Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I Concur! I'll hazard a guess though that Mark sees that definition in a decidedly different light...

If he didn't, he wouldn't have used it to support his claim that humans aren't apes.

 

[Speedwell]

I Concur! I'll hazard a guess though that Mark sees that definition in a decidedly different light...

And you would be quite right. The special creation of man has always been a critical point for Evangelicals, even those who tolerate an old Earth and the evolution of the other creatures.

 

[RickG]

I've not watched the entire video yet but I will. From what I have watched so far, the part beginning at the ten minute mark is spot on: "ignorance / argument from authority / "credential mongering". We see this throughout the creation science literature. I have even had threads asking for anyone to reference or link a creation science article that actually provides original research and data to support their position (still waiting). As for the CF Science Forums, the "Dunning-Kruger" we see here in the CF is absolutely deplorable, and very un-Christian behavior. Disagreement is one thing, but to present one's self as knowing more than the experts in a specific field of science is nothing short of bearing false witness. And as a Christian, that is my biggest beef. One does not have to agree with the science, but at least they could try to understand it by asking questions. There is nothing wrong with a literal interpretation and belief of the book of Genesis. But to support those beliefs through the misrepresentation of scientific information is bearing false witness. And while I'm on my soapbox, I urge everyone to view my updated "signature" (10/5/2016).

 

[RickG]

Right as rain, studied the fossils extensively and it's laughable how normal apes are passed off as proto¬human.

May I ask where you studied fossils extensively to arrive at a conclusion as to perceive them as laughable?

 

[HitchSlap]

May I ask where you studied fossils extensively to arrive at a conclusion as to perceive them as laughable?

If I were to venture a guess, might be along the lines of "The Answers Book," or "The Genesis Solution." Or anything by Henry Morris.

 

[RickG]

If I were to venture a guess, might be along the lines of "The Answers Book," or "The Genesis Solution." Or anything by Henry Morris.

Ah yes, the repetitive appeal to authority. BTW, I've finished watching the entire video now, excellent.

 

[HitchSlap]

BTW, I've finished watching the entire video now, excellent.

I'm glad to hear you think so!

 

[mark kennedy]

We're talking taxonomy here. "Ape" in the sense of "Primate".

Not in the sense of every-day use of the word, which you would find in a dictionary.
Like the word "animal".
In every-day use, that typically means "every multi-cellular organism that isn't a human or a plant".
In the taxonomical sense, that definition doesn't include "....but not humans".

PS: you should read up on "ad hominim" because you consistently fail to use it correctly. And no, saying that isn't an "ad hominim" either.

Still not saying anything.

 

[mark kennedy]

so does that definition include my hairy guy then? Why/Why Not?

An ape is one of the African Great Apes as they are refereed to, sometime including humans which is little more then semantics. A big hairy guy could be ape like, but humans are not apes not that calling them that makes any difference

 

[HitchSlap]

Still not saying anything.

Watch the video I posted... says everything you need to know.

 

[mark kennedy]

Wait....... are you saying that humans aren't mammals?
Seriously?​

Yes we are mammals because of how the young feed. We are animals because we are composed of Animalia cells. Still nothing about fossils, now I remember how I got so board with this forum.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

An ape is one of the African Great Apes as they are refereed to, sometime including humans which is little more then semantics. A big hairy guy could be ape like, but humans are not apes not that calling them that makes any difference

Why aren't we apes?

 

[mark kennedy]

Watch the video I posted... says everything you need to know.

That's no way to learn about fossils. Try going through back issues of Nature, that's what I did. Not that it ever mattered on here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really should not start of with an ad hominem fallacy with someone who knows what he is talking about. Notice what you don't have in your post, there is absolutely nothing about fossils or anything sustanative in any shape form or fashion..Its called trolling and there is someone like you in every thread who think random insults and melodrama is smart. Its not.

There was no ad hominem in that post. So no ad hom no fallacy. And no insults. It seems that you may be overly sensitive. The guilty quite often act that way.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why aren't we apes?

Your arguing in circles,

Used in names of macaque monkeys with short tails, e.g. Barbary ape.
(in general use) any monkey.An unintelligent or clumsy person.
archaic An inferior imitator or mimic.
‘cunning is but the ape of wisdom’ (Ape. Oxford Dictionaries)
​

6 Ad hominem, 2 begging the question and repeated equivocation of 'ape' and 'human'. Same old, same old.

 

[mark kennedy]

There was no ad hominem in that post. So no ad hom no fallacy. And no insults. It seems that you may be overly sensitive. The guilty quite often act that way.

No just bored with the fallacious rhetoric. In a thread entitled 'what the fossils say', nothing about fossils. What was the point of the video, if there was so much information then why are we just talking about one another?

 

[RickG]

That's no way to learn about fossils. Try going through back issues of Nature, that's what I did. Not that it ever mattered on here.

Really? And what specifically in those articles do you find incorrect? But, before answering, please review my signature.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's no way to learn about fossils. Try going through back issues of Nature, that's what I did. Not that it ever mattered on here.

Please explain how going through back issues of Nature led you to the conclusion that all the experts were wrong?

 

[HitchSlap]

There was no ad hominem in that post. So no ad hom no fallacy. And no insults. It seems that you may be overly sensitive. The guilty quite often act that way.

He does seem to be a bit touchy, and would rather spend time on his perceived attacks, than actually discuss the evidence. I think you may be right about the guilty part.

 

[HitchSlap]

No just bored with the fallacious rhetoric. In a thread entitled 'what the fossils say', nothing about fossils. What was the point of the video, if there was so much information then why are we just talking about one another?

Did you actually watch the video? Are are you just assuming you know what it claims and would rather accuse everyone of ad hom attacks?