Well, PBS (and I have to assume the scientists interviewed for the program also) are supporting me here.
Once again I was pointing out the silliness of the say so of the OP, so since it is not very important for the discussion I accept “common ape ancestor”
No, they aren’t. Not in any way.
[quote]
Once again I was pointing out the silliness of the say so of the OP…[/qupte]
So although it’s correct it’s OK to call it silly based on a misrepresenation of the facts?
Not valid, and not very honest either.
Which makes your position even more wrong.
No that is not the point. Even **FinnAgain **noticed what the OP is referring to, he (the OP) is definitely not referring to H. habilis or A. afarensis.
No, they’re not. The bit you quoted only has to do with modern apes. They didn’t say that Hominidae wouldn’t qualify as apes. Hominidae, in fact, qualify as apes. Including but not limited to the direct ancestors of modern humans.
This is the context in which I heard the term while I was still pre-med, ages ago.
Yep. And that along with his comment about ‘more stubborn’ beasts evolving into more stubborn not-as-fully-human humans are Christians…
For what it’s worth I hope the OP is just communicating horribly and giving an impression that he doesn’t mean. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
Er… that should be “as Christians”. Not “are Christians”.
I’ve skimmed the thread, mainly out of curiosity, because I couldn’t for the life of me figure out how the OP merited three pages. I still don’t. Really, folks, this one deserves to sink and fade. Winning a battle with a one-armed man brings no glory. Can’t ya’ll just let it go?
That was a reply to FinnAgain.
It would be if I was still insisting on that, However it is not true to say that I was not being honest as it was AFAIK.
BTW you need to notice I’m agreeing with FinnAgain.
I think you are protesting too much here.
And yes FinnAgain, I stand corrected. The evidence still shows that what I see from the OP is wrong. I do think that he is saying that we also came from the modern apes.
No prob, glad I could help. I really, really loved studying biology back in the day, before I decided I didn’t want to go into medicine. I’m not as well versed as some Dopers, but I TA’d for bio courses back then and still try to keep up with the field, at least a little bit.
And yeah… I agree and I do think that the OP is saying that a certain group of people (Blacks? Jews? All non-Christians? Simply people who don’t agree with him?) evolved from chimps, or maybe even “pigs and apes”, and as such are still more ‘beastial’, but that people who are like him are cool enough to have been created by God, essentially ex nihilo.
Doesn’t matter if its a reply to God himself. It’s still wrong in every particular.
So it’s honest of you to construct a criticism based on something that you know is factually incorrect is? Interesting interpretation of honesty.
Doesn’t matter if you’re agreeing with God himself. It’s still wrong in every particular.
Thank you for noticing that, I was really wondering if I was wrong in every particular. Now, if only others could let go…
There’s all the physics violating things God is supposed to have done and be; that rules him out, unless you have good evidence he exists. And you have no evidence at all, much less good evidence. And every study of the brain, the effects of brain damage and drugs all point to the brain being the mind. Which means when the brain dies, we do.
And while the evidence presented by science is imperfect ( and always will be ), the evidence for YOUR position is zero. And the track record or faith as a path to truth is one of utter failure. After millennia of unrelenting failure by the believers to be right about any factual question, why should I think you are the one who’s right ?
You’ve made your point, such as it is.
Now let it go.
[ /Moderating ]
I don’t know either, but names mean things and there are spiritual reasons for things like that. Also Jesus came to baptize with fire.
My understanding:
earth+wind = man
fire + wind = demon
earth+fire+wind=nephilum
Water is the life force that comes from God (John 4:13-14) and hell is very dry (Luke 16:24),
Arid places is the places where demons go after they come out of a man (Luke 11:24).
This was the result of the actions of Judas, which set the above into non-stoppable motion. At that time it was a done deal spiritually and Satan, the prince of this world’ now stands condemned John 16:11 -note statement happened after Judas took the bread but before the arrest, Satan already was condemned.
Jesus clearly stated that only one of the 12 was a devil, and it is made clear that it is Judas. Peter has aspects of his life that is not fully surrendered to God, and as such has given Satan a foothold (Eph 4:27) - which IMHO is pride, which to be able to try to derail Jesus.
Judas was different, in that he was a real fallen angel in the flesh. This scripture I believe speaks to that:
Judas, a spiritual being was able to be born into the world in physical form. Because when this happens, God keeps them in darkness, as such Judas didn’t know he was a demon. Their former knowledge is hidden, but their nature remains. As such Judas had to do the demonic thing and Jesus knew it. By saying it is better that Judas never had been born, means that it would have been better if Judas stayed a spiritual fallen angel then to have been born into the world and be the demon responsible for causing Satan’s kingdom to fall, which I would assume would really piss Satan off, which caused such great torment that Judas hanged himself.
Possibly and this is going out on a limb, when Judas came back to hell, his body was torn apart by the demons, releasing the body of Jesus there as well (as Judas took them).
The scriptures speak of other angels in the flesh, such as the ones that dragged Lot out of Sodom. Interestingly enough Lot’s wife, who looked back, was turned into a piller of salt, which we think of as a bad thing, but Jesus speaks highly of salt, and it could have been the correct thing to do, look back with compassion on those people.
I believe the false prophetess Jezebel in Rev, along with Queen Jezebel, and others in scripture and people today are also fallen angels in the flesh, some I believe being restored.
It has been my experience that God reveals His Word through the Holy Spirit on a personal level, and is the only source of wisdom. Bible studies are good for those in early stages to learn concepts, but is easily distorted and should not be take as a authority.
One thing you both have in common is that your participation in debates on these boards is dishonest. It is dishonest in the sense that you feign to participate in debate and discussion, but when you are asked simple (non-trick) questions not accommodated by your belief systems, you ignore them, slink away and pretend the questions don’t exist. You are entitled to do this, of course, and this entitlement is not in dispute. However, when you do so, it shows that you have no intellectual integrity at all, nor any intention of actually participating in an intelligent exchange.
I have asked you, Lacunas, the same simple question three times in this thread, and each time you have chosen to ignore it. So be it.
The same applies to Kanicbird, who has now had multiple opportunities to address this simple question based on his own words, that I asked on the 17th March. So be it.
The rest of us can understand that you both derive some satisfaction, albeit of a pathetic kind, from trying to provoke a reaction and then smugly refusing to address any question that your sick counterfeits of faith and understanding cannot adequately address. This is a shameful form of self-validation, and the rest of could feel sorry that you have none other, if it were not for the hatred and lack of humane values contained in the views you do express.
What a disgrace you are to your own god or gods. Let the record show that you claim to have access to spiritual truths, yet cannot achieve even a semblance of honest discussion.
What you asking them to do poses a very interesting question (that actually is worthy of its own thread). I don’t think that there is any way in which the *actual *existence of God can be proved to the satisfaction of a non-believer. I believe in the Purple Man Eating Donkey of Bognor Regis. I know It exists. I have seen It. I have talked to It. I have read about It in the PMEDOBR Book, which has been written by other believers. What more proof do you need? What other proof could I give? What would you accept as proof? You, I presume, believe in love. You can’t see it, touch it, hear it or have any concrete evidence of its existence. Many people have written and talked about it, but if I didn’t believe in it, how would you prove it to me?
Kanicbird’s and** Lacunas Quell’s** inability to respond satisfactorily is because I think, to them, the proof is genuinely self evident. So, I honestly don’t think they are trying to be difficult, provocative or dishonest. The question, for them, does not compute.
I hope that they will be along soon to either confirm or deny my supposition.
Hi NineToTheSky. My question to Lacunas is not about the existence of god. It’s about how this thread is predicated. My question to Kanicbird is not about the existence of god either. It’s about an assertion he made about facts and truth.
I’m surprised your question to kanicbird hasn’t been answered, ianzin. I often find i’m not entirely convinced of the answers kanicbird gives, let’s say, but generally they’re pretty forthcoming. Perhaps it’s a genuine miss?
Hi yourself 
Isn’t the bit I’ve bolded asking him to prove the existence of God?
I see what you said to Kanicbird, but I think the question you asked Lacunas Quell applies to him, to an even greater degree.
Hi NineToTheSky. In the first instance, the only part Lacunas needs to address is, “So, first of all, are we to base the discussion using valid logical reasoning and arguments based on empirical, independently verifiable evidence?”. He hasn’t even managed this, despite three opportunities.
We need to get a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ to this question if this debate is to be meaningful. Whatever may or may not follow from his response is a separate issue.