|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Reality vs. science fiction - 7/6/2008 7:21:02 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
Creationists live in reality where humans breed humans, apes breed apes, dogs breed dogs, and every other animal breeds its own kind.
Evolutionists, on the other hand, live in the world of science fiction where animals breed animals other than themselves, apes breed humans and humans will evolve into a superior species, although they don't know what species humans will turn into. 
Nevertheless, in the world of science fiction, anything's possible. Humans could have come from bacteria, ooze from the ground, half-men, half beasts called "common ancestors" (because they have to be common to both humans and apes in order to pass along the story that humans came from apes), Martians (as one scientist on the Science Discovery Channel claimed since there's evidence of life on Mars), or any other scenario that humans are capable of imagining.
That's because scientists want to make a name for themselves so they want to outdo the scientists of the previous generations and come up with something new. And new it is. In fact these theories are so new, that the biggest criteria for the beliefs of 20th and 21st century scientists is that no one in history can document or verify their claims about history. So the less evidence the better. 
One can find something in reality to justify any scenario that he wants to imagine. In evolution, it's that apes look like humans so that means that one must have come from the other. But what they don't realize is that by their reasoning, if apes and humans can exchange genes with each other, then apes could have just as easily come from humans instead of the other way around. But since evolutionists don't know who the common ancestor is since he still exists in the imaginations of men, then of course, they don't know the origin of man. They just imagine what it is which makes their beliefs imaginary since in reality, apes and humans cannot interbreed and exchange genes which is precisely why one does not breed the other in reality.
But unfortunately, the world of science fiction is far more pleasurable than reality to scientists because in the world of science fiction, one can deny God and in fact, play God himself. and that's fine if scientists want to live in the world of science fiction, but when they try to brainwash our children that their horror stories are true, that's where they cross the line. One can only hope that most children in the next generation won't abandon their common sense and stick to how animals and humans breed in the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/6/2008 7:23:08 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
How many topics filled with the same pointless incoherent nonsensical ramblings are you going to start?
This is bordering on spam.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/6/2008 7:36:43 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
How many topics filled with the same pointless incoherent nonsensical ramblings are you going to start?
This is bordering on spam.
Since evolutionists have been brainwashing people for over 150 years that apes can breed people, then it will take innumerable repetition to expose their stories as the lies they are and I will continue to do so so that they will stop deceiving people.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/6/2008 8:21:40 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
How many topics filled with the same pointless incoherent nonsensical ramblings are you going to start?
This is bordering on spam.
Since evolutionists have been brainwashing people for over 150 years that apes can breed people, then it will take innumerable repetition to expose their stories as the lies they are and I will continue to do so so that they will stop deceiving people.
150 years is a mere blip on the radar compared to the time creationism has been around.
If you can find a prominent evolutionary biologists that claims "apes can breed people" - or more appropriately, that a chimp can breed humans - I'll agree with you that they are lying. You still fail to grasp the concept that human beings are apes. Ape does not refer to a specific breed of monkey or chimp. What you are saying is equivalent to saying "a fish cannot breed a trout".
The chorus of people after almost all of your posts telling you you need to spend some time actually learning about evolution is not a coincidence. Your posts are so convoluted they make absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you are going to criticize evolution, it would behoove you to have a modicum of understanding about the theory. No one expects you to be an expert, most of us are not scientists (with one or two exceptions), but displaying an elementary understanding of evolution would go along way towards people actually taking you seriously. Your continual misrepresentations (ie. evolutionists claim that 'apes breed humans' etc etc) show that you clearly haven't made an attempt to actually learn or understand the theory you so fervently decry.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/6/2008 8:55:58 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 385
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
I can't tell whether you're a troll, a satirist, or simply sincere in your ignorance.
quote:
Creationists live in reality where humans breed humans, apes breed apes, dogs breed dogs, and every other animal breeds its own kind.
You tripped out of the starting gate this time. Humans are apes. Human is a Species. Ape is a Family. Saying that humans breed humans and apes breed apes is like saying that dachshunds breed dachshunds and dogs breed dogs. This is self evident. This agrees with evolutionary theory completely.
Also falling into this understanding is that wolves breed (after a vast number of generations) dachshunds. (All current domestic dogs are descendant from domesticated wolves.)
Humans-are-apes-are-primates-are-mammals in the same manner that dachshunds-are-wolves-are-dogs-are-mammals. (Yes, dachshunds are still wolves. The classification for the wolf family is Canis lupus. Dachshunds (As well as all domestic dogs) fall under Canis lupus familiaris.) No matter how many ancestor species dachshunds have they will always be wolves, and further will always be dachshunds.
quote:
Evolutionists, on the other hand, live in the world of science fiction where animals breed animals other than themselves, apes breed humans and humans will evolve into a superior species, although they don't know what species humans will turn into.
As stated above, apes do breed humans. And dogs breed dachshunds. You're confusing family and species. Please learn the difference.
Humans may not evolve into a superior species. If our environment changes and we fail to adapt, we will die. If our environment changes and we do adapt to it, we will become a 'superior' species. This does not imply that we will be smarter, faster, or stronger. It merely means that we will be better adapted to that environment than a currently living human would be. If this requires us to become stupider (making the brain a lesser priority, shifting the massive amount of resources used to sustain it elsewhere) then that species will be 'better' than humans are.
We can't tell you what species humans will become because we don't know what the environmental change will be, or what types of adaptation would be beneficial in that environment.
quote:
Nevertheless, in the world of science fiction, anything's possible. Humans could have come from bacteria, ooze from the ground, half-men, half beasts called "common ancestors" (because they have to be common to both humans and apes in order to pass along the story that humans came from apes), Martians (as one scientist on the Science Discovery Channel claimed since there's evidence of life on Mars), or any other scenario that humans are capable of imagining.
Humans didn't come from bacteria. Humans are in the domain of Eukaryota, Bacteria are in the domain Eubacteria. Men are still 'beasts' (If by beast you mean 'Animal' [We are of the kingdom Animalia]).
Of course our ancestors are common to humans and apes. Humans are apes. Our ancestors are apes, all of our children will be apes.
We couldn't have come from Martians unless some simple from of life that had existed on Mars had been somehow transplanted to Earth. If that is the case, we would share either genetic or morphological traits with that life. If this is the case, there would have be evidence of it. If substantial evidence is found for this then we would accept it. We accept things based on evidence, not on wild conjecture.
quote:
That's because scientists want to make a name for themselves so they want to outdo the scientists of the previous generations and come up with something new. And new it is. In fact these theories are so new, that the biggest criteria for the beliefs of 20th and 21st century scientists is that no one in history can document or verify their claims about history. So the less evidence the better.
Of course scientists want to make a name for themselves. Most people do. Scientists are people.
Of course they want to 'outdo' scientists of previous generations. The whole point of science is to find out things about our universe. If scientists didn't do anything to improve upon the science of yesteryear, they wouldn't be scientists. New, or deeper, research is the lifeblood of science.
All of the hypothesizes that that scientists come up with must be substantiated by evidence and agree with all relevant facts before they become theories. If something becomes a theory, it has a lot of evidence behind it, because this is the only way that a hypothesis becomes a theory. The more evidence, the more widely accepted the theory.
quote:
In evolution, it's that apes look like humans so that means that one must have come from the other. But what they don't realize is that by their reasoning, if apes and humans can exchange genes with each other, then apes could have just as easily come from humans instead of the other way around. But since evolutionists don't know who the common ancestor is since he still exists in the imaginations of men, then of course, they don't know the origin of man. They just imagine what it is which makes their beliefs imaginary since in reality, apes and humans cannot interbreed and exchange genes which is precisely why one does not breed the other in reality.
The fact that other apes look like humans (homologous structures) is but one piece of evidence that they are related. This is in addition to all microbiological, genetic, developmental, and embryological similarities.
Apes can obviously exchange genes with apes. Humans are apes. (Yes, I know I've said this quite a number of time. Until you learn what 'ape' means I'm not going to stop.)
Other apes, such as gorillas, could not have come from humans. We know this because of those same genetic markers I talked about in your other thread. (Not to mention the fossil record, showing that humans are a relatively recent species.) I'm not going to bother explaining it again. If you want more detail, go do your own research.
quote:
But unfortunately, the world of science fiction is far more pleasurable than reality to scientists because in the world of science fiction, one can deny God and in fact, play God himself. and that's fine if scientists want to live in the world of science fiction, but when they try to brainwash our children that their horror stories are true, that's where they cross the line. One can only hope that most children in the next generation won't abandon their common sense and stick to how animals and humans breed in the real world.
Unfortunately for you, the masses of evidence for evolutionary theory show that it's just science, not fiction. This isn't to mention that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with religion. You can be a Christian who accepts evolution, of an atheist that rejects it. Your attempt to connect them is insulting to a great number of Christian scientists who do accept evolutionary theory.
One can only be glad that creationism has already been handily defeated in the court systems, and that unless it manages to win a scientific consensus, it will be kept out of our schools, giving children a chance to lean about reality.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 8:50:04 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
I can't tell whether you're a troll, a satirist, or simply sincere in your ignorance.
quote:
Creationists live in reality where humans breed humans, apes breed apes, dogs breed dogs, and every other animal breeds its own kind.
You tripped out of the starting gate this time. Humans are apes. Human is a Species. Ape is a Family. Saying that humans breed humans and apes breed apes is like saying that dachshunds breed dachshunds and dogs breed dogs. This is self evident. This agrees with evolutionary theory completely.
Also falling into this understanding is that wolves breed (after a vast number of generations) dachshunds. (All current domestic dogs are descendant from domesticated wolves.)
Humans-are-apes-are-primates-are-mammals in the same manner that dachshunds-are-wolves-are-dogs-are-mammals. (Yes, dachshunds are still wolves. The classification for the wolf family is Canis lupus. Dachshunds (As well as all domestic dogs) fall under Canis lupus familiaris.) No matter how many ancestor species dachshunds have they will always be wolves, and further will always be dachshunds.
quote:
Evolutionists, on the other hand, live in the world of science fiction where animals breed animals other than themselves, apes breed humans and humans will evolve into a superior species, although they don't know what species humans will turn into.
As stated above, apes do breed humans. And dogs breed dachshunds. You're confusing family and species. Please learn the difference.
Humans may not evolve into a superior species. If our environment changes and we fail to adapt, we will die. If our environment changes and we do adapt to it, we will become a 'superior' species. This does not imply that we will be smarter, faster, or stronger. It merely means that we will be better adapted to that environment than a currently living human would be. If this requires us to become stupider (making the brain a lesser priority, shifting the massive amount of resources used to sustain it elsewhere) then that species will be 'better' than humans are.
We can't tell you what species humans will become because we don't know what the environmental change will be, or what types of adaptation would be beneficial in that environment.
quote:
Nevertheless, in the world of science fiction, anything's possible. Humans could have come from bacteria, ooze from the ground, half-men, half beasts called "common ancestors" (because they have to be common to both humans and apes in order to pass along the story that humans came from apes), Martians (as one scientist on the Science Discovery Channel claimed since there's evidence of life on Mars), or any other scenario that humans are capable of imagining.
Humans didn't come from bacteria. Humans are in the domain of Eukaryota, Bacteria are in the domain Eubacteria. Men are still 'beasts' (If by beast you mean 'Animal' [We are of the kingdom Animalia]).
Of course our ancestors are common to humans and apes. Humans are apes. Our ancestors are apes, all of our children will be apes.
We couldn't have come from Martians unless some simple from of life that had existed on Mars had been somehow transplanted to Earth. If that is the case, we would share either genetic or morphological traits with that life. If this is the case, there would have be evidence of it. If substantial evidence is found for this then we would accept it. We accept things based on evidence, not on wild conjecture.
quote:
That's because scientists want to make a name for themselves so they want to outdo the scientists of the previous generations and come up with something new. And new it is. In fact these theories are so new, that the biggest criteria for the beliefs of 20th and 21st century scientists is that no one in history can document or verify their claims about history. So the less evidence the better.
Of course scientists want to make a name for themselves. Most people do. Scientists are people.
Of course they want to 'outdo' scientists of previous generations. The whole point of science is to find out things about our universe. If scientists didn't do anything to improve upon the science of yesteryear, they wouldn't be scientists. New, or deeper, research is the lifeblood of science.
All of the hypothesizes that that scientists come up with must be substantiated by evidence and agree with all relevant facts before they become theories. If something becomes a theory, it has a lot of evidence behind it, because this is the only way that a hypothesis becomes a theory. The more evidence, the more widely accepted the theory.
quote:
In evolution, it's that apes look like humans so that means that one must have come from the other. But what they don't realize is that by their reasoning, if apes and humans can exchange genes with each other, then apes could have just as easily come from humans instead of the other way around. But since evolutionists don't know who the common ancestor is since he still exists in the imaginations of men, then of course, they don't know the origin of man. They just imagine what it is which makes their beliefs imaginary since in reality, apes and humans cannot interbreed and exchange genes which is precisely why one does not breed the other in reality.
The fact that other apes look like humans (homologous structures) is but one piece of evidence that they are related. This is in addition to all microbiological, genetic, developmental, and embryological similarities.
Apes can obviously exchange genes with apes. Humans are apes. (Yes, I know I've said this quite a number of time. Until you learn what 'ape' means I'm not going to stop.)
Other apes, such as gorillas, could not have come from humans. We know this because of those same genetic markers I talked about in your other thread. (Not to mention the fossil record, showing that humans are a relatively recent species.) I'm not going to bother explaining it again. If you want more detail, go do your own research.
quote:
But unfortunately, the world of science fiction is far more pleasurable than reality to scientists because in the world of science fiction, one can deny God and in fact, play God himself. and that's fine if scientists want to live in the world of science fiction, but when they try to brainwash our children that their horror stories are true, that's where they cross the line. One can only hope that most children in the next generation won't abandon their common sense and stick to how animals and humans breed in the real world.
Unfortunately for you, the masses of evidence for evolutionary theory show that it's just science, not fiction. This isn't to mention that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with religion. You can be a Christian who accepts evolution, of an atheist that rejects it. Your attempt to connect them is insulting to a great number of Christian scientists who do accept evolutionary theory.
One can only be glad that creationism has already been handily defeated in the court systems, and that unless it manages to win a scientific consensus, it will be kept out of our schools, giving children a chance to lean about reality.
In case you didn't know this, apes don't turn into people in reality and you still have no idea who the common ancestor is. So there are not masses and masses of evidence, there are masses and masses of stories about what happened before there were witnesses. That's called science fiction, not science. Sorry. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 9:20:45 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
In case you didn't know this, apes don't turn into people in reality and you still have no idea who the common ancestor is. So there are not masses and masses of evidence, there are masses and masses of stories about what happened before there were witnesses. That's called science fiction, not science. Sorry.
Dense arent we? Ape is to human (and gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans) as Canidae is to Dog (and wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc). Get it?
What don't you understand about the fact that an ape is not a species? And as Real_Solitude pointed out, it was a creationist who first categorized humans under the great ape family.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 9:39:42 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
In case you didn't know this, apes don't turn into people in reality and you still have no idea who the common ancestor is. So there are not masses and masses of evidence, there are masses and masses of stories about what happened before there were witnesses. That's called science fiction, not science. Sorry.
Dense arent we? Ape is to human (and gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans) as Canidae is to Dog (and wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc). Get it?
What don't you understand about the fact that an ape is not a species? And as Real_Solitude pointed out, it was a creationist who first categorized humans under the great ape family.
Dense? Hardly, what you just said, we all learned in elementary school. But you still believe it because you learned it in a class called "Science." So you don't see the fallacies in those statements.
So you first need to know the definition of species; "A system in the classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar characteristics capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding."
And since humans cannot exchange genes or interbreed with any animal, then no, humans are not animals, which means that one cannot be the offspring of the other, which reality confirms. But since you don't know the difference between humans and animals then you don't know why humans can't breed; goats, lions, apes any more than apes can breed humans goats or lions. This is basic biology. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 9:55:37 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
In case you didn't know this, apes don't turn into people in reality and you still have no idea who the common ancestor is. So there are not masses and masses of evidence, there are masses and masses of stories about what happened before there were witnesses. That's called science fiction, not science. Sorry.
Dense arent we? Ape is to human (and gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans) as Canidae is to Dog (and wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc). Get it?
What don't you understand about the fact that an ape is not a species? And as Real_Solitude pointed out, it was a creationist who first categorized humans under the great ape family.
Dense? Hardly, what you just said, we all learned in elementary school. But you still believe it because you learned it in a class called "Science." So you don't see the fallacies in those statements.
So you first need to know the definition of species; "A system in the classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar characteristics capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding."
And since humans cannot exchange genes or interbreed with any animal, then no, humans are not animals, which means that one cannot be the offspring of the other, which reality confirms.
Since a dog can't interbreed with other animals, does that mean dogs arent animals?
You have misunderstood an extremely basic point in the definition of species:
"A system in the classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar characteristics capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding."
See that? Organisms capable of interbreeding! Interbreeding.
quote:
But since you don't know the difference between humans and animals then you don't know why humans can't breed; goats, lions, apes any more than apes can breed humans goats or lions. This is basic biology.
I would type more, but I just did a quick google search of "Carico" and "forum" what do ya know? It has turned up a deluge of posts and threads on several other forums made by a poster Carico saying the same exact hopelessly ignorant things you do over and over and over... and over.. to an exasperated bunch of posters trying to patiently explain definitions of basic terminology that this poster hopelessly misunderstands. You seem to have left a trail of ill will (and occasional bannings) at several other forums for engaging in the same pattern of non-discussion and spamming of message boards that you do here. Not gonna play anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 10:00:16 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
In case you didn't know this, apes don't turn into people in reality and you still have no idea who the common ancestor is. So there are not masses and masses of evidence, there are masses and masses of stories about what happened before there were witnesses. That's called science fiction, not science. Sorry.
Dense arent we? Ape is to human (and gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans) as Canidae is to Dog (and wolves, foxes, coyotes, etc). Get it?
What don't you understand about the fact that an ape is not a species? And as Real_Solitude pointed out, it was a creationist who first categorized humans under the great ape family.
Dense? Hardly, what you just said, we all learned in elementary school. But you still believe it because you learned it in a class called "Science." So you don't see the fallacies in those statements.
So you first need to know the definition of species; "A system in the classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar characteristics capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding."
And since humans cannot exchange genes or interbreed with any animal, then no, humans are not animals, which means that one cannot be the offspring of the other, which reality confirms.
Since a dog can't interbreed with other animals, does that mean dogs arent animals?
You have misunderstood an extremely basic point in the definition of species:
"A system in the classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar characteristics capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding."
See that? Organisms capable of interbreeding! Interbreeding.
quote:
But since you don't know the difference between humans and animals then you don't know why humans can't breed; goats, lions, apes any more than apes can breed humans goats or lions. This is basic biology.
I would type more, but I just did a quick google search of "Carico" and "forum" what do ya know? It has turned up a deluge of posts and threads on several other forums made by a poster Carico saying the same exact hopelessly ignorant things you do over and over and over... and over.. to an exasperated bunch of posters trying to patiently explain definitions of basic terminology that this poster hopelessly misunderstands. You seem to have left a trail of ill will (and occasional bannings) at several other forums for engaging in the same pattern of non-discussion and spamming of message boards that you do here. Not gonna play anymore.
Dogs can breed with an animal called a dog. evolutionists also claim that dogs and wolves could interbreed. Humans can't breed with any animal.
When people can't defend their beliefs, they look for ways to personally attack other. Sorry but personal attacks can't take away your contradictions, nor do they address the OP. So they're a waste of time and only show you can't defend your beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 10:13:46 AM
|
|
|
Embedded
Posts: 48
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Dogs can breed with an animal called a dog. evolutionists also claim that dogs and wolves could interbreed. Humans can't breed with any animal.
Sure we humans can breed... with other humans. Not always succesfully but 6+ billion and growing is good evidence I think.
We ARE animals (not mineral or vegetable)
quote:
When people can't defend their beliefs, they look for ways to personally attack other. Sorry but personal attacks can't take away your contradictions, nor do they address the OP. So they're a waste of time and only show you can't defend your beliefs.
I have no belief to defend. I do not actually believe in ToE. I understand ToE to be the best current scientific theory that explains the evidence that we have so far for the origins and development of life on this planet.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 10:15:27 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Dogs can breed with an animal called a dog. evolutionists also claim that dogs and wolves could interbreed. Humans can't breed with any animal.
Dog's are a type of canidae, just like humans are a type of ape. Can a dog interbreed with a fox (also a canidae) or can a fox interbreed with a jackal (another canidae)? No.
quote:
When people can't defend their beliefs, they look for ways to personally attack other. Sorry but personal attacks can't take away your contradictions, nor do they address the OP. So they're a waste of time and only show you can't defend your beliefs.
When people can't defend their beliefs, they move to a new forum and exhibit the same spamming behavior that got them banned.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 10:18:56 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have no belief to defend. I do not actually believe in ToE. I understand ToE to be the best current scientific theory that explains the evidence that we have so far for the origins and development of life on this planet.
I agree. You express it well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 11:33:48 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(drj11)You still fail to grasp the concept that human beings are apes. Ape does not refer to a specific breed of monkey or chimp. What you are saying is equivalent to saying "a fish cannot breed a trout".
I have a question for you, and it is not to be considered a criticism or attack.
My copy of "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" copyright 1996, has two interesting entries I would like your observation on, as to whether they represent accuracy or error.
1st is under "Primate:" #2. Any of various omnivorous mammals of the order primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old /World Monkeys, and New World Monkeys), prosimii (Lemurs, loris, and their allies), and Tarsioidea (Tarsiers), esp. distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion,, and by complex flexible behaviour involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability."
2nd is under "Ape:"#1. Any of a group of anthropoid primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail, comprising the family Pongidae (Great Ape), which includes the Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and Orangutan, and the family Hylobatidae (Lesser Ape), which includes the Gibbon, and Siamang. #2 Any Primate EXCEPT HUMANS.(Cap. for emphasis TB).
According to this edition of Webster's dictionary, Putting "Primate" and "Ape" together, and Definition 1 & 2 together, Great Apes are considered to be in a family which includes "any primate except humans."
So Apes and Humans are both Primates; but Humans are NOT Apes.
Comment?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 11:42:25 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(drj11)You still fail to grasp the concept that human beings are apes. Ape does not refer to a specific breed of monkey or chimp. What you are saying is equivalent to saying "a fish cannot breed a trout".
I have a question for you, and it is not to be considered a criticism or attack.
My copy of "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" copyright 1996, has two interesting entries I would like your observation on, as to whether they represent accuracy or error.
1st is under "Primate:" #2. Any of various omnivorous mammals of the order primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old /World Monkeys, and New World Monkeys), prosimii (Lemurs, loris, and their allies), and Tarsioidea (Tarsiers), esp. distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion,, and by complex flexible behaviour involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability."
2nd is under "Ape:"#1. Any of a group of anthropoid primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail, comprising the family Pongidae (Great Ape), which includes the Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and Orangutan, and the family Hylobatidae (Lesser Ape), which includes the Gibbon, and Siamang. #2 Any Primate EXCEPT HUMANS.(Cap. for emphasis TB).
According to this edition of Webster's dictionary, Putting "Primate" and "Ape" together, and Definition 1 & 2 together, Great Apes are considered to be in a family which includes "any primate except humans."
So Apes and Humans are both Primates; but Humans are NOT Apes.
Comment?
every dictionary I've read defines humans and animals as separate from each other. So evolutionists not only try to change reality, they have to redefine words to try to make their theory true. But unfortunately for them, they can never make apes capable of turning into humans no matter how many words they try to redefine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 11:49:04 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Yes, taxonomy of the primates variously includes subcategories from suborder, infraorder, superfamily, and so on -- it is perhaps overly complex. I suppose all I am saying is that definitions can be reworked.
However, everything Real_Solitude was okay if you substitute "superfamily" for family, because Humans and Great Apes have more in common than your typical co-order species. See ape as in Hominoidea here.
Oh yes, actually, I believe the Pongidae distinction is outdated. The nomenclature is in flux, as I way saying.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 11:51:00 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Yes, taxonomy of the primates variously includes subcategories from suborder, infraorder, superfamily, and so on -- it is perhaps overly complex. I suppose all I am saying is that definitions can be reworked.
However, everything Real_Solitude was okay if you substitute "superfamily" for family, because Humans and Great Apes have more in common than your typical co-order species. See ape as in Hominoidea here.
Oh yes, actually, I believe the Pongidae distinction is outdated. The nomenclature is in flux, as I way saying.
Perhaps everything in common EXCEPT Aunt Mathilda?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 12:14:44 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1025
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
According to this edition of Webster's dictionary, Putting "Primate" and "Ape" together, and Definition 1 & 2 together, Great Apes are considered to be in a family which includes "any primate except humans."
So Apes and Humans are both Primates; but Humans are NOT Apes.
Comment?
It seems clear that a special exception is being made for humans in these definitions. Humans are primates, and apes include the anthropoid primates, but for some reason, it excludes the most anthropoid primate of them all! How can you exclude a species for fitting the description too well?
There's a good discussion on Wikipedia:
This classification of the great apes has been revised several times in the last few decades. Also see hominid for a helpful clarification of terms. Originally, the group was restricted to humans and their extinct relatives, with the other great apes being placed in a separate family, the Pongidae. This definition is still used by many anthropologists and by lay persons. However, that definition makes Pongidae paraphyletic, whereas most taxonomists nowadays encourage monophyletic groups. Thus many biologists consider Hominidae to include Pongidae as the subfamily Ponginae, or restrict the latter to the orangutans and their extinct relatives like Gigantopithecus. The taxonomy shown here follows the monophyletic groupings.
See also Paraphyletic.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 12:43:42 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
How can you exclude a species for fitting the description too well?
Perhaps because the description was made up by men who do not believe in God, but choose to believe all men are animals of WHATEVER category?
But I care not other than to point out the fickleness of definitions by men.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 12:53:13 PM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
According to this edition of Webster's dictionary, Putting "Primate" and "Ape" together, and Definition 1 & 2 together, Great Apes are considered to be in a family which includes "any primate except humans."
So Apes and Humans are both Primates; but Humans are NOT Apes.
Comment?
It seems clear that a special exception is being made for humans in these definitions. Humans are primates, and apes include the anthropoid primates, but for some reason, it excludes the most anthropoid primate of them all! How can you exclude a species for fitting the description too well?
There's a good discussion on Wikipedia:
This classification of the great apes has been revised several times in the last few decades. Also see hominid for a helpful clarification of terms. Originally, the group was restricted to humans and their extinct relatives, with the other great apes being placed in a separate family, the Pongidae. This definition is still used by many anthropologists and by lay persons. However, that definition makes Pongidae paraphyletic, whereas most taxonomists nowadays encourage monophyletic groups. Thus many biologists consider Hominidae to include Pongidae as the subfamily Ponginae, or restrict the latter to the orangutans and their extinct relatives like Gigantopithecus. The taxonomy shown here follows the monophyletic groupings.
See also Paraphyletic.
Then evolutionists have nothing to teach their children because they already agree with their children that their children should act like the animals they claim their children are. And the children in the last several generations sure prove they act like animals! That's because they're taught they are no better than animals. So the people of the previous centuries who knew we are higher than animals sure knew a lot more than today's generation as the actions of our children demonstrate. 
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
It wouldn't be hard for me to justify my story to make it believable because all I could say is that since mutations happen, then my story is true. 
