Hippos eveolved from cetaceans

Why can't it be called an ancient ape? The term "ancient" here refers to a species that existed long ago, and does not exist anymore. An example is Gigantopithecus. An apeman is just used to describe a man resembling a monkey, or a monkey resembling a man. Just a matter of word selection.

By "blinded by faith" I mean those who fall into this category do not have a flexible mind, and are fixated on the stories in the bible as described by the words used. Eg. the world was made in 6 days, and on the 7th day, he rested is seen as God working from Monday to Saturday, did all that he had to do, and on Sunday, sat down and watched TV all day. Jonah was swallowed by a fish, or whale, and lived inside the animal and when God told the animal to release him, was spat out and he swam ashore! People actually believed it happened! Theories postulated by scientist are based on available fact, and interpreted from logical deductions, not wild guesses or imagination.

Cheers!

Frodo said:

................
and they called it an "ancient ape". IMO it was an ape, period. Any other deduction, whether you think it is logical or not, is mere speculation and evolution spin. How you get from the hard evidence to that in the picture? A lot of imagination and guesswork went into it. Anyway, you are right, we are still discovering more stuff. But here's a creationist prediction for you, what we discover will be either ape OR human, not ape-man. In fact, Marvin Lubenow has written a book on this http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/bones-of-contention-revised-and-updated-edition/142791

BTW, your last bit about blinded by faith. Are you saying that believers are blinded by faith in the Gospels in the same way that believers in evolution are blinded by faith in the evolution story? I mean, I see that you also stubbornly adhere to the evolution story and have showed no critical view towards it at all.

Click to expand...

Agoraphobic said:

Why can't it be called an ancient ape? The term "ancient" here refers to a species that existed long ago, and does not exist anymore. An example is Gigantopithecus. An apeman is just used to describe a man resembling a monkey, or a monkey resembling a man. Just a matter of word selection.

By "blinded by faith" I mean those who fall into this category do not have a flexible mind, and are fixated on the stories in the bible as described by the words used. Eg. the world was made in 6 days, and on the 7th day, he rested is seen as God working from Monday to Saturday, did all that he had to do, and on Sunday, sat down and watched TV all day. Jonah was swallowed by a fish, or whale, and lived inside the animal and when God told the animal to release him, was spat out and he swam ashore! People actually believed it happened! Theories postulated by scientist are based on available fact, and interpreted from logical deductions, not wild guesses or imagination.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

The word "ancient" is subject to interpretation. In this case you are thinking 13 million years. But that word can also refer to things that are a few thousand years old e.g. ancient China.

Anyway, I would much prefer to use the word "extinct" ape. BTW, words are value-laden and so the word ape-man is meant to convey the idea that there is some half way man-monkey in the long chain of existence from simple cell to complex human being. This is clearly begging the question because this is the very issue being debated, whether humans evolved from some kind of ape or prehuman etc.

What kind of flexible mind are you suggesting believers have then? I mean, if that's what the Bible plainly says, what's wrong with accepting what it says as what it says? Besides, there are good reasons and evidences for believing that what the Bible plainly says is true, so it is not just blind faith acceptance. And let's not forget too that many on your side also just blindly accept by faith what the evolutionists say. How is the idea of evolution not a wild guess when what is observed is changes on a small scale, but then extrapolated over long periods of time to say that a nonliving thing can evolve to a living thing?

Frodo said:

Scientific illiterate DIVA dare to talk science??? Excuse my LOL!!!

Click to expand...

You are very snobbish! I believe everyone would have no problem detecting your stinky flair of Elitism. The bible has groomed you 'well'

drifteri said:

You are very snobbish! I believe everyone would have no problem detecting your stinky flair of Elitism. The bible has groomed you 'well'

Click to expand...

You can't blame me for your own failure. It is not because the Bible groomed me well, but because your atheism is EPIC failed and you have been poorly groomed to be an atheist by the rabid atheist books you read or websites you visit. You are just a DIVA.

Lol, you are extremely delusional. Which post I blame you for your own snobbish & elitism?


The bible is a story book inspired by men. period!