Are atheists apes???

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]That's completely besides the point that I'm trying to make. It's not about how divergent the branches are, or whether or not we're able to mate with other apes. It's a simple matter of classification and taxonomic terms. We're in the superfamily hominoidea. Hominoidea means "Ape". We're apes by definition. Vandalvideo

It doesn't really matter if the classification has meaning as to the scope of the differences between common humans and other apes, it still stands. And what does having two branches of hominoidea have to do with anything? Does that mean that suddenly the family hominidae that resides within the superfamily hominoidea is no longer a part of hominoidea? That's completely irrelevant.

Humans are apes by definition belonging to the group hominoidea which contains both the lesser apes (hylobatidae) and the great apes (hominidae). The great apes consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimps AND humans. The word ape a classificational term for a group of primates which share common characters and humans belong to it because they have these characters.C_Town_Soul

It doesn't really matter if the classification has meaning to it as to the scope of the differences between common humans and other apes, it still stands. And what does having two branches of hominoidea have to do with anything? Does that mean that suddenly the family hominidae that resides within the superfamily hominoidea is no longer a part of hominoidea? That's completely irrelevant.Blood-Scribe

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]Humans are apes by definition belonging to the group hominoidea which contains both the lesser apes (hylobatidae) and the great apes (hominidae). The great apes consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimps AND humans. The word ape a classificational term for a group of primates which share common characters and humans belong to it because they have these characters.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]It doesn't really matter if the classification has meaning to it as to the scope of the differences between common humans and other apes, it still stands. And what does having two branches of hominoidea have to do with anything? Does that mean that suddenly the family hominidae that resides within the superfamily hominoidea is no longer a part of hominoidea? That's completely irrelevant.Vandalvideo

That's not a scientific definition.

If we're going to exclude scientific definitions, then that means that scientific theories are no longer supported by any evidence at all, and are really just proposed explanations. There's a big difference between a common definition and a scientific definition, as the connotations between the two can vary greatly.

you gave the definition of a group of apes called PongidaeC_Town_Soul

That's not a scientific definition.If we're going to exclude scientific definitions, then that means that scientific theories are no longer supported by any evidence at all, and are really just proposed explanations. There's a big difference between a common definition and a scientific definition, as the connotations between the two can vary greatly. Blood-Scribe

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]That's not a scientific definition.If we're going to exclude scientific definitions, then that means that scientific theories are no longer supported by any evidence at all, and are really just proposed explanations. There's a big difference between a common definition and a scientific definition, as the connotations between the two can vary greatly. Vandalvideo

]Quit using dictionaries as a replacement for biology booksC_Town_Soul

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]That's not a scientific definition.If we're going to exclude scientific definitions, then that means that scientific theories are no longer supported by any evidence at all, and are really just proposed explanations. There's a big difference between a common definition and a scientific definition, as the connotations between the two can vary greatly. Vandalvideo

Okay, I'll just pick up my Merriam-Webster dictionary on my shelf and see what it has to say. Hell, I'll take pictures of it on my cameraphone if you think I'm making these up:

Ape: Any of the larger tailess primates

Primate: Any of an order of mammals including humans, apes, and monkeys

It's fine if you want to get into a dictionary war, but the point is that you're taking this way out of context to prove an erroneous point. Humans are classified as apes regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

Okay, I'll just pick up my Merriam-Webster dictionary on my shelf and see what it has to say. Hell, I'll take pictures of it on my cameraphone if you think I'm making these up: Ape: Any of the larger tailess primates Primate: Any of an order of mammals including humans, apes, and monkeys It's fine if you want to get into a dictionary war, but the point is that you're taking this way out of context to prove an erroneous point. Humans are classified as apes regardless of whether or not you agree with it.Blood-Scribe

Uhm, where did scientists come up with "to be human we need to believe in life after death?"wado-karate

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]]Quit using dictionaries as a replacement for biology booksVandalvideo

http://www.alysion.org/life/Hominidae.htm

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hominidae

I wasn't aware dictionaries came up with scientific terms for ****fication. I can keep coming up with new sources. How many do you need?

[QUOTE="SegaGenesisfan"]Well extreme belief in religion does lead to crusades, but christianity is not religion, and to be extreme about christianity can only lead to being annoying to others at best.

Extreme belief in science, leads to false beliefs, bad science, that goes unquestioned, uncheck, unchallenged. It also leads to atomic bombs:| Communism is a secular type of government, did not come from chrsitianity at all. I think it is safe to say too much of anything is bad

I think the whole 96 percent ape is bad science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&NR=1

foxhound_fox

Science is just science, but there is certain things that are considered science, when they really are not, especially stuff like this ape stuff, it takes faith. No, it is your misconception of christianity that causes you to have a false view of christianity. For example for something to really be science, you have to be able to see it, evolution, you cant observe because it takes millions of years for something to really happen (takes a certain ammount of faith), and is a world-view ie religion. Religion is about good points towards heaven, but real christiainity is about a real relationship, not just a series of rituals. Its about truth and reconciliation, not just good points towards heaven. I think there might be a good deal of similiarities, but an ape is an ape, and a human is an human.

See what is happening in your post, is your definition of science, and definition of christianity is different from some more simplier definitions of both

here is the definition of science in its most basic definition:

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

here is the definition of christianity

well, actually in the world, you cant find inherantly good definition tbh:

The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. The thing is you cant just call yourself a christian, and your one, many say they are, but they are not. True christianity means that you actually do the word

I advise that you read this

http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp?wpc=evolution.asp&wpp=a

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]]Quit using dictionaries as a replacement for biology booksC_Town_Soul

http://www.alysion.org/life/Hominidae.htm

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hominidae

I wasn't aware dictionaries came up with scientific terms for ****fication. I can keep coming up with new sources. How many do you need?

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]Okay, I'll just pick up my Merriam-Webster dictionary on my shelf and see what it has to say. Hell, I'll take pictures of it on my cameraphone if you think I'm making these up: Ape: Any of the larger tailess primates Primate: Any of an order of mammals including humans, apes, and monkeys It's fine if you want to get into a dictionary war, but the point is that you're taking this way out of context to prove an erroneous point. Humans are classified as apes regardless of whether or not you agree with it.Vandalvideo

I'm using a 2004 edition, but that's besides the point. Provide a definition for primate as well, and you'll see that humans are included there, thus making them apes by extension.

Edit: Screw it, I'll do it for you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primate

3: Any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized especially by an advanced development of binocular vision, specialization of the appendages for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres that include HUMANS, apes, monkeys, and related forms

Stop using dictionaries out of context to prove your erroneous point.

I'm using a 2004 edition, but that's besides the point. Provide a definition for primate as well, and you'll see that humans are included there, thus making them apes by extension. Blood-Scribe

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] These are some of the most renowned sources of the english language in the world. Not to mention I have even more in reserves. These, combined, trump wikipedia.Vandalvideo

http://www.alysion.org/life/Hominidae.htm

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hominidae

I wasn't aware dictionaries came up with scientific terms for ****fication. I can keep coming up with new sources. How many do you need?

]grasping for straws? How is a great ape not an ape?C_Town_Soul

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]I'm using a 2004 edition, but that's besides the point. Provide a definition for primate as well, and you'll see that humans are included there, thus making them apes by extension. Vandalvideo

Your definition of ape INCLUDES primates, and the definition of primate INCLUDES humans.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primate

3: Any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized especially by an advanced development of binocular vision, specialization of the appendages for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres that include HUMANS, apes, monkeys, and related forms

Stop using dictionaries out of context to prove your erroneous point.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]I'm using a 2004 edition, but that's besides the point. Provide a definition for primate as well, and you'll see that humans are included there, thus making them apes by extension. Blood-Scribe

Your definition of ape INCLUDES primates, and the definition of primate INCLUDES humans.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primate

3: Any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized especially by an advanced development of binocular vision, specialization of the appendages for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres that include HUMANS, apes, monkeys, and related forms

Stop using dictionaries out of context to prove your erroneous point.

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]]grasping for straws? How is a great ape not an ape?Vandalvideo

]You provided the definition for ape. and when i used your source for the defintion of great ape, it provides the exact same definition as ape. They must be the same term. :roll: Now gtfo, you lost.C_Town_Soul

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

Wow... just wow...

Christianity is just like mostly every other religion throughout human history. It has lead to countless religious-based conflicts between other sects of Christianity itself and other religions, especially Islam and has seen the death of countless millions of people. It started the Spanish Inquisition, the paranoia induced execution of completely innocent people for nothing more than being human enough to submit to torture and cry out that they are a witch because they just want the pain to stop.

Science leads to everything objective... which means it leads to medicine, modern electronic technology and weapons... but people don't fight over science, they fight over beliefs... and science isn't a belief, it is only a system of explaining observable facts. Too much of science is a wholly good thing. This world needs more unbiased objectivism... it will prevent a lot of people from getting hurt over differing religious beliefs.

Your misconceptions about science and blindness to the truth of Christianity is astounding. It is time to start accepting science not as a belief but as something that explain how the natural world works and gives you all the technology you take for granted. SegaGenesisfan

Science is just science, but there is certain things that are considered science, when they really are not, especially stuff like this ape stuff, it takes faith.

[QUOTE="SegaGenesisfan"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

Wow... just wow...

Christianity is just like mostly every other religion throughout human history. It has lead to countless religious-based conflicts between other sects of Christianity itself and other religions, especially Islam and has seen the death of countless millions of people. It started the Spanish Inquisition, the paranoia induced execution of completely innocent people for nothing more than being human enough to submit to torture and cry out that they are a witch because they just want the pain to stop.

Science leads to everything objective... which means it leads to medicine, modern electronic technology and weapons... but people don't fight over science, they fight over beliefs... and science isn't a belief, it is only a system of explaining observable facts. Too much of science is a wholly good thing. This world needs more unbiased objectivism... it will prevent a lot of people from getting hurt over differing religious beliefs.

Your misconceptions about science and blindness to the truth of Christianity is astounding. It is time to start accepting science not as a belief but as something that explain how the natural world works and gives you all the technology you take for granted. MattUD1

Science is just science, but there is certain things that are considered science, when they really are not, especially stuff like this ape stuff, it takes faith.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="SegaGenesisfan"]Well extreme belief in religion does lead to crusades, but christianity is not religion, and to be extreme about christianity can only lead to being annoying to others at best.

Extreme belief in science, leads to false beliefs, bad science, that goes unquestioned, uncheck, unchallenged. It also leads to atomic bombs:| Communism is a secular type of government, did not come from chrsitianity at all. I think it is safe to say too much of anything is bad

I think the whole 96 percent ape is bad science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&NR=1

SegaGenesisfan

Science is just science, but there is certain things that are considered science, when they really are not, especially stuff like this ape stuff, it takes faith. No, it is your misconception of christianity that causes you to have a false view of christianity. For example for something to really be science, you have to be able to see it, evolution, you cant observe because it takes millions of years for something to really happen (takes a certain ammount of faith), and is a world-view ie religion. Religion is about good points towards heaven, but real christiainity is about a real relationship, not just a series of rituals. Its about truth and reconciliation, not just good points towards heaven. I think there might be a good deal of similiarities, but an ape is an ape, and a human is an human.

See what is happening in your post, is your definition of science, and definition of christianity is different from some more simplier definitions of both

here is the definition of science in its most basic definition:

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

here is the definition of christianity

well, actually in the world, you cant find inherantly good definition tbh:

The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. The thing is you cant just call yourself a christian, and your one, many say they are, but they are not. True christianity means that you actually do the word

I advise that you read this

http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp?wpc=evolution.asp&wpp=a

Kent Hovind= instant fail

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="SegaGenesisfan"]Science is just science, but there is certain things that are considered science, when they really are not, especially stuff like this ape stuff, it takes faith. Teenaged

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] I provided the medical decitionary definition of ape in a more recent version, which clearly EXCLUDES humans, and is exhaustive on what is on the category of ape.Vandalvideo

Your definition of ape INCLUDES primates, and the definition of primate INCLUDES humans.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primate

3: Any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized especially by an advanced development of binocular vision, specialization of the appendages for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres that include HUMANS, apes, monkeys, and related forms

Stop using dictionaries out of context to prove your erroneous point.

It states large tailless primates, and primates by definition includes humans. Humans are tailess, and only have a tailbone to show that they once did have a tail in their evolutionary history, as do other apes.

The primate family of Pongidae included in that definition is the family of the great apes, and humans are included in that family. That means that apes are a part of the primate order, and because of the fact that the great apes are a part of the ape family (which is a part of the primate order), that means that humans are apes by extension of definition. You're still taking your definitions clearly out of context, and they work against your favor.

It states large tailless primates, and primates by definition includes humans. Humans are tailess, and only have a tailbone to show that they once did have a tail in their evolutionary history, as do other apes.The primate family of Pongidae included in that definition is the family of the great apes, and humans are included in that family. That means that apes are a part of the primate order, and because of the fact that the great apes are a part of the ape family (which is a part of the primate order), that means that humans are apes by extension of definition. You're still taking your definitions clearly out of context, and they work against your favor. Blood-Scribe

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]It states large tailless primates, and primates by definition includes humans. Humans are tailess, and only have a tailbone to show that they once did have a tail in their evolutionary history, as do other apes.The primate family of Pongidae included in that definition is the family of the great apes, and humans are included in that family. That means that apes are a part of the primate order, and because of the fact that the great apes are a part of the ape family (which is a part of the primate order), that means that humans are apes by extension of definition. You're still taking your definitions clearly out of context, and they work against your favor. Vandalvideo

The peremptory clause stating "any of the large tailless semierect primates" uses the word primate, which would entail its definition:

Primate:

any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized especially by advanced development of binocular vision, specialization of the appendages for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres and that include humans, apes, monkeys, and related forms (as lemurs and tarsiers)

This definition includes humans, but this part is extraneous, and is reinforcement.

The secondary clause stating "that comprise two primate families (Pongidae and hylobatidae)" includes humans, because the family of Pongidae is the great ape family, and humans are ****fied as tenants of that family, which further reinforces the conclusion that humans are apes by virtue of two clear definitions, and one definition by extension (this definition of ape provided by the dictionary).

Your conclusion is erroneous, because you state that those two primate families do not include humans, but the family Pongidae (Great Apes), does in fact include humans. Thus, humans are apes.

The peremptory clause stating "any of the large tailless semierect primates" uses the word primate, which would entail its definition:Blood-Scribe

Hmm, what an interesting discussion...it's intense!jointed

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]The peremptory clause stating "any of the large tailless semierect primates" uses the word primate, which would entail its definition:Vandalvideo

Pongidae refers to the great apes, and the designation for great apes has been changed to hominidae for the sake of inclusivness for humans, as they were originally excluded.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Pongidae

Because of the fact that Pongidae is now technically an archaic term, it effectively means the same thing as Hominidae, and Hominidae includes humans. This still designates humans as apes.

Pongidae refers to the great apes, and the designation for great apes has been changed to hominidae for the sake of inclusivness for humans, as they were originally excluded. Because of the fact that Pongidae is now technically an archaic term, it effectively means the same thing as Hominidae, and Hominidae includes humans. This still designates humans as apes. Blood-Scribe

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]Pongidae refers to the great apes, and the designation for great apes has been changed to hominidae for the sake of inclusivness for humans, as they were originally excluded. Because of the fact that Pongidae is now technically an archaic term, it effectively means the same thing as Hominidae, and Hominidae includes humans. This still designates humans as apes. Vandalvideo

A linkC_Town_Soul

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"] A linkVandalvideo

[QUOTE="SegaGenesisfan"]Well extreme belief in religion does lead to crusades, but christianity is not religion, and to be extreme about christianity can only lead to being annoying to others at best.

Extreme belief in science, leads to false beliefs, bad science, that goes unquestioned, uncheck, unchallenged. It also leads to atomic bombs:| Communism is a secular type of government, did not come from chrsitianity at all. I think it is safe to say too much of anything is bad

I think the whole 96 percent ape is bad science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&NR=1

foxhound_fox

oh and the inquisition and all that was by the RCC, not Christianity. Christianity isn't a religion and if you don't understand that, then you wont understand %90 of what it is.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Wow... just wow...

Christianity is just like mostly every other religion throughout human history. It has lead to countless religious-based conflicts between other sects of Christianity itself and other religions, especially Islam and has seen the death of countless millions of people. It started the Spanish Inquisition, the paranoia induced execution of completely innocent people for nothing more than being human enough to submit to torture and cry out that they are a witch because they just want the pain to stop.

Science leads to everything objective... which means it leads to medicine, modern electronic technology and weapons... but people don't fight over science, they fight over beliefs... and science isn't a belief, it is only a system of explaining observable facts. Too much of science is a wholly good thing. This world needs more unbiased objectivism... it will prevent a lot of people from getting hurt over differing religious beliefs.

Your misconceptions about science and blindness to the truth of Christianity is astounding. It is time to start accepting science not as a belief but as something that explain how the natural world works and gives you all the technology you take for granted. Silenthps

oh and the inquisition and all that was by the RCC, not Christianity. Christianity isn't a religion and if you don't understand that, then you wont understand %90 of what it is.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="SegaGenesisfan"]Well extreme belief in religion does lead to crusades, but christianity is not religion, and to be extreme about christianity can only lead to being annoying to others at best.

Extreme belief in science, leads to false beliefs, bad science, that goes unquestioned, uncheck, unchallenged. It also leads to atomic bombs:| Communism is a secular type of government, did not come from chrsitianity at all. I think it is safe to say too much of anything is bad

I think the whole 96 percent ape is bad science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX7Htg2HxkA&NR=1

Silenthps

oh and the inquisition and all that was by the RCC, not Christianity. Christianity isn't a religion and if you don't understand that, then you wont understand %90 of what it is.