• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

poll: are you an ape?

are you an ape?

  • Total voters
    71
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
SalixIncendium said:
No. Hominidae (great apes) are a taxonomical family. Crows and pigeons aren't even of the same family of birds. Crows are corvidae; pigeons are columbidae. The species are unrelated until we get to their class. They are both aves.

In other words, humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than crows are related to pigeons.
Click to expand...
SNAP! :)
 
Viker

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Muffled said:
Does that mean crows are pigeons because they are both birds?
Click to expand...
No. But crows, ravens and rooks are corvidae. They're different birds under the same family classification.

Humans are classified in the family hominidae (aka, the great apes) and in the sub-family of homininae along with our chimp and gorilla kindred.
 
It Aint Necessarily So

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Muffled said:
The premise is false, so the conclusion is false.
Click to expand...
The premise - "Humans are apes" - is correct. Maybe you misunderstood the OP. She's not asking you if humans are apes, but whether you know that they are. Our answers change nothing. There is no scientific debate, and nobody else's opinion matters including those of lay people who happen to agree with the scientists.

Likewise with creationism in general. There is no debate, just dissent from a group that doesn't have standing in the scientific community, and which is more interested in promoting its various religions than in being correct.
 
E

Endure

Member
Sgt. Pepper said:
You're a Christian, so aren't you supposed to treat others the way you'd like to be treated, love your neighbor as yourself, and turn the other cheek? If you have studied the Bible, then I'm sure you're aware that you're called to be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have, but do so with gentleness and respect (I Peter 3:15–16). Perhaps I've missed your responses where you've respectfully given answers.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you're just as full of nonsense as your buddies.

The reason for my hope?
Jesus Christ

They said they were apes.

Where's the disrespect?

False accusations abound on these discussion forums and they always come from those who have no ability to further, or skillfully, debate the topic at hand.
 
E

Endure

Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
You're referring to the biological definition of a species. The other great apes are all different species from man and one another, and no interbreeding occurs among them except between chimps and bonobos, which suggests to me that they should be classed as subspecies of a single species.

And in biology, taxonomy, and cladistics, humans are apes. That's not controversial or falsifiable. It's not arbitrary or mere semantics. It means that humans and all other extant and extinct great apes have a common great ape ancestor.

It seems that you aren't accustomed to thinking in biological terms. You lean toward lay definitions of ape, as with the ape house at the zoo, which excludes caged human apes and never mentions that they have done so. But biologists include them all in the metaphorical ape house - family Hominidae

That's not a rebuttal to the claim that humans are human apes. If you're implying that because human are human that they cannot also be apes, then you are assuming your conclusion, and can just leave out the irrelevant tautology that follows it. Your argument is unsound as this one: Woodpeckers don't fit the biological definition of birds because woodpeckers are woodpeckers, not birds.

Also, humans are apes according to biologists just as woodpeckers are classified as birds.

Disagree. The threshold for factuality is not proof. It is convincing evidence and for the ability of an idea to be successfully employed to predict outcomes. Proof never enters the matter of correctness. The fact that the tree of life evolved from earlier life forms over deep time is established beyond reasonable doubt, but can and need never be proved. It's simply not the standard for belief. It's not your standard for belief in your daily life. What can you prove? You can't prove that you're not dreaming or anything else. You are simply convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the correctness of certain ideas that have been reliable in the past when deployed to effect desired outcomes, like how to make a recipe you like. You don't get or need proof there, either.

Disagree. My dogs do all of that. The difference is that they don't think in language, just sensations, urges, nonverbal memories, and similar nonlinguistic conscious content.
That's incorrect two ways. Humans are considered apes in biological circles

Yes, it does. Anything descended from an ape is another ape.

The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. It is logically possible to falsify it if it is false, but if it isn't, that will never happen. Correct ideas cannot be falsified. It's been over a century-and-a-half, and its never been falsified.

That's a creationist conspiracy theory and false claim. It's made by dishonest creationist apologists and intended for anybody that can be made to believe it.

You don't have truth. You have sincerely but uncritically believed religious beliefs.

Yes.

I'll bet that every atheist posting on this thread knows more about the Christian god and scriptures than any creationist. It doesn't matter how much time or energy or zealotry the believer brings to the matter. It matters only how he processes information. The believer's agenda is not the same as the critical thinkers. Nor are his values or his methods for determine what is good or true. However much time he devotes to studying his faith, he can't see truth unless his approaches them critically, that is, dispassionately, open-mindedly, and logically.

Does calling science a religion mean that you disapprove of religion? I know you disapprove of the science that contradicts your faith, so why call it a religion unless you also disapprove of that?

As with truth, you also have a different definition of wisdom than I do. The fearing of a god is the beginning of a kind of enslavement of a mind. I'll leave that to you. For me, wisdom entails avoiding or escaping that.

I fear no god. I worship no god. I subjugate myself to the alleged commands of no god. I am a free citizen and an autonomous moral agent, one who decides what constitutes upright behavior for himself.
Click to expand...
Very, very insincere (flat-out LIES) post. Your 4th quote of mine there added an entire sentence that did NOT come from me.

I just posted to one of your cronies that those who make false accusations, and especially those that flat out LIE, to misrepresent the opposition, have no ability whatsoever to contend in the debate with any level of competence at all.

What an embarrassment for your position in this debate.

More undeniable proof that evolutionists are sorely mistaken about their ape origins.

Sad. So sad.

It's very telling that so many desperately desire to be animals.
 
E

Endure

Member
Subduction Zone said:
It is not a religion. but I like how you insult your own religious beliefs by demeaning religions in general. You will note that I have not done that.


No, you are quite wrong. Science does not need faith since it is based upon the observable and repeatable. That you do not understand how this is done is your own doing. You could still learn. People here would help you. I would help you.

More breaking of the Ninth. I am not the one that was brainwashed here. If you could get over your fears I could show how you could yourself verify many of the claims of science. I do not have a god. All gods, including yours, appear to be man made. Have you ever thought of properly testing your beliefs in your God to see if they are accurate?


Why would one need to repeat all of the experiments? You still do not understand the difference between faith, which is what you have, a belief that is based on "ooh, it feels good" and a well earned respect. Scientists have gone through years of training. And when it comes to anything new, even if it supports what one believes, scientists are a very skeptical lot and will check the work of others and check out their findings. Usually in an attempt to refute them. And if they think that they have they will publish in journals. Nothing in the sciences is ever taken on faith. It has to be extremely well supported when discovered. Scientific papers are often boring to the lay person because of all of the details that a scientist has to go through. It is also necessary because others will repeat one's work to make sure that the scientist was correct.

Do you know who finds the errors in scientific works? It is never a creationist with his book of myths. It is always other scientists.



Where have I ever done that? There are Christians on this site that I respect quite well. Oh wait, you are conflating Christians and creationists. When it comes to creationists they are a minority of Christians. They are creationists often because they are members of some of the more cult like sects of Christianity, so they are not necessarily stupid. It is just when a person denies reality he often does look stupid as a result. Look at James Tour, a brilliant synthetic chemist. But when his religious beliefs get in the way of his scientific ones his IQ seems to drop at least 20 points. He used to be well respected but he has lost most of that respect because he can no longer follow the scientific method.
Click to expand...
Of course Creationists are a minority. True Christians are a minority.

The vast majority of professed Christians are not Christians at all. They are worldly, just like you. They embrace almost all of the science that you do and they walk the wide road to destruction.

The Bible clearly teaches that True Christians are few and far between. They walk the Narrow Road, in Wisdom and Truth, to Salvation.

Jesus says "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life."
Jn. 14:6

Those who don't "follow Jesus Christ" are not truly Christians and do not see the world through spiritual eyes and do not have spiritual understanding. They do not live in "the Way" that Jesus teaches.

It's no surprise that the Christians you think are dumb/stupid, who embrace exactly what the Bible teaches, are rare and are unbending in their convictions that modern science is nothing but falsehood. Those who agree with the world do not, and cannot, agree with, or understand, the things of God. (1 Jn. 2:15)
 
E

Endure

Member
Heyo said:
Since you are talking about "public school" and "college", I assume you are from the US.
I knew education in the US is abysmal but I didn't know it is that bad. In fact, I doubt that you went to school or college.
I get when someone uneducated falls for the lies of Ken Ham or Kent Hovind but if you went to school (and paid attention in biology class), you would know from personal experience that the straw men built by your creationist indoctrinators don't resemble anything what biology (or any other science you don't believe in) really teaches.
Click to expand...
Humans have never been proven to be animals.

NEVER.

I know it breaks your heart to hear, but there are countless scientists who have studied far more science than you or I on the matter who still unwaveringly believe that evolution is not correct at all.

Even Darwin admitted his doubts.

POP!

Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said:
I answered no, but probably not for the same reasons that Christians would answer no, since Baha'is believe that evolution is a fact. :D

While `Abdu'l-Bahá states that man progressed through many stages before reaching this present form, `Abdu'l-Bahá states that humans are a distinct species, and not an animal, and that in every stage of evolution through which humans progressed, they were potentially humans. Nov 8, 2022

Bahá'í Faith and Science | Encyclopedia MDPI​

Click to expand...
What makes humans distinct from animals biologically?
 
E

Endure

Member
Father Heathen said:
Then what? Fungus? Let's lose those opposable thumbs, then.
Click to expand...
In your religion, where did apes come from?

Let's just call humans every other species that came before. Shall we?

So humans are REALLY:

paramecium
frogs
lizards
birds
rodents
all manner of fish, maybe?
all kinds of smaller land species?
etc.
etc.
etc.

Yes?
 
Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Endure said:
In your religion, where did apes come from?
Click to expand...
What does religion have to do with biology?
Endure said:
Let's just call humans every other species that came before. Shall we?
Click to expand...
Why? Something tells me you don't understand how taxonomy works.
Endure said:
So humans are REALLY:

paramecium
frogs
lizards
birds
rodents
all manner of fish, maybe?
all kinds of smaller land species?
etc.
etc.
etc.

Yes?
Click to expand...
No. What a bizarre non sequitur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top