The Hoax of the Missing Link

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nothing like linking to a 12 year old post that refuted itself about the rickets thing in the last paragraph. The next link is dead. Maybe you could find evidence actually from the 20th or 21st century. All the stuff they talked about in that link was in the 1800's. Did you actually read that piece?

It is still true today, however, my pip-squeak idiot.

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]It may be true thought that evolutionist are about as intelligent as an ape.
Can you find me a dictionary that doesn't?

And now just as Dawkins was forced to admit that we did not evolve
from apes, you are now admitting that there is no proof for evolution,
just as I have been saying.
Where did I admit any such thing?[/b]

Wikipedia does not define man as an ape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man

You are being dishonest again. You know you have admitted that there
is no proof of evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Wikipedia does not define man as an ape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man

You are being dishonest again.

It is you that is being dishonest. You know perfectly well that the 'man' I am referring to is 'human beings' not 'adult human males' which is what the Wikipedia reference you gave is about.

If you look at the italics section of that page you will see that the word 'man' can also mean 'humans in general' which is referenced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

And the very first sentence clearly states that humans are members of 'the great ape family'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is you that is being dishonest. You know perfectly well that the 'man' I am referring to is 'human beings' not 'adult human males' which is what the Wikipedia reference you gave is about.

If you look at the italics section of that page you will see that the word 'man' can also mean 'humans in general' which is referenced here:

http://en.wikipedia ...[text shortened]... ery first sentence clearly states that humans are members of 'the great ape family'.

But this definition is made by evolutionist who believe they are apes and
assume that the theory of evolution is true. And you cannot assume
without making as ASS out of U and ME.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But this definition is made by evolutionist who believe they are apes and
assume that the theory of evolution is true.

Nevertheless, it remains the definition in common use. If you have a different understanding of the word, then it is because you made up your own definition. You accused me of being dishonest which it now turns out was a false accusation. If you had any decency you would apologize.

And you cannot assume without making as ASS out of U and ME.
You sound like a broken record. Every time you are caught in a lie you repeat the same old mantra.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nevertheless, it remains the definition in common use. If you have a different understanding of the word, then it is because you made up your own definition. You accused me of being dishonest which it now turns out was a false accusation. If you had any decency you would apologize.

[b]And you cannot assume without making as ASS out of U and ME.
You sound like a broken record. Every time you are caught in a lie you repeat the same old mantra.[/b]

When I looked up "man" in Webster's New World Dictionay it gives the
following definition:

Man - 1. a human being; person; (see HOMOSAPIENS)
- 2. the human race; mankind
- 3. an adult male human being

and other meanings down to a chess piece which do not relate to our
discussion. It did not say anything about an ape.

So I looked up Homosapiens.

Homosapiens - modern man; mankind; human being; the only living species
of the genus Homo

and again, no mention of apes.

mankind - 1. all human beings; the human race
2. all human males

an again no mention of apes.

Originally posted by RJHinds
When I looked up "man" in Webster's New World Dictionay it gives the
following definition:

Man - 1. a human being; person; (see HOMOSAPIENS)
- 2. the human race; mankind
- 3. an adult male human being

and other meanings down to a chess piece which do not relate to our
discussion. It did not say anything about an ape.

So I looked u ...[text shortened]... an beings; the human race
2. all human males

an again no mention of apes.

Let me help you, an ape is defined as -

any member of the biological superfamily Hominoidea (hominoids).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Now look at what you just posted -

the only living species of the genus Homo

Homo's, ie us, are classed in the Hominoidea family. Thus we are classed as apes.

And of that isn't self-explanatory, from the same wiki page -

An ape is any member of the biological superfamily Hominoidea (hominoids). There are two families of hominoids:

Hylobatidae consists of four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang, collectively known as the lesser apes.

Hominidae consists of chimpanzees, gorillas, HUMANS and orangutans collectively known as the great apes.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Let me help you, an ape is defined as -

any member of the biological superfamily Hominoidea (hominoids).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Now look at what you just posted -

the only living species of the [b]genus Homo

Homo's, ie us, are classed in the Hominoidea family. Thus we are classed as apes.

And mpanzees, gorillas, HUMANS and orangutans collectively known as the great apes.[/quote][/b]

So what? We are also classified as mammals too. That does not make us
apes just because some ignorant evolutionist says so. We are also not
chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans just because they say so. It just
so happens that they are wrong, wrong, wrong just as were many other
so-called scientist have been in the past.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So what? We are also classified as mammals too. That does not make us
apes just because some ignorant evolutionist says so. We are also not
chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans just because they say so. It just
so happens that they are wrong, wrong, wrong just as were many other
so-called scientist have been in the past.

Like I said, when a new theory is put out in the world, there will be long drawn out fights over the validity of the new theory. Eventually the old farts responsible for the fight die off. This fight will end when you and your ilk are pushing up daisy's.
Like I said, you get more and more irrelevant every year.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Like I said, when a new theory is put out in the world, there will be long drawn out fights over the validity of the new theory. Eventually the old farts responsible for the fight die off. This fight will end when you and your ilk are pushing up daisy's.
Like I said, you get more and more irrelevant every year.

i dont think it will get more and more irrelevant simply because secular liberalists fuelled by a Darwinian philosophy want to reduce everything to base materialism. You cannot produce a higher morality than that of the Christ, you have been asked many times and have failed, why? because there is nothing spiritual in materialism, its simply an empty deception to say there is, sorry to be so blunt but we are human and those that are conscious of their spirituality cannot turn to materialism to find fulfilment, for what is there to find? electro chemical impulses and synapses? how is that able to offer any type of moral guidance, sense of purpose or comfort?

Originally posted by RJHinds
an again no mention of apes.

And no mention that we are mammals or animals either, yet both are still true.
I am still waiting for you to apologize for calling me dishonest when it is clear that it was you that was in error.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont think it will get more and more irrelevant simply because secular liberalists fuelled by a Darwinian philosophy want to reduce everything to base materialism. You cannot produce a higher morality than that of the Christ, you have been asked many times and have failed, why? because there is nothing spiritual in materialism, its simply an empty ...[text shortened]... nd synapses? how is that able to offer any type of moral guidance, sense of purpose or comfort?

What have you got to offer? A blinker filtered vision of the world and some ancient man made fairy tale?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What have you got to offer? A blinker filtered vision of the world and some ancient man made fairy tale?!

The Christ my son, all gems and treasures are carefully concealed in the Christ.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Christ my son, all gems and treasures are carefully concealed in the Christ.

That's all you have, mere words. At best a little bit of poetry, but more often than not a load of 'theolodgababble'.

Is it any wonder Christianity is dying a slow death in this country?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's all you have, mere words. At best a little bit of poetry, but more often than not a load of 'theolodgababble'.

Is it any wonder Christianity is dying a slow death in this country?!

yes we have seen the demise of nominal Christianity and the rise of materialism, but its is to the detriment as a whole, 'man cannot live on bread alone', my friend, we have the Christ, who when one carefully studies his life pattern and emulates it to the best of his or her ability we are 'freed ', from all sorts of issues that are troubling mankind as we speak. The Christ himself made this rather profound statement, 'Happy, are those conscious of their spiritual need'. You know its true.