Aron-Ra vs JohnR7: Question # 2

[JohnR7]

Both of us must answer every direct question, and both of us must properly address, [refute, excuse, explain or concede] every point of evidence brought against us. If you will not answer direct questions, or if you cannot defend certain points, (and refuse to concede them) you will lose by default. Remember, if you can abide by this rule, then after your 12th reply to this thread, if you have not already conceded defeat, you will win. Do try to adhere to this rule, because I'm tired of always [only] winning by default.

This is question number two for you. What is the difference between a man and a ape, or what is the difference between a man and a monkey?

Question number one for those who want to know is: What is the difference between the man made theory of evolution and (selective) breeding of plants and animals{hybrids)?

According to your "terms", if you can not answer this question, so as to be able to explain the difference, then you will lose by default.

 

[Aron-Ra]

This is question number two for you. What is the difference between a man and a ape,

I have already answered this question for you several times.
What is the difference between a Pentecost and a Christian?
What is the difference between a Corvette and a Chevy?
What is the difference between collie and a dog?

Once again, humans are apes the same way that ducks are birds.
All ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks.
All humans are apes, but not all apes are human.

or what is the difference between a man and a monkey?

That depends on how you define "monkey". I have asked you several times to provide your definition of that word, but you repeatedly refused to answer that question, as well as many others, thus violating the terms of the debate, which is why you lost by default. This should come as no surprise to you as you were given so many warnings.

However, I would still like to answer this question. Monkeys are Haplorhine anthropoid primates, and so are we. More specifically, humans are classified in the infraorder Catarrhini, the "Old World monkeys". Cladistically, that would mean that we are still monkeys now. Any descendant of a family is still part of that family, right? But even if you ignore taxonomy, and stick only to strict, character-based definitions of that word, you'll find that we are still monkeys even then. You can't give a complete, detailed character description of all monkeys (excluding none) without describing humans at the same time. Were you willing to answer my questions, as you had agreed to do, you would have realized that for yourself. However, the word "monkey" (as opposed to the phyletic alternative, "Haplorhine anthropoid") is usually treated as a non-phyletic grade term to indicate all haplorhine anthropoid primates except those of the superfamily, Hominoidea [apes].

Some people try to use the word "ape" to mean "extant, non-human hominids", so that they can list "humans and apes". But that doesn't really work, because it is limited only to those non-human "great" apes who are still alive, and ignores the "lesser apes", the gibbons and siamangs, as well as a whole lot of extinct creatures we could only recognize as "apes", and which fit every character description naturalists describe for that word, as we do also.

Question number one for those who want to know is: What is the difference between the man made theory of evolution and (selective) breeding of plants and animals{hybrids)?

That question was answered before it was asked. Your question #2 was answered before it was asked too. you really should pay more attention.

According to your terms, if you can not answer this question, so as to be able to explain the difference, then you will lose by default.

Accodring to our agreed terms, you already lost by default. I gave you three additional chances, and you blew every one. You're an irritating, willfully ignorant, and dishonest person. So I would appreciate it if you would not try to drag the farce you made of this on any further. This debate is over. I won.

 

[JohnR7]

I have already answered this question for you several times.

Once again, humans are apes the same way that ducks are birds.
All ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks.
All humans are apes, but not all apes are human.

That does not even explain the difference between primitive stone age man and apes. No wonder you can not tell them apart. Much less you have failed to explain the difference between modern civilized man and apes.

I did not realize that the theory of evolution was even more primitive than psychology was. At least in the so called "science" of psychology, they can tell you about motor skills, language skills, socialization skills, learning skills and so forth. They even have rather exacting tests to determine the individual level in regard to the individual skills and abilities. That is a bitter sweet irony that psychology, the weakest of all science is what steps forward to falsify the man made theory of evolution.

Perhaps you did not understand the question though, so I will restate it. What is the difference between the ape and modern man?

 

[JohnR7]

I have asked you several times to provide your definition of that word, but you repeatedly refused to answer that question, as well as many others, thus violating the terms of the debate, which is why you lost by default.

More nonsense from the monkeys uncle, I mean the evolutionists. All you did was to throw out every question you could think of to ask. That is like playing a game of tennis and serving ball after ball after ball as fast as you can and expecting your opponent to hit every one of them back.

You said there will be 12 rounds, that means twelve questions. Now what is your question for round one and since you say we are already on round two, then what is your question for round two?

 

[JohnR7]

This debate is over.

Oh, so you admit defeat by your so called "terms" because you refuse to go on. I am indeed surprised, I thought you would make it at least around half way though, I did not expect you to give up barely out of the starting gate.

Here you blow off all sorts of hot air about how no creationist will come forward and debate the issues with you, but you can not keep up with your part of it. I am just getting ready to get started here, and your all ready to give up.

 

[Mistermystery]

This is why we can't have nice things

 

[Aron-Ra]

Perhaps you did not understand the question though, so I will restate it. What is the difference between the ape and modern man?

Since you didn't understand the answer, I will restate it. All men, be they primitive tribesmen, "cave men", Homo erectus, corporate executives, or clergy, are all apes; [Hominids]. Our civilizations, language, and technology can't change that any more than it could stop us from being primates, eutherian mammals, bilateral animals, or eukaryotic organisms. Just because you're too dense and dishonest to understand or accept any of that doesn't mean it is disproved.

You said there will be 12 rounds, that means twelve questions.

No, it couldn't have meant that since I listed also points of contention instead of just questions, and I stated that no questions could be ignored. How could you even post a reply while ignoring the question if the post you're replying to consists of just the one question? Plus, I gave ample demonstration and explanation that we were not dealing with any limit of questions. My opening post consisted of two questions right there, so you had no grounds to make the assumption you did. But then you're in the habit of asking questions after they've been answered too, so I guess I should expect this from you. That you made an unfounded assumption after you already knew better may be indicative of your whole persective on all things, but it certainly doesn't mean you're right.

 

[JohnR7]

I stated that no questions could be ignored.

I have no problem answering question, but you have to give me time to answer them. I do not just skim the surface I tend to look at things in more depth and detail than some people do. Also you have to put your machine gun away and not ask so many questions all at once. That approach only shows me that you did not think things though. Also, when you ask a lot of questions, sometimes I will wait for you to respond to the questions I have replyed to, before I answer the rest of them. I am a builder, or at least I was a carpenter. We build a foundation first and then we build upon that foundation. As the Bible says, when you build on sand, then the storms will come and destroy your house.

1 Cor. 3:10
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Oh, so you admit defeat by your so called "terms" because you refuse to go on. I am indeed surprised, I thought you would make it at least around half way though, I did not expect you to give up barely out of the starting gate.

I could say the same thing about you. I keep expecting that people of faith professing "truth" will have enough faith in their truth to be able to converse honestly about it. I have never seen that yet.

Here you blow off all sorts of hot air about how no creationist will come forward and debate the issues with you, but you can not keep up with your part of it.

Too bad you weren't ready to get started when it was time too. I still have full right to complain that no creationist will debate the issues because none ever have, and that includes you. You refused to answer anything ever, and are only continuing now because despite your age, you maintain the maturity of a impudent grade school child. You never had any intention of engaging me in the manner outlined, and only wanted to be an irritant. Well, you've succeeded in that mission, but you still lost the debate because you refused to have a debate and apparently aren't capable of one anyway.

I have no problem answering question, but you have to give me time to answer them. I do not just skim the surface I tend to look at things in more depth and detail than some people do.

That's a joke. As with my previous debates, I generally allow one week for all replies and always allow more as needed. I'm in another debate right now where I allowed a month for my opponent to reply and he is two weeks overdue, but I have not closed the debate because (unlike you) he actually does answer questions and is attempting to debate me honestly.

Also you have to put your machine gun away and not ask so many questions all at once. That approach only shows me that you did not think things though.

I know my intent very well. This is not a bombardment because all of my questions so far have been simple enough that any 12 year-old could have answered them all within a few minutes in one coherent post.

Also, when you ask a lot of questions, sometimes I will wait for you to respond to the questions I have replyed to, before I answer the rest of them. I am a builder, or at least I was a carpenter. We build a foundation first and then we build upon that foundation. As the Bible says, when you build on sand, then the storms will come and destroy your house.

That is my position too. I am trying to explain something very complex to someone who has no understanding of it whatsoever. My questions are designed to help build a foundation of understanding. I couldn't dispute the Bible until I understood what it really said, and you obviously can't refute evolution until you understand what it really says, if you could even do it then.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'm in another debate right now where I allowed a month for my opponent to reply and he is two weeks overdue, but I have not closed the debate because (unlike you) he actually does answer questions and is attempting to debate me honestly.

I should clarify here that my other opponent hasn't actually answered anything yet, but he occasionally sends me messages assuring me that he will, so I feel I have reason to believe him.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I could say the same thing about you. I keep expecting that people of faith professing "truth" will have enough faith in their truth to be able to converse honestly about it. I have never seen that yet.

Sounds like my first wife when she divorced me. "I do not see your love" "I do no feel your love". Maybe you can see if you took your glasses off because it does not look like you can see anything through those glasses.

 

[juvenissun]

Sounds like my first wife when she divorced me. "I do not see your love" "I do no feel your love". Maybe you can see if you took your glasses off because it does not look like you can see anything through those glasses.

Where is this Aron-Ra now?

 

[USincognito]

Sounds like my first wife when she divorced me. "I do not see your love" "I do no feel your love". Maybe you can see if you took your glasses off because it does not look like you can see anything through those glasses.

You conversation with Aron ended in 2004 John. Why are you bumping a 14 year old thread?

 

[USincognito]

Where is this Aron-Ra now?

Aron Ra (@Aron_Ra) | Twitter

AronRa

 

[joshua 1 9]

Where is this Aron-Ra now?

He is in Texas running for State Senate and coming to the realization that being an atheist does not draw people to you it chases them away. Of course that is the result when you live your life with the belief that it is somehow a victory that makes you a winner if you are chasing people away from you.

 

[mark kennedy]

I thought he was from Australia.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You're an irritating, willfully ignorant, and dishonest person. So I would appreciate it if you would not try to drag the farce you made of this on any further. This debate is over. I won.

Yes you think you are a winner when you chase people away from you to the point where they do not want to talk to you anymore.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I thought he was from Australia.

He was born in Kingman, Arizona. There is a wiki article about him. He still shows up in debates and discussions every now and then.

 

[mark kennedy]

He was born in Kingman, Arizona. There is a wiki article about him. He still shows up in debates and discussions every now and then.

Is he really running for State Senate? What is his real name, I recall his first name was Nelson but I just had one formal debate with him and a couple of exchanges otherwise.

 

[juvenissun]

He is in Texas running for State Senate and coming to the realization that being an atheist does not draw people to you it chases them away. Of course that is the result when you live your life with the belief that it is somehow a victory that makes you a winner if you are chasing people away from you.

An atheist could be a good (reasonable) politician in the eyes of average people. What he does not know is that his political career is, actually, in the hands of God. It does not matter if he believe Him or not.