My great great granfather was not a monkey!!!!!

[john crawford]

Of course, they have to -since their faith is not in God per se, but in fables written by men pretending to speak for God.

Obviously, you are not pretending to speak for God, so you must be pretending to speak for men.

So to defend these fables, creationists are forced to create false taxonomies to try and sever men from the other anthropoids.

There's nothing false about creating taxonomies which distinguish men and women from other animals. If you don't wish to be included in it, stay on your own branch in neo-Darwinist phylogenic trees.

But the fact remains that they cannot either by morphology, physiology, development or genetics.

Why not? We're already in our own Human suborder of primates which qualifies us to be classified in our own genus of Human in the Human family. No problem.

In all respects, men are apes, and a subset of monkeys, -no matter how much some men would rather pretend to be golems made out of dirt.

Nah. Only some men who believe in neo-Darwinist race theories bother to classify themselves as apes or a "subset of monkeys." Jews, Muslims and Christians classify themselves as Humans. They classify their original human ancestors as Human too.

When you put away the blinders of dogmatism, you realize immediately that we a apart of nature, not apart from it.

Not only are Jews, Christians and Muslims part of nature, but human nature is a part of us too.

 

[john crawford]

Are you suggesting that Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed were not people? Are you suggesting that none of them gestated in a womb in which they were surrounded by an amniotic membrane?

Of course not. It doesn't make them rats, pigs, skunks, weasels or APES THOUGH.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I wouldnt say many of them have no tails, and I have yet to see a monkey with opposable thumbs,

If you've ever seen any monkey at all, then you've seen one with opposable thumbs, because they all have them.

This also explains a lot of the obvious differences

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question660.htm

The differences can't be obvious if they're not even apparent. To prove that, why don't you go through your own citation to find me one "obvious difference" we can explore. Because my position is still that there are none, and I'm pretty sure I can prove it. Please try to remember that this revolution in taxonomy only began about six years ago. Most sites aren't going to be on the cutting-edge of that.

 

[john crawford]

We share all the characteristics that are common to all primates (and differentiate them from other mammals.)

Since we don't share ALL the characteristics that are common to all primates, and we do have particular characteristics which we share only with other humans, and differentiate humans from other primates, and the primate order contains several subsets of primates, only one can be Human. Therefore, as Human primates, Jews, Christians and Muslims have their own human taxon within the order of primates. This allows creationists to establish the Human family taxon which all humans are invited to be classified in.

 

[john crawford]

Kudos to you Gluadys. I could never understand why some people have such impoverished egos. They try their best to make themselfs out to be more than they really are in an effort to bolster that ego. Why can't they just accept that they are what God has made them?

God did not make us as apes or out of monkey ancestors, although neo-Darwinists sure are making a monkey out of you by simply classifying you as an ape on their little charts in the first place.

Just because ape and man have a common ancestor dosn't mean he loves us less or them more.

Apes and men have a common creator, not ancestor. Where did you go to Sunday school?

 

[john crawford]

Sorry, John. By the commonly accepted scientific definition, you are an ape.

Just because some neo-Darwinist pseudoscientists classify themselves as apes doesn't mean that any non-Darwinist Jews, Christians and Muslims are.

You can whine about how it's racist all you want. It doesn't change the fact that you're an ape, your father was an ape, and his father was an ape.

I don't mind if neo-Darwinist race theorists call me an ape, but if they call Martin Luther King an ape, they are racists.

Reality doesn't care what you think or reject, so please stop wasting your words here.

You wouldn't know what reality is even if you were a real ape.

 

[john crawford]

You're attempting to suggest that the "power" of human speech might suggest that we be classified as other than an ape. But can you show that our sounds somehow separate us uniquely in a way that other primate sounds do not?

Yes. Just listen to a speech by Dr. Martin Luther King and see if you can distinguish between human speech and ape sounds. Let us know if you recognize the unique difference.

 

[Ioinc]

Well, from what I know, my grandfather wasn't a monkey. We have a common ancestor with monkeys. Creationists are right, your grandfather was not a friggin' monkey.

I am not a monkey... but I do have some friends that I wonder about somtime.

I just saw Cirque du soleil - Varekai last Friday. I am almost positive that a few of them are monkeys.

For what its worth I also have a CD from a bunch of guys that are claiming to be monkeys

 

[john crawford]

The word, Hominidae is now synonemous with the term, "great apes".

Yes, and the Hominidae family plus the Hylobatidae family (Gibbons) make up the great ape superfamily of Hominoidea.

Good thing we non-Darwinist Jews, Christians and Muslims have our own Human superfamily to be classified in as prime Human primates.

 

[john crawford]

I am not a monkey... but I do have some friends that I wonder about somtime.

I just saw Cirque du soleil - Varekai last Friday. I am almost positive that a few of them are monkeys.

For what its worth I also have a CD from a bunch of guys that are claiming to be monkeys

Just because neo-Darwinists call themselves monkeys, do you think we should believe them and take their chatter seriously?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Yes, and the Hominidae family plus the Hylobatidae family (Gibbons) make up the great ape superfamily of Hominoidea.

Good thing we non-Darwinist Jews, Christians and Muslims have our own Human superfamily to be classified in as prime Human primates.

I don't suppose I could ever convince you to stop using the moronic and uninformative terms "neo-Darwinism" and "Darwinists", could I? What other scientific theory is so classified by the person who first brought it to light? I mean the theory of relativity is not call "Einsteinism", nor is the theory of gravity called "Newtonism". If you have a criticism of evolution or taxonomy, please present clear evidence supporting your position. Silly name-calling doesn't forward your position, it simply shows you're swallowing usless talking-points.

 

[Ioinc]

Just because neo-Darwinists call themselves monkeys, do you think we should believe them and take their chatter seriously?

How on earth did my post lead to yours?

Did you even read my post? Am I too subtle?

 

[Nice Dream]

Just because neo-Darwinists call themselves monkeys, do you think we should believe them and take their chatter seriously?

What is new and/or different about present day Darwinists/evolutionists?

 

[john crawford]

I don't suppose I could ever convince you to stop using the moronic and uninformative terms "neo-Darwinism" and "Darwinists", could I?

No way.

What other scientific theory is so classified by the person who first brought it to light? I mean the theory of relativity is not call "Einsteinism", nor is the theory of gravity called "Newtonism".

Those are real scientific theories though whereas Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are just secular and atheistic philosophies and ideologies like Marxism.

If you have a criticism of evolution or taxonomy, please present clear evidence supporting your position.

Do you accept creationist evidence?

Silly name-calling doesn't forward your position, it simply shows you're swallowing usless talking-points.

What do you mean by silly name-calling? Calling someone an ape? There's nothing silly about calling neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution racist.

 

[john crawford]

What is new and/or different about present day Darwinists/evolutionists?

They keep changing their theories and taxonomies. Neo-Darwinism is what happens as Darwinism keeps evolving.

 

[Ioinc]

They keep changing their theories and taxonomies. Neo-Darwinism is what happens as Darwinism keeps evolving.

Everything evolves.... everything.

 

[Hydra009]

What is new and/or different about present day Darwinists/evolutionists?

It's in reference to the Modern Synthesis, the incorporation of new discoveries since Darwin's time, particularly Mendel's genetics, with Darwin's natural selection mechanism of evolution.

I don't suppose I could ever convince you to stop using the moronic and uninformative terms "neo-Darwinism" and "Darwinists", could I?

hehe, I got bingo.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

No way.

Well, at least you implicitly agree they are moronic and uninformative.

Those are real scientific theories though whereas Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are just secular and atheistic philosophies and ideologies like Marxism.

First, all scientific theories are secular in that none hold to any particular religious point of view. Second, and directly related to that, all scientific theories, including evolution, are basically "agnostic" in that they do not reference any supernatural beings/events in their descriptions of the natrual world. There are plenty of people who believe are Christian who have no trouble with evolution. Evolution is in no way atheistic in that it makes no judgement on the existence/non-existence of the Christian or any other god.

What is your definition of a scientific theory?

Please show us how evolution is an "atheistic philosophy". Also, juxtaposing "Darwinism" (read: evolution) with Marxism does not mean there is a connection, let alone a correlation. Stop taking pages from Ken Hovind's play book.

Do you accept creationist evidence?

I will accept empiricle evidence.

What do you mean by silly name-calling? Calling someone an ape? There's nothing silly about calling neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution racist.

Evolution is not teleologically bound. Get used to it.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

They keep changing their theories and taxonomies. Neo-Darwinism is what happens as Darwinism keeps evolving.

You should have a read of this book:

Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism (Paperback)
by Robert T. Pennock

It quite clearly shows the evolution of the YEC/OEC movements and how they respond to social and political pressures to keep their messages in the news.

P.S. It wasn't written by an atheist--not even an agnostic!

 

[gluadys]

Of course not. It doesn't make them rats, pigs, skunks, weasels or APES THOUGH.

Didn't say that it did. It does make them amniotes though--just like rats, pigs, skunks, weasels and other apes.

Now since you have eliminated snakes and vultures from this group, we can also observe that rats, pigs,skunks, weasels and apes (including the sub-group known as humans) are all mammals.

Or do you wish to suggest that Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed were not nursed by mothers (or a wet-nurse) who produced milk from mammary glands?