Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,293
- 7,505
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
If he didn't, he wouldn't have used it to support his claim that humans aren't apes.
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.
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.I Concur! I'll hazard a guess though that Mark sees that definition in a decidedly different light...
May I ask where you studied fossils extensively to arrive at a conclusion as to perceive them as laughable?Right as rain, studied the fossils extensively and it's laughable how normal apes are passed off as proto¬human.
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.May I ask where you studied fossils extensively to arrive at a conclusion as to perceive them as laughable?
Ah yes, the repetitive appeal to authority. BTW, I've finished watching the entire video now, excellent.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.
I'm glad to hear you think so!BTW, I've finished watching the entire video now, excellent.
Still not saying anything.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.
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 differenceso does that definition include my hairy guy then? Why/Why Not?
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.
Wait....... are you saying that humans aren't mammals?
Seriously?
Why aren't we apes?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
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.Watch the video I posted... says everything you need to know.
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.
Your arguing in circles,Why aren't we apes?
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?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.
Really? And what specifically in those articles do you find incorrect? But, before answering, please review my signature.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?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.
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.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.
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?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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?