Noah's Flood part II

Your deceptive cherry-picking is noted. That same page also says:

"Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans"
"ape" becomes another word for "hominoid".
"in a 2005 book, Benton wrote "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan ... the gorilla and chimpanzee ... and humans"

So, like I said, you are free to disagree with the definition, as is Sir Wilfrid. It is still the definition, however, until and unless you can convince enough people that you are right so that the usage of the word changes.

 

I do believe that you have caught on to the meaning of "PROOF".

 

The Great Apes (hominids) are called hominids because of their man-like nature. Man is more a risen ape than a fallen angel.

 

Have you ever seen a fallen angel? No? Then your statement is invalid.

 

I'll try again to penetrate the shell of ignorance this time with music to aid attention. Listen to the lovely Dr Alice and friends..

[video=youtube;f0vlrTVC2tQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vlrTVC2tQ[/video]

 

Actually, I found the music to be a distraction. It does not provide anything that would compel my mind to believe anything that was said in the lyrics of the song to be 'true'. Want to try again without the musical distraction and the inference to 'ignorance'?

 

Not at all. Fallen angels are 'spiritual' beings according to the Bible. Man and apes are at least animals of substance 'form'. The difference between human and spiritual beings is total, so, taking the phrase out of context - the action of many - he is right.

 

So you mean there is no experiments going on with the apes? I don't like lying that is why I am very concern on your constant lying.

Quote Originally Posted by WanRen View Post
Races means = Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Malays, Hindus, Russians, Germans, English, Cree, Apache, Eskimos, Persians, Hebrews, Canaanites, Maronite, Egyptians, Greeks, etc. etc. So now did all the different races evolved and from which ape group or species did each race evolved from? We know that apes evolved first before humans so how and which?

So you mean you are raceless? Are you denying you are a Chinese or part of a human race?
View attachment 24247

 

That single source is God.

 

So you refuse to accept that humans are not categorize together with apes even though the site clearly show it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Yes and there will be people who will continue to deny the truth and contradict facts that is why science is divided between truth and fiction and those who follow the science that humans are apes and evolved from apes are following the science fiction.

And that same page clearly demonstrate this fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
"Ape", from Old English apa, is possibly an onomatopoetic imitation of animal chatter. The term has a history of rather imprecise usage. Its earliest meaning was a tailless (and therefore exceptionally human-like) non-human primate.[7] The original usage of "ape" in English might have referred to the baboon, an Old World monkey.[citation needed] Two tailless species of macaque have common names including "ape": the Barbary ape of North Africa (introduced into Gibraltar), Macaca sylvanus, and the Sulawesi black ape or Celebes crested macaque, M. nigra.

As zoological knowledge developed, it became clear that taillessness occurred in a number of different and otherwise unrelated species. The term "ape" was then used in two different senses, as shown in the 1910 Encyclopædia Britannica entry. Either "ape" was still used for a tailless humanlike primate or it became a synonym for "monkey".[7]

Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was one of the primatologists who developed the idea that there were "trends" in primate evolution and that the living members of the order could be arranged in a series, leading through "monkeys" and "apes" to humans. Within this tradition, "ape" refers to all the members of the superfamily Hominoidea, except humans.[3] Thus "apes" are a paraphyletic group, meaning that although all the species of apes descend from a common ancestor, the group does not include all the descendants of that ancestor, because humans are excluded.

 

View attachment 24248

We know that apes came first before man, base on that how do we know from which ape species did man evolved from if man did evolved from apes?
Man is not a risen ape or fallen angel they are humans. Fallen angels were the ape-human like creatures that took possession in ape-human form thus corrupting the earth's primal world and God saw the evilness, wickedness of these fallen angels that God decided to send His arch Angels to cast them out and after all were cleanse God created humans.

 

AGAIN YOU ARE CHERRY PICKING PIECES TO SUIT YOURSELF. Read the 2 charts underneath your quote. That's the last reply I shall make to your posts. It's not worth wasting time on someone who neither understands what he is talking about, and continues to misquote and distort others posts.

 

I literally just showed you where it says the opposite. You really are a complete waste of time, and right now you're acting lik a disingenuous little charlatan to boot.

 

So you are claiming that spiritual things do not have substance. Interesting. Can you then explain the scripture which says in relevant part:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for......."?

 

"Scripture" says there was really a flood, and shows that Pi is 3.

"Substance is the thing of faith hoped for" makes as much sense.

Makes more sense than a lot of "scripture".

 

Well, I questioned you once before on that "Pi is 3 " thing in scripture, and you never provided any 'PROOF' of that claim. So, your whole line of reasoning is out of order in your post above.

 

If you can quote scripture as proof in this scientific discussion, can I quote Ancient Greek lore?

 

The Bible describes a "pond" in theTemple as 10 cubits across, and 30 round. they didn't know about Pi, but if the measurements were correct, then the bible is wrong on Pi.

 

Estin de pistis elpizomenon upostasis, pragmaton elegchos ou blepomenon.

Now faith is the assurance (confirmation) of the things we hope for.

OR as my Greek NT puts it. 'Is now faith of things being hoped for, the assurance, of things the proof not being seen'

Any help?

 

or a single cell.

 

it's a line in an old book. is that the explanation you were looking for?

 

Nobody cant prove nothin' to no incinc, but of course, the "Cubit" is an imprecise measurement.
and they measured the circumference with a "line". It would have to be absolutely level all around a perfect circle, the stretching would have to be perfectly accounted for... etc.

The numbers are of course, approximate. 30 and 10, gives the idea.

IF you took the bible literally then you'd derive Pi =3.0

But more to the point is that the bible could only be giving approximate numbers.

Its off by a few percent.

So, for our incinc's or others of like mind... how approximate is still true? And inerrant?

Is it 90%? 99.3% is True? 42%?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

The units are irrelevant, whether cubits miles or meters the relationship remains the same, and the numbers given are those "inspired" numbers from the horses mouth. Either God dictated wrongly, or the bible isn't entirely truthful.
There's no need to give both measurements if you know what Pi actually is. The bible says the pond's ten cubits across, and that it's round. If you knew Pi, then you know that the circumference must be 31.4 cubits, and there's no need to supply the wrong measurement.

 

Not quite, but if that is the best that you can do, then I suppose I cannot hope any longer for anything better coming from you.