How do creationists answer these questions: Are you an Ape? A Mammal? A Vertebrate?

TLK Valentine said:

Makes you shed a tear to see how today's "Bible-believing Christians" have failed to measure up to past successes.

Click to expand...

Same response every time. Thanks for being consistent. The faithful are still there.
Our current culture doesn't wear its religion on it's sleeve like in the old days.
Those who do are more fringe personalities than in the past.

TLK Valentine said:

Makes you shed a tear to see how today's "Bible-believing Christians" have failed to measure up to past successes.

Click to expand...

Like I have asked before.

How much do you want creationists to invent for us?

They already gave us light and calculus and the computer and fluid dynamics and ...

lasthero said:

I would actually disagree. I think what ED fails to understand is that 'fittest' doesn't necessarily mean 'strongest'. In a drought, an animal that needs less water is going to be more 'fit' than an animal that does - it doesn't matter how big or strong the animal is, if it dies of thirst before it can pass on its genes, it's going to go extinct. Likewise, having thick hair and walking on all fours can be an advantage...depending on the environment and the situation. In some situations, it's not.

Click to expand...

There is only one problem. There is zero evidence that an ape has turned into a human.

EternalDragon said:

There is only one problem. There is zero evidence that an ape has turned into a human.

Click to expand...

You're right - there is no evidence for AN ape turning in A human. But there is evidence for humans evolving from apes.

lasthero said:

You're right - there is no evidence for AN ape turning in A human. But there is evidence for humans evolving from apes.

Click to expand...

Exactly...the...same... thing.

AV1611VET said:

Like I have asked before.

How much do you want creationists to invent for us?

They already gave us light and calculus and the computer and fluid dynamics and ...

Click to expand...

not much else in the last century. Less boasting, more working.

EternalDragon said:

Exactly...the...same... thing.

Click to expand...

Yup.

EternalDragon said:

Exactly...the...same... thing.

Click to expand...

Good, we can dispense with that PRATT.

I am a Human, all those other classifications are irrelevant and nothing but a name game as scientists like to name things to get their names in the books.

Jack Horner: Shape-shifting dinosaurs - YouTube

Jut as they once classified the young of dinosaurs as separate species, and were wrong then too. Had complete evolutionary trees worked out for those young, and were wrong then too. Just as they once thought they were reptiles, and were wrong then too.

Just as they will attempt to find a new Fairie Dust theory to try to uphold evolution, and will be wrong then too. But let us ignore the facts and concentrate instead on our Fairie Dust theories, and pretend all those evolutionary trees never existed and they weren't wrong.

But don't worry, they were wrong about everything else, but of course the original theory of evolution is still correct. Trust them, they assure us they are right, just as they assured us they were correct about those baby dinosaurs. Why should we question those that have never been right about anything when it comes to evolution?

I am a Human, all those other classifications are irrelevant and nothing but a name game as scientists like to name things to get their names in the books.

Click to expand...

Or because naming things makes ordering and studying things easier. That could be a reason.

Jut as they once classified the young of dinosaurs as separate species, and were wrong then too.

Click to expand...

They were wrong about certain species, yes. Not ALL of them. You make it sound like this was some massive mistake that completely changed every single dinosaur find ever. It wasn't.

Had complete evolutionary trees worked out for those young, and were wrong then too.

Click to expand...

Really? Can you show me these 'complete evolutionary trees'?

Just as they once thought they were reptiles, and were wrong then too.

Click to expand...

No, they STILL think they're reptiles. Seriously, show me one journal, one actual, peer-reviewed, scientific journal, where dinosaurs are not thought of as reptiles.

Just because they have some things in common with mammals does not mean they ARE mammals, anymore than a bat is a bird or a whale is a fish.

But don't worry, they were wrong about everything else

Click to expand...

You are vastly overstating your case.

lasthero said:

You're right - there is no evidence for AN ape turning in A human. But there is evidence for humans evolving from apes.

Click to expand...

EternalDragon said:

Exactly...the...same... thing.

Click to expand...

"Shiela gave birth to Johnny... which means of course that Shiela has transformed into Johnny."

EternalDragon said:

There is only one problem. There is zero evidence that an ape has turned into a human.

Click to expand...

Dear EternalDragon, That's because it never happened. Humans were made long before any other living creature. Genesis 2:4-7

In Love,
Aman

lasthero said:

You're right - there is no evidence for AN ape turning in A human. But there is evidence for humans evolving from apes.

Click to expand...

You are still considered an ape.
If buy into that designation, you can wear it.

SkyWriting said:

You are still considered an ape.
If buy into that designation, you can wear it.

Click to expand...

I am. So are you. There's nothing to buy into.

SkyWriting said:

You are still considered an ape.
If buy into that designation, you can wear it.

Click to expand...

Is your scorn supposed to make me ashamed of being an ape?

lasthero said:

I am. So are you. There's nothing to buy into.

Click to expand...

Ain't no Homos in my family tree.

AV1611VET said:

Ain't no Homos in my family tree.

Click to expand...

Given your penchant to rail so hard against Homos, I wouldn't be surprised if...

HitchSlap said:

Given your penchant to rail so hard against Homos, I wouldn't be surprised if...

Click to expand...

Now, now.

I capitalized my aitch.

Let's not step outside of our technosphere of training to act like I said something I may not have.

AV1611VET said:

Now, now.

I capitalized my aitch.

Let's not step outside of our technosphere of training to act like I said something I may not have.

Click to expand...

Right, because you've never done that before.

Doveaman said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

Then you need help.