• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are you Greater than an Ape?

for lack of ability?.....does animals believe?

  • no....they cannot

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • we are dust as they are dust

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • faith saves

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
Status
Not open for further replies.

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
The poll is really, really strange. Not only is it poorly constructed from a grammar perspective (e.g. "does animals believe"), but the options are also not very coherent. "No... they cannot" does not fit with "we are dust as they are dust" which does not fit with "faith saves." The first seems to be set to answer the question of whether or not animals can "believe" (believe WHAT exactly?), the second seems to be answering a different question entirely (perhaps the OP title question - "Are you greater than an ape?"), and the third is just out in left field, standing there, picking its nose and has nothing to do with any of the rest of the post's content as far as I can tell. And then there's the enigmatically placed "for lack of ability?" - what is this in reference to?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
I really do not understand why creationists can get it so wrong despite the myriad evidence.

I don't understand why so many people are telling God how He has to do things.

Why COULDN'T He have used the very laws of nature He created to, er, create?

What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us through evolution? C'mon (and this is NOT aimed at you, Christine...your post is just the trigger, mostly because I tend to agree with it), is there some rule I don't know about that allows US to tell HIM how He has to do things? I thought the idea was for us to discover how He DID do things.

But that could just be me.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I don't understand why so many people are telling God how He has to do things.

Why COULDN'T He have used the very laws of nature He created to, er, create?

What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us through evolution? C'mon (and this is NOT aimed at you, Christine...your post is just the trigger, mostly because I tend to agree with it), is there some rule I don't know about that allows US to tell HIM how He has to do things? I thought the idea was for us to discover how He DID do things.

But that could just be me.


What's wrong??? Evidence... Do you have any?

Any that say, disproves DNA?

When, and only when someone shows god magic actually exists and can indipendentely validate that evidence do they have a point.

And evolution, has nothing to do with creation
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Now I understand the problem on this here earth.
I am not an ape, and my ancestors were not ape.
I am a descendent of the Human God created in His immage.
There are many of us here on this Earth.
However, there are others by their own admission that are not human.
They are apes, and if they look like humans, they are relatives of apes.
They also think they are very clever and act as humans would, but they are actually very stupid..
This is why they have no love for the lives of humans.
They persecute Humans, mock them, call them unenlightened, close minded, and tell them they believe in a fairy tale god.
Yet, they have this terrible religion where they believe their children are more human, and their parents more ape than they themself.
What a mess they are in!
:):confused::cool::p:D:rolleyes:
Make sure to cut off your opposable thumbs.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Please complete the following sentences.

I define 'heaven' as.......................
I define 'greater' as...........................

there's nothing for me to deny. All I did is ask you how you define a couple of words, so that when and if we talk about them, we both know how the other one defines them.

It's a really good idea to do that, especially when the language used isn't the first language of one or more of the participants.

I know how *I* define 'greater' and 'heaven,' and the definitions of both words varies with the context.

So how do YOU define them, in this context?

Oh.....and I'm quite aware that I'm a primate, thank you.
Those were the questions I wanted to ask. Especially what does "greater" mean. After all, though I'm a little taller than the average chimpanzee, the average chimpanzee can rip my arm off at the shoulder with her own unaided strength, and I couldn't do the same to her. So obviously, it can't mean "stronger." Similarly, the average ape knows everything it needs to survive, while if I were left entirely without human assistance in the world, I'd be hard-pressed to manage it.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
What's wrong??? Evidence... Do you have any?

What, that evolution seems to be the way our physical bodies came to be?
The same evidence that you have, I suppose.

Did you actually read the post? I WASN'T ARGUING WITH YOU. I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU!

Any that say, disproves DNA?

Why, no, actually.

WHAT Is your problem here? I was agreeing with you!

When, and only when someone shows god magic actually exists and can indipendentely validate that evidence do they have a point.

I think the whole thing is 'God magic,' and that we can learn to understand the processes that make everything look like magic to those who don't understand yet. I think that God does things in a way that we CAN understand, track and perhaps even, some day, duplicate using the same processes He does. The trick is in finding out what those are, not dismissing everything as 'godidit.'

And evolution, has nothing to do with creation

You are quite correct. It doesn't. Evolution is what happens AFTER something is created.

As far as I can tell, so far, none of my religious beliefs conflict with what we are discovering through science, and vice versa. It makes everything exciting, and freeing.

and I'm having real problems with this reaction of yours. Shoot, lady...if you slam back with all guns blazing when I happen to agree with you, no wonder you go straight to the ad hominem when I argue with you.

Do you give one hoot about what I actually write, or do you automatically decide that I'm wrong because I'm well, ME?
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Now I understand the problem on this here earth.
Which problem?
I am not an ape, and my ancestors were not ape.
According to the definition of "ape" you are. You may not be a "gorilla" or a "chimpanzee," but you are an "ape." You can go ahead using your own definition for the word "ape" all you want, but if you feel you're being insulted or slandered by someone else calling you an "ape" then you are just plain ignorant.
I am a descendent of the Human God created in His immage.
I highly doubt this, and I am quite sure that you cannot provide sufficient evidence for this claim. Just hearsay and a lot of supposition.
There are many of us here on this Earth.
Yep.
However, there are others by their own admission that are not human.
I am quite sure you have been told (probably hundreds of times now) that all humans ARE apes, and some apes are humans. This is according to very basic logic. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way. It's the same as saying that all watchmakers are humans, and some humans are watchmakers. Exactly the same. Read it, comprehend it, learn it... and stop saying things that only expose your ignorance.
They are apes, and if they look like humans, they are relatives of apes.
This is likely accurate, but poorly worded.
They also think they are very clever and act as humans would, but they are actually very stupid..
This is just you trying to be insulting. You're not very good at it. I could give you a few pointers. I charge $25 an hour if you're interested.
This is why they have no love for the lives of humans.
If you're talking about atheists in this one then this is just a foolish lie... which makes you a liar.
They persecute Humans, mock them, call them unenlightened, close minded, and tell them they believe in a fairy tale god.
Persecution huh? Has the meaning of that word changed? Is a person now being "persecuted" when someone questions their beliefs, or tells them they don't believe what they are saying? Sounds more like "applied skepticism" - and if it makes you feel persecuted then I suggest you go find yourself some thicker skin.
Yet, they have this terrible religion where they believe their children are more human, and their parents more ape than they themself.
Again, we're apes all the way down. No "more" or "less" ape. And all humans will continue being apes until we lack the characteristics that qualify us under the category "ape."
What a mess they are in!
:):confused::cool::p:D:rolleyes:
Just when I didn't think the post could get any more foolish... you throw in a presumptuous statement followed by a slew of emojis. It's obvious you think yourself pretty clever. Weren't you just admonishing some other group of people you accused of thinking so about themselves?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
What, that evolution seems to be the way our physical bodies came to be?
The same evidence that you have, I suppose.

Did you actually read the post? I WASN'T ARGUING WITH YOU. I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU!



Why, no, actually.

WHAT Is your problem here? I was agreeing with you!



You are quite correct. It doesn't. Evolution is what happens AFTER something is created.

As far as I can tell, so far, none of my religious beliefs conflict with what we are discovering through science, and vice versa.

Genetics, DNA, homologies, fossils, morphology. All good evidence that beats looking in a mirror

Yes i read your post and am arguing with your sentence " What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us "

As i believe i made clear.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Those were the questions I wanted to ask. Especially what does "greater" mean. After all, though I'm a little taller than the average chimpanzee, the average chimpanzee can rip my arm off at the shoulder with her own unaided strength, and I couldn't do the same to her. So obviously, it can't mean "stronger." Similarly, the average ape knows everything it needs to survive, while if I were left entirely without human assistance in the world, I'd be hard-pressed to manage it.

Well, as to that....

An infant chipanzee who is not taught by her parents, etc., to survive won't. Survive, that is. The 'great apes' and we do have that in common; we must be taught.

So if you had been taught to survive, you would. If you had not been, you wouldn't.

You might or might not survive in a jungle by yourself. Probably not...but if you happened upon a small village of people who knew how, and they didn't behead you first, you might, because you'll learn.


Same as the chimp who wouldn't be able to survive in a human city unless someone taught it what to do.



The difference seems to lie in the amount and variety of learning required.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Genetics, DNA, homologies, fossils, morphology. All good evidence that beats looking in a mirror

Yes i read your post and am arguing with your sentence " What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us "

As i believe i made clear.

No, you took that out of context. Not just out of the context of the post, but out of context of the SENTENCE. The full quote was: What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us THROUGH EVOLUTION,' a sentence that was preceded by Why COULDN'T He have used the very laws of nature He created to, er, create?

Shoot, Christine, you didn't even put in an ellipsis to show that you left anything out. I mean, really. You COULD have done this: "What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us...." to let people know that there was something more to the sentence. What you did, though, was to deliberately leave out the important bit so that it looked as if I had written something very different. That sort of thing gets students expelled, reporters and editors fired, and authors disgraced. Taking things out of context isn't QUITE as egregious a 'no' no' as plagiarism, but it's close.

You took my words out of context, blatantly and obviously, to make it look as if I said something that is the precise opposite of what I DID say. then you went after me as if I had claimed to be a 'young earth creationist,' and an 'evolution denier,' which of course isn't so, and arguing with me as if I were is a total waste of time.

What you did here is fallacious, and what's more, it's not even a little subtle. It's pretty darned obvious, and I don't understand the reason behind it.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Human capacity to be civil, empathetic, compassionate, and to love makes us greater than the apes. But this is not a fair question because if apes had the mental capacity they would have the potential to choose greater things then they do.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
No, you took that out of context. Not just out of the context of the post, but out of context of the SENTENCE. The full quote was: What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us THROUGH EVOLUTION,' a sentence that was preceded by Why COULDN'T He have used the very laws of nature He created to, er, create?

Shoot, Christine, you didn't even put in an ellipsis to show that you left anything out. I mean, really. You COULD have done this: "What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us...." to let people know that there was something more to the sentence. What you did, though, was to deliberately leave out the important bit so that it looked as if I had written something very different. That sort of thing gets students expelled, reporters and editors fired, and authors disgraced. Taking things out of context isn't QUITE as egregious a 'no' no' as plagiarism, but it's close.

You took my words out of context, blatantly and obviously, to make it look as if I said something that is the precise opposite of what I DID say. then you went after me as if I had claimed to be a 'young earth creationist,' and an 'evolution denier,' which of course isn't so, and arguing with me as if I were is a total waste of time.

What you did here is fallacious, and what's more, it's not even a little subtle. It's pretty darned obvious, and I don't understand the reason behind it.

What can be taken out of context in

"What's wrong with acknowledging that He just might have created us "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top