why humans are not primates

[Hoghead1]

Yes, of course. As I said before, the kind of response you gave me is quite common from fundamentalist quarters. I does not impress me, however. As I said before, it is largely a character-assassination-type response, which is totally inappropriate in a serious theological discussion. Often, these cheap shorts are the opponent's character do not fit any reality. Here, you asked if I just crash Christian boards. I hate to pull rank, but I have an earned doctorate in theology, plus extensive study of Scripture, I consider myself Christian, and I am also listed in "Who's Who in Biblical Studies and Archaeology." So don't give me this crashing-Christian line. You are correct in your assumption that I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. However, you failed to give a soiled counterargument, other than trying to accuse me of having no faith. Sorry, but we are no impressed here.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, of course. As I said before, the kind of response you gave me is quite common from fundamentalist quarters. I does not impress me, however. As I said before, it is largely a character-assassination-type response, which is totally inappropriate in a serious theological discussion. Often, these cheap shorts are the opponent's character do not fit any reality. Here, you asked if I just crash Christian boards. I hate to pull rank, but I have an earned doctorate in theology, plus extensive study of Scripture, I consider myself Christian, and I am also listed in "Who's Who in Biblical Studies and Archaeology." So don't give me this crashing-Christian line. You are correct in your assumption that I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. However, you failed to give a soiled counterargument, other than trying to accuse me of having no faith. Sorry, but we are no impressed here.

Who knows to what or to whom you're responding?

 

[Hoghead1]

It was aimed at Amen777. Sorry for the mix-up and the typo's I made in my reply.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It was aimed at Amen777. Sorry for the mix-up and the typo's I made in my reply.

None of my business I suppose, but do you eschew the "reply" function on purpose for some reason or are you unaware of it?

 

[sfs]

Often, these cheap shorts [on] the opponent's character do not fit any reality.

and

However, you failed to give a soiled counterargument

may be typos, but they're typos of the highest caliber.

 

[sfs]

By the way, was there ever an explanation given of what the OP means? What does it mean for a classification scheme to be wrong?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The prehensile toes of an ape include an opposable big toe.

Humans do not have the prehensile toes of an ape which includes an opposable big toe.

It's a completely different foot.

If by "completely different", you mean that the big toe is a couple inches further down in oerang oetangs, then yes, they are "completely different.

Which funnily enough, is supportive of how closely related we are with the other great apes:

The second from the left is the orang oetang, our furthest (is that a word?) cousins.
Then we have gorilla's, wich are more closely related to us and what do you know... the big toe is higher.

Then comes chimps. The toe is even higher still.

Then there is the human foot.

Exactly like we would expect.


Try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does it mean for a classification scheme to be wrong?

Ask Harold Cook or Ernst Haeckel.

Or Clyde Tombaugh.

 

[sfs]

Ask Harold Cook or Ernst Haeckel.

Or Clyde Tombaugh.

Nope, that's not an explanation of what it means for a classification scheme to be wrong. Does anyone have one?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, that's not an explanation of what it means for a classification scheme to be wrong.

Why am I not surprised?

Science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.*

* It's actually called the No True Scotsman Fallacy, but scientists have raised it to the level of a principle.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nope, that's not an explanation of what it means for a classification scheme to be wrong. Does anyone have one?

I don't get what some people mean when they say that Haeckel was wrong, since no one ever actually goes in to detail on what he was supposed to have gotten wrong.

 

[sfs]

Why am I not surprised?

Science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.*

* It's actually called the No True Scotsman Fallacy, but scientists have raised it to the level of a principle.

No, random insults are also not an explanation for what it means for a classification scheme to be wrong. Keep trying.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, random insults are also not an explanation for what it means for a classification scheme to be wrong. Keep trying.

Since when is the truth (or what one considers to be the truth) considered "random insults"?

 

[sfs]

Since when is the truth (or what one considers to be the truth) considered "random insults"?

Since human beings started communicating with language. "You're an idiot" and "You're ugly" are both insulting even when they're true, or you think they're true. Why that's relevant to your false statement above I have no idea. What either the question or the statement has to do with the question at hand I also don't know. Should I take it that you are unable to explain what it means for a classification scheme to be wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

Should I take it that you are unable to explain what it means for a classification scheme to be wrong?

Go ahead, if it'll make you feel better.

 

[sfs]

Go ahead, if it'll make you feel better.

No, it won't make me feel any better -- I'd really rather have an explanation. Do you have one or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it won't make me feel any better -- I'd really rather have an explanation. Do you have one or not?

No.

Classifying us as Homo sapiens is enough to make me consider the validity of classifying period.

 

[: D]

By the way, was there ever an explanation given of what the OP means? What does it mean for a classification scheme to be wrong?

how about you start a campaign to have pluto reinstated as a planet.

"Pluto was originally considered the ninth planet from the Sun. After 1992, its status as a planet fell into question following the discovery of several objects of similar size in the Kuiper belt. In 2005, Eris, which is 27% more massive than Pluto, was discovered, which led the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to define the term "planet" formally for the first time the following year. This definition excluded Pluto and reclassified it as a member of the new "dwarf planet" category (and specifically as a plutoid.)"

wasn't your sole argument that once classified things cannot be reclassified,
ergo humans are primates because someone said so in the 1800s.

humans are obviously a stand alone species.

 

[sfs]

No.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Aman777]

It was aimed at Amen777. Sorry for the mix-up and the typo's I made in my reply.

I am really happy that someone of your Biblical education has honored the message board with your appearance. I have looked for someone to explain HOW ancient men, who lived thousands of years before Science, knew and wrote the following in Genesis.

That we live in a Multiverse composed of 3 Heavens. Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4
That the Big Bang of our Cosmos was on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day Adam's Earth was made. Gen 2:4 and Gen 1:10
That the first Stars of our Cosmos did NOT light up until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

I have more, but I will wait until you tell us about the above. God Bless you