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

[Aron-Ra]

Jesus is God in the flesh.

No he is not. Nor did he ever imply that, even in the pages of your own mythos. And your Genesis quote was based on an almost identical passage originally written in Enuma Elish, a Sumerian creation myth almost 2,000 years older than the first archaeological hints of your Bible, and written by the ancestors of the Biblical authors! Don't deny the demonstrable facts of reality in favor of a fable, especially one plagiarized from polytheism.

 

[Nice Dream]

26 Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe." 28 17 Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 18 Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."

How are the 'facts of reality' in conflict with my beliefs?

 

[MartinM]

I don't call myself a primate either.

What about mammal? Vertebrate? Where does your rejection of basic English end?

 

[john crawford]

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?

Human primates have no problem with mammalian glands now that our Human sub-order, Human family and Human race of primates has been taxonomically established for monotheists who choose to be categorically included in it.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I don't call myself a primate either.

It doesn't matter what you call yourself. You could pretend to be a Raelian if you want to. But that can't change what you really are.

If you listed all the common traits of humans would they apply to monkeys too then?

Of course not, for the same reason that the description of a lion doesn't apply to all other cats. Not all cats are ten feet long or have manes. But the description of all cats (cheetahs, panthers, Felis, sabretoothes, etc.) applies to both your tabby and the lion.

Look at it this way, all ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks, get it?

 

[Aron-Ra]

26 Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you." 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe." 28 17 Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 18 Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."

How are the 'facts of reality' in conflict with my beliefs?

How about the fact that you're still quoting verses from old story books that have no relevance to any of the preceding comments on this board? That and not only do you think this passage says something it clearly does not, but you think you can pretend that none of the other terms we're discussing apply to you -just because you don't like them.

 

[john crawford]

Yup, and how we classify things, and how this classification points to evolution. It's simple once you get it, but a lot of people just don't get it.

Yup, creationists who do get the simplicity of it simply devise their own classification systems in tandem with, and complementary to, neo-Darwinist racial classification systems of human origins.

 

[Nice Dream]

How about the fact that you're still quoting verses from old story books that have no relevance to any of the preceding comments on this board? That and not only do you think this passage says something it clearly does not, but you think you can pretend that none of the other terms we're discussing apply to you -just because you don't like them.

You said Jesus never claimed to be God and quite clearly He agreed with Thomas when he called Him God.

If you go back to the origin of these words, the definitions don't classify people as animals. I agree we do have some qualities of certain animals but there is a distinction and i can't label people based on such vague descriptions.

 

[Anovah]

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

Whew, for a second there I though you might actually know what you were talking about. Thanks for clearing that up

(jk...I didn't think that for even a second)

 

[john crawford]

Which physical characteristic common to all other primates do we not share?

We have not been deprived of a hyoid bone which is essential for human speech and the articulation of human thought. That unique physical characteristic alone, which we do not share with any other primate and completely separates us from them, is enough to justify a special Human taxon in phylogenic trees for all who qualify themselves as eligible and are willing and able to voice their human right to taxonomic choice.

 

[john crawford]

Humans and other apes have a common creator and a common ancestor. Just like you and your cousin.

And just who is the common creator and common ancestor of you, I and our cousins in your neo-Darwinist family tree of hominoids?

 

[h2whoa]

All I want for Christmas is for the Ignore feature to work on quotes...

 

[john crawford]

great, now I'm picturing Darwin with a long black overcoat. Sunglasses. A gun in each hand. And he's frozen in midleap in the air with his foot extended, on its way toward the chin of a creationist. I really need to stop watching Matrix

I'm trying to picture old man Darwin with his full white beard in his traditional overcoat and hat wearing sunglasses. Maybe I need to watch Matrix for a change instead of spending all my time posting on the Internet.

 

[john crawford]

Why in Ecclesiastes, does it say that men are animals, and that to deny that is naught but vanity?

Creationists don't deny humans are animals. We just assert that we are specially created Human animals, something neo-Darwinist race theorists can't seem to stand the thought of and may be said to be Noahphobic.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You said Jesus never claimed to be God and quite clearly He agreed with Thomas when he called Him God.

I don't know that it matters, but the apostle John didn't speak Greek, and he couldn't read or write in any language, and he was dead before this gospel ever appeared. The gospel of John was the last gospel written out of a total of twenty. All of them told their tales with a particular bias in mind. Most of the gospels were kept out of the Bible, except for four. Matthew wanted to paint Jesus as a king and a descendant of David. Luke wanted him to seem like the new Moses, Mark wanted him to be a messiah, and the Gospel of John does try to portray Jesus as a god. But its a feeble attempt. By the time 'John' was written, there had developed a handful of conflicting factions of Christians, all arguing for decades about who or what Jesus was. The Ebionites claimed he was just an enlightened Jew. The Marcionites claimed that he was a god unto himself, a separate god from ABBA, such that Marcionites could not worship the god of the Old Testament. The Gnostics held that he was neither man nor god, but a messenger from the divine realm. And Orthodoxy served as a comprimise to meld these conflicting ideas into a single belief-system - at least for a short time.

But back to the point, even in your own mythos, as it stands today -after all this human intervention, Jesus still makes very plain throughout the text that he and "God" (El/Abba/Allah/YHWH) are distinctly different entities. Jesus says he doesn't know what God knows, and can't do what God does. Jesus talks about God in 3rd person, and talks to God directly asking him to do things, "not that I wilt, but that thou wilt." I have this argument every couple of months, it gets very involved every time, and I always win. But you're welcome to try and challenge me on it again if you like.

If you go back to the origin of these words, the definitions don't classify people as animals.

I don't know what "origins" you're referring to, but I grant you I'm introducing you to a relatively new concept. And the first biological definition I gave you does identify you as an animal, does it not?

I agree we do have some qualities of certain animals but there is a distinction and i can't label people based on such vague descriptions.

Vague is it? How is a precise biological definition vague? There's a distinction between people and animals? Are you sure?

animal (n-ml) n.
any organic (Carbon-based) replicative RNA/DNA protein organism:
(a) consisting of multiple diploid cells which each contain a nucleus;
(b) which perform chemical reactions and acheive homeostasis;
(c) who's gammete cells have a posterior flagella;
(d) which must ingest and digest other organisms in a digestive tract in order to sustain themselves.

Because looking at this, I don't see any distinction. Where is it?

 

[john crawford]

And we are animals whether you think the Bible says so or not. Shouldn't the Bible match reality? Moreso, we're not just any "kind" of animal. We're a very special "kind" of monkey.

You are right that we are not just any "kind" of animal since only humans are capable of thinking of themselves as a very special "kind" of monkey and typing such peculiar opinions on the Internet. Some special "kinds" of humans are even able to voice their personal opinions out loud that they are monkeys and teach children in public schools that they are articulate monkeys also.

 

[Ryal Kane]

great, now I'm picturing Darwin with a long black overcoat. Sunglasses. A gun in each hand. And he's frozen in midleap in the air with his foot extended, on its way toward the chin of a creationist. I really need to stop watching Matrix

Oh now a description that good just DEMANDS a picture!

 

[john crawford]

Yeah, I hear that a lot. Its funny that creationists will admit to being primates, but in the same breath claim not to be monkeys. This would be so much easier if you understood what a primate was.

If you understood that there are sub-orders of primates in which humans and monkeys are separately classified, then maybe you wouldn't be under the delusion that you are a monkey and not human. You can't be both you know, and must make an intelligent choice sooner or later, hopefully before you mature.

So then I ask the question no creationist yet has dared answer in any competant way; What is a monkey?

Your particular problem seems to lie in the fact that you don't know what a human being is and can't tell the difference between yourself and a monkey.

So we'll need a definition that includes all the traits common to all monkeys collectively. And just to save you a month of homework, I'll tell you now that you can't list all those traits common to all monkeys without describing humans at the same time.

Yes, but monkeys don't have a hyoid bone as human beings like yourself have. That's why one can't carry on an intelligent conversation about evolution with monkeys.

You are a monkey, whether you're able to accept that or not. Specifically, you're an Old World monkey, a member of the infraorder, Catarrhini. You are a monkey in precisely the same way that a lion is a cat.

That's just neo-Darwinist doctrine and dogma intended to convert humans into monkeys. Get a mate, will 'ya, and make sure she's human.

 

[Aron-Ra]

If you understood that there are sub-orders of primates in which humans and monkeys are separately classified, then maybe you wouldn't be under the delusion that you are a monkey and not human. You can't be both you know, and must make an intelligent choice sooner or later, hopefully before you mature.

You can be both. Just like a lion can also be a cat, and a duck can also be a bird, we can also be monkeys. Monkeys and humans are not seperately classified as you asserted they were.

Within primates there are prosimians and monkeys
Within monkeys there are new world and old world
Within old world monkeys there are several varieties, including apes.
Within apes, there are lesser apes and great apes
Within great apes, there are several varieties including humans.

And by the way, the difference in speech is not made a bone one of us that the other does not. It is in the shape of the roof of your mouth. Humans have a smidge more arch than any other ape. And that's what gives us the room in our mouths to articulate words, which you seem to think is some kind of magic power of something. That feature makes us distinct among apes, but it cannot distinguish us from them.

 

[john crawford]

Jesus is God in the flesh.

That wasn't what i was trying to say though, i was making a point of the distinction God makes between animals and humans.

Neo-Darwinist race theorists make the point though, of associating the image and likeness of Jesus and Abraham with common ancestors of African apes and monkeys. As a matter of fact, neo-Darwinist race theorists would identify and classify Jesus, Moses, Abraham and Mohammed as monkeys and apes.

No wonder African Muslims in France don't like secular Frenchmen who deny their own Neanderthal ancestry from Noah and hypocritically pose as Homo sapiens descendents of African people instead.

Looks like some evolutionist hominids out of Africa have come home to roast, er, roost.