Your Age, My Assertion, Your Fallacy

[Tomk80]

What exactly did Jesus say to Herod?

Who cares? It's not relevant here. Give a relevant comment, please.

 

[LittleNipper]

Who cares? It's not relevant here. Give a relevant comment, please.[/quote

I care! Talking cars have nothing to do with humans and gorillas. I will tell you that whatever make and model KIT was it was not a Buick. The fact remains that KIT never existed and you do. I will also tell you that cars are individually CREATED. A car cannot evolve in the Darwin supposed sense. In fact ALL manmade objects point to INTELLIGENT DESIGN as their origin. KIT would not suppose that he evolved..... If you wish to carry on about your example...

 

[LittleNipper]

Nothing.



Is this your (unnecessarily cryptic) way of saying you're no longer interested in participating in the discussion?

A Nazi interrogation is not my idea of a discussion. I rather like the way I got some people to open their Bibles (cryptic or not)....

 

[Tomk80]

Who cares? It's not relevant here. Give a relevant comment, please.[/quote

I care! Talking cars have nothing to do with humans and gorillas. I will tell you that whatever make and model KIT was it was not a Buick. The fact remains that KIT never existed and you do. I will also tell you that cars are individually CREATED. A car cannot evolve in the Darwin supposed sense. In fact ALL manmade objects point to INTELLIGENT DESIGN as their origin. KIT would not suppose that he evolved..... If you wish to carry on about your example...

So what. You're no going on a totally irrelevant tangent, that has nothing to do with classification.

Whether kit is real or not doesn't matter. Whether he is specially created or not doesn't either. Even if Kit would be real, and would have evolved, he would still be classified as a car. Because he shows all characteristics of a car.

The same way, no matter whether humans were specially created or not, they have all characteristics of animals. Therefore, they are animals. You can very well believe that humans were specially created 6000 years ago by your God, it doesn't matter. Even if they are, humans are still animals.

 

[LittleNipper]

So what. You're no going on a totally irrelevant tangent, that has nothing to do with classification.

Whether kit is real or not doesn't matter. Whether he is specially created or not doesn't either. Even if Kit would be real, and would have evolved, he would still be classified as a car. Because he shows all characteristics of a car.

The same way, no matter whether humans were specially created or not, they have all characteristics of animals. Therefore, they are animals. You can very well believe that humans were specially created 6000 years ago by your God, it doesn't matter. Even if they are, humans are still animals.

My dear Tom, the ONLY reason anyone would want to classify HUMANS as APES is so they can categorize HUMANS along with their SUPPOSED cousins: chimps, baboons, gorillas ---- what have you. That is their ONLY intention. I'm not stupid and I disagree with their assessment and the direction of their logic. The hips are not the same. The hands and feet are not the same. Their means of locomotion is not the same and their IQ is vastly different. These things alone would tell me that a motorcycle is not a bicycle, nor is a kite an aeroplane. The only tangent is your unwillingness to see that I don't have to agree with any so'n so, just because he has a PhD certificate hanging on his penthouse wall. He has his motives and I have mine. I'm not trying to agree with man's perceptions of life. I only want to know the TRUTH. The TRUTH is all that MATTERS. It is the only thing that will set anyone free. Anything less will stick you in a box.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who make up or designated the "offical" attributes? Does that mean that is ALL there is? Creationists among others cannot add a few of their own? I'm sorry you're sor narrowminded. I was trying to enlighten you.

They are objective criteria. Take a group of any species you like. Call this group by whatever name you want. Now, list the characteristics that all of the species share between them. For example, what we term plants and animals share a few characteristics, such as a nucleus and energy producing organelles. Humans also have these characteristics, so they also fit into any group that includes plants and animals. This group has been named "Eukaryota" by scientists, but you can call it whatever you like. Humans have all of the characteristics that all apes share, therefore they can be categorized as apes.

 

[Tomk80]

My dear Tom, the ONLY reason anyone would want to classify HUMANS as APES is so they can categorize HUMANS along with their SUPPOSED cousins: chimps, baboons, gorillas ---- what have you. That is their ONLY intention. I'm not stupid and I disagree with their assessment and the direction of their logic. The hips are not the same. The hands and feet are not the same. Their means of locomotion is not the same and their IQ is vastly different. These things alone would tell me that a motorcycle is not a bicycle, nor is a kite an aeroplane. The only tangent is your unwillingness to see that I don't have to agree with any so'n so, just because he has a PhD certificate hanging on his penthouse wall. He has his motives and I have mine. I'm not trying to agree with man's perceptions of life. I only want to know the TRUTH. The TRUTH is all that MATTERS. It is the only thing that will set anyone free. Anything less will stick you in a box.

Those means you told are also not the same between chimps, gorillas and orangutans. You see, what all these three species have in common, we have in common with them also. There is no going around that humans are apes. That has nothing to do with perceptions, but all with facts. It was also recognized by creationists like Linneaus and Owen before evolution was widely recognized as the most likely way in which life's diversity came about.

The same if you would classify cars. SUV's, Jeeps and sportscars have all a wide array of characteristics where they differ. But if we take all the common characteristics of these three groups, we describe cars. Now, if we take a fourth, new specimen, for exampe a Sedan, this car differs in a lot of aspects from all other three. But it has all characteristics that the first three also have. Exactly the same story. It doesn't change, whether you're classifiying cars, household equipment, musical instruments or organisms. And when we classify organisms, we have to recognize that humans are apes, animals and eukaryotes by every definition of these words. There's no going around it, it has nothing to do with opinion, but all with basic 'dividiing things into groups'.

edited to add: if you are really interested in Truth, you can't try to make special exceptions because you don't like where the evidence leads you. The fact that you want to do this, shows that you are not interested in truth without a capital t in the first place, let alone Truth(TM)

 

[Loudmouth]

LittleNipper,

Name one characteristic that all apes share but is not found in humans.

 

[ebia]

Education is suppose to make people think, reason, and investigate.

True, but irrelevent to the point.

Memorization is not what science is all about.

True, but irrelevent to the point.

The reality is the alternative to evolution brings logic, investigation, and research into play.

Perhaps it does, but irrelevent to the point.

Science classes today are about cutting up frogs (if they even do that), collecting insects, building a volcano plus memorizing unifornitarian and evolutionistic propaganda.

Wrong.

Unless there is a strong willed Christian person in that class the discussions are fairly mundane....

Wrong. Of course, if you personally only find religious rants interesting, (which appears to be the case) then you might find anything except RE boring, but then you would probably find RE boring if it didn't teach everyone what you personally already think.

 

[Dal M.]

A Nazi interrogation is not my idea of a discussion. I rather like the way I got some people to open their Bibles (cryptic or not)....

Pathetic. "OH NOES! My opinions are being challenged on an Internet message board! Surely this is exactly what the Jews at Auschwitz went through!"

Why not step away from the computer, get a breath of fresh air and a sense of perspective, and then decide whether you're the world's biggest martyr.

 

[Nightson]

Now that is an interesting idea! Ask Koko in sign language what she feels about the CREATOR.

Maybe she'd even understand you. Strange though that that apes show so much communication and in some even the ability to communicate with humans. especially when they aren't related to us at all.

 

[OdwinOddball]

LN, the last thing you can claim to be interested in is truth. Truth can only be found with objectivity. You have no objectivity, something you have demonstrated repeatedly to be incapable of. You have insinuated time and time again in your posts that the bible is 100% perfect and infallible. To do so denies any quest for truth. if something is 100% perfect, then it would by definition be true. Since you base your entire world view off this book, if it is true, then you have already decided what truth is. Thus to say you are only concerned with finding the truth is the height of hypocrisy.

The majority of the Agnostic/Atheists on this board were at one time Christian. Many for the better part of their lives. Many were members of what can only be called fundamentalist sects of Christianity. Some likely even as rabid as you seem to be. This is the one advantage we do actually have in such discussions. We have been on both sides. We've seen thru both worldviews. We have believed both sides of the story. Can you honestly claim that type of experience? That level of objectivity?

 

[Schroeder]

LN, the last thing you can claim to be interested in is truth. Truth can only be found with objectivity. You have no objectivity, something you have demonstrated repeatedly to be incapable of. You have insinuated time and time again in your posts that the bible is 100% perfect and infallible. To do so denies any quest for truth. if something is 100% perfect, then it would by definition be true. Since you base your entire world view off this book, if it is true, then you have already decided what truth is. Thus to say you are only concerned with finding the truth is the height of hypocrisy.

The majority of the Agnostic/Atheists on this board were at one time Christian. Many for the better part of their lives. Many were members of what can only be called fundamentalist sects of Christianity. Some likely even as rabid as you seem to be. This is the one advantage we do actually have in such discussions. We have been on both sides. We've seen thru both worldviews. We have believed both sides of the story. Can you honestly claim that type of experience? That level of objectivity?

WRONG you claim to have been christians. you were raised in a so called christian home. BUT the FACT is just because you say you were doesnt mean you were even close to being in one or a christian at all. if you would see that it is a personal relationship and does not debend on your parents or how you were raised you might see the truth. all you are doing is useing excuses for why you are the way you are now. whatever that may be.

 

[TheInstant]

WRONG you claim to have been christians. you were raised in a so called christian home. BUT the FACT is just because you say you were doesnt mean you were even close to being in one or a christian at all. if you would see that it is a personal relationship and does not debend on your parents or how you were raised you might see the truth. all you are doing is useing excuses for why you are the way you are now. whatever that may be.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Nightson]

WRONG you claim to have been christians. you were raised in a so called christian home. BUT the FACT is just because you say you were doesnt mean you were even close to being in one or a christian at all. if you would see that it is a personal relationship and does not debend on your parents or how you were raised you might see the truth. all you are doing is useing excuses for why you are the way you are now. whatever that may be.

Gained the ability to read minds? If not, then be quiet, you aren't qualified to look into the hearts of other people.

 

[OdwinOddball]

WRONG you claim to have been christians. you were raised in a so called christian home. BUT the FACT is just because you say you were doesnt mean you were even close to being in one or a christian at all. if you would see that it is a personal relationship and does not debend on your parents or how you were raised you might see the truth. all you are doing is useing excuses for why you are the way you are now. whatever that may be.

Well lets just examine my religous life shall we? I was born into a southern babtist household in central Texas. I attended services twice a week, Sunday School, and was enrolled in a church sponsered day care. I believed ferverently, and listen close now, I even spoke with God daily, and no, it wasn't a one way conversation.

But then as I grew up and started reading, I realized that it was all BS. I was a Christian because my parents had made me one. I heard God because I had been told I would so often that I beleived it.

You want to claim Christianity is some personal experience? I will agree, for many it can be. For many it is not though. The vast majority of Christians never have that type fo personal experience, instead simply doing as they have been told they should by the ministers, and going about their daily lives as best they can.

Regardless though, it is STILL a religion in every sense of the word. And it is a religion that relies on inculcation during childhood, or conversion during traumatic life events to gather its flock. Only during these types of situations is your mind flexible enough to trick itself into believeing that your internal monologue is actually your diety.

So get off your high horse . Don't tell me how my life went. Do not poresume to know anything about me you self righteous arrogant p**ck. Instead get your nose out of your bible and read something worthwhile for once. Any decent book of history, science, philosphy, or hell even some decent fiction would be an improvment. Maybe you'd actually learn something real about our world.

This is what ****es me off more than anything else. The exclusionary thinking of fundamentalists. I'm going to put this in all caps so maybe it will actually get thru your steel enshrouded mind. I DO NOT CARE IF YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD. You go right ahead and do that. What I do care about is the fundamentalist view that religion is not allowed to co-exist with other types of knowledge. Science and religion do not have to be contradicory. They can and generally do function quite well side by side. Science is more than happy to leave all questions of the super-natural to you. But science also expects the same courtesy in return. If you want to belive that a god created the universe then go for it. Science will never answer the Who/Why part of where did we come from. What it does answer is the how. if you cannot reconcile what we know to be true in studies such as cosmology or evolution with your strict religous view, then you are limiting yourself to remain ignorant of the wonders of our world for all eternity. And for that I pity you.

 

[Tomk80]

But then as I grew up and started reading,

Just thought I'd quote the part where you went wrong.

 

[LittleNipper]

LN, the last thing you can claim to be interested in is truth. Truth can only be found with objectivity. You have no objectivity, something you have demonstrated repeatedly to be incapable of. You have insinuated time and time again in your posts that the bible is 100% perfect and infallible. To do so denies any quest for truth. if something is 100% perfect, then it would by definition be true. Since you base your entire world view off this book, if it is true, then you have already decided what truth is. Thus to say you are only concerned with finding the truth is the height of hypocrisy.

The majority of the Agnostic/Atheists on this board were at one time Christian. Many for the better part of their lives. Many were members of what can only be called fundamentalist sects of Christianity. Some likely even as rabid as you seem to be. This is the one advantage we do actually have in such discussions. We have been on both sides. We've seen thru both worldviews. We have believed both sides of the story. Can you honestly claim that type of experience? That level of objectivity?

Allow Creationism in public schools if you are so objective. The majority of the Agnostic & Atheists on this board MAY have said that they were once Christian. That does nothing to prove exactly what kind of Christian they were.... I can claim that I heard so much more about Evolution then I ever heard about Creationism, UNTIL I began to search it out for myself.. GOD and HIS WORD works for me. Have you tried asking GOD to give you an understanding of HIM?

 

[Arik Soong]

Allow Creationism in public schools if you are so objective. The majority of the Agnostic & Atheists on this board MAY have said that they were once Christian. That does nothing to prove exactly what kind of Christian they were.... I can claim that I heard so much more about Evolution then I ever heard about Creationism, UNTIL I began to search it out for myself.. GOD and HIS WORD works for me. Have you tried asking GOD to give you an understanding of HIM?

In what class? Science classrooms? You should read Robert Shapiro's Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth and read the chapter "Creationism: Religion as Science" which is an excellent discussion of creation science. Science is not dogma, as nothing is sacred in science. For example, scientists do not believe matter is made of atoms dogmatically. If you have evidence that it is made of something else, you have falsified atomic theory. Could creationism be falsified? Yes/no is the best answer for that as I believe geology has falsified a global flood but that evidence would not suffice for YEC as they believe regardless of the evidence that it happened so their beliefs could not be falsified.

Ok, fine, "God's word" works for you. Tell me how does one reconcile the genetic homologies of humans and other primates with the notion that God created Homo sapiens de novo.

 

[Schroeder]

Gained the ability to read minds? If not, then be quiet, you aren't qualified to look into the hearts of other people.

did i say you were or were not christians NO i said just BECAUSE you say you were doesnt mean you truely were.