The Hoax of the Missing Link

Originally posted by wolfgang59
So you have your own definition of "ape" which you have created by the power of your mind? or is "ape" defined in the bible? Or did god whisper in your ear what the word "ape" meant?

You are correct that you are not confused. Confusion requires considering options. Confusion requires [b]thinking then eventually resolution.

You do not think about anything.[/b]

I use the same definition of ape that has been used for ages.
For Example:

From the Thorndike + Barnhart Junior Dictionary:

ape -- a tailless, long-armed animal somewhat like a monkey. Apes
are able to stand almost erect and to walk on two feet. Chimpanzees,
gorillas, and gibbons, are apes.

It has only been recently that evolutionist have modified that definiton
to include man. I believe that is an error. Think about it. Then ask some
questions and do research of your own before simply agreeing with the
latest ideas out there.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I use the same definition of ape that has been used for ages.
For Example:

From the Thorndike + Barnhart Junior Dictionary:

ape -- a tailless, long-armed animal somewhat like a monkey. Apes
are able to stand almost erect and to walk on two feet. Chimpanzees,
gorillas, and gibbons, are apes.

And do humans have tails? If not, which part of the definition does not fit us?

It has only been recently that evolutionist have modified that definition
to include man.
What do you mean by recently? The term has been defined that way all my life and probably much longer.
When I was young I read a book called "The Naked Ape" written in 1967, so the term was already defined that way as far back as that.

I believe that is an error.
That is because you do not understand language. Definitions cannot be in error. Definitions are merely agreed meanings for words. They cannot be true or false or be in error.

Think about it. Then ask some questions and do research of your own before simply agreeing with the latest ideas out there.
I do. You, on the other hand clearly don't as your ignorance on the subject shows.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I use the same definition of ape that has been used for ages.
For Example:

From the Thorndike + Barnhart Junior Dictionary:

ape -- a tailless, long-armed animal somewhat like a monkey. Apes
are able to stand almost erect and to walk on two feet. Chimpanzees,
gorillas, and gibbons, are apes.

It has only been recently that evolutionist have modi ...[text shortened]...
questions and do research of your own before simply agreeing with the
latest ideas out there.

I note that you use a "Junior Dictionary" for your information.

Does it have pictures?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I note that you use a [b]"Junior Dictionary" for your information.

Does it have pictures?[/b]

It has drawings to illustrate certain words.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It has drawings to illustrate certain words.

I see you ignored my post. Do you accept that the human and neanderthal genome have been sequenced?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And do humans have tails? If not, which part of the definition does not fit us?

[b]It has only been recently that evolutionist have modified that definition
to include man.
What do you mean by recently? The term has been defined that way all my life and probably much longer.
When I was young I read a book called "The Naked Ape" written in 1967, ...[text shortened]... here.[/b]
I do. You, on the other hand clearly don't as your ignorance on the subject shows.[/b]

Man can stand completely erect rather than almost erect.
Man is not like a monkey with the extra long arms like apes are.
Man does not look like monkeys as apes do.

By recently, I mean since the 1980's.
Man as "The Naked Ape" was a new idea in the late 1960's and ape was
not generally accepted as defining man until the 1980's.

Anything can be in error and I clearly have more knowledge and world
experience than you. How long have you lived to travel to other nations
and visit zoo's and study religion and experience the world and life in
general?

Originally posted by RJHinds
By recently, I mean since the 1980's.
Man as "The Naked Ape" was a new idea in the late 1960's and ape was
not generally accepted as defining man until the 1980's.

You are mistaken about that.
According to Wikipedia, Carolus Linnaeus classified Humans as primates back in 1758.

Anything can be in error ...
No, not everything can be in error. Definitions certainly cannot.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are mistaken about that.
According to Wikipedia, Carolus Linnaeus classified Humans as primates back in 1758.

[b]Anything can be in error ...
No, not everything can be in error. Definitions certainly cannot.[/b]

What this guy did is irrelavent, it is when it was defined in the dictionaries
that we were talking about. It is still my opinion that a definiton of man
that says man is an ape is an error, because a man is not an ape.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What this guy did is irrelavent, it is when it was defined in the dictionaries
that we were talking about.

Well then see if you can find any evidence that it was not defined in the dictionaries until the 1980s. I say you made it up.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I use ... the Thorndike + Barnhart Junior Dictionary...

🙂

edit: "It has only been recently that evolutionist have modified that definiton
to include man"

You think?
YouTube
YouTube&NR=1

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I don't agree, I don't think that accepting a materialist view of existence does necessarily influence one in that way. Why do you theists always imagine that your belief raises your moral standards over that of non-believers? It's simply not true. There are compelling tendencies for mature human beings to behave in a generally christian [i]manner[/i ...[text shortened]... A, also reflect on 1950s USSR - highly materialistic, but really not all that consumerist.

i am still working on my magnum opus with which to lay bare this matter.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am still working on my magnum opus with which to lay bare this matter.

No hurry.

I was thinking about this today, pondering possible causes for the spread of consumerism throughout the world. I think it may be down to a combination of humankind's innate desire for fairness, it's innate selfishness, capitalist economics and free-flow of information. "Hey look, that guy on the telly is rich and he's got loads of stuff. I want loads of stuff too. Why should he get loads of stuff when I've just got a little bit of stuff? Plus I want it to be Prada stuff."

The other thing - the weakening of the grip of religion - I suspect that may follow the free flow of information and maybe better education. I doubt it's helped by the fact that consumerised people probably don't take to the rather strongly anti-wealth stance that Jesus so clearly evinced.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
No hurry.

I was thinking about this today, pondering possible causes for the spread of consumerism throughout the world. I think it may be down to a combination of humankind's innate desire for fairness, it's innate selfishness, capitalist economics and free-flow of information. "Hey look, that guy on the telly is rich and he's got loads of stuff ...[text shortened]... ably don't take to the rather strongly anti-wealth stance that Jesus so clearly evinced.

Just to add, the wheels of capitalism are turned by consumerism. Capitalist economies need goods to be sold. Every month the high street retail sales are presented on national news. If the percentage goes up, it's good. If the percentage goes down, it's bad.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
No hurry.

I was thinking about this today, pondering possible causes for the spread of consumerism throughout the world. I think it may be down to a combination of humankind's innate desire for fairness, it's innate selfishness, capitalist economics and free-flow of information. "Hey look, that guy on the telly is rich and he's got loads of stuff ...[text shortened]... ably don't take to the rather strongly anti-wealth stance that Jesus so clearly evinced.

yes this is it in its entirety, it seems to me to be about influences and our perceptions of these influences in our lives, whether its through common culture, advertising, the guy next door, the man of the tv. There can be no doubt that Christ lead a simple life, but he was hardly an ascetic, in fact, it was charged against him that he came, 'eating and drinking'. When he was crucified and his garments removed he had a quality undergarment, a single piece of excellent quality worth casting lots over. Also its documented that prior to this, he had been annionted, much to the consternation of the disciples, with expensive oil (nard) from an alabaster case, worth a years wages. How are we to view this? certainly there is a balance to be struck.

What about the present day financial crisis in Greece and Ireland, was it not materialism which largely fuelled the huge emphasis in housing, 'yes, ill have some of that', people being urged to borrow more than their means? My friend is a part time lecturer at Clydebank college, she was offered seven and a half times her salary to buy a house that she did not want or need, how many persons, spurred on by material dreams would have jumped at the chance? A modesty and a realistic view of her circumstances prevented her.

I am glad that we have acknowledged the weakening of religion, although i must confess, many religious persons are highly educated. This form of religion appears to me to be insipid, it cannot produce anything tangible, anything practical, any type of guidance with which to guide a person and thus people are simply content to get on with doing what they can, to the best of their ability, thus with its demise, a vacuum has been created which must be filled with something. The hedonism of the sixties, the new wave of the seventies, the pretentiousnesses of the eighties and the rise of the computer age, through the nineties until the present., the very things are are meant to save us time probably suck up more time than anything else!

Is it wrong to yearn for lazy Sunday afternoons with the family, eating meals together with friends, reflecting, unplugging ourselves, taking time out for contemplation without some kind of media? In order to filter out what is important and what is not? This can only be achieved through reflection me thinks, to counteract the advertising, to distinguish between what we desire and what we need?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes this is it in its entirety, it seems to me to be about influences and our perceptions of these influences in our lives, whether its through common culture, advertising, the guy next door, the man of the tv. There can be no doubt that Christ lead a simple life, but he was hardly an ascetic, in fact, it was charged against him that he came, 'eatin ...[text shortened]... inks, to counteract the advertising, to distinguish between what we desire and what we need?

Well, if someone offered me 7 or 8 times my salary specifically to buy a house I didn't want or need, I would instantly give in, get the huge salary, live in the stupid house for a while, then sell it off and have the best of both worlds🙂 Please, do it🙂 What were the circumstances that led to that kind of offer and why? It is an offer that really doesn't make sense. Was it someone who wanted her to be 'like the rest of us rich folk' so she could be included in the club?

Reminds me of the Jewish dilemma joke: Free Pork

I told that to my Israeli boss, he got a wide grin, said NO DILEMMA🙂