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

[AV1611VET]

My agenda is to accept the most reasonable explanation.

Well, I've laid out my blueprints.

Here they are again:

Two simple rules of apologetics:
 
Rule One: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the literal translation of the King James Bible to be contradicted.
 
If necessary, use even the punctuation therein to defend your point; but never let a point contradict the Bible -- ever.
 
Rule Two: Seek a logical explanation first; and if that doesn't work, then go with a theological explanation.
 
Scripture first, followed by basic doctrine, followed by suppositions; but don't let the logical trump the theological.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Well, I've laid out my blueprints.

Here they are again:

Two simple rules of apologetics:
 
Rule One: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the literal translation of the King James Bible to be contradicted.
 
If necessary, use even the punctuation therein to defend your point; but never let a point contradict the Bible -- ever.
 
Rule Two: Seek a logical explanation first; and if that doesn't work, then go with a theological explanation.
 
Scripture first, followed by basic doctrine, followed by suppositions; but don't let the logical trump the theological.

Um, are you serious about that?

I'm guessing you are, but I think I owe it to you to double check.

 

[USincognito]

If I drop something and my fingers and toes are all broken, it's a lot easier on my fingers and toes to pick it up with my teeth. Does this mean I have prehensile teeth?

If all your fingers and toes are broken and your teeth have fallen out, you can use your gluteal sulcus to pick things up. That would mean you'd have a prehensile butt.

Do you see how insipid these semantic games your playing can be when you keep redifining and adding variables to complete equations?

 

[Doveaman]

I thought the bible stated that Adam and Eve walked upright from the beginning. Am I incorrect here?

You are correct. But after the fall we no longer walked upright.

 

[USincognito]

AV was the one who had bumped this thread that had been dormant for 6 months. Let's not let his effort to make it about him, rather than the topic, come to fruition please.

 

[USincognito]

You are correct. But after the fall we no longer walked upright.

Where's your scientific evidence for that?

 

[Doveaman]

You are correct. But after the fall we no longer walked upright.

Where's your scientific evidence for that?

*The godly have been swept from the land; not one upright man remains.* - (Mic 7:2).

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are six different theories as to how we got our moon.

One says a moon tried to pass us.

If this isn't true, then evidently truth is a matter of someone's interpretation, isn't it?

Another says we had two moons at one time.

If this isn't true, then evidently the answer to his own question would be NO as well.

Wouldn't it?

NO.

And properly speaking there are not 6 different theories on how the Moon was formed. There are 6 different hypotheses. Sometimes even scientists use the word "theory" incorrectly. A theory has passed enough test so that it is thought to be "provisionally true". For example the theory of evolution has been continually tested for over 150 years and it is yet to fail a major test. It has been tested so many times that most scientists don't treat it as if it were provisionally true, they treat it as if it were true since it is very clear that it is correct.

I would suggest that you learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. Remember, a hypothesis could be true but we don't have enough evidence to say it is true yet. Any of your six hypotheses may be true. A theory has enough evidence to convince most people that it is correct. The theory of evolution has been a successful theory for 150 years. That tells us it very very probably is correct. There is always a crack of doubt, but for evolution it is exceedingly small.

 

[Subduction Zone]

*The godly have been swept from the land; not one upright man remains.* - (Mic 7:2).

Ah, easy mistake for a Christian to make. That is not scientific evidence. That is simply a verse from a book of myths.

 

[freezerman2000]

*The godly have been swept from the land; not one upright man remains.* - (Mic 7:2).

Not very scientific...

 

[Doveaman]

If all your fingers and toes are broken and your teeth have fallen out, you can use your gluteal sulcus to pick things up. That would mean you'd have a prehensile butt.

Do you see how insipid these semantic games your playing can be when you keep redifining and adding variables to complete equations?

Hey, you are the one who started the game when you said this:

If drop something and I'm not wearing shoes, it's a lot easier on my back for me to pick it up with my toes (plural/or feet) than to bend over or squat down and pick it up.

You were trying to demonstrate here that humans have prehensile feet simply because they can pick stuff up with their feet. I then disagreed by showing that humans can also pick stuff up with their teeth.

If humans had prehensile feet they would look something like these:

 

[AV1611VET]

Um, are you serious about that?

Yes.

I like what the Jews say:

Even the spaces between the words are inspired.

 

[AV1611VET]

NO.

And properly speaking there are not 6 different theories on how the Moon was formed. There are 6 different hypotheses. Sometimes even scientists use the word "theory" incorrectly. A theory has passed enough test so that it is thought to be "provisionally true". For example the theory of evolution has been continually tested for over 150 years and it is yet to fail a major test. It has been tested so many times that most scientists don't treat it as if it were provisionally true, they treat it as if it were true since it is very clear that it is correct.

I would suggest that you learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. Remember, a hypothesis could be true but we don't have enough evidence to say it is true yet. Any of your six hypotheses may be true. A theory has enough evidence to convince most people that it is correct. The theory of evolution has been a successful theory for 150 years. That tells us it very very probably is correct. There is always a crack of doubt, but for evolution it is exceedingly small.

So after all that, what is your assessment of this remark?

I accept truth without an agenda -- do you?

If it flows from hypothesis to theory to truth ... is that not an "agenda" to you?

 

[Doveaman]

The theory of evolution has been a successful theory for 150 years. That tells us it very very probably is correct. There is always a crack of doubt, but for evolution it is exceedingly small.

"Always a crack of doubt"?

You are aware that a crack can cast a shadow, right?

This would mean evolution theory has not been proven beyond a crack of doubt or beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So after all that, what is your assessment of this remark?

If it flows from hypothesis to theory to truth ... is that not an "agenda" to you?

No. Why should it? An idea gets a chance to be proven wrong many many times in that process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Always a crack of doubt"?

You are aware that a crack can cast a shadow, right?

This would mean evolution theory has not been proven beyond a crack of doubt or beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There is always doubt in any matter. Sooner or later you have to decide if enough evidence has been given to make a case or not.

The theory of evolution has been supported by more and better evidence than was brought up in any murder trial in the history of man. Are you saying that all of those murderers should be set free since you do not believe a concept that has far more evidence for it than for any of their convictions?

 

[USincognito]

*The godly have been swept from the land; not one upright man remains.* - (Mic 7:2).

So no scientific evidence then.

 

[USincognito]

Hey, you are the one who started the game when you said this: You were trying to demonstrate here that humans have prehensile feet simply because they can pick stuff up with their feet.

No game. I accurately described using my feet in a vestigially prehensile manner. The reason why I can do that is because we are apes and descended with modification from earlier apes who had fully prehensile feet.

I then disagreed by showing that humans can also pick stuff up with their teeth.

So don't birds. So don't fish. So what? I also showed, if one plays enough semantic games that picking things up with your gluteal sulcus means you've got a prehensile butt.

The definition of prehensile is not that you can pick something up with it. It's that the body part was evolutionarily adapted to grasp. Grasping encompases something more than just a pincer move on another object.

If humans had prehensile feet they would look something like these:

The fact that you're getting your arguments for or against evolution from X-Men: First Class tells us everything we need to know about your grasp (no pun intended) of the subject.

 

[Doveaman]

The definition of prehensile is not that you can pick something up with it. It's that the body part was evolutionarily adapted to grasp. Grasping encompases something more than just a pincer move on another object.

And I’m saying the human feet are not adapted for grasping. It is adapted from stability and can be used as stability to climb trees.

The fact that you're getting your arguments for or against evolution from X-Men: First Class tells us everything we need to know about your grasp (no pun intended) of the subject.

That because X-Men have a better grasp than you do of what prehensile feet would be like.

It is no surprise that the feet they designed are similar to the different species of ape feet but not to the human feet:

The human feet are not prehensile. They are designed/adapted for stability, not grasping.

*Prehensile feet are lower limbs that possess prehensility, the ability to grasp like a hand. They are most commonly observed in monkeys, who similarly possess prehensile tails, and apes. Due to the development of bipedalism in humans, the hands became the focus of prehensility and the feet adjusted to more of a stabilizing role.* - WIKI.

A biological difference between humans and apes is that apes have prehensile feet and humans do not, and this is because humans are not apes.

 

[freezerman2000]

And I’m saying the human feet are not adapted for grasping. It is adapted from stability and can be used as stability to climb trees.
That because X-Men have a better grasp than you do of what prehensile feet would be like.

It is no surprise that the feet they designed are similar to the different species of ape feet but not to the human feet:

The human feet are not prehensile. They are designed/adapted for stability, not grasping.



*Prehensile feet are lower limbs that possess prehensility, the ability to grasp like a hand. They are most commonly observed in monkeys, who similarly possess prehensile tails, and apes. Due to the development of bipedalism in humans, the hands became the focus of prehensility and the feet adjusted to more of a stabilizing role.* - WIKI.

A biological difference between humans and apes is that apes have prehensile feet and humans do not, and this is because humans are not apes.

And I have known quite a few folks who could pinch the crap out of you with their toes..
I was once a volunteer at a disabilities care center.We had one gentleman who had lost both arms..He could do everything within reason with his toes that a person with hands could do..in some cases,even better.