poll: are you an ape?

[IndigoChild5559]

If I understand you correctly, I believe you do not believe the Bible

That is not accurate, and I have corrected you many times. At this point, I feel you are choosing to lie about me. The truth is that I do believe the Bible, but believe in it differently than you. You need to accept that. It really is okay that we disagree on this -- there is no reason to tell lies about me.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not accurate, and I have corrected you many times. At this point, I feel you are choosing to lie about me. The truth is that I do believe the Bible, but believe in it differently than you. You need to accept that. It really is okay that we disagree on this -- there is no reason to tell lies about me.

I'm sorry, I really thought that is what you said, I.e., that you think much of it is mythical, such as the Israelites in the wilderness. If you have corrected me, I guess I didn't see it. I dare not ask you what parts you believe and what you don't believe. At least you believe there is a God. Right? Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm sorry, I really thought that is what you said, I.e., that you think much of it is mythical, such as the Israelites in the wilderness. If you have corrected me, I guess I didn't see it. I dare not ask you what parts you believe and what you don't believe. At least you believe there is a God. Right? Sorry if I misunderstood.

Saying that there are portions of the bible are mythical is NOT the same as saying I don't believe in it. Let me give you a for example. You believe in the parables of Jesus, even though you are aware they are fiction.

 

[YoursTrue]

Saying that there are portions of the bible are mythical is NOT the same as saying I don't believe in it. Let me give you a for example. You believe in the parables of Jesus, even though you are aware they are fiction.

OK, thank you. Actually I do not believe parables are fiction in a sense.but thank you for your answer. Sorry, I did not mean to offend you. I believe they are indicative of real life situations, even psychologically or religiously. I understand there are things written about how the Jews were really not wandering in the wilderness for 40 years and that the miracles with Moses and Pharaoh as well as others like that==manna==did not happen. I have come to terms with it, and I believe the accounts are true.

 

[YoursTrue]

Saying that there are portions of the bible are mythical is NOT the same as saying I don't believe in it. Let me give you a for example. You believe in the parables of Jesus, even though you are aware they are fiction.

I do not want to get into a verbal altercation with you. You brought up about Jesus. I believe Jesus is the King and Messiah and performed miracles, the same as I do believe Moses performed miracles. And Elijah and Elisha.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I do not want to get into a verbal altercation with you. You brought up about Jesus. I believe Jesus is the King and Messiah and performed miracles, the same as I do believe Moses performed miracles. And Elijah and Elisha.

This is a different subject, but is something that I've been wondering for quite some time. Why do you send multiple replies to the same posts?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a different subject, but is something that I've been wondering for quite some time. Why do you send multiple replies to the same posts?

I didn't realize that happened.

 

[Heyo]

I never heard of Kent Hovind and the other person until now.

You never told us where your information about science and evolution came from.
And as you are having viewpoints promoted by those professional creationists, sometimes word for word, my guess is that your sources have heard of Hovind and Ham. So you are, indirectly, influenced by their lies (or the lies of their sources).
We, who are trying to correct you, are here to prevent those lies from spreading.
I'm not saying you are a liar, I believe you genuinely thought you had accurate information. The point is, what you think you know about the ToE is propaganda and we have informed you about that. When you now still repeat the lies, after been informed, it makes you a liar, too.

 

[YoursTrue]

You never told us where your information about science and evolution came from.
And as you are having viewpoints promoted by those professional creationists, sometimes word for word, my guess is that your sources have heard of Hovind and Ham. So you are, indirectly, influenced by their lies (or the lies of their sources).
We, who are trying to correct you, are here to prevent those lies from spreading.
I'm not saying you are a liar, I believe you genuinely thought you had accurate information. The point is, what you think you know about the ToE is propaganda and we have informed you about that. When you now still repeat the lies, after been informed, it makes you a liar, too.

In case you did not read my recent post to someone else, I am going to give you what I just read from Scientific American. Of course, your comments on the article are welcome. Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like
"The most complete extinct-ape skull ever found reveals what the last common ancestor of all living apes and humans might have looked like, according to a new study."
I notice the author said all living apes and humans.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Here's a fun thought: What if we're actually hybrids?

Say that Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes evolved from a common ancestor as science indicates, then what if Homo sapiens later merged with... something otherworldly?

I'd love to read a book (either speculative or totally fictional) exploring the theme and cause of our higher evolution by means of extraterrestrial (or even divine) intervention. These verses from Genesis might seem to suggest something like that (depending on their interpretation, of course):

Who were these "divine beings" that mated with human women?

 

[Valjean]

In case you did not read my recent post to someone else, I am going to give you what I just read from Scientific American. Of course, your comments on the article are welcome. Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like
"The most complete extinct-ape skull ever found reveals what the last common ancestor of all living apes and humans might have looked like, according to a new study."
I notice the author said all living apes and humans.

What's your point?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Until these recent posts I never heard of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.

That doesn't mean you aren't a victim of their propaganda.
Many times when talking to creationists it turned out that their creationist beliefs originally came from dishonest organizations like Answers in genesis, recycled by whatever preachers / creationists that in turn told them about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By the way, speaking of science, and since the subject of "science" is being discussed, discussions are evidently being considered that mankind is destroying the environment because of -- science. Namely space travel. Projected increase in space travel may damage ozone layer - NOAA Research
Once again, science can be helpful and it can be damaging.

So your point is.... what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In case you did not read my recent post to someone else, I am going to give you what I just read from Scientific American. Of course, your comments on the article are welcome. Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like
"The most complete extinct-ape skull ever found reveals what the last common ancestor of all living apes and humans might have looked like, according to a new study."
I notice the author said all living apes and humans.

Conveniently, you seem to not have noticed everything else said in the article.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's your point?

She's trying to grasp at the straw that an article (not a paper; an article) in scientific american talked about "apes and humans" to try and make it look as if humans aren't recognized as "apes" and thereby thus completely ignoring the obvious point that the article uses the colloquial meaning of the word "ape" to refer to non-human primates.

In the same breath off course, @YoursTrue completely ignores that the article also says things like "Among the living primates, humans are..." meaning that the author includes humans in the group "primate" nonetheless.

It's a typical case of quote mining / grasping at straws to try and keep up / rationalize the denial.