Not transitional?

[AV1611VET]

So nothing, then.

Certainly not a joke.

 

[Naraoia]

Typology.

In the Bible, Egypt is a type of the world.

And just like Moses refused to have anything to do with Egypt, neither do I.

Therefore, I do not consider myself a Homo sapiens.

(And before you go bringing up going to doctors, doctors are from the Promised Land, not Egypt.)

In trying to parse what you are talking about, I got one thing.

Yes, you do need more reminders.

Homo sapiens was named by good ol' Linnaeus. Not an atheist, not an evolutionist. We still call the species the same because going around changing names willy-nilly is highly frowned upon in taxonomy.

[Strange that I never see you complain about the equally inappropriate names of Basilosaurus (which was not even a reptile, let alone a lizard), Oviraptor (which was probably brooding, not stealing, the eggs it was found with), Halobacterium (which is not a bacterium) or Apus (which has perfectly good feet)]

 

[AV1611VET]

In trying to parse what you are talking about, I got one thing.

Yes, you do need more reminders.

If you get anything, please get this: I do not consider myself a Homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens was named by good ol' Linnaeus. Not an atheist, not an evolutionist.

Good for Linnaeus; what does that have to do with the price of tea in Egypt?

If Linnaeus went to our church, we would probably send him packing.

Either that, or -- more likely -- he would leave on his own accord.

We still call the species the same because going around changing names willy-nilly is highly frowned upon in taxonomy.

You call, he calls, she calls, they call -- just remember: I don't call.

[Strange that I never see you complain about the equally inappropriate names of Basilosaurus (which was not even a reptile, let alone a lizard), Oviraptor (which was probably brooding, not stealing, the eggs it was found with), Halobacterium (which is not a bacterium) or Apus (which has perfectly good feet)]

Now why would I do that?

First of all, this stuff is news to me.

Second of all, I'm not on a crusade specifically against taxonomy.

Thirdly, these other names are not -- as far as I know -- covered by the Scriptures, as "wise man" is.

 

[Naraoia]

If you get anything, please get this: I do not consider myself a Homo sapiens.

Doesn't change the fact that you are one

If Linnaeus went to our church, we would probably send him packing.

Either that, or -- more likely -- he would leave on his own accord.

That probably says more about your church than about him...

Now why would I do that?

First of all, this stuff is news to me.

Second of all, I'm not on a crusade specifically against taxonomy.

Thirdly, these other names are not -- as far as I know -- covered by the Scriptures, as "wise man" is.

Fair enough.

I guess my point is that calling the human species Homo sapiens no more constitutes "professing ourselves to be wise" than referring to a particular kind of ancient whale as Basilosaurus indicates belief that it was a reptile. Someone once gave those names because they thought they fit. Then we got stuck with them.

FWIW, I'd be the last person to profess most of humanity wise, myself included

 

[hasone]

The important part of such labels as Homo sapiens is that they are labels. They are labels that can be associated unambiguously to certain populations of organisms. That is their use. What they mean outside taxonomy isn't particularly relevant from the viewpoint of taxonomy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Someone once gave those names because they thought they fit. Then we got stuck with them.

I'm ahead of you on this rant.

Remember my rants about the flying squirrel?

 

[AV1611VET]

The important part of such labels as Homo sapiens is that they are labels.

Good -- then I've torn my label off.

Anyone care to join me?

 

[Mling]

I'm curious why you want to remove your species label.

 

[hasone]

Good -- then I've torn my label off.

Anyone care to join me?

Perhaps I was not clear. The definition of 'homo sapiens', from the taxonomic perspective, is not 'wise man' or whatever you said. I can almost guarantee this. If you got this point already, I apologize.

Perhaps you object to the taxonomic assumption that you are an animal, in which case your rejection of the label would make more sense.

 

[Naraoia]

I'm ahead of you on this rant.

Remember my rants about the flying squirrel?

I remember you did rant about flying squirrels, but not the details.

Though I somehow suspect that antiscientific sentiments are involved.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm curious why you want to remove your species label.

For one thing, we are born with a sin nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps I was not clear. The definition of 'homo sapiens', from the taxonomic perspective, is not 'wise man' or whatever you said.

Wikipedia disagrees:

Humans (known taxonomically as Homo sapiens, Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man") are the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family.

SOURCE

 

[hasone]

Wikipedia disagrees:

SOURCE

This is, in fact, not a disagreement with what I said. what the words mean in latin, while perhaps interesting to the reader, are not necessarily important from a taxonomic perspective, and that article does not seem to refute my point. Perhaps a quote from the article on taxonomy would serve you better in attempting to do so.

edit: It should be noted that my statement of unimportance was from the taxonomic perspective. The words 'homo sapiens' could be quite important from another perspective.

 

[Mling]

For one thing, we are born with a sin nature.

.....so? Denying what species you are won't remove the sin. What does one have to do with the other?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is, in fact, not a disagreement with what I said. what the words mean in latin, while perhaps interesting to the reader, are not necessarily important from a taxonomic perspective, and that article does not seem to refute my point. Perhaps a quote from the article on taxonomy would serve you better in attempting to do so.

edit: It should be noted that my statement of unimportance was from the taxonomic perspective. The words 'homo sapiens' could be quite important from another perspective.

Please note:

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

It says, 'professing'.

They weren't really wise; just carrying the label.

And this led some to become atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

.....so? Denying what species you are won't remove the sin. What does one have to do with the other?

According to Egyptian (worldly) evolution, Adam & Eve didn't know each other; since Adam is actually y-Adam, and Eve is actually mtDNA-Eve, who lived thousands of years apart.

But the doctrine of the Sin Nature, a subdoctrine of Hamartiology, requires they be husband and wife, living in the Garden of Eden.

 

[USincognito]

Wow! And AV derails another thread with his antics. Nothing posted on this thread has been about Archaeopteryx since post 20 or so.

Good job guys.

 

[Mling]

According to Egyptian (worldly) evolution, Adam & Eve didn't know each other; since Adam is actually y-Adam, and Eve is actually mtDNA-Eve, who lived thousands of years apart.

It makes me sad that you know that, because it means you aren't as ignorant as you present yourself--you just choose to ignore what you know.

But the doctrine of the Sin Nature, a subdoctrine of Hamartiology, requires they be husband and wife, living in the Garden of Eden.

Yes. It is true the Biblical story of the conception of humans is different than what science demonstrates about where humans come from. But the Biblical story about what snakes are like, but I doubt you crouch next to them and try to talk to them (or warn others not to talk to them because they might lie).

 

[[serious]]

Perhaps I was not clear. The definition of 'homo sapiens', from the taxonomic perspective, is not 'wise man' or whatever you said. I can almost guarantee this. If you got this point already, I apologize.

Perhaps you object to the taxonomic assumption that you are an animal, in which case your rejection of the label would make more sense.

Wikipedia disagrees:

SOURCE

Does that help clear things up? Etymology is quite different from taxonomy.

on a somewhat related note, if you object to any label that has etymological roots indicating wisdom, you will lose more than just "homo sapiens". "Man" comes from similar ideas but protogermanic instead of latin.

 

[Naraoia]

Please note:

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

It says, 'professing'.

They weren't really wise; just carrying the label.

And this led some to become atheists.

And I explained to you about twelve bazillion times that using that label to ourselves doesn't constitute "professing ourselves to be wise".

OK, I'm done with this. Nothing I can ever do will make you drop your absurd semantic games.

Maybe I should locate one of my posts explaining this to you, bookmark it and "qv" you every time you bring this up.

Does that help clear things up? Etymology is quite different from taxonomy.

on a somewhat related note, if you object to any label that has etymological roots indicating wisdom, you will lose more than just "homo sapiens". "Man" comes from similar ideas but protogermanic instead of latin.

Oh, that was delicious!