PDA

View Full Version : Taxonomic jargon - how close is too close?



klaus54
08-27-2014, 07:42 PM
How far are YECs/anti-evolutionists willing to take the Linnaean classification for humans?

Perhaps we could discuss the history behind Linneaus' taxonomy, and where the traditional boundary is between humans and other animals.

AFAIK, no educated person would deny that he/she is an animal and a chordate and a mammal.

I've heard some squawk about "Primate", even though Carolus L. chose that name for the order containing humans because it was the first or the "prime" -- elevating the human order above other animals.

And every last YEC/Anti-Evo bristles at "Ape".

But, why? Why should "ape" bother them when "mammal" does not? Is it because "ape" can be derogatory?

This thread is related to the one on the micro/macro-evolution boundary, but here we are looking at the current biosphere, and how humans fit in.

K54

shunyadragon
08-28-2014, 04:05 AM
How far are YECs/anti-evolutionists willing to take the Linnaean classification for humans?

Perhaps we could discuss the history behind Linneaus' taxonomy, and where the traditional boundary is between humans and other animals.

AFAIK, no educated person would deny that he/she is an animal and a chordate and a mammal.

I've heard some squawk about "Primate", even though Carolus L. chose that name for the order containing humans because it was the first or the "prime" -- elevating the human order above other animals.

And every last YEC/Anti-Evo bristles at "Ape".

But, why? Why should "ape" bother them when "mammal" does not? Is it because "ape" can be derogatory?

This thread is related to the one on the micro/macro-evolution boundary, but here we are looking at the current biosphere, and how humans fit in.

K54

Interesting points. This has long been part of an interesting issue for those, including Judaism and Islam, clinging to the ancient world view of the Pentateuch. Part of it is the distinct separation of humanity from animals in Genesis. Despite contemporary movements in 'reform' since the 1800's to reconcile science and scripture the conservative movements in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam remain combative with the well established knowledge of science. Theological implications of Genesis and the Pentateuch for all three religions anchor them in the archaic past of ancient literature.

klaus54
08-28-2014, 05:36 AM
Interesting points. This has long been part of an interesting issue for those, including Judaism and Islam, clinging to the ancient world view of the Pentateuch. Part of it is the distinct separation of humanity from animals in Genesis. Despite contemporary movements in 'reform' since the 1800's to reconcile science and scripture the conservative movements in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam remain combative with the well established knowledge of science. Theological implications of Genesis and the Pentateuch for all three religions anchor them in the archaic past of ancient literature.

But still even back before the Renaissance, people knew they were physically animals at least. Eating, drinking, pooping, reproducing, having a skeleton, making milk...

And when apes were discovered, they certainly had to note the similarities. Non-western peoples did for sure. "Chimpanzee" means "mock man" in Bantu. "Bonobo" means "ancestor". "Orangutan" means "forest man".

C'mom anti-evos --- let's discuss!!

K54

phank
08-28-2014, 07:08 AM
I don't see the problem here. OK, theology and biology disagree. You pick one or the other, and you do so because you find either theology or biology more compelling for personal reasons. The biology type will consider the theologist to be deliberately bone ignorant, and the theology type will consider the biology person beyond eternal salvation. Ships in the night.

rogue06
08-28-2014, 09:52 AM
How far are YECs/anti-evolutionists willing to take the Linnaean classification for humans?
Carl or Carolus Linnaeus, the Father of Taxonomy and who came up with binomial nomenclature -- the way organisms are organized -- was highly regarded by Henry Morris, the father of the modern creationist movement, as well as by many other YECs who consider him to be one of the World's Greatest Creation Scientists (http://www.creationsafaris.com/images/linnaeus.jpg).

Morris gushed that Linnaeus was "a man of great piety and respect for the Scriptures. One of his main goals in systematizing the tremendous varieties of living creatures was to attempt to delineate the original Genesis ‘kinds’."

Anyhow... back in 1747 he told the famous explorer and geographer, Johann Georg Gmelin, that he didn't know whether he should "call man ape or vice versa."

So it was a hero of the creationists who first classed humans as being an ape.

1747. That was over six decades before Charles Darwin was even born. In fact it was nearly 20 years before Robert Darwin (Charles' father) was born so this concept cannot be blamed on evolution.

A half dozen years after his remark to Gmelin, Linnaeus remarked that “scientists search in vain for any distinguishing mark by which the Apes can be separated from the humans.”

klaus54
08-28-2014, 10:56 AM
I don't see the problem here. OK, theology and biology disagree. You pick one or the other, and you do so because you find either theology or biology more compelling for personal reasons. The biology type will consider the theologist to be deliberately bone ignorant, and the theology type will consider the biology person beyond eternal salvation. Ships in the night.

I don't see the problem either, but apparently many post-Morris anti-evos do.

K54

klaus54
08-28-2014, 11:01 AM
Carl or Carolus Linnaeus, the Father of Taxonomy and who came up with binomial nomenclature -- the way organisms are organized -- was highly regarded by Henry Morris, the father of the modern creationist movement, as well as by many other YECs who consider him to be one of the World's Greatest Creation Scientists (http://www.creationsafaris.com/images/linnaeus.jpg).

Morris gushed that Linnaeus was "a man of great piety and respect for the Scriptures. One of his main goals in systematizing the tremendous varieties of living creatures was to attempt to delineate the original Genesis ‘kinds’."

Anyhow... back in 1747 he told the famous explorer and geographer, Johann Georg Gmelin, that he didn't know whether he should "call man ape or vice versa."

So it was a hero of the creationists who first classed humans as being an ape.

1747. That was over six decades before Charles Darwin was even born. In fact it was nearly 20 years before Robert Darwin (Charles' father) was born so this concept cannot be blamed on evolution.

A half dozen years after his remark to Gmelin, Linnaeus remarked that “scientists search in vain for any distinguishing mark by which the Apes can be separated from the humans.”

Good summary!

It's curious when an ideological group turns a notion wards-back for support.

Conversely, YECs turned "Big Bang" into an obscenity forgetting that it was coined by an atheist mocking a concept that smacked too much of a Beginning.

K54

klaus54
08-28-2014, 05:28 PM
I figured this thread would draw more fire from the anti-evolutionists.

I posed a VERY SIMPLE question.

Where do humans fit into the anti-evolutionists' taxonomy?

K54

shunyadragon
08-28-2014, 07:13 PM
But still even back before the Renaissance, people knew they were physically animals at least. Eating, drinking, pooping, reproducing, having a skeleton, making milk...

And when apes were discovered, they certainly had to note the similarities. Non-western peoples did for sure. "Chimpanzee" means "mock man" in Bantu. "Bonobo" means "ancestor". "Orangutan" means "forest man".

C'mom anti-evos --- let's discuss!!

K54

It remained dominant view before, during and after the Renaissance that the fundamental belief based on Genesis is that humans were created uniquely 'in God's Image.' All animals as well as everything else was basically created to serve humanity. I do not buy the argument that humans saw themselves as animals. The say attributes of animals in humans, humans in animals. Not that the meaning of 'Mock man,' does not lead to the conclusion that humans were also animals.

In some cultures like the Native American, and African the lines between animals and humans were not as sharp as in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs grounded in the Pentateuch.

I have talked to a number of fundamentalists concerning this issue, and they were uncompromising concerning the uniqueness of human Creation as opposed to animal Creation, despite the taxonomic resemblance of humans to animals. This resemblance is attributed to all being Created by God as their view of the basic groups of animals as seen through the eyes of the fundamentalists. The view of some was fideistic in nature, or everything is created as we see it today including the appearance of age.

klaus54
08-28-2014, 07:50 PM
It remained dominant view before, during and after the Renaissance that the fundamental belief based on Genesis is that humans were created uniquely 'in God's Image.' All animals as well as everything else was basically created to serve humanity. I do not buy the argument that humans saw themselves as animals. The say attributes of animals in humans, humans in animals. Not that the meaning of 'Mock man,' does not lead to the conclusion that humans were also animals.

In some cultures like the Native American, and African the lines between animals and humans were not as sharp as in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs grounded in the Pentateuch.

I have talked to a number of fundamentalists concerning this issue, and they were uncompromising concerning the uniqueness of human Creation as opposed to animal Creation, despite the taxonomic resemblance of humans to animals. This resemblance is attributed to all being Created by God as their view of the basic groups of animals as seen through the eyes of the fundamentalists. The view of some was fideistic in nature, or everything is created as we see it today including the appearance of age.

Certainly people from the beginnings of civilization realized they had shared "base" characteristics with other animals. It's hard for me to believe that the OT Hebrews or the Christian Church viewed people differently physically -- whether made de novo from the adamah or not.

Anyone who believes humans are physically made in the image of God has a screw loose IMNSHO.

But my question was aimed towards present-day creationists who believe that humans were made de novo -- separately from other animals. Those who believe that humans were made physically, as well as spiritually in the image of God.

How do those people deal with taxonomy?

Is it offensive to classify humans as mammals? As primates? As Haplorrhines? As Hominoidea?

You Biblical Scientific Creationists (BSCs) need to do this!!!

K54

tabibito
08-29-2014, 02:45 AM
It remained dominant view before, during and after the Renaissance that the fundamental belief based on Genesis is that humans were created uniquely 'in God's Image.' All animals as well as everything else was basically created to serve humanity. I do not buy the argument that humans saw themselves as animals. The say attributes of animals in humans, humans in animals. Not that the meaning of 'Mock man,' does not lead to the conclusion that humans were also animals. With this I would have to agree. In the language of certain cannibal tribes of New Guinea, "human" translates as "long pig" (something to do with the flavour, I believe).


In some cultures like the Native American, and African the lines between animals and humans were not as sharp as in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs grounded in the Pentateuch.

I have talked to a number of fundamentalists concerning this issue, and they were uncompromising concerning the uniqueness of human Creation as opposed to animal Creation, despite the taxonomic resemblance of humans to animals. This resemblance is attributed to all being Created by God as their view of the basic groups of animals as seen through the eyes of the fundamentalists. The view of some was fideistic in nature, or everything is created as we see it today including the appearance of age. Yep (qualified) - the Bible definitely ascribes an off line creation to Adam and Eve.

klaus54
08-29-2014, 06:53 AM
Why would an "offline" creation of humans result in a physical body that fits in so well with an evolutionary taxonomy?

Intentional deception vs. common ancestry -- which is "worse" for the anti-evolutionist?

Please --- what is the human taxonomy to an anti-evolutionist?

K54

tabibito
08-29-2014, 07:30 AM
Why would an "offline" creation of humans result in a physical body that fits in so well with an evolutionary taxonomy?
Maybe design specifications? As an atheist once asked me - did Adam and Eve have navels? (wasn't there, don't know).


Intentional deception vs. common ancestry Or neither? Ever wonder who Cain feared would kill him when he was given the boot from Eden? That too is a question asked by atheists. Perhaps the design was deliberately tailored so that Adam and Eve could be seamlessly integrated into the system that developed outside Eden.

klaus54
08-29-2014, 09:17 AM
Maybe design specifications? As an atheist once asked me - did Adam and Eve have navels? (wasn't there, don't know).

Or neither? Ever wonder who Cain feared would kill him when he was given the boot from Eden? That too is a question asked by atheists. Perhaps the design was deliberately tailored so that Adam and Eve could be seamlessly integrated into the system that developed outside Eden.

I wasn't aware that Cain was booted out of Eden.

"Common design" is a fudged explanation no better epistemologically than "God done diddly-did it that way cuz he felt like it."

Why would the common designer leave a wrench or two in His work -- you know vestigial structures, that extra stuff in the DNA, and all that jazz?

Anyway, I don't want to let the topic veer into a design discussion. So, please deal with the SIMPLE question of where humans fit into taxonomy?

K54

P.S. I'm sorry but the red highlighted point makes no sense.

tabibito
08-29-2014, 09:34 AM
Humans (ordinary humans, that is) fit into taxonomy, as far as I can tell, in the way that the Theory of Evolution describes.
Genesis describes what happened in Eden.
There are in consequence two possibilities:
Eden was on Earth and has ceased to exist - in which case the Biblical account of the Garden and development of the universe is incorrect.
Eden was not on Earth and continues to exist - its alternative name being Paradise - in which case the section you highlighted in red is a real possibility.
As to which is correct, I tend to the second option ... though I don't claim to have been able to make a determination ... not a theory, just a hypothesis.

klaus54
08-29-2014, 11:45 AM
Humans (ordinary humans, that is) fit into taxonomy, as far as I can tell, in the way that the Theory of Evolution describes.
Genesis describes what happened in Eden.
There are in consequence two possibilities:
Eden was on Earth and has ceased to exist - in which case the Biblical account of the Garden and development of the universe is incorrect.
Eden was not on Earth and continues to exist - its alternative name being Paradise - in which case the section you highlighted in red is a real possibility.
As to which is correct, I tend to the second option ... though I don't claim to have been able to make a determination ... not a theory, just a hypothesis.

Neither a theory nor a hypothesis since there is no testability or falsifiablity.

So Cain was in Eden and got booted out??? (From your penultimate post)

But thanks for giving your answer to the taxonomy question, although I have no idea what you mean by "ordinary" humans. Is there any other type?

So you would have no objection to humans being in the same taxon as Great Apes?

K54

tabibito
08-29-2014, 06:04 PM
Neither a theory nor a hypothesis since there is no testability or falsifiablity.
I'm still evaluating precisely what the Bible has to say. Currently I have a hypothesis, which I am testing, about the content of the Bible itself. Once that process is complete, I'll be able to test the Biblical record against the physical record. The best I expect can be achieved would be "no conflict": and only on certain parts at that. Given that the terminus ad quem for the highly unlikely Noah would be the Eemian period, the listed genealogy (Adam to Abraham) is definitely incorrect.


So Cain was in Eden and got booted out??? (From your penultimate post)
Gen 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.
"Got the boot" seems a reasonable interpretation to me. Adam and Eve were denied access, but their children don't seem at first to have been given that same penalty.



But thanks for giving your answer to the taxonomy question, although I have no idea what you mean by "ordinary" humans. Is there any other type?
The Bible makes statements about the establishment of life in Eden, otherwise known as Paradise, the then and current location of the tree of life. The Bible does not make any reference to the establishment of life outside of Eden. So by "ordinary humans" I mean humans who developed by ordinary means.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.
... Who would have occupied a city? At this stage, there certainly weren't enough descendents of Adam and Eve to even make a village.


So you would have no objection to humans being in the same taxon as Great Apes?

K54

No objection whatever.

klaus54
08-29-2014, 06:46 PM
I'm still evaluating precisely what the Bible has to say. Currently I have a hypothesis, which I am testing, about the content of the Bible itself. Once that process is complete, I'll be able to test the Biblical record against the physical record. The best I expect can be achieved would be "no conflict": and only on certain parts at that. Given that the terminus ad quem for the highly unlikely Noah would be the Eemian period, the listed genealogy (Adam to Abraham) is definitely incorrect.


Gen 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.
"Got the boot" seems a reasonable interpretation to me. Adam and Eve were denied access, but their children don't seem at first to have been given that same penalty.



The Bible makes statements about the establishment of life in Eden, otherwise known as Paradise, the then and current location of the tree of life. The Bible does not make any reference to the establishment of life outside of Eden. So by "ordinary humans" I mean humans who developed by ordinary means.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.
... Who would have occupied a city? At this stage, there certainly weren't enough descendents of Adam and Eve to even make a village.



No objection whatever.

You certainly have an interestingly unique exegesis. I never heard anyone claim that Adam's children were allowed to go into Eden. "dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden" doesn't sound like "in" Eden to me. And the colored sentence appears tautological.

[funny=on]I dwell in the Land of Nod about 7 hours every day from midnight to 7 a.m.
[funny=off]

Anywho, you provided your answer to the taxonomy question, and I thank you for that!

Any anti-evolutionists want to give this simple and theologically important question the Ol' College Try? Jorge perhaps?

K54

tabibito
08-29-2014, 06:49 PM
Dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden isn't the part that shows a possibility of Adam's children having access to Eden - it is the "went out from the presence of the Lord" that shows the possibility.

"ordinary humans" -It seems reasonably solid that Eden is in Paradise and not on Earth. Genesis 1 and 2 only deal with the creation of life in Eden. What happened in the universe after the creation of Heaven and Earth isn't mentioned. That would allow for evolution in the universe, and enough people to populate a city built by Cain. If anything shows up that disproves the chain, Genesis, at least until Abraham, would have to be relegated to myth. That would be a comfortable resolution for me, but I'm not willing to scrap any part of the Bible unless it can be proven inaccurate.

klaus54
08-29-2014, 07:22 PM
Dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden isn't the part that shows a possibility of Adam's children having access to Eden - it is the "went out from the presence of the Lord" that shows the possibility.

"ordinary humans" -It seems reasonably solid that Eden is in Paradise and not on Earth. Genesis 1 and 2 only deal with the creation of life in Eden. What happened in the universe after the creation of Heaven and Earth isn't mentioned. That would allow for evolution in the universe, and enough people to populate a city built by Cain. If anything shows up that disproves the chain, Genesis, at least until Abraham, would have to be relegated to myth. That would be a comfortable resolution for me, but I'm not willing to scrap any part of the Bible unless it can be proven inaccurate.

OK, I know I'm going to regret this, but I'll bite.

1) How can one live "to the east of" somewhere that's not on Earth?

2) Are you trying to say there were humans (but not "ordinary" humans) outside of planet Earth? (Bear in mind the ANE Hebrews had no idea of a planet anyway.)

3) If Cain were allowed to stay in Eden after mom and pop were given the boot, what of the notion of original sin? Why the heck am I condemned by the first couple's peccadillo when their brat son got to hang out in paradise for awhile?

To me your attempt is indicative of what happens when one tries to force these stories into a hyperliteral context.

Why don't you start a thread on this?

But, anyway... Let's get back to the OP.

K54

tabibito
08-30-2014, 01:15 AM
OK, I know I'm going to regret this, but I'll bite.


1) How can one live "to the east of" somewhere that's not on Earth?
In the Bible everything on Earth is seemingly east of Eden. In Australia (other places too?), if things go west they have disappeared (but still perhaps exist) and any compass bearing they may have taken is irrelevant. Consider the possibility that Eden is somewhere west of Earth. Current scientific theory is that the dimensions of this universe are not the limit of existing dimensions. What language would you use to describe the location of a place that had only length, or only length and breadth, in common with the dimensions of this universe - and how would you go about getting there? Note that the Bible does record at least one instance of heaven palpably touching Earth.

Paradise
the part of Hades (Sheol) which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection: but some understand this to be a heavenly paradise

the upper regions of the heavens. According to the early church Fathers, the paradise in which our first parents dwelt before the fall still exists, neither on the earth or in the heavens, but above and beyond the world

heaven



2) Are you trying to say there were humans (but not "ordinary" humans) outside of planet Earth? (Bear in mind the ANE Hebrews had no idea of a planet anyway.) Yes, the first having been created of the Earth and then moved to Eden.


3) If Cain were allowed to stay in Eden after mom and pop were given the boot, It would seem that he commuted, not that he lived there.


what of the notion of original sin? Why the heck am I condemned by the first couple's peccadillo when their brat son got to hang out in paradise for awhile?
Adam's and Eve's sin was their own. Sin isn't heritable. Even that Old Testament concept analogous to original sin (that the sins of the fathers would continue to impact through 7 generations) was denied by God.


To me your attempt is indicative of what happens when one tries to force these stories into a hyperliteral context. And yet, in the process of checking these matters, I have found that prior records (some dating back millenia) show that others were postulating similar conclusions, Jewish Rabbis, Christian scholars, and even Mahommed. 1500+ years before Darwin, Augustine made 4 attempts at an explanation of the Genesis account of creation and was never satisfied that he had a correct exposition. He argued that the creation was not effected immediate upon speaking - that God had simply created the seed from which creation developed.


Why don't you start a thread on this?

But, anyway... Let's get back to the OP.

K54

So far, it doesn't seem that any anti-evos are excited about joining the discussion. :shrug:

shunyadragon
08-30-2014, 05:11 AM
Why would an "offline" creation of humans result in a physical body that fits in so well with an evolutionary taxonomy?

Intentional deception vs. common ancestry -- which is "worse" for the anti-evolutionist?

Please --- what is the human taxonomy to an anti-evolutionist?

K54

Actually, the fundamentalists I have talked to believe there is a common way of Creation by God for humans and animals. Taxonomy, both human and animal, to them is simply an understanding of how God Creates anatomy.

I am not defending this view, but simply stating how many fundamentalist Creationists consider this issue. There are bigger elephants in the room in our knowledge of Evolution, other then physical taxonomic similarities. The evidence for the whole scope of the history of life, intimate and progressive genetic relationships, the physical fossil evidence of evolution of primates and all of life over millions of years.

klaus54
08-30-2014, 08:26 AM
Actually, the fundamentalists I have talked to believe there is a common way of Creation by God for humans and animals. Taxonomy, both human and animal, to them is simply an understanding of how God Creates anatomy.

I am not defending this view, but simply stating how many fundamentalist Creationists consider this issue. There are bigger elephants in the room in our knowledge of Evolution, other then physical taxonomic similarities. The evidence for the whole scope of the history of life, intimate and progressive genetic relationships, the physical fossil evidence of evolution of primates and all of life over millions of years.

One thing I'm trying to tease out from anti-evolutionists is their emotions regarding their classification with other animals.

A few might object to being called "animals",

Many more DO object to being called "primates".

Almost all (of which I'm aware) object to the "ape" moniker - even though we fit into the taxonomy with apes just as we do with primates, mammals, etc.

I realize there are bigger fish to fry for the defenders of science (and the opponents!!), but the external and internal physical characteristics of humans definitely have to fit in with a YEC/anti-evolution/de novo creation ideology somehow.

K54

P.S. Of course the tack most theists take is to append "not only an" before "animal." As a theist, I agree with that.

shunyadragon
08-30-2014, 10:57 AM
One thing I'm trying to tease out from anti-evolutionists is their emotions regarding their classification with other animals.

A few might object to being called "animals",

Many more DO object to being called "primates".

Almost all (of which I'm aware) object to the "ape" moniker - even though we fit into the taxonomy with apes just as we do with primates, mammals, etc.

I realize there are bigger fish to fry for the defenders of science (and the opponents!!), but the external and internal physical characteristics of humans definitely have to fit in with a YEC/anti-evolution/de novo creation ideology somehow.

K54

P.S. Of course the tack most theists take is to append "not only an" before "animal." As a theist, I agree with that.

As a theist, I also agree with 'not only an animal.' In the Baha'i writings it is described that humans indeed did change forms through the matrix of evolution from the simplist forms of life to the complexity of humans, the intent was always that humans would evolve to be spiritual humans.

klaus54
08-31-2014, 10:32 AM
I'd love to hear Jorge's take on this.

Are you out there, Young Fella?

K54

klaus54
09-01-2014, 08:16 AM
Jorge,

Yoo hoo!! Where are you??!!

K54

phank
09-01-2014, 10:08 AM
Jorge,

Yoo hoo!! Where are you??!!

K54He's busy banning everyone who disagrees with him, from threads he started. Which is a time-honored internet creationist tradition. Either ban disagreement, or disallow comments.

klaus54
09-01-2014, 10:42 AM
He's busy banning everyone who disagrees with him, from threads he started. Which is a time-honored internet creationist tradition. Either ban disagreement, or disallow comments.

Yep.

And one can always block seeing a particular poster's comments. That's easy. At least then one could get some balance for the lurkers.

K54

phank
09-01-2014, 01:18 PM
Yep.

And one can always block seeing a particular poster's comments. That's easy. At least then one could get some balance for the lurkers.

K54

If you were able to block seeing BOTH Jorge's blithering posts, AND anyone else's responses to them, you'd basically block out all but a few posts on the entire natural science forum. And those few would be sufficiently uninteresting that no discussion would be generated anyway.

Jorge is like water - he has no points, everyone gleefully slices him up every which way, and this doesn't alter the water a bit. And without him, the whole forum dries up.

klaus54
09-01-2014, 01:33 PM
If you were able to block seeing BOTH Jorge's blithering posts, AND anyone else's responses to them, you'd basically block out all but a few posts on the entire natural science forum. And those few would be sufficiently uninteresting that no discussion would be generated anyway.

Jorge is like water - he has no points, everyone gleefully slices him up every which way, and this doesn't alter the water a bit. And without him, the whole forum dries up.

The water analogy is excellent, as is "nailing Jello to a wall."

But if Jorge and whatever supporters he has here (and I suspect there are many) block out the "evolutionists" then they can go their merry way patting each other on the back -- kinda like a Cornell ID "professionals" meeting. ...or a Creationist Forum.

The point is that Jorge doesn't have to boot us but can simply block us and proceed blithely spewing prose in his chartreuse-sky world.

K54

P.S. I'd REALLY to hear Jorge's or other anti-evolutionists' take on the human taxonomy issue - But especially Jorge's.

klaus54
09-02-2014, 06:15 PM
Is there any creationist out there who thinks being a primate is insulting?

K54