- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 30 2009,21:06) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,20:38) Ed Quote A 'missing link' is a necessary step from ape to Man; to substantiate a faulty theory.
It cannot be found because the 'theory of evolution' is a farce!There is no step between humans and apes, for humans ARE great apes. You don’t have to take my word for it. It is the classification system devised by the eighteenth Century creationist Carl Linneaus.
Stuart
Carl wrote this:English Translation[24]
It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply.[25] But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one![26] If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me.[27] Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.Now I ask you are there any generic differences?
Differences between what and what?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,21:43) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 30 2009,21:06) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,20:38) Ed Quote A 'missing link' is a necessary step from ape to Man; to substantiate a faulty theory.
It cannot be found because the 'theory of evolution' is a farce!There is no step between humans and apes, for humans ARE great apes. You don’t have to take my word for it. It is the classification system devised by the eighteenth Century creationist Carl Linneaus.
Stuart
Carl wrote this:English Translation[24]
It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply.[25] But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one![26] If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me.[27] Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.Now I ask you are there any generic differences?
Differences between what and what?Stuart
Man and a simianQuote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,21:39) Actually why should any of us have to ask? Why should this God of yours not be obvious to everyone? Stuart
Hi Stuart,I explain that very question in chapter 8 of the free e-book,
e-mail me and I will send it an attachment on PDF.
It is a very small chapter only one page.Me e-mail address is the same as the web site[@yahoo.com].
You can also request it from the site too.
You say 'if there is proof then offer it'; here is the offer.2 Timothy 2:13 if we believe not, yet He abideth faithful:
He cannot deny himself.Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 30 2009,21:47) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,21:43) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 30 2009,21:06) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,20:38) Ed Quote A 'missing link' is a necessary step from ape to Man; to substantiate a faulty theory.
It cannot be found because the 'theory of evolution' is a farce!There is no step between humans and apes, for humans ARE great apes. You don’t have to take my word for it. It is the classification system devised by the eighteenth Century creationist Carl Linneaus.
Stuart
Carl wrote this:English Translation[24]
It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply.[25] But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one![26] If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me.[27] Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.Now I ask you are there any generic differences?
Differences between what and what?Stuart
Man and a simian
Humans are simians.Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 30 2009,22:10) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,21:39) Actually why should any of us have to ask? Why should this God of yours not be obvious to everyone? Stuart
Hi Stuart,I explain that very question in chapter 8 of the free e-book,
e-mail me and I will send it an attachment on PDF.
It is a very small chapter only one page.Me e-mail address is the same as the web site[@yahoo.com].
You can also request it from the site too.
You say 'if there is proof then offer it'; here is the offer.2 Timothy 2:13 if we believe not, yet He abideth faithful:
He cannot deny himself.
Why should this god not be obvious to everyone?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,00:24) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 30 2009,21:47) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,21:43) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 30 2009,21:06) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,20:38) Ed Quote A 'missing link' is a necessary step from ape to Man; to substantiate a faulty theory.
It cannot be found because the 'theory of evolution' is a farce!There is no step between humans and apes, for humans ARE great apes. You don’t have to take my word for it. It is the classification system devised by the eighteenth Century creationist Carl Linneaus.
Stuart
Carl wrote this:English Translation[24]
It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply.[25] But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one![26] If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me.[27] Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.Now I ask you are there any generic differences?
Differences between what and what?Stuart
Man and a simian
Humans are simians.Stuart
Then why does Carl ask the question what is the difference?He made up the system. The funny thing is he says that and you believe because of, why?
he said so?
How are Apes like men?
Humans have 46 chromosomes in their cells while all of the great apes have 48 and before you go talking about fused chromosomes it wouldn't matter the difference would knock it out of the category.
We are also the only species of primate in which all older females go through menopause and become sterile, often decades before dying of old age. Female chimpanzees, gorillas, and other non-human primates usually remain capable of conception and giving birth even when they are very old.
So , stop making a monkey out of yourself
We are simian because of our relatively recent common ancestry with other apes and monkeys. These classifications are arbitrary, but apes we are. You can all yourself what you like, but if you chose something different then biologists would disagree with you.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,08:53) We are simian because of our relatively recent common ancestry with other apes and monkeys. These classifications are arbitrary, but apes we are. You can all yourself what you like, but if you chose something different then biologists would disagree with you. Stuart
Anyone can make up names and classifications in-fact some have used evolution just like religion to justify racism and other hatred even making up lies about the races of menQuote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:09) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,08:53) We are simian because of our relatively recent common ancestry with other apes and monkeys. These classifications are arbitrary, but apes we are. You can all yourself what you like, but if you chose something different then biologists would disagree with you. Stuart
Anyone can make up names and classifications in-fact some have used evolution just like religion to justify racism and other hatred even making up lies about the races of men
Would you care to explain what convoluted link of logic links Social Darwinist crackpottery with biological classification?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,09:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:09) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,08:53) We are simian because of our relatively recent common ancestry with other apes and monkeys. These classifications are arbitrary, but apes we are. You can all yourself what you like, but if you chose something different then biologists would disagree with you. Stuart
Anyone can make up names and classifications in-fact some have used evolution just like religion to justify racism and other hatred even making up lies about the races of men
Would you care to explain what convoluted link of logic links Social Darwinist crackpottery with biological classification?Stuart
Your belief is based on faith just as much as anyone elses.Darwin gave you a bedtime story and you just happened to like it
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:52) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,09:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:09) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,08:53) We are simian because of our relatively recent common ancestry with other apes and monkeys. These classifications are arbitrary, but apes we are. You can all yourself what you like, but if you chose something different then biologists would disagree with you. Stuart
Anyone can make up names and classifications in-fact some have used evolution just like religion to justify racism and other hatred even making up lies about the races of men
Would you care to explain what convoluted link of logic links Social Darwinist crackpottery with biological classification?Stuart
Your belief is based on faith just as much as anyone elses.Darwin gave you a bedtime story and you just happened to like it
I hold nothing on faith. If Darwin's theory is disproved then I will stop believing it. Is that a characteristic of your faith?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,09:54) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:52) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,09:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:09) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,08:53) We are simian because of our relatively recent common ancestry with other apes and monkeys. These classifications are arbitrary, but apes we are. You can all yourself what you like, but if you chose something different then biologists would disagree with you. Stuart
Anyone can make up names and classifications in-fact some have used evolution just like religion to justify racism and other hatred even making up lies about the races of men
Would you care to explain what convoluted link of logic links Social Darwinist crackpottery with biological classification?Stuart
Your belief is based on faith just as much as anyone elses.Darwin gave you a bedtime story and you just happened to like it
I hold nothing on faith. If Darwin's theory is disproved then I will stop believing it. Is that a characteristic of your faith?Stuart
So you have done scientific experiences yourself? Have you proved Natural selection independently?You have faith in what you have read STU and that is all it is.
You keep talking about science as if you are a scientist as if you have experimented and tested these theories yourself. Are you and Archeologist, a biologist.. no you are a believer who has faith in what you cannot prove independently of your Text books i.e. (Your Bibles)
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,10:35) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,09:54) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:52) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,09:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:09) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,08:53) We are simian because of our relatively recent common ancestry with other apes and monkeys. These classifications are arbitrary, but apes we are. You can all yourself what you like, but if you chose something different then biologists would disagree with you. Stuart
Anyone can make up names and classifications in-fact some have used evolution just like religion to justify racism and other hatred even making up lies about the races of men
Would you care to explain what convoluted link of logic links Social Darwinist crackpottery with biological classification?Stuart
Your belief is based on faith just as much as anyone elses.Darwin gave you a bedtime story and you just happened to like it
I hold nothing on faith. If Darwin's theory is disproved then I will stop believing it. Is that a characteristic of your faith?Stuart
So you have done scientific experiences yourself? Have you proved Natural selection independently?You have faith in what you have read STU and that is all it is.
You keep talking about science as if you are a scientist as if you have experimented and tested these theories yourself. Are you and Archeologist, a biologist.. no you are a believer who has faith in what you cannot prove independently of your Text books i.e. (Your Bibles)
This post is a particularly good demonstration of how you haven't a clue about what you are discussing.Science does not prove, it only disproves. Unlike the fatuous nonsense of divine revelation by imaginary supernatural beings, science journals are full of experiments that in principle anyone can try for themselves. It is entirely open to anyone who would like to show it is wrong, and indeed there is much motivation through the competitive nature of humans to do exactly that. This in not a matter for faith. This is believing the evidence, not believing in the absence of evidence.
So, I have no faith whatever in scientists. I trust what they write provisionally, and expect that others with a vested interest in keeping science robust will hold them to the highest standards in their work. That is not faith either, because it is based on the evidence that application of science gives us technology that actually works. Think of the difference between modern medicine and faith healing, and you have it right there. Faith in revelation, on the other hand, has never told us anything we did not already know.
So, I have tried some of the experiments myself yes, but science is not about one person doing everything, it is really about coming up with candidate explanations then attempting to disprove them.
Learn something about it BD, it is interesting and worthwhile.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,11:06) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,10:35) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,09:54) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:52) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,09:17) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 31 2009,09:09) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,08:53) We are simian because of our relatively recent common ancestry with other apes and monkeys. These classifications are arbitrary, but apes we are. You can all yourself what you like, but if you chose something different then biologists would disagree with you. Stuart
Anyone can make up names and classifications in-fact some have used evolution just like religion to justify racism and other hatred even making up lies about the races of men
Would you care to explain what convoluted link of logic links Social Darwinist crackpottery with biological classification?Stuart
Your belief is based on faith just as much as anyone elses.Darwin gave you a bedtime story and you just happened to like it
I hold nothing on faith. If Darwin's theory is disproved then I will stop believing it. Is that a characteristic of your faith?Stuart
So you have done scientific experiences yourself? Have you proved Natural selection independently?You have faith in what you have read STU and that is all it is.
You keep talking about science as if you are a scientist as if you have experimented and tested these theories yourself. Are you and Archeologist, a biologist.. no you are a believer who has faith in what you cannot prove independently of your Text books i.e. (Your Bibles)
This post is a particularly good demonstration of how you haven't a clue about what you are discussing.Science does not prove, it only disproves. Unlike the fatuous nonsense of divine revelation by imaginary supernatural beings, science journals are full of experiments that in principle anyone can try for themselves. It is entirely open to anyone who would like to show it is wrong, and indeed there is much motivation through the competitive nature of humans to do exactly that. This in not a matter for faith. This is believing the evidence, not believing in the absence of evidence.
So, I have no faith whatever in scientists. I trust what they write provisionally, and expect that others with a vested interest in keeping science robust will hold them to the highest standards in their work. That is not faith either, because it is based on the evidence that application of science gives us technology that actually works. Think of the difference between modern medicine and faith healing, and you have it right there. Faith in revelation, on the other hand, has never told us anything we did not already know.
So, I have tried some of the experiments myself yes, but science is not about one person doing everything, it is really about coming up with candidate explanations then attempting to disprove them.
Learn something about it BD, it is interesting and worthwhile.
Stuart
First of all your wrong that is not what SCIENCE is, Science means Knowledge. PERIOD and according to you God has never been disproved so you speak unscientifically or without KNOWLEDGE when you make such a foolish unproven claim.You must really think you can “pretend” to be an intellectual in a religious forum and no one will know
but indded you do pretend to know what you have only
perused in a science book or two and not very recent ones either.I suggest you saddle up and hang on tight.
BD
Quote First of all your wrong that is not what SCIENCE is, Science means Knowledge. PERIOD and according to you God has never been disproved so you speak unscientifically or without KNOWLEDGE when you make such a foolish unproven claim.
Where did I say that I disproved god? You are putting words in my mouth about every third post, BD. You are right that I have no knowledge of any god, and that is pretty much your position too, if you are prepared to be honest about it. But then I suppose if you were prepared to be honest you would not be lying about what I said.The word ‘science’ is derived from the Latin for knowledge, but as you well know it is used to describe the process by which that knowledge is attained and verified. I am proud to call myself a ‘fool’ in the sense used in Psalm 14:1, because it shows just how absurd religious scriptures can be.
Quote You must really think you can “pretend” to be an intellectual in a religious forum and no one will know but indded you do pretend to know what you have only perused in a science book or two and not very recent ones either.
Don’t worry about exemplifying any of those assertions, will you.Quote I suggest you saddle up and hang on tight.
That has placed imagery into my head that was not very welcome…Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,00:27) Quote (Ed J @ Dec. 30 2009,22:10) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 30 2009,21:39) Actually why should any of us have to ask? Why should this God of yours not be obvious to everyone? Stuart
Hi Stuart,I explain that very question in chapter 8 of the free e-book,
e-mail me and I will send it an attachment on PDF.
It is a very small chapter only one page.Me e-mail address is the same as the web site[@yahoo.com].
You can also request it from the site too.
You say 'if there is proof then offer it'; here is the offer.2 Timothy 2:13 if we believe not, yet He abideth faithful:
He cannot deny himself.
Why should this god not be obvious to everyone?Stuart
Hi Stuart,Because God does NOT want fake robot type worship,
like man made religious institutions offer (you call them fuddies).
And the 'forced' nonsense type too; some parts of the world will slit your throat over!He wants genuine LOVE!
YHVH(63)+Love(54)=117!Why should I read what you offer, while you are unwilling to read what I offer?; isn't that a bit hypocritical?
I will read what you offer and you will read what I offer of approximate equal length; OK?
We are both only interested in “Truth”; no?In the love of God,
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd
I must be doing what your god wants then, because I am not offering it fake robot type worship. I am doing better than that, no worship at all!
I have invited you to post anything that could be called 'proof', or even evidence of your god. Your deal seems fairer: originally you appeared to be wanting me to read something the size of the chapter of a book while I have placed no such requirement on you.
So, here it is…Ed's proof of god in a few paragraphs.
Go!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,11:33) BD Quote First of all your wrong that is not what SCIENCE is, Science means Knowledge. PERIOD and according to you God has never been disproved so you speak unscientifically or without KNOWLEDGE when you make such a foolish unproven claim.
Where did I say that I disproved god? You are putting words in my mouth about every third post, BD. You are right that I have no knowledge of any god, and that is pretty much your position too, if you are prepared to be honest about it. But then I suppose if you were prepared to be honest you would not be lying about what I said.The word ‘science’ is derived from the Latin for knowledge, but as you well know it is used to describe the process by which that knowledge is attained and verified. I am proud to call myself a ‘fool’ in the sense used in Psalm 14:1, because it shows just how absurd religious scriptures can be.
Quote You must really think you can “pretend” to be an intellectual in a religious forum and no one will know but indded you do pretend to know what you have only perused in a science book or two and not very recent ones either.
Don’t worry about exemplifying any of those assertions, will you.Quote I suggest you saddle up and hang on tight.
That has placed imagery into my head that was not very welcome…Stuart
Wrong! I know God is Real and I would be lying to you if I said I didn't know that God is Real.What you have convinced yourself you know and what you actually know are very different things, in several areas.
Assert, assert, assert. You are just right about everything, aren't you BD. No need to explain yourself of course.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 31 2009,13:48) What you have convinced yourself you know and what you actually know are very different things, in several areas. Assert, assert, assert. You are just right about everything, aren't you BD. No need to explain yourself of course.
Stuart
So now you have the ability to know what I have experienced?How is it you feel that you have the right to know what you have experienced and then at the same time deny what others have experienced?
More Hypocrisy, I should call you STU/ED for now on
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
