|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/7/2008 4:33:11 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
My copy of "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" copyright 1996, has two interesting entries I would like your observation on, as to whether they represent accuracy or error.
1st is under "Primate:" #2. Any of various omnivorous mammals of the order primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old /World Monkeys, and New World Monkeys), prosimii (Lemurs, loris, and their allies), and Tarsioidea (Tarsiers), esp. distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion,, and by complex flexible behaviour involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability."
2nd is under "Ape:"#1. Any of a group of anthropoid primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail, comprising the family Pongidae (Great Ape), which includes the Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and Orangutan, and the family Hylobatidae (Lesser Ape), which includes the Gibbon, and Siamang. #2 Any Primate EXCEPT HUMANS.(Cap. for emphasis TB).
According to this edition of Webster's dictionary, Putting "Primate" and "Ape" together, and Definition 1 & 2 together, Great Apes are considered to be in a family which includes "any primate except humans."
This dictionary is out of date. Humans are not a separate anthropoid group from the great apes. So the section in parentheses in the first definition should read "humans & great apes, gibbons, etc" or simply "great apes, gibbons, etc." It would be even better if it used the superfamily name Hominoidea for the great ape group.
The first definition under "ape" should include the family name "Hominidae" and note that this includes four extant genera: Pongo (orangutan), Gorilla (gorilla) Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo (human). It also includes the extinct genus Australopithecus. The Hominidae are the great apes. The term Pongidae is obsolete.
The second entry can stand, for although it is not scientifically correct, a dictionary includes all usages and the use of "ape" to mean the whole group of apes except humans is common if not exact.
PS. Just noted the date of publication is listed as 1996. Since the definition given was obsolete even then, is this the date of a reprint rather than a revision?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/8/2008 9:37:05 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 385
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
How can you exclude a species for fitting the description too well?
Perhaps because the description was made up by men who do not believe in God, but choose to believe all men are animals of WHATEVER category?
But I care not other than to point out the fickleness of definitions by men.
It's the difference between a Scientific definition an a definition for common usage. Humans are classed under the family Hominidae. The family Hominidae are also known as the "great apes." Humans are Hominidae. Humans are great apes.
Q.E.D.
Yes, this is 'just a definition', as you might say. However, it is a definition that matches the genetic, paleontological, etc.... evidence, and as such is accurate and relevant.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/8/2008 9:44:27 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
My copy of "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary" copyright 1996, has two interesting entries I would like your observation on, as to whether they represent accuracy or error.
1st is under "Primate:" #2. Any of various omnivorous mammals of the order primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old /World Monkeys, and New World Monkeys), prosimii (Lemurs, loris, and their allies), and Tarsioidea (Tarsiers), esp. distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion,, and by complex flexible behaviour involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability."
2nd is under "Ape:"#1. Any of a group of anthropoid primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail, comprising the family Pongidae (Great Ape), which includes the Chimpanzee, Gorilla, and Orangutan, and the family Hylobatidae (Lesser Ape), which includes the Gibbon, and Siamang. #2 Any Primate EXCEPT HUMANS.(Cap. for emphasis TB).
According to this edition of Webster's dictionary, Putting "Primate" and "Ape" together, and Definition 1 & 2 together, Great Apes are considered to be in a family which includes "any primate except humans."
This dictionary is out of date. Humans are not a separate anthropoid group from the great apes. So the section in parentheses in the first definition should read "humans & great apes, gibbons, etc" or simply "great apes, gibbons, etc." It would be even better if it used the superfamily name Hominoidea for the great ape group.
The first definition under "ape" should include the family name "Hominidae" and note that this includes four extant genera: Pongo (orangutan), Gorilla (gorilla) Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo (human). It also includes the extinct genus Australopithecus. The Hominidae are the great apes. The term Pongidae is obsolete.
The second entry can stand, for although it is not scientifically correct, a dictionary includes all usages and the use of "ape" to mean the whole group of apes except humans is common if not exact.
PS. Just noted the date of publication is listed as 1996. Since the definition given was obsolete even then, is this the date of a reprint rather than a revision?
Sorry but again, making up new definitions of humans and animals does not make man capable of interbreeding and exchanging genes with apes or any animal. 
So calling humans apes is not only a waste of time, it's degrading humans to the level of animals and giving humans permission to act like animals which they are doing to an ever-increasing degree in today's society. One of the highest values in society today is for people to be allowed to act on their lust just like animals do. The reasons why this is dangerous are lost on people today because they are told they cannot think beyond the instincts of an animal.
So the rise in the myth of evolution, the fall in the value of the human being in society. But since it takes a perverted mind to intermingle the genes of apes and humans (especially when apes and humans don't actually mix their genes in reality), then the perverted theory of evolution was actually the turning point of a downward degeneracy in the human being. And it will breed ever more perverted thinking.  But it was prophesied in the bible that wickedness will increase so all is going according to prophecy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/8/2008 9:54:04 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry but again, making up new definitions
It is not a matter of making up new definitions. Words change meaning over time, and that is why dictionaries have to be revised. If words never changed meaning, it would only be necessary to publish one dictionary once for all time. But that is not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/8/2008 9:42:48 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
How can you exclude a species for fitting the description too well?
Perhaps because the description was made up by men who do not believe in God, but choose to believe all men are animals of WHATEVER category?
But I care not other than to point out the fickleness of definitions by men.
It's the difference between a Scientific definition an a definition for common usage. Humans are classed under the family Hominidae. The family Hominidae are also known as the "great apes." Humans are Hominidae. Humans are great apes.
Q.E.D.
Yes, this is 'just a definition', as you might say. However, it is a definition that matches the genetic, paleontological, etc.... evidence, and as such is accurate and relevant.
Ah, yes, but does it match the "Soul" of man? I think not. Does the great ape have a soul?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/8/2008 9:46:20 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
This dictionary is out of date.
Does that mean the warranty has run out?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/9/2008 12:06:52 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry but again, making up new definitions of humans and animals does not make man capable of interbreeding and exchanging genes with apes or any animal.
Of course not. Humans and other animals are different species which, by definition, means that they can not (or do not) interbreed. So which of these are not an animal: Chihuahua or Great Dane. They can't breed with one another so one of them can not be an animal, right?
quote:
So calling humans apes is not only a waste of time, it's degrading humans to the level of animals and giving humans permission to act like animals which they are doing to an ever-increasing degree in today's society.
Why is it degrading? Humans act as humans want and are allowed to act. We decide how we will act. Sadly, I don't see bonoboes killing of millions of other bonoboes in all out war, so perhaps we should be acting more like our primate cousins. Although, you may be turned off by their promiscuous nature.
quote:
So the rise in the myth of evolution, the fall in the value of the human being in society. But since it takes a perverted mind to intermingle the genes of apes and humans (especially when apes and humans don't actually mix their genes in reality), then the perverted theory of evolution was actually the turning point of a downward degeneracy in the human being. And it will breed ever more perverted thinking. But it was prophesied in the bible that wickedness will increase so all is going according to prophecy.
The theory of evolution does not say that gorillas mate with humans. You are just making stuff up. But I guess that is all you are left with.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/9/2008 9:56:41 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
Sorry but again, making up new definitions of humans and animals does not make man capable of interbreeding and exchanging genes with apes or any animal.
Of course not. Humans and other animals are different species which, by definition, means that they can not (or do not) interbreed. So which of these are not an animal: Chihuahua or Great Dane. They can't breed with one another so one of them can not be an animal, right?
quote:
So calling humans apes is not only a waste of time, it's degrading humans to the level of animals and giving humans permission to act like animals which they are doing to an ever-increasing degree in today's society.
Why is it degrading? Humans act as humans want and are allowed to act. We decide how we will act. Sadly, I don't see bonoboes killing of millions of other bonoboes in all out war, so perhaps we should be acting more like our primate cousins. Although, you may be turned off by their promiscuous nature.
quote:
So the rise in the myth of evolution, the fall in the value of the human being in society. But since it takes a perverted mind to intermingle the genes of apes and humans (especially when apes and humans don't actually mix their genes in reality), then the perverted theory of evolution was actually the turning point of a downward degeneracy in the human being. And it will breed ever more perverted thinking. But it was prophesied in the bible that wickedness will increase so all is going according to prophecy.
The theory of evolution does not say that gorillas mate with humans. You are just making stuff up. But I guess that is all you are left with.
With the advent of cloning, it is just a matter of time till some scientist (read "mad scientist") begins to mixe the genes of apes and humans just to be able to say "See, I told you there is no God. I can create my own version of a soul."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/9/2008 10:32:58 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
With the advent of cloning, it is just a matter of time till some scientist (read "mad scientist") begins to mixe the genes of apes and humans just to be able to say "See, I told you there is no God. I can create my own version of a soul."
Actually, there are more practical benefits to this sort of thing. Science is generally concerned with practical results or curiosity, not mysticism.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444436/Now-scientists-create-sheep-thats-15-human.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/9/2008 10:41:41 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
With the advent of cloning, it is just a matter of time till some scientist (read "mad scientist") begins to mixe the genes of apes and humans just to be able to say "See, I told you there is no God. I can create my own version of a soul."
Actually, there are more practical benefits to this sort of thing. Science is generally concerned with practical results or curiosity, not mysticism.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444436/Now-scientists-create-sheep-thats-15-human.html
Where'd this come form? I was discussing reality.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/9/2008 11:12:30 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
With the advent of cloning, it is just a matter of time till some scientist (read "mad scientist") begins to mixe the genes of apes and humans just to be able to say "See, I told you there is no God. I can create my own version of a soul."
You would need to have some way of measuring a soul first, wouldn't you? You would also need to establish that humans have one to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/9/2008 2:54:17 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
With the advent of cloning, it is just a matter of time till some scientist (read "mad scientist") begins to mixe the genes of apes and humans just to be able to say "See, I told you there is no God. I can create my own version of a soul."
You would need to have some way of measuring a soul first, wouldn't you? You would also need to establish that humans have one to begin with.
Not at all. God breathed into Adam's nostrils, the breath of life and man BECAME a living soul. Soul is not what one HAS, it is WHO one IS. To change apes to being mixed with men changes who they are.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 12:10:39 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Not at all. God breathed into Adam's nostrils, the breath of life and man BECAME a living soul. Soul is not what one HAS, it is WHO one IS. To change apes to being mixed with men changes who they are.
And how do we measure it again? Your only support so far is "the bible says so".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 3:09:38 AM
|
|
|
mikejonesoftn
Posts: 58
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Not at all. God breathed into Adam's nostrils, the breath of life and man BECAME a living soul. Soul is not what one HAS, it is WHO one IS. To change apes to being mixed with men changes who they are.
And how do we measure it again? Your only support so far is "the bible says so".
Sadly, that support isn't enough for some. I guess people actually expect to see a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 7:10:34 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Not at all. God breathed into Adam's nostrils, the breath of life and man BECAME a living soul. Soul is not what one HAS, it is WHO one IS. To change apes to being mixed with men changes who they are.
And how do we measure it again? Your only support so far is "the bible says so".
Sadly, that support isn't enough for some. I guess people actually expect to see a soul.
Not only that, but billions of people worldwide don't see the soul exactly as you do, and think of it (or not at all) according to their own allegedly true inerrant religious text... which is just crazy!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 7:12:24 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
With the advent of cloning, it is just a matter of time till some scientist (read "mad scientist") begins to mixe the genes of apes and humans just to be able to say "See, I told you there is no God. I can create my own version of a soul."
Actually, there are more practical benefits to this sort of thing. Science is generally concerned with practical results or curiosity, not mysticism.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444436/Now-scientists-create-sheep-thats-15-human.html
Where'd this come form? I was discussing reality.
That is reality. You think the article is just made up?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 7:30:44 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Not at all. God breathed into Adam's nostrils, the breath of life and man BECAME a living soul. Soul is not what one HAS, it is WHO one IS. To change apes to being mixed with men changes who they are.
And how do we measure it again? Your only support so far is "the bible says so".
As opposed to "Our doctors of science tell us so?"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 11:41:53 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
Sadly, that support isn't enough for some. I guess people actually expect to see a soul.
I expect there to be evidence of a soul if a soul exists. If the existence of the soul is based on faith and not evidence then say so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 11:43:22 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
As opposed to "Our doctors of science tell us so?"
Doctors of science include the measurements, data, and experiments they used to reach their conclusions in their papers. I am asking for the same.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 11:45:47 AM
|
|
|
mikejonesoftn
Posts: 58
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
Sadly, that support isn't enough for some. I guess people actually expect to see a soul.
I expect there to be evidence of a soul if a soul exists. If the existence of the soul is based on faith and not evidence then say so.
What is your definition of a soul and what would you consider to be supportive evidence of a soul?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 12:19:56 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
What is your definition of a soul and what would you consider to be supportive evidence of a soul?
It is up to those who claim there is a soul to provide the definition and evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 8:47:54 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
Sadly, that support isn't enough for some. I guess people actually expect to see a soul.
I expect there to be evidence of a soul if a soul exists. If the existence of the soul is based on faith and not evidence then say so.
Faith IS evidence to those who have it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 8:59:53 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
As opposed to "Our doctors of science tell us so?"
Doctors of science include the measurements, data, and experiments they used to reach their conclusions in their papers. I am asking for the same.
Then I will give you the BEST evidence.
What do you consider to be the best evidence? I will tell you. The best evidence is testimony. You may think experience or machine reaction to be better, but in order to extrapolate it and convince others who could not take part in the experiment, the ONLY recourse left to you is testimony. You have to TELL others, and you must tell them convincingly.
I have the testimony of God himself. And I accept his testimony. And until you produce equal testimony to the contrary, from an equally qualified source, I will continue to accept the testimony of God. The testimony of God is simple. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." [Gen 2:7]
His credentials? "Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth." [Psa 46:10]
God foretold approximately 250 years before the fact, that Israel would be returned form captivity to rebuild the temple and the city of Jerusalem; and that the king of the conquering nation would pay the expenses entailed in the rebuilding thereof. And he named him so that when the king referenced would know taht Jehovah is God. And that king was Cyrus, king of Persia. And when the king saw his name in the pages of ancient prophecy, he was so impressed, he did indeed free the prisoners, send them back to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and the temple, and he paid the expenses.
When a God can do THAT, I have a tendency to take notice and look further, and listen to his testimony. And I was impressed thereby.
Now, you want evidence, you have evidence. Let's see what you do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/10/2008 9:02:06 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: mikejonesoftn
Sadly, that support isn't enough for some. I guess people actually expect to see a soul.
I expect there to be evidence of a soul if a soul exists. If the existence of the soul is based on faith and not evidence then say so.
What is your definition of a soul and what would you consider to be supportive evidence of a soul?
Consider post # 48 to be a response to your question.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reality vs. science fiction - 7/11/2008 12:03:49 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
As opposed to "Our doctors of science tell us so?"
Doctors of science include the measurements, data, and experiments they used to reach their conclusions in their papers. I am asking for the same.
Then I will give you the BEST evidence.
What do you consider to be the best evidence? I will tell you. The best evidence is testimony.
The best evidence is empirical evidence since everyone can measure it independent of others. In courts of law forensic evidence (which is empirical evidence) overrules testimony all of the time.
quote:
You may think experience or machine reaction to be better, but in order to extrapolate it and convince others who could not take part in the experiment, the ONLY recourse left to you is testimony. You have to TELL others, and you must tell them convincingly.
The only recourse is to do the experiment myself and see if your results are repeatable.
quote:
I have the testimony of God himself. And I accept his testimony.
I don't. Do you actually have evidence or are you going to keep yanking my chain?
quote:
Now, you want evidence, you have evidence. Let's see what you do with it.
Scriptures are not evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
