- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,287
- 52,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
I certainly agree that humans and primates have a lot of similarities. I do not agree that justifies us somehow evolving from an ape like creature into a modern human being over millions of years. That's a bit too far of a stretch no matter how many similaries we share with any creature. One thing is absolute fact though and that is all creatures like us or similar to us all came from the same creator/maker/designer etc. It's obvious because we all share some of the same design elements. Eyes, nose, limbs, etc these are all basic blueprints that most creatures share. Some share more than others. I don't see any reason why God couldn't have used some of what he did to create an ape to construct humans like giving us better digits and no excess fur, etc. After all, all the creatures of the earth were created before God created man. So the ape like creatures did come before God created us. He may have based us off of some of the same elements, but I believe that he made all creatures distinct from each other and humans were created human and have always been human. We didn't "evolve" from some ape like ancestor and we aren't descendants from them either. Similar yes, descendant, I don't believe so. 
Upvote
0
fenix144
Je me souviens.
I certainly agree that humans and primates have a lot of similarities. I do not agree that justifies us somehow evolving from an ape like creature into a modern human being over millions of years. That's a bit too far of a stretch no matter how many similaries we share with any creature. One thing is absolute fact though and that is all creatures like us or similar to us all came from the same creator/maker/designer etc. It's obvious because we all share some of the same design elements. Eyes, nose, limbs, etc these are all basic blueprints that most creatures share. Some share more than others. I don't see any reason why God couldn't have used some of what he did to create an ape to construct humans like giving us better digits and no excess fur, etc. After all, all the creatures of the earth were created before God created man. So the ape like creatures did come before God created us. He may have based us off of some of the same elements, but I believe that he made all creatures distinct from each other and humans were created human and have always been human. We didn't "evolve" from some ape like ancestor and we aren't descendants from them either. Similar yes, descendant, I don't believe so.
You didn't evolve from an ape. You are classified as an ape. Sorry.
Upvote
0
That is false. We are classified as primates. Primate doesn't mean ape, it's a classification based on similarities that we share with other primates. Doesn't make us their relatives lol. Just a box scientist puts us in to fit with the rest of the animal kingdom. God calls us "man"..that is what we are. Not ape, not bonobo, not chimpanzee...
Upvote
0
fenix144
Je me souviens.
That is false. We are classified as primates. Primate doesn't mean ape, it's a classification based on similarities that we share with other primates. Doesn't make us their relatives lol. Just a box scientist puts us in to fit with the rest of the animal kingdom. God calls us "man"..that is what we are. Not ape, not bonobo, not chimpanzee...
Classification of Living Things: Linnaean Classification of Humans
:\ In my face.
Darn.
Alright I was wrong. We're primates. But it's not a box. It's just our classification.
As for common descent
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
Have fun
Upvote
0
false on so many levels:
1. Science, real science, does not claim "proof", as science is not mathematics, thus they have theories, of which evolution is but one.
2. The theory is based on available facts and evidence.
3. Yes, to an extent you are correct it does take faith, as does virtually every aspect of everything in life, religious or not.
4. It is constantly questioned and sought to be better understood, which is why while Darwin is respected, the particulars of his beliefs are not accepted in the scientific community at this point, because of questioning and research.
Upvote
0
That is false. We are classified as primates. Primate doesn't mean ape, it's a classification based on similarities that we share with other primates. Doesn't make us their relatives lol. Just a box scientist puts us in to fit with the rest of the animal kingdom. God calls us "man"..that is what we are. Not ape, not bonobo, not chimpanzee...
We are classified as primates, and we are also classified as apes. Apes is a more specific level of definition than primate. It is called nested cladistics. Have you not heard of it?
Upvote
0
Classification of Living Things: Linnaean Classification of Humans
:\ In my face.
Darn.
Alright I was wrong. We're primates. But it's not a box. It's just our classification.
As for common descent
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
Have fun
No, you were right before. Superfamily Hominoidea ARE apes.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,287
- 52,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
nope...Humans:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
No ape in that classification sorry. We are considered primates. Apes are non-human and have traditionally been classified as primates that are not human. An ape is a primate that is not a human. So chimp, orangutan, bush baby etc.
Upvote
0
@AV1611VET
That is correct..Humans however are NOT homonoids, we are hominids. Not the same. An ape is a homonoid (gorilla, chimp, etc)..Any primate that is NOT human.
That is correct..Humans however are NOT homonoids, we are hominids. Not the same. An ape is a homonoid (gorilla, chimp, etc)..Any primate that is NOT human.
Upvote
0
I'm not arguing that. An ape is a hominoid. Humans are not hominoids. We are homiNIDS. That's not the same thing.
Upvote
0
Which is the characteristic which makes the distinction between a hominid and a hominoid? And can you point me to any scientific literature that either makes such a distinction or even mentions the word "hominoid"?
Upvote
0
Evolution shares some aspects of religion, and may be considered a religion depending on the definition used;
Dictionary.com defines religion as follows;
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
It sort of fits their definition, as any supernatural beliefs, or rituals and observances, are left out as prerequisites.
However the colloquial usage of the word religion is more like the definition used by the World English Dictionary;
n
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4. chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion
5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion
6. archaic
a. the practice of sacred ritual observances
b. sacred rites and ceremonies
it definitely would not be considered a religion using this definition. The point in moot anyway though - note that neither definition makes the claim that a religion cannot also be based on science. The ones claiming that evolution is a religion, do so to denigrate the term that by making the claim that evolution is also a religion, then it would make just as little sense as their own religion. Its nothing more than a game of semantics. So if one would considers evolution a religion (using the dictionary.com definition), then it would still be the only religion Im aware of that is fully based on science, can be proven, and is falsifiable (as opposed to being based on any type of holy scripture).
edit - after typing that all out, I disagree with myself, even using the first definition. Evolution makes no claims concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. So no. Evolution cannot be considered a religion. At least based on these two definitions.
Dictionary.com defines religion as follows;
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
It sort of fits their definition, as any supernatural beliefs, or rituals and observances, are left out as prerequisites.
However the colloquial usage of the word religion is more like the definition used by the World English Dictionary;
n
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4. chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion
5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion
6. archaic
a. the practice of sacred ritual observances
b. sacred rites and ceremonies
it definitely would not be considered a religion using this definition. The point in moot anyway though - note that neither definition makes the claim that a religion cannot also be based on science. The ones claiming that evolution is a religion, do so to denigrate the term that by making the claim that evolution is also a religion, then it would make just as little sense as their own religion. Its nothing more than a game of semantics. So if one would considers evolution a religion (using the dictionary.com definition), then it would still be the only religion Im aware of that is fully based on science, can be proven, and is falsifiable (as opposed to being based on any type of holy scripture).
edit - after typing that all out, I disagree with myself, even using the first definition. Evolution makes no claims concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. So no. Evolution cannot be considered a religion. At least based on these two definitions.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Mod Hat On
This thread has been cleaned.
Please address the post and not the poster, and stay on topic.
Thanks
Mod Hat Off
Please address the post and not the poster, and stay on topic.
Thanks
Mod Hat Off
Upvote
0
Similar threads
