks he knows. So which scientists do you believe? Today's scientists or tomorrow's scintists who correct today's scientists?

If tomorrow's scientists come up with new evidence, then i will change my mind accordingly. Until then, today's evidence stands.

[quote:59862]Sorry, but calling a human being an animal doesn't make him one any more than calling him a plant makes him a plant. Again, the differences between animals and humans are obvious for all to see, except of course, for many scientists who cannot tell the difference between the two.

Ok, then please name these differences. What so obvious measurable differences are there which distinguish Humans from other animals?

Boy, you sure do like to people worship! That is not only worshipping fallibility, it is judging which human being is more important than another. Sorry, but if Carl says that humans are primates, then he does not believe the bible. The bible says that man is the only creation he created in his image. Man is also the only creation in whom God breathed life. But if people want to spit on that and equate humans with wild beasts, then they are are free to believe any delusion they want. I prefer to believe an infallible text than men who think they know better than God. That alone shows delusions of grandeur.[/quote:59862]

heidi, your argument is like saying that the bible is not a book. everyone else is saying (this is an analogy!) that there are cookbooks, comic books, biographies, diet books, trashy romances, all kinds of books. because the definition of a book involves paper bound to other paper in a readable format. you're saying that the bible, due to its superior status to otehr books, is in fact no book at all. when in reality, regardless of the power of the bible, it is still classified as a book. perhaps you prefer "Good book" or what have you, but it's still a book. the reason we call books books is because we needed some means to identify them, to relate the idea of them to other people. it's an arbitrary definition, and, though the ultimate source of the word is god (as with all things), it is also a definition made by men. to classify things. the bible is a religious book. that's pretty much where you find it at Borders or Barnes & Noble. that's how it's classified. the bible/humans are SPECIAL. we KNOW. but we still have CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THEM.

for me to have to type what i just did to convey this concept to someone astonishes me. the fact that you still will argue your point brings a tear to my eye.

thank you, heidi.

 

[Frost Giant]

Heidi, I hope you're ugly, because I don't want you to ever have children.

 

[Loren Michael]

Heidi, I hope you're ugly, because I don't want you to ever have children.

though i am obviously not a fan of heidi, that seems rather direct, and nonconstructive.

(not nice things = not say anything)

and whatnot.

 

[Heidi]

[quote="Frost Giant":829da]Heidi, I hope you're ugly, because I don't want you to ever have children.

though i am obviously not a fan of heidi, that seems rather direct, and nonconstructive.

(not nice things = not say anything)

and whatnot.[/quote:829da]

I stand up for the bible 100%. So I expect personal attacks from unbelievers. But Christians saying that they're not a fan of mine for standing up for the bible is truly a sad thing. Well sorry, but I'm not going to contradict the bible even if a Christian wants me to. I'm overwhelmingly saddened that you want me to. :

 

[Loren Michael]

[quote="Frost Giant":78bb4]Heidi, I hope you're ugly, because I don't want you to ever have children.

though i am obviously not a fan of heidi, that seems rather direct, and nonconstructive.

(not nice things = not say anything)

and whatnot.

I stand up for the bible 100%. So I expect personal attacks from unbelievers. But Christians saying that they're not a fan of mine for standing up for the bible is truly a sad thing. Well sorry, but I'm not going to contradict the bible even if a Christian wants me to. I'm overwhelmingly saddened that you want me to. :[/quote:78bb4]

your "standing up for the bible" has very little bearing on my feelings for you. don't be so hard on yourself.

EDIT: i think this has gotten kind of off topic. i apologize.