Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think that was a very good example actually.The facts:
What country does Mary live in? For that matter, which state?
- I live in the city of Denver.
- I also live in the state of Colorado.
- I also live in the country of the United States.
- Mary lives in the city of Boulder.
- Boulder is in the state of Colorado.
Evilutionist: "The country of the United States, and the state of Colorado."
Cretinist: "She doesn't live in a state or country, or she does but you didn't say so."
(Sorry, couldn't resist the labels, and I mean no offense by them).
I must admit you're right about that. I've never understood how so many people I knew seemed incapable of telling a lion from a tiger, or a rat from a mouse, a spider from an insect, or a gorilla from a "monkey". However you define a "monkey", a gorilla is no more or less a monkey than we are. And its not just that either. A lot of Americans can't tell a solar system from a galaxy. Most can't distinguish atheism from material naturalism, and many don't even know the difference between capitolism and democracy, believing that a socialist government is the enemy of both, and cannot permit democratic elections. I'm really at a loss to understand the general lack of perception that is so commonplace in this country.
That's a nonsequitur. That's like saying my shirt is not blue because it's not a color, it's a shirt. We are primates because we fit the definition of primate.We are not primates or mammals or synapsids. We are not any of those categories because we are not categories. We are creatures of course.
One of those statements is scienific, the other is theistic. Guess which is which.You say the descendants of apes will always be apes. That's true. The ancestors of apes have always been apes. The ancestors of man have always been men.
That's a nonsequitur. That's like saying my shirt is not blue because it's not a color, it's a shirt. We are primates because we fit the definition of primate.
Creationism isn't science because it doesn't propose testable explanations.According to the scientific definition, yes. Scientists made up the story through definitions and by definitions. The whole structure is held together by definitions and without the definitions, the story falls apart. It has no meaning. The definitions are the most appealing aspect of the theory. You can come to believe in evolution simply by following the definitions. So strictly speaking, you're right. It is your belief that you are a primate because evolution is by definition the best scientific explanation. I would point out one thing though. Science is studying nature. So any scientific theory about our origin has to involve a natural cause. It has to be nature begets nature somehow. Science has nowhere else to go. Indeed, as has been pointed out many times, Creation science isn't science. That's right, strictly speaking, because Creationism doesn't ask or answer the question, 'How did nature do it?' See Creation science can go where science can not go because it can break through the barrier of science and the definition of science.
Basically, there is no consistent way of describing all mammals without describing humans as well. Just as there is no consistent way of describing all primates without describing humans as well. And there is no consistent way of describing all apes without describing humans as well.
Creationism isn't science because it doesn't propose testable explanations.
In taxonomy we group species by the traits they have in common.Functionally, yes. But the point of the theory is how characters function to help animal populations survive. I have to point out that mammals do not possess fish vertebrea but science doesn't care. All scientists can see is mammals and fish have functional vertebrea. But that's part of the story telling process. You have to create the characters, give them names, give them something to do. To science, fish and mammals are called vertebrates. But that isn't the name we give animals or why we name them. We name animals because they are different, not because they are the same. The central theme of evolution is survival ... probably why Survivor is a popular TV show. See how the members of the tribe function? They form alliances to vote people off. It's all about functionality, what works. That's the message that comes from science.
Science doesn't send a message. Scientists might say absurd things, but facts have no bias. And facts are what get taught in school. If you don't like facts you can't substitute in more family-friendly ones. If you blot out reproduction from the biology curriculum, for example, you will have a happy Christian story, and maybe people will stop watching Desperate Housewives according to your interesting model, but kids won't learn the stuff we know.That's the message that comes from science.
If you are answering the test of God rather than testing the theories of men, then you shouldn't even care whether creationism is supported by facts, because your belief should not waver. In that case, it's pointless to argue.By it's own narrow definition maybe but in this world, we are the ones being tested.
And the human race would slowly die out.Science doesn't send a message. Scientists might say absurd things, but facts have no bias. And facts are what get taught in school. If you don't like facts you can't substitute in more family-friendly ones. If you blot out reproduction from the biology curriculum, for example, you will have a happy Christian story, and maybe people will stop watching Desperate Housewives according to your interesting model, but kids won't learn the stuff we know.
Wouldn't God rather, in fact, that they do something more helpful and loving in their time here on this small insignificant planet? For instance, helping the poor?If you are answering the test of God rather than testing the theories of men, then you shouldn't even care whether creationism is supported by facts, because your belief should not waver. In that case, it's pointless to argue.
No no no. Where did you get this loopy idea? Moving to a new residence doesn't change your genetics. Every generation has a bit of genetic variance regardless where they live. The gene pool regulates it to keep that variance within certain boundaries. But if you divide the main population so they can no longer interbreed, the gene pool is dramatically reduced, and will be less able to inhibit that variation.
And so shall they always be. That's why humans are still apes, still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, etc. You can never grow out of your ancestry. No matter what your children may become, they will still always belong to your grandparent's ancestry, and that can't ever change.
No no no. Where did you get this loopy idea? Moving to a new residence doesn't change your genetics. Every generation has a bit of genetic variance regardless where they live. The gene pool regulates it to keep that variance within certain boundaries. But if you divide the main population so they can no longer interbreed, the gene pool is dramatically reduced, and will be less able to inhibit that variation.
This is completely nonsensical. Over time, mutations add to variability in a gene pool, and this is how separated populations diverge.Ok Most of the population leaves. Sheesh. Forgive me for not saying it right. I agree with what you said and I've said the same thing many times. If some members of the main population become isolated, they would create a new population which would represent less than 100 % of the genetic pool it came from. Gradually the gene pool would shrink as species would form from species and eventually speciation will not produce viable species. Thus a limit.
We call modern species apes, because they fit the definition of apes. We call our ancestors apes because they also fit the definition of apes. Also, the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps lived more recently than the most recent common ancestor of orangutans and humans. And that would have obviously been an ape as well.Now why would you call our ancestor an 'ape' and the apes 'apes'? It's very confusing.
That would not prevent it from also being an ape.If we are diverging, at least give our common ancestor another name...say ... a protohumanape.
Of course it is. What, do you think it's a plant?And a primate isn't an animal.
Whatever.Just trying to give your old story some new characters Aron.
A perfect example of not grasping the concept of groups properly. See my last post.Ok Most of the population leaves. Sheesh. Forgive me for not saying it right. I agree with what you said and I've said the same thing many times. If some members of the main population become isolated, they would create a new population which would represent less than 100 % of the genetic pool it came from. Gradually the gene pool would shrink as species would form from species and eventually speciation will not produce viable species. Thus a limit.
Now why would you call our ancestor an 'ape' and the apes 'apes'? It's very confusing. If we are diverging, at least give our common ancestor another name...say ... a protohumanape. And a primate isn't an animal. Just trying to give your old story some new characters Aron.
But not in the population. Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a population.What if another group did move in. Like when people leave a theatre and another audience moves in. Would you call it evolution? The frequency of alleles changed.
And by this logic, a Ferrari is not a car.And a primate isn't an animal.
No sir. The pool doesn't shrink. As we grow, and our cells replicate, many of them, hundreds of thousands or millions over a lifetime -will mutate. The most you usually get from this is that siblings, even identical twins, continue to "grow apart" becoming more distinct from each other as time goes on. If any of these mutations find happen to be inheritable, then they'll be passed on so that sons will not look exactly like thier fathers. That's pretty much how it works. In humans, every individual in any generation already bears well more than 100 mutations at the point of conception. As I said, over time, and several successive generations, the gene pool will usually restrict aberrations somewhat. But when that pool is reduced, the mutations are less restricted and more dramatic changes can dominate. The result is, the gene pool grows, thus no limit.Ok Most of the population leaves. Sheesh. Forgive me for not saying it right. I agree with what you said and I've said the same thing many times. If some members of the main population become isolated, they would create a new population which would represent less than 100 % of the genetic pool it came from. Gradually the gene pool would shrink as species would form from species and eventually speciation will not produce viable species. Thus a limit.
Yes it is. Its as if one spoke of Americans referring only to citizens of the United States. But of course Canadian and Mexican citizens are Americans too, even if they've never been to the US.Now why would you call our ancestor an 'ape' and the apes 'apes'? It's very confusing.
How about Australopithecus or Ardipithecus? The problem is they're always apes, but we can't tell exactly when they're human too. Many people now consider Australopithecines human, though I'm sure you would not.If we are diverging, at least give our common ancestor another name...say ... a protohumanape.
Yes it is. All primates are animals including humans. You are an animal according to every criteria required of that word.And a primate isn't an animal.
No sir. The pool doesn't shrink. As we grow, and our cells replicate, many of them, hundreds of thousands or millions over a lifetime -will mutate. The most you usually get from this is that siblings, even identical twins, continue to "grow apart" becoming more distinct from each other as time goes on. If any of these mutations find happen to be inheritable, then they'll be passed on so that sons will not look exactly like thier fathers. That's pretty much how it works. In humans, every individual in any generation already bears well more than 100 mutations at the point of conception. As I said, over time, and several successive generations, the gene pool will usually restrict aberrations somewhat. But when that pool is reduced, the mutations are less restricted and more dramatic changes can dominate. The result is, the gene pool grows, thus no limit.
Yes it is. All primates are animals including humans. You are an animal according to every criteria required of that word.
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.
--Biological definition
Every biology book agrees that primates are animals, therefore they are not.What did I just say about definitions? This is what I mean. All you're doing is stating what's written in every biology book. That's not an argument. You want me to start quoting scripture at you? Ok. You're wrong. The Bible says, "The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground." Genesis 2:7
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?