"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[Split Rock]

That means nothing.

Did he do it in spite of creation, or in respect to it?

The term is now accepted by just about everybody (as far as I know); creationists and evolutionists, Christians and atheists, scientists and lay persons alike.

Just because a creationist came up with it, does that make it right?

Your original argument is that it showed evolution is narcisistic. Are you backing off from that now or not? You ask is the name "right?" It is a name. That's all. Names are not right or wrong. Brontosaurus means "Thunder Lizard." Is it correct? Did it make a noise like thunder when it walked? No. Was it a lizard? No. Does it matter? NO.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your original argument is that it showed evolution is narcisistic. Are you backing off from that now or not?

No, I'm not backing down.

You know exactly where I stand with this, don't you?

Evolution labels us 'Homo sapiens' -- 'wise men'.

And that can lead to atheism:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[Nostromo]

You're old enough now, AV, that I shouldn't have to ask you to grow up.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're old enough now, AV, that I shouldn't have to ask you to grow up.

Meaning you shouldn't have to ask me to agree with you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, I'm not backing down.

You know exactly where I stand with this, don't you?

Evolution labels us 'Homo sapiens' -- 'wise men'.

Actually, a creationist gets the credit for that -- but by all means, don't let the truth stop you; it never has before.

 

[Nostromo]

Meaning you shouldn't have to ask me to agree with you?

No, Phil, that's not what I mean at all. I know we're not going to agree on everything, or even a lot of things, and that's fine with me.

Repeating the same statement after you've been made aware that it's not true makes it look like you're either trolling, parroting the same old untruth in an attempt to save face, or just too stupid to understand. I don't honestly believe the last one, but I can't pick between the other two or come up with another reason that seems plausible to me.

Perhaps you could tell me why it is you think that evolution labels us "Homo sapiens"?

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, Phil, that's not what I mean at all. I know we're not going to agree on everything, or even a lot of things, and that's fine with me.

Repeating the same statement after you've been made aware that it's not true makes it look like you're either trolling, parroting the same old untruth in an attempt to save face, or just too stupid to understand. I don't honestly believe the last one, but I can't pick between the other two or come up with another reason that seems plausible to me.

Perhaps you could tell me why it is you think that evolution labels us "Homo sapiens"?

While we're at it, I'll bet my blessings that AV's a believer in astrology.

 

[Doveaman]

Veiled and hidden behind humour and poor parody it might be, an insult it is.

What would happen to me on here, pray tell, if I suggested that Christians were unevolved and depraved?

If your claim is supported by the truth of Scripture then you'll be fine. After all, it's a Christian forum.

 

[Doveaman]

I have finally concluded the following:

Creationists are only interested in their own version of the truth and simply cannot even entertain the very notion that they may be in err.

We cannot have truth and be in err at the same time. You may not agree with our version of truth but it is still truth.

Science has absolutely no problem relegating humans to a lower status if an animal or other being is shown to be superior.

Neither do creationists. If an animal or other being is shown to be superior then it is obvious humans would be relegated to a lower status.

In fact science has shown how many animals are superior in many ways to humans. Even insects are superior to us in many ways.

Having a superior brain makes us superior in every way to all animals and insects. This is why humans can have any animal or insect as pets and not the other way around. It is because animals and insects are far more stupid than humans.

Science not religion showed evidence that all humans are the same irrespective of colour or race! While religion preaches racism.

Racism is when you consider animals and insects to be superior in any way to humans. It's an insult to the human race.

Science has shown that all life is related and this leads to one being humbled and accepting the preciousness of life.

Then it should be a crime for us humans to murder those innocent mosquitoes who are just trying to make an honest living harvesting human blood.

After all, we slaughter animals for food, too, without being harassed, so why can't musquitoes take a little human blood without being harassed?

 

[Freodin]

Having a superior brain makes us superior in every way to all animals and insects. This is why humans can have any animal or insect as pets and not the other way around. It is because animals and insects are far more stupid than humans.

Obviously, you have never been had as pet by a cat.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Having a superior brain makes us superior in every way to all animals and insects. This is why humans can have any animal or insect as pets and not the other way around. It is because animals and insects are far more stupid than humans.

But you're judging superiority by mental faculties. If you judge superiority by other standards, humans don't win. For example, one could say the most superior organism is the most efficient one. That would be a virus. Or you could say the most superior organism is that which can reproduce the most and cover the planet. That would be bacteria. Or you could say the most superior organism is that which can generate its own food from sunlight. That would be autotrophs.

You have arbitrarily chosen "mental faculties" as your standard for superiority. There are a lot of things humans do well, and a lot of things other organisms do better than us. No one is "superior" -- we're all life, and we are all different. The fact that we all live on this planet together means we're awesome enough to evade extinction.

You arrogantly assume you are the pinnacle of life, and the epitome of everything on this planet. Yet by cell count, you are only 10% human, and rely so heavily on the existence of other organisms that if there were no planets or bacteria, you would die.

 

[Nathan Poe]

But you're judging superiority by mental faculties. If you judge superiority by other standards, humans don't win. For example, one could say the most superior organism is the most efficient one. That would be a virus. Or you could say the most superior organism is that which can reproduce the most and cover the planet. That would be bacteria. Or you could say the most superior organism is that which can generate its own food from sunlight. That would be autotrophs.

You have arbitrarily chosen "mental faculties" as your standard for superiority. There are a lot of things humans do well, and a lot of things other organisms do better than us. No one is "superior" -- we're all life, and we are all different. The fact that we all live on this planet together means we're awesome enough to evade extinction.

You arrogantly assume you are the pinnacle of life, and the epitome of everything on this planet. Yet by cell count, you are only 10% human, and rely so heavily on the existence of other organisms that if there were no planets or bacteria, you would die.

So, unsurprisingly, creationists judge "superiority" by a single standard, once which they've already determined they win.

That's always been what it's about, hasn't it? Establish superiority over the rest of the world -- including other humans.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, a creationist gets the credit for that -- but by all means, don't let the truth stop you; it never has before.

Again, what's the big deal about a creationist coining the term?

That's like saying an atheist picked my pocket, or a Buddhist delivers my newspaper, or...

 

[Naraoia]

Interesting snippets from Wikipedia:

The binominal name Homo sapiens is due to Carl Linnaeus (1758).

The biological classification introduced by Carolus Linnaeus in 1735 also viewed species as fixed according to a divine plan.

Notice the dates, before Lamarck, Mendel or Darwin.

We've been through this with him countless times. I believe I've even cited the ICZN rule about priority once or twice.

At this point, giving him the benefit of the doubt is beginning to strain my credulity.

If an animal or other being is shown to be superior then it is obvious humans would be relegated to a lower status.

For that, you should first find a useful definition of "superior".

Having a superior brain makes us superior in every way to all animals and insects.

Insects are animals, darling. And your brain is only superior so long as you can feed it.

Racism is when you consider animals and insects to be superior in any way to humans. It's an insult to the human race.

Frankly, the human race is insulted enough by humans... And any real-life victims of racism reading this might just be insulted by this comment of yours.

Then it should be a crime for us humans to murder those innocent mosquitoes who are just trying to make an honest living harvesting human blood. After all, we slaughter animals for food, too, without being harassed, so why can't musquitoes take a little human blood without being harassed?

Yea, just like it should be a crime for us humans to punish another innocent human who makes an honest living harvesting human blood.

 

[Nostromo]

I'm going with trolling.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Again, what's the big deal about a creationist coining the term?

So it was a creationisat who first classified humans as "wise," and the name stuck.

I swear, there's no pleasing you -- we throw you guys a bone, and even then you whine and complain...

 

[AV1611VET]

So it was a creationisat who first classified humans as "wise," and the name stuck.

For the record, not with me, it didn't.

As I pointed out before, did this backslider do it in respect to the Bible, or in spite of It?

 

[Nathan Poe]

For the record, not with me, it didn't.

For the record, nobody else cares.

As I pointed out before, did this backslider do it in respect to the Bible, or in spite of It?

Again, for the record, nobody else cares. If you're going to start taking up issue with Language that in your unimportant opinion as to what offends your Biblical sensibilities, you're going to find yourself speaking in nothing but short grunts before long.

For example, every time you say the days of the week, you're violating the First Commandment -- you did know they were named after Norse Gods, right?

I'll bet you're against astrology (in spite of what the Bible teaches) but you still use the word "disaster," which comes from the Greek meaning "bad star."

You probably think the word "cretin" is an insult, when the truth is it comes from the French "Crétin," which originally meant "Christian."

And of course -- there's one word you'd have to drop altogehter -- not that it's ever meant that much to you anyway:

God.

The English word for “God” has become a source of confusion for Christians since at least the Anglo-Saxon era. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary says that the origin of the word ‘god’ comes from a Germanic word ‘gad,’ pronounced as “gohdt.”


The following information on the origin of the word ‘god’ will help to understand why we use it in our vernacular.


GOD - The English word God is identical with the Anglo-Saxon word for “good,” and therefore it is believed that the name God refers to the divine goodness. (See Oehler's Theol. of Old Test.; Strong's and Young's concordances.) (From New Unger's Bible Dictionary) (Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (C) 1988.)


Further information on the source of our word for ‘God’ is listed below:


Word origin: God - Our word god goes back via Germanic to Indo-European, in which a corresponding ancestor form meant “invoked one.” The word’s only surviving non-Germanic relative is Sanskrit hu, invoke the gods, a form which appears in the Rig Veda, most ancient of Hindu scriptures: puru-hutas, “much invoked,” epithet of the rain-and-thunder god Indra. (From READER’S DIGEST, Family Word Finder, page 351) (Originally published by The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., Pleasantville New York, Montreal; Copyright (C) 1975)

Where did the word “GOD” originate?

Fret not, AV -- nobody expects you to be consistent in your objections.

 

[mzungu]

For the record, nobody else cares.



Again, for the record, nobody else cares. If you're going to start taking up issue with Language that in your unimportant opinion as to what offends your Biblical sensibilities, you're going to find yourself speaking in nothing but short grunts before long.

For example, every time you say the days of the week, you're violating the First Commandment -- you did know they were named after Norse Gods, right?

I'll bet you're against astrology (in spite of what the Bible teaches) but you still use the word "disaster," which comes from the Greek meaning "bad star."

You probably think the word "cretin" is an insult, when the truth is it comes from the French "Crétin," which originally meant "Christian."

And of course -- there's one word you'd have to drop altogehter -- not that it's ever meant that much to you anyway:

God.



Where did the word “GOD” originate?

Fret not, AV -- nobody expects you to be consistent in your objections.

Allow me to guess AV's reply: ............. can take a hike! No offence AV

 

[Split Rock]

For the record, not with me, it didn't.

As I pointed out before, did this backslider do it in respect to the Bible, or in spite of It?

So, is it wrong to call the three magi "wise men, as the KJV1611 bible does?" How about referring to the "wisdom" of Solomon as the KJV1611 bible does?

1Kings24: "And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart."

Or how about Proverbs?

1:5 "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels"

13:20 "He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed."

It seems to me that it isn't the bible that dispises wisdom, but you who dispises wisdom.