The-Captain Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Something of absolute certainty then Legion Species are not static. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 But...I contend that I am not classified as any primate, even though science says I am. Um... Goddamn. Primate IS a classification, therefore if science says you are classified as a primate, then you're classified as a primate. Whether you ARE a primate or not (you are) is a different matter entirely. And again, primate is not a species. Right, to scientists. To creationists, you Dhampir are classified as those that are spirit of the antiChrist, against God, influenced by Satan. Is that true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Primates are not a species. Classification*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 QUOTE (Dhampir @ Mar 14 2009, 01:56 PM) *Primates are not a species. Classification*** Species is a classification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Science says we have 'branched, become ancestry, part of' the primate species, and that we are primates. I say we are not. Translation: "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts!" As an aside to your mention of Native Americans earlier, you should look up Jared Diamond's book, Guns, Germs and Steel. It's a fascinating explanation of how and why the people of western Europe came to dominate the world instead of a different nation or culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 But...I contend that I am not classified as any primate, even though science says I am. Um... Goddamn. Primate IS a classification, therefore if science says you are classified as a primate, then you're classified as a primate. Whether you ARE a primate or not (you are) is a different matter entirely. And again, primate is not a species. Right, to scientists. To creationists, you Dhampir are classified as those that are spirit of the antiChrist, against God, influenced by Satan. Is that true? I just don't get why we have to walk you through each and every step. Is this true ignorance, or sheer intellectual laziness? You're right, to creationists (and many other types of christians) I am classified as being of the spirit of the Anti-Christ, against god, influenced by satan, and a Devil worshipper, among other things. However, and you seem to be at least somewhat aware of this, Since I don't worship the devil, that latter classification is meaningless. And since there is no Anti-Christ, no Satan, and no Biblegod, none of those other classifications have meaning either. Primate as a classification talks about a number of species which share undeniable similarities. After all, you have never once questioned your status as a mammal, have you? Well, all primates are mammals. They are also warm-blooded, as we are. All primates grow or have been known to grow hair. All (higher) primates lack proper tails, they instead have vestigial tails (ours is known as a coccyx). All primates have opposeble thumbs. These are just the similarities I can name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 As others have pointed out, a theory is not just a best guess over what they believe the facts represent. A theory is based upon a collection of data (facts) that have been accumulated over time. Theories change as we learn to interpret data used to support our theories. This is different than basing a theory on spiritual or faith-based theologies. What is the reasoning of faith in dealing with evolution? None since the faith is that God made humans directly like him. This faith is based upon a collection of dubious writings used by ancient people trying to discover how they got here and their purpose in life as they knew it. This book is not based upon what we know in the present concerning life, and how the earth continues to provide that life. This area has come under the guidance of science, not religious faith. Science will reproduce the same theory and data over and over while religious faith changes and doctrines change and theologies change. What are theologies? Theologies are theories about stories in the Bible used to develop doctrines for teaching matters of faith, not science, not finances, but doctrines to control and reproduce the numbers in a church. Those who try to explore the life of the earth and universe and do not accept the theories and data of science are doing themselves a disservice by ignoring the latter in favor or faith alone to carry their mind. You don't have to believe in science, you do not have to believe in evolution, but using faith that changes in every denomination and with whomever reads the Bible to find answers, come away with different opinions and teachings concerning what they read in the Bible. Science does not change data in order to protect its theories. The data either supports or refutes scientific theories. A scientist is not liable to deny the data exists, unless to favor his own religion, when so many other scientists claim the data exists to support the theory. I have seen many arguments and screaming matches in church over just church doctrine and the monthly budget meetings. Faith and doctrine change how Christians perceive reality. The facts of scientific data do not change, how we read that data may give us more information about our theory, but the data does not change. Currently the data tells us that evolution did work in the past, is working in the present, and it will continue to do so as long as some kind of life remains on this planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Why not? If God is omni whatever, then He can do whatever, right? Of course. As far as deceiving the scientists, Who is deceived? They are the closest resemblance to a human being, and scientists just confirmed their similarity through science. But...since evolution of a human is a 'theory'; then it's expounded into fact by evolutionists (such as it's been in this thread), that humans are ancestors of primates. Right? The problem I see is the evidence shows that God put bad code in the DNA. The C-vitamin gene is corrupt, and identical. And this is not the only gene, but there's many identical and corrupt genes. To me, it would be evidence of a bad design. And to plant bad design intentionally, and do it identical, is deceptive intent. Why is it not ethical? If these are our ancient ancestors, then we should have rights to see if a modern female can be pregnant by male sperm, and vise versa? Right? The consensus is that we--as humans--feel it to be wrong, so it is unethical by human standards. But it wouldn't surprise me if there are some scientists who would like to try this. We didn't evolve from primates. We ARE primates. I am YoYo, not primate. Science says I'm primate, and some here, but that doesn't mean I'm a primate. I will tell you why I feel this way, and with such confidence. No other creature can disagree with whatever category science labels them. I can, because I am different. To be "different" is a category too, which you have created. We are different, but every human is different from every other human, does it follow that we are not human? Of course not. Categories are simplifications of the complex structure of nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 The facts of scientific data do not change, how we read that data may give us more information about our theory, but the data does not change. Currently the data tells us that evolution did work in the past, is working in the present, and it will continue to do so as long as some kind of life remains on this planet. I understand your stance Heretic. We stemmed as primates in ancient times, right? We have evolved into the race we are today right? through millions of years of evolving, right? The data, that exists for me having a ape, chimp, whatever ancestry is, ....absolute? No, it's not. It is an educated guess of the start of mankind. Everyone is saying that thisand that about the evidence and data of science, and I should research, read more etc; but what I contend is simple. I was not connected to any other animal; I am a human being that shares qualities of these other animals. But, in short of having a time machine to go back and see it personally; it is all educated guess work. It is a guess, as far as were man came from. Is the notion that man evolved as a primate, an absolute? I don't think it is. So, what could make it absolute. Making an ape, chimp, whatever pregnant from a human sperm, that would be strong evidence? Right? So, we rip apart everything else in life for research and study, Why not a pregnant 'other direction evoloved' primate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 14, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2009 I haven't been able to follow or discern the point of all this so far. Has someone insisted that humans evolved from chimps? Has Yo Yo declared himself to not be a human being? Is he re-defining "human" arbitrarily? What point is there supposed to be here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Everyone is saying that thisand that about the evidence and data of science, and I should research, read more etc; but what I contend is simple. I was not connected to any other animal; I am a human being that shares qualities of these other animals. But, in short of having a time machine to go back and see it personally; it is all educated guess work. It is a guess, as far as were man came from. Is the notion that man evolved as a primate, an absolute? I don't think it is. So, what could make it absolute. Making an ape, chimp, whatever pregnant from a human sperm, that would be strong evidence? Right? So, we rip apart everything else in life for research and study, Why not a pregnant 'other direction evoloved' primate? Based on a huge pile of scientific evidence, yes we evolved from primates and we are primates. What is the alternative yoyo? God made us out of dirt? If you need a time machine and a video camera to establish this basic fact, there is nothing else we can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 It is a guess, as far as were man came from. Is the notion that man evolved as a primate, an absolute? I don't think it is. So, what could make it absolute. Making an ape, chimp, whatever pregnant from a human sperm, that would be strong evidence? Right? So, we rip apart everything else in life for research and study, Why not a pregnant 'other direction evoloved' primate? Well, it actually is more or less absolute because, as a man-made construct, the classification is solid. Now, if we were to discover a number of characteristics about us humans that made us different from primates, then we might have to be reclassified. That is unlikely though, as with the time we've been studying us, we should have found those differences by now. The reason you are ABSOLUTELY wrong is because you think this whole classification thing happens differently than it does. Humans created the classification, humans created the criteria for that classification. We fit that criteria, therefore WE FIT THE CLASSIFICATION. There's no wiggle room for this. You're as wrong as it's possible to be, at least regarding our ability to be classified. And even if we aren't primates, we fit some other classification, and would thus be labeled such upon confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Based on a huge pile of scientific evidence, yes we evolved from primates and we are primates. What is the alternative yoyo? God made us out of dirt? If you need a time machine and a video camera to establish this basic fact, there is nothing else we can say. We have evolved to be challenging people, right? There is always something to be challenged. What do you think about my question, Deva? Should we have rights, individually to try to make one of these ancestry creatures pregnant with human sperm, or egg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 What point is there supposed to be here? Since we are classified as primate, and accepted in the scientific world as having evolved from them, via the evidence and data; Should we have the right to make one of our modern 'ancestors' pregnant by human sperm, or eggs, ..or vise versa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 The reason you are ABSOLUTELY wrong is because you think this whole classification thing happens differently than it does. Humans created the classification, humans created the criteria for that classification. We fit that criteria, therefore WE FIT THE CLASSIFICATION. There's no wiggle room for this. You're as wrong as it's possible to be, at least regarding our ability to be classified. And even if we aren't primates, we fit some other classification, and would thus be labeled such upon confirmation. So, then I assume your answer to my question would be yes, we have the right to research further to see if humans can reproduce with other of 'our classification, that are not human'? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 What point is there supposed to be here? Since we are classified as primate, and accepted in the scientific world as having evolved from them, via the evidence and data; Should we have the right to make one of our modern 'ancestors' pregnant by human sperm, or eggs, ..or vise versa? Why would you want to do something like that yoyo? Again, what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Sure we have the right. Who's going to stop us? The real questions are: IS it right, and why should we? Additionally, attempting to reproduce with other primates is not the only way we can know with any certainty whether or not we are genetically similar enough to make viable offspring. In fact we're pretty sure we can't, based on what we know of genetics right now. Not reproductively speaking, as in simply joining sperm and eggs that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Hey all Just want to add to the discussion. We just released stem cell research, so why is this any more unethical to do..., for the sake of science and origin. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Why would you want to do something like that yoyo? Again, what's the point? The point is that I think it wouldn't be possible, because God made it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Sure we have the right. Who's going to stop us? The real questions are: IS it right, and why should we? This is not an ethical discussion though Dhampir. Philosophy, religion, ethics, have nothing to do with science/evolution of mankind. Right? Bigger question is why would it be not ethical, Hans I believe said because of the general decision of Humans not to do it. What is your opinion about it? We just released stem cell research, why not this idea. I'm sure with ample evidence of us and them, we could help humanity, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I think I just figured out the reason this whole thread is like jamming one's penis into a wall. You try to draw total conclusions after damn near everything you are told. Stop doing that. You know damn well that's not how you learn anything else. Stop doing it with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 I think I just figured out the reason this whole thread is like jamming one's penis into a wall. You try to draw total conclusions after damn near everything you are told. Stop doing that. You know damn well that's not how you learn anything else. Stop doing it with this. Not if there is a hole in the wall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 14, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2009 We just released stem cell research, why not this idea. What else is there to say? Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Something else you're not getting. The type of classification under which "primate" falls does not mean "similar enough to interbreed". It can happen that way, but it is by no means a given. That's why we have the more specific classification "species", which does mean among other things, "similar enough to breed". Well, in the animals that reproduce sexually anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 We just released stem cell research, why not this idea. What else is there to say? Enjoy! The point is because most humans would consider that unethical. Why? I am told that I am an animal, mammal. So, why does ethics have to do with humanity scientifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts