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

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, we do not.

Yes we do. I have given several examples of our ability to pick things up with our feet or use the arch to help maintain a third or fourth point of contact while climbing. That is vestigial prehensility.

Human feet are designed for stability and support...

Human feet aren't designed. They're evolved... from earlier, more prehensile feet.
 
Upvote 0

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
No, we do not.

Human feet are designed for stability and support, not for grasping. That much is clear:

foot-comparison.jpg
That's because ape and monkey feet are prehensile (designed for grasping) but human feet are not.
A make-belief story can explain anything, but it's still make-belief.

Prehensile means capable of grasping, not designed for grasping.

Feet can grasp, and are thus prehensile. Some people without arms are amazing at using their feet to feed themselves, brush their teeth, and a multitude of other grasping tasks normally associated with hands.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Prehensile means capable of grasping, not designed for grasping.
Feet that are capable of grasping are designed for grasping.
Feet can grasp, and are thus prehensile.
Human feet cannot grasp, and thus are not prehensile.

Human feet cannot do this:

Young-female-siamang-hanging-from-feet.jpg

Some people without arms are amazing at using their feet to feed themselves, brush their teeth, and a multitude of other grasping tasks normally associated with hands.
So?

Humans without hands can use their remaining limbs the way we use our fingers. This does not mean the limbs are prehensile.

Triumph for girl, 7, born without any hands.

Young man loses both hands, becomes an artist.

The human foot is constituted of a heel, ankle, mid-foot and toes, and the constitution of the human foot is not designed or adapted for grasping:

foot-comparison.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes we do.
No, we don't.
I have given several examples of our ability to pick things up with our feet
I can give several examples of our ability to pick things up with our arm-pits too. So?
or use the arch to help maintain a third or fourth point of contact while climbing. That is vestigial prehensility.
Nope.

There is nothing vestigial about the human feet. Every part of the human feet are necessary to the functionality of the feet, which are designed for walking, stability and support, not prehensility. We use our feet for stability and support when climbing, nor for grasping.

This is grasping:

Young-female-siamang-hanging-from-feet.jpg

Human feet aren't designed.
Yes, they are. God did it.
They're evolved... from earlier, more prehensile feet.
I subscribe to the King James version of events, not to the Darwin version.


The Darwin version can take a hike
ass-kicking.gif
.
 
Upvote 0

ArtB

Newbie
Oct 19, 2013
120
9
New City, Rockland NY
✟7,813.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
A QUESTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO CREATIONISTS

Richard Dawkins' "I am an ape" video on Youtube delivers a strong message. Dr. Dawkins tells a clergyman, "I am an ape. Are you an ape?" The pastor says, "No. I am absolutely NOT an ape."

As a disciple of Jesus Christ, how would you reply to Richard Dawkins' question? Why? And how would you apply the same reasoning to the following questions?

Am I a Mammal?
Am I a Vertebrate?
Am I an animal?

[Deletions]

(C) 2011. Bible.and.Science.Forum (Professor Tertius)
Used by permission. Email through Gmail.com

So Dawkins considers himself that he is an ape. He is no more ape than he is a car.

I'm not an ape, nor a mammal, nor a vertebrate, nor am I an animal.

TO: Very Sincere: "There are more things in heaven and earth, ('Very Sincere'), Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." via Hamlet, Act 1 scene 5.

The Fact is, I am a living Spirit. My physical body is merely a machine, a house built for me - a spirit, just as the pants and shirt I wear to clothe my body is also not me. The truth is that I am a Spirit. The fact is that you can not fathom this because you have blinded yourself, due to your Secular Humanist philsophy.

When I die, me, a spirit returns from where I came from. My body decays and returns its molecules to the Earth. My Spirit returns to God for His Judgment, did I make the earth a better place, did I listen to HIM, or did I make things worse with false delusions.

And Just if you care, Science has said 'NO! to the Theory of Evolution.'
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ginger123

Regular Member
Nov 26, 2013
246
6
✟441.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Feet that are capable of grasping are designed for grasping.
Human feet cannot grasp, and thus are not prehensile.

Human feet cannot do this:

Young-female-siamang-hanging-from-feet.jpg

So?

Humans without hands can use their remaining limbs the way we use our fingers. This does not mean the limbs are prehensile.

Triumph for girl, 7, born without any hands.

Young man loses both hands, becomes an artist.

The human foot is constituted of a heel, ankle, mid-foot and toes, and the constitution of the human foot is not designed or adapted for grasping:

foot-comparison.jpg
Oh no? When needs must.........
check this out.
Jessica Cox – An armless Girl gets a Pilot License | SpeakBindas
 
Upvote 0

mathetes123

Newbie
Dec 26, 2011
2,469
53
✟10,634.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
A QUESTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO CREATIONISTS

Richard Dawkins' "I am an ape" video on Youtube delivers a strong message. Dr. Dawkins tells a clergyman, "I am an ape. Are you an ape?" The pastor says, "No. I am absolutely NOT an ape."

As a disciple of Jesus Christ, how would you reply to Richard Dawkins' question? Why? And how would you apply the same reasoning to the following questions?

Am I a Mammal?
Am I a Vertebrate?
Am I an animal?

Carl Linnaeus is widely praised as the one of the greatest biologists of all time and the father of modern ecology. But more than anything else he is revered as the founder of modern taxonomy. His genus+species naming system remains with us today as well the classifications of kingdom, phylum, class, order, and subspecies. And creationist Christians proudly point to him as one of our own, whose exploration and categorization of living things expressed his praise for a Creator who designed a richly diverse and complex tree of life. Linnaeus considered his lifelong taxonomy work an extension of the naming which began with Adam himself. And it was Linnaeus who first called humans Homo sapiens.

The Christ-honoring Carl Linnaeus classified God's ultimate creation, humans, as:

Kingdom: Animal
Class: Mammal
Phylum: Vertebrate
Order: Primate
SubOrder: Anthropoidea ["human-like", Simians/monkeys]
InfraOrder: Catarrhini ["downward-nosed" Anthropoids have similar-pointing noses; humans and Old World monkeys]

Linnaeus had no "family" taxonomic category in his day; that was added to the Linnaean system after his death. He struggled to figure out just how to express the many similarities between monkeys, apes, and humans. The Hominidae family, also known as the Great Apes, includes chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, and the Homo genus where Linnaeus placed humans.

So, more than a CENTURY BEFORE DARWIN Carl Linnaeus had no concept of the theory of evolution but used the similarities and differences between organisms to create a classification system for all life, including humans. And in that naming/categorization system, Linnaeus called me as a member of the human race:

an ANIMAL,
a mammal,
a vertebrate,
a primate,
an Anthropoid of the Catarrhine type,
and a Homonid (also known as among the Great Apes.)

So was Linnaeus wrong? Would any rational persons deny that humans are animals? And if they DO deny that we are animals, are they just playing word games, as in an Equivocation Fallacy?

Does it make sense to deny that we are vertebrates, seeing how we have a spinal column? And if we are not a PRIMATE, what are we? And are we going to deny that we are made of "the dust of the ground" just as the Bible says of all the animals he created?

In the Dawkins video, the reverend emphatically denies being an ape. Why? Any literate person with a dictionary knows that there are multiple definitions for the English word "ape", and as with so many words in our language, the zoological term used by scientists is not the same as its popular definition used by the general public. Indeed, the same can be said for the word "animal". If someone in a wretched prison cells protests, "I am not an animal!", we understand what he means. But when a scientist studies zoonotic disease transmission, he MUST consider humans to be animals if he is going to protect public health!

So if Carl Linnaeus joined my church today and happened to see the Dawkins video, what do you think he would say? Would he agree with Dr. Dawkins that humans are vertebrate animals? Would Linnaeus agree that we are primates? Do you think he would agree that I am a catarrhine Anthropoid? How about a Hominid of the Great Apes?

Now remember, Carl Linnaeus lived a century before Charles Darwin and knew nothing of the Theory of Evolution.

What do you think? What/which biological descriptions can be admitted by a Bible-believing disciple of Jesus Christ?

(C) 2011. Bible.and.Science.Forum (Professor Tertius)
Used by permission. Email through Gmail.com

I would say I am a man CREATED in the image of God
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArtB

Newbie
Oct 19, 2013
120
9
New City, Rockland NY
✟7,813.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Which is why the vast majority of scientists accept it and believe it's the best and only explanation for the diversification of life on this planet.

May science teachers that believe teach evolution, they either believe it because it was taught as an undisputed fact, and it was made clear that if they want to have a career in science, they must accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact. If not, they will be blocked from being a teacher of science, or denied Tenure. This is the scientific method that evolution becomes a fact.

Do you care to debate me on the Evolution - Fact or fiction.

And Evolution is the bible of, and the religion of Secular Humanism.
 
Upvote 0

ArtB

Newbie
Oct 19, 2013
120
9
New City, Rockland NY
✟7,813.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wow, are you ever wrong.

I suggest you google "The Theory of Evolution", and start reading. It is supported by nearly all scientists, in nearly all fields.

I'd rather start a new thread, "Science Says No to Evolution." I will post it in a day or two. Lets reason with one another.
 
Upvote 0

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
May science teachers that believe teach evolution, they either believe it because it was taught as an undisputed fact, and it was made clear that if they want to have a career in science, they must accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact. If not, they will be blocked from being a teacher of science, or denied Tenure. This is the scientific method that evolution becomes a fact.

Do you care to debate me on the Evolution - Fact or fiction.

And Evolution is the bible of, and the religion of Secular Humanism.

No, you are very wrong.

Here is some information that will help you:

Here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ginger123

Regular Member
Nov 26, 2013
246
6
✟441.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'd rather start a new thread, "Science Says No to Evolution."
Why waste your time doing that, just list the things that are wrong with evolution and I can make an application direct to the Nobel prize board and arrange
for you to collect yours at the next presentation.

We can then go on to meet the press from all over the world, I will arrange everything, you won't need to lift a finger.
Give me your bank sort code and I will deposit millions of any currency you like into your account, I of course will take a small commission of 10% for arranging everything.

May I just say that I have been waiting for someone like you to come along all of my life, we will be rich beyond our wildest dreams,
you of course will be known throughout the world as the man who overturned the ToE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

mathetes123

Newbie
Dec 26, 2011
2,469
53
✟10,634.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why waste your time doing that, just list the things that are wrong with evolution and I can make an application direct to the Nobel prize board and arrange
for you to collect yours at the next presentation.

We can then go on to meet the press from all over the world, I will arrange everything, you won't need to lift a finger.
Give me your bank sort code and I will deposit millions of any currency you like into your account, I of course will take a small commission of 10% for arranging everything.

May I just say that I have been waiting for someone like you to come along all of my life, we will be rich beyond our wildest dreams,
you of course will be known throughout the world as the man who overturned the ToE.

Can you list the proof for evolution. Don't just put your faith in the majority. Truth is not determined by a majority.
 
Upvote 0

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
May science teachers that believe teach evolution, they either believe it because it was taught as an undisputed fact, and it was made clear that if they want to have a career in science, they must accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact. If not, they will be blocked from being a teacher of science, or denied Tenure. This is the scientific method that evolution becomes a fact.

Would you hire a "mechanic" who refused to believe how an internal combustion engine functions, and instead relied on prayer to fix your car?

Same thing applies to the above mentioned "scientists".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ginger123

Regular Member
Nov 26, 2013
246
6
✟441.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Can you list the proof for evolution. Don't just put your faith in the majority. Truth is not determined by a majority.
You and yours are making the claims not me, I don't care either way, I don't have a God breathing down my neck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0