jkwilliams Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Then do you consider God is an ape? If God has the physical features of a human being, then yes, he can be classified as an ape. Is there something wrong with saying that?
bluebell Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 We believe that the Creator is subject to the laws of nature and use them in the creation process. Does anyone deny that the Creator used gavity in creating the universe? And clearly evolution is one of those laws. True. I'm sure there are some out there, but of all the times that i have been involved in discussions about evolution with church members, no one, who disagreed with the theory of evolution, believed that evolution didn't exist or happen at all. It was the idea that species evolved into different species that they didn't believe. 2
ERayR Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I do not question micro-evolution and that is what you have here. A cricket is a cricket is a cricket is a cricket. 3
Rob Osborn Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 If God has the physical features of a human being, then yes, he can be classified as an ape. Is there something wrong with saying that? Hum, science can say whatever they want about calling us this or that. Truth is though, and it is my religious belief and "right" to say that I am not an ape- I am not an animal nor part of the animal kingdom. I am a child of God and nothing less than this. 2
jkwilliams Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Hum, science can say whatever they want about calling us this or that. Truth is though, and it is my religious belief and "right" to say that I am not an ape- I am not an animal nor part of the animal kingdom. I am a child of God and nothing less than this. An animal is a living thing that isn't a plant. So, unless you're saying you're a plant, you are indeed an animal. 1
Rob Osborn Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) An animal is a living thing that isn't a plant. So, unless you're saying you're a plant, you are indeed an animal. Like I said before- science can say whatever they want- they can call me a plant or a volcano for all I care. The truth for me is that I am not an animal and it is my right to say that. I am not an animal. Edited June 1, 2014 by Rob Osborn 1
jkwilliams Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Like I said before- science can say whatever they want- they can call me a plant or a volcano for all I care. The truth for me is that I am not an animal and it is my right to say that. I am not an animal. Here's the definition of an animal: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation If you think that doesn't apply to you, then I don't know what to say to you. I have the right to say I'm a 1963 E Type Jaguar, but it doesn't make it so.
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 True or false? According to evolutionary theory, all current species can be traced back to a common ancestor, ostensibly some single celled organism. By a process of mutation and natural selection and some method which adds information to the DNA code all life, be it plant or animal or a little of each or neither slowly bushed out. Hence dogs, being mammals, must have come from a common ancestor with rats, and we being primates , must have had a common ancestor with gorillas. This is the gist of what I was taught but it has probably 'evolved' over the last decades. Or did the ' hopeful monster ' theory arise again ? Our Common Ancestor was not a Gorilla. The closest would be the Bonobo.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo I agree with Steven Gould on a punctuated equilibrium. But not the massive changes in DNA in one generation needed for a "hopeful monster".
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Here's the definition of an animal:If you think that doesn't apply to you, then I don't know what to say to you. I have the right to say I'm a 1963 E Type Jaguar, but it doesn't make it so. You have to remember that according to Rob energy is just matter only more refined,
jkwilliams Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 You have to remember that according to Rob energy is just matter only more refined, I can't figure out why anyone would find it wrong/evil/offensive to say that humans are animals. I'm trying to be respectful, but I don't understand what the big deal is.
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I can't figure out why anyone would find it wrong/evil/offensive to say that humans are animals. I'm trying to be respectful, but I don't understand what the big deal is. I don't understanding it either. I can't get inside his head, and can only go by what he posts. He seems to be a sycophant of Ken Ham and just makes it up as he goes along. Considering how badly people behave you'd think that the other animals would be insulted by the comparison.
jkwilliams Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I don't understanding it either. I can't get inside his head, and can only go by what he posts. He seems to be a sycophant of Ken Ham and just makes it up as he goes along. Considering how badly people behave you'd think that the other animals would be insulted by the comparison. It's only us exmos who behave badly and ruin panel discussions.
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 It's only us exmos who behave badly and ruin panel discussions. Some of my best friends are ex-Mo's.
jkwilliams Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Some of my best friends are ex-Mo's. Not even ex-Mormons consider me a friend--or even a decent person. They're probably right.
thesometimesaint Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Not even ex-Mormons consider me a friend--or even a decent person. They're probably right. They don't know what they're missing.
katherine the great Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Not even ex-Mormons consider me a friend--or even a decent person. They're probably right. You animal!
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Then do you consider God is an ape? Do I believe that God is an multicellular organism related to organisms with similar morphology? Yes. Do I believe that humanity, and God above all, have a cognitive function, abstract thinking, and creative ability that no other organism possesses? Yes. The belief in relation does not mean that I have a lesser belief in the nature, capacity, power and glory of God.
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Hum, science can say whatever they want about calling us this or that. Truth is though, and it is my religious belief and "right" to say that I am not an ape- I am not an animal nor part of the animal kingdom. I am a child of God and nothing less than this. You do the right to say that, and you most definitely are a son of God, nothing less. You are also a multicellular, eukaryotic organism. Furthermore, I declare that you are heterotrophic, meaning that you rely on other organisms (plants or animals) for sustenance, and have a digestive tract. Even more incredible, you lack a cell wall and are generally motile, meaning you have the power to move around by yourself. When you were in your mother's womb as an embryo, you passed through a blastula stage and also began to develop sensory organs which respond to stimuli. Hence...you're an animal. Scientific definition for animal: 1. Multicellular2. Eukaryotic3. Heterotrophic + generally a digestive tract4. No cell wall5. Motile - You can move voluntarily6. Embryo with blastula stage7. Sensory organ Do you object to being any of these? 2
Tiki Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 This isn't proof of evolution, of one species evolving into another completely different species.This is merely Natural Selection within a population of crickets.There had already existed among these australian crickets, which arrived in Hawai'i, crickets with mutated wings which didn't sing before the North American flies arrived and started munching and killing their singing brothers killing them off allowing the mutated non-singing crickets to increase in population. That's not Evolution. It's natural selection.Darwin claimed in the First Edition of his "Origin of Species:"––———"In North America the black bear was seen . . . swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."Darwin omitted this story in other editions, but regretted his revision.I still maintain that there is no special difficulty in a bear's mouth being enlarged to any degree useful to its changing habits" ("More Letters of Charles Darwin," 1903, page 162). JOHN L. GITTLEMAN Associate Professor of Zoology, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tenn., May 3, 1994 "–––————http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/16/opinion/l-darwin-saw-the-whale-in-the-black-bear-097454.htmlThere isn't an Evolutionary Biologist today who believes Charles Darwin's claim that a North American Black Bear could evolve into a Whale through the means of that bear naturally selecting to open its mouth to catch water-borne insects. But the same will hypocritically claim Darwin's theory is fact.The theory of evolution is total nonsense. Starting first with Charles Darwin as the evidence of that nonsense.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) The theory of evolution is total nonsense. Starting first with Charles Darwin as the evidence of that nonsense. Right, because there hasn't been any new evidence since the 1850s. Edited June 2, 2014 by jkwilliams
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 You do the right to say that, and you most definitely are a son of God, nothing less. You are also a multicellular, eukaryotic organism. Furthermore, I declare that you are heterotrophic, meaning that you rely on other organisms (plants or animals) for sustenance, and have a digestive tract. Even more incredible, you lack a cell wall and are generally motile, meaning you have the power to move around by yourself. When you were in your mother's womb as an embryo, you passed through a blastula stage and also began to develop sensory organs which respond to stimuli. Hence...you're an animal. Scientific definition for animal: 1. Multicellular 2. Eukaryotic 3. Heterotrophic + generally a digestive tract 4. No cell wall 5. Motile - You can move voluntarily 6. Embryo with blastula stage 7. Sensory organ Do you object to being any of these? I most definitely am not an animal. You can call it whatever but I have never considered myself, nor the rest of humanity as animals.
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 You have to remember that according to Rob energy is just matter only more refined, Well, it certainly isnt magic.
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Here's the definition of an animal: If you think that doesn't apply to you, then I don't know what to say to you. I have the right to say I'm a 1963 E Type Jaguar, but it doesn't make it so. I would know if you was a 63 XKE, I build them in my sleep...
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) I most definitely am not an animal. You can call it whatever but I have never considered myself, nor the rest of humanity as animals. Do you object to being a multicellular, eukaryotic, heterotrophic organism that can move around, see, smell, and hear stuff, while also not being restricted by a cell wall? Edited June 2, 2014 by halconero 1
Recommended Posts