Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

[VirOptimus]

sir even your own link refutes what you are saying. You said apes were humans by definitions, and your link says they are both hominids, but they are not the same. Besides I searched 17th century works on taxonomy, and no such term "hominid" so it is safe to say that either darwin or his predecessors had a part in coining the taxonomical term: "hominidae" which appeared within the same few decades of "origin of species."
@VirOptimus

Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless simians native to Africa and Southeast Asia. They are the sister group of the Old World monkeys, together forming the catarrhine clade. They are distinguished from other primates by a wider degree of freedom of motion at the shoulder joint as evolved by the influence of brachiation. In traditional and non-scientific use, the term "ape" excludes humans, and is thus not equivalent to the scientific taxon Hominoidea. There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes.

• The family Hylobatidae, the lesser apes, include four genera and a total of sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang, all native to Asia. They are highly arboreal and bipedal on the ground. They have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than great apes.
• The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, also include four genera comprising three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies.[1][a][2][3]

 

[createdtoworship]

Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless simians native to Africa and Southeast Asia. They are the sister group of the Old World monkeys, together forming the catarrhine clade. They are distinguished from other primates by a wider degree of freedom of motion at the shoulder joint as evolved by the influence of brachiation. In traditional and non-scientific use, the term "ape" excludes humans, and is thus not equivalent to the scientific taxon Hominoidea. There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes.

• The family Hylobatidae, the lesser apes, include four genera and a total of sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang, all native to Asia. They are highly arboreal and bipedal on the ground. They have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than great apes.
• The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, also include four genera comprising three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies.[1][a][2][3]

again quoting such terms begs the question as to the validity of macro evolution. The first use of the term "hominoid" was in the 20th century (1949). Taxonomy was invented in the 17th century as a classification of animals. Hominids, and Homindae, were all added after darwins works were published. So there is no proof that said categorizations are not circular reasoning. Lets say for example I want to prove the existence of of Christ, but then quote the Bible to prove so. That would be circular reasoning. That would beg the question as to the historical presence of Christ. One must quote non christian works (to avoid bias), if one wanted to prove the historicity of Christ. Even though the Bible is a historic volume. So I hope that helps. Really all of this does not prove common ancestry of monkeys and man, all it does is prove the depth of bias that is currently out there regarding this. It's very scary to me the amount of misinformation out there. It is very obvious from my differences listed, that one can easily tell the difference between an animal who eats bananas and swings from trees, and from a person in a university pondering the philosophical meaning of life....i.e. "to be or not to be, that is the question."

 

[VirOptimus]

again quoting such terms begs the question as to the validity of macro evolution. The first use of the term "hominoid" was in the 20th century (1949). Taxonomy was invented in the 17th century as a classification of animals. Hominids, and Homindae, were all added after darwins works were published. So there is no proof that said categorizations are not circular reasoning. Lets say for example I want to prove the existence of of Christ, but then quote the Bible to prove so. That would be circular reasoning. That would beg the question as to the historical presence of Christ. One must quote non christian works (to avoid bias), if one wanted to prove the historicity of Christ. Even though the Bible is a historic volume. So I hope that helps. Really all of this does not prove common ancestry of monkeys and man, all it does is prove the depth of bias that is currently out there regarding this. It's very scary to me the amount of misinformation out there. It is very obvious from my differences listed, that one can easily tell the difference between an animal who eats bananas and swings from trees, and from a person in a university pondering the philosophical meaning of life....i.e. "to be or not to be, that is the question."

Gibberish.

Just admit you where wrong and that humans are apes by definition.

 

[createdtoworship]

.....

You cant read?

I can read everything you post, but so far you have just used circular argumentation. Sort of like me saying God exists, then using religious books to prove so.

 

[VirOptimus]

I can read everything you post, but so far you have just used circular argumentation. Sort of like me saying God exists, then using religious books to prove so.

Dude, this is about a definition. Definitons just are, they cant really be debated.

 

[Shemjaza]

All of this is unvalidated, we would need to see pictures of pelvis, to see how the legs attached, feet are not good enough.

Nonsense. The structure of hominid feet and the angle of the neck give you the posture, and thus locomotion.

Lucy is proven to be a knuckle walker from actual photos of the pelvis, I can provide a link again if you wish.

That is blatantly false.

Check out the structure, vastly closer total biped then even partial quadraped.

 

[createdtoworship]

again, natural selection is fine, it's just that natural selection does not produce new genra of animals (new types of animals), they may cross species barriers yes, but not genus barriers. Taxonomist linneas split up genra by defining which animals could naturally mate, and which species could naturally mate with other species, and these were "genus's" The Bible calls this "type" of classification "kinds" of animals. And there is no evidence one kind can (via natural selection) turn into another animal.

 

[createdtoworship]

Dude, this is about a definition. Definitons just are, they cant really be debated.

Definitions are not absolute. In fact many definitions used by evolutionists can't even be found in legitimate dictionaries.

see check out this oxford dictionary:

hominid noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

it straight up says humans developed from previous animals.

So how is that objective to use those definitions in the debate regarding "if humans developed from previous animals?" It begs the question.....

and it's completely circular reasoning.

again if you don't know what begging the question is, it's using your conclusion as a premise. So normally you build your argument, you don't assume your conclusion. But here that is happening. They are assuming evolution, even coining terms that also assume evolution, then using those terms as evidence for evolution. Completely circular.


If you can't see it I really don't know what else to say.

 

[VirOptimus]

Definitions are not absolute. In fact many definitions used by evolutionists can't even be found in legitimate dictionaries.

see check out this oxford dictionary:

hominid noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

it straight up says humans developed from previous animals.

So how is that objective in the debate regarding "if humans developed from previous animals?"

it's completely circular reasoning.

If you can't see it I really don't know what else to say.

Scientific definitions are very precise, se my previous links.

This debate is not about the ToE, its about if humans are apes or not, and I have shown you that by definition humans are apes.

 

[createdtoworship]

Scientific definitions are very precise, se my previous links.

This debate is not about the ToE, its about if humans are apes or not, and I have shown you that by definition humans are apes.

circular reasoning sir, all definitions are tossed out as begging the question as i have said repeatedly. So at this point I assume you have no further evidence humans are apes, so I will assume this concluded. Thank you for the debate I appreciate that you are finally posting your evidence, at least that part is good. So thank you.

 

[VirOptimus]

circular reasoning sir, all definitions are tossed out as begging the question as i have said repeatedly. So at this point I assume you have no further evidence humans are apes, so I will assume this concluded. Thank you for the debate I appreciate that you are finally posting your evidence, at least that part is good. So thank you.

Putting religion over facts is very ignorant.

 

[createdtoworship]

Putting religion over facts is very ignorant.

circular reasoning is again, really fallacious. It's like me saying leprachauns exist, and quoting irish mythology to prove my fact. That is same mentality as using a definition of hominid, to prove macro evolution is true. Darwins predecessors basically redefined taxonomy to revolve around their bias. That is why you can't find any definitions of hominid the predate darwin.

 

[VirOptimus]

circular reasoning is again, really fallacious. It's like me saying leprachauns exist, and quoting irish mythology to prove my fact. That is same mentality as using a definition of hominid, to prove macro evolution is true. Darwins predecessors basically redefined taxonomy to revolve around their bias. That is why you can't find any definitions of hominid the predate darwin.

Finaly, you agree that humans are apes by definition. Thanks.

 

[createdtoworship]

Finaly, you agree that humans are apes by definition. Thanks.

??? you confused me there. But anyway. I hope this has made you realize how few and far between it is for objective data on macro evolution. Take care. I guess we are done here.

 

[VirOptimus]

??? you confused me there. But anyway. I hope this has made you realize how few and far between it is for objective data on macro evolution. Take care. I guess we are done here.

Aa Im not scientific illiterate I realize no such thing.

The ToE is incredibly well-supported science.

 

[createdtoworship]

Aa Im not scientific illiterate I realize no such thing.

The ToE is incredibly well-supported science.

sorry sir, I have debated this specific topic for over 15 years on here and other places. I have debated probably 6 scientists over the years of various backgrounds. I have never seen a solid piece of evidence that proved macro evolution. They all dismantled relatively easily when I did a few searches online. So again you can try again if you wish. But I for one think you realize that it's not so easy to prove things online. It takes quite a bit of work. But if you wish I can prove the existence of a maker of the universe for you, if you are desiring a change of topic for awhile. I can also give evidence for the maker being very close to what we would see as a christian or biblical God. But lets talk about proving a maker first. Do it in order.

 

[VirOptimus]

sorry sir, I have debated this specific topic for over 15 years on here and other places. I have debated probably 6 scientists over the years of various backgrounds. I have never seen a solid piece of evidence that proved macro evolution. They all dismantled relatively easily when I did a few searches online. So again you can try again if you wish. But I for one think you realize that it's not so easy to prove things online. It takes quite a bit of work. But if you wish I can prove the existence of a maker of the universe for you, if you are desiring a change of topic for awhile. I can also give evidence for the maker being very close to what we would see as a christian or biblical God. But lets talk about proving a maker first. Do it in order.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

There are no evidence for god(s).

 

[createdtoworship]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

There are no evidence for god(s).

thank you for the challenge....

Proving a Christian God is fairly straightforward. I can not only prove God's existence, but I can prove that the God that exists is very similar to a Christian God. Firstly lets prove a divine maker exists, then we will link this concept to a christian God concept in the second paragraph…. So here is premise one: if you see something made, you know it had a maker. You don't even have to get into intelligent design at all for this point. Simply if you see something made, you know it had a maker. The fact that the universe is an effect, means it had a cause. IF the largest effect in existence did not have a cause, then essentially that would disqualify all of the laws of cause and effect, which would be irrational. So it must have had a cause. Again, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. Most scientists believe the universe had a big bang. Because of the fact the universe is expanding, and that if you reverse that there was a singularity at one point. So again I go back to the original statement, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. This is solid logic without any external evidence needed. God does not need causation because general relativity shows that time accelerates mass ( if you have no mass you don't have time). God is massless and outside the time domain.

Now for the christian part:

Imagine baking a cake in which no ingredients currently exist. If you can't do that, then a creator can't create a universe in which He did not have intelligence. If it is a character trait that is valuable in the universe, versus not valuable, like evil. Then yes the creator would have to have that character trait. I look at this as basic causation. Any effect in the universe must have a cause, the greatest effect (the universe), must have had the greatest cause. We see love in the universe so logically the creator would have to have that character trait. Evil again, is a lack of character. Or not doing something you should. So God naturally would not be required to have that trait because it's a lack of a trait. God would only be required to have love, intelligence and any other positive character trait like patience for example. This is very close to the Christian God. Intelligent, patient, loving, forgiving.

part two:
moral case for God's existence:

Let’s give the argument against my position that self sacrifice is divine,

“You’re assuming something you call “self-sacrificial love” exists in humans because you can observe self sacrificial behavior, and you can feel the emotion of love, so you assume in some instances the two go together. That’s not completely unreasonable, but if you’re willing to do that for humans, you have to do that for animals, too. Taking self-sacrificial love for granted in humans but refusing to accept that it exists in animals until some authoritative paper says so is completely unreasonable.”

so believing in something that has no evidence is what I should do? I mean I could provide several examples of the existence of self sacrificial love if you want (of humans). But you could not do that with animals.


poor people give twice as much as rich people, and they give to charities that serve the poor, for example, shelters.


Poor, Middle Class and Rich: Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?

Poor, Middle Class and Rich: Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?


so yes, people give food to complete strangers. When I get gas, I have bought deli food for strangers instead of having my usual snack. (as there are homeless that hang out at that gas station). (not to mention we can't really afford it). In the Bible in Luke 21:1-4 a poor woman gives all she had to the local charity, and the Bible says: " And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.” This winter when storms were creating that harshest winter in many years on the east coast a woman put up homeless people in a hotel room, and she charged it to her credit card because she could not afford it. Then she connected with other people and eventually 80 homeless were off the streets in freezing temperature. She and the others no doubt saved multiple lives of complete strangers.


Meet the Woman Who Helped Book Hotel Rooms for 80 Homeless People in Freezing Chicago

Meet the Woman Who Helped Book Hotel Rooms for 80 Homeless People in Freezing Chicago


I just don’t see the animal kingdom doing this type of work.

 

[VirOptimus]

thank you for the challenge....

Proving a Christian God is fairly straightforward. I can not only prove God's existence, but I can prove that the God that exists is very similar to a Christian God. Firstly lets prove a divine maker exists, then we will link this concept to a christian God concept in the second paragraph…. So here is premise one: if you see something made, you know it had a maker. You don't even have to get into intelligent design at all for this point. Simply if you see something made, you know it had a maker. The fact that the universe is an effect, means it had a cause. IF the largest effect in existence did not have a cause, then essentially that would disqualify all of the laws of cause and effect, which would be irrational. So it must have had a cause. Again, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. Most scientists believe the universe had a big bang. Because of the fact the universe is expanding, and that if you reverse that there was a singularity at one point. So again I go back to the original statement, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. This is solid logic without any external evidence needed. God does not need causation because general relativity shows that time accelerates mass ( if you have no mass you don't have time). God is massless and outside the time domain.

Now for the christian part:

Imagine baking a cake in which no ingredients currently exist. If you can't do that, then a creator can't create a universe in which He did not have intelligence. If it is a character trait that is valuable in the universe, versus not valuable, like evil. Then yes the creator would have to have that character trait. I look at this as basic causation. Any effect in the universe must have a cause, the greatest effect (the universe), must have had the greatest cause. We see love in the universe so logically the creator would have to have that character trait. Evil again, is a lack of character. Or not doing something you should. So God naturally would not be required to have that trait because it's a lack of a trait. God would only be required to have love, intelligence and any other positive character trait like patience for example. This is very close to the Christian God. Intelligent, patient, loving, forgiving.

part two:
moral case for God's existence:

Let’s give the argument against my position that self sacrifice is divine,

“You’re assuming something you call “self-sacrificial love” exists in humans because you can observe self sacrificial behavior, and you can feel the emotion of love, so you assume in some instances the two go together. That’s not completely unreasonable, but if you’re willing to do that for humans, you have to do that for animals, too. Taking self-sacrificial love for granted in humans but refusing to accept that it exists in animals until some authoritative paper says so is completely unreasonable.”

so believing in something that has no evidence is what I should do? I mean I could provide several examples of the existence of self sacrificial love if you want (of humans). But you could not do that with animals.


poor people give twice as much as rich people, and they give to charities that serve the poor, for example, shelters.


Poor, Middle Class and Rich: Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?

Poor, Middle Class and Rich: Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?


so yes, people give food to complete strangers. When I get gas, I have bought deli food for strangers instead of having my usual snack. (as there are homeless that hang out at that gas station). (not to mention we can't really afford it). In the Bible in Luke 21:1-4 a poor woman gives all she had to the local charity, and the Bible says: " And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.” This winter when storms were creating that harshest winter in many years on the east coast a woman put up homeless people in a hotel room, and she charged it to her credit card because she could not afford it. Then she connected with other people and eventually 80 homeless were off the streets in freezing temperature. She and the others no doubt saved multiple lives of complete strangers.


Meet the Woman Who Helped Book Hotel Rooms for 80 Homeless People in Freezing Chicago

Meet the Woman Who Helped Book Hotel Rooms for 80 Homeless People in Freezing Chicago


I just don’t see the animal kingdom doing this type of work.

Tl, dr.

 

[createdtoworship]

Tl, dr.

?? I am not sure what you are saying, but maybe it was a mistake, or mistype.