EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:

There is no genus of apes. Apes occur in a number of Genera, such as Pan, Gorilla & Homo. You, I & everyone else on this forum is an ape.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

An "ape" is the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. But, in conventional English, apes are the set of species that includes that superfamily but excludes humans, similar to how the common people use the word, "animal."

In your OP you correctly admitted that "much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us". It does indeed, though the word "now" is superfluous, since it always did. This is why they were always classified in genus Homo.But in your latest rant, you're calling them APEs (capital letters yours), denying that there is any evidence that they have any connection to humanity, and writing that there is "no evidence that these aren't just examples of extinct Apes".Which of these positions do you believe to be true? You must think that at least one of the statements you've made is a lie. Which?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But there are several genera of apes.You have misunderstood what Archangel is trying to be wrong about. Having (correctly) admitted in his OP that Neanderthals belonged to the same genus as us, he's now denying that they belonged to the same genus as each other!Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How about you don't use the word lie for a week?This could have been:
You must realize by now that your own two statements are obviously totally contradictory. You may blush and pick one that you actually support.

Well, technically Archie is right. All he needs to prove is that a single person at any one point in time accepted evolution partly (and this can be exceptionally small amount compared to actual evidence of evolution) because of some fraud. So really, all he needs to do is find a guy who was part of the public in the 1950s who's acceptance of evolution was based on .000001% fraud and 99.999999% evidence to prove his point.Does that have any value? No. Does it feed odd creationist delusions about their belief's superiority? Yes.

How about no-one lies to me for a week?

Right, Apes as in extinct types which have absolutely no relationship to us via evolution cuz they all existed within the past 10,000 years or so. There is no accurate or consistent chain of fossil evidence which supports evos claims at all. Why do I have some splainin to do? Why must I explain my worldview according to your interpretation of what we observe according to your worldview's perspective? In other words, I completely reject your description of what neanderthal looked like or acted like in reality. I have already shown how corrupted the evolutionists interpretation of evidence is in various posts on various threads, so stop expecting me to support my arguments based on evolutionist definitions of what "is" in reality.

Hi DA, Yeah, I know, but we've seen this before. Archy's in the early over-enthusiastic phase we often see where he's all over the place and feels it important to repeat his accusations in almost every post, in his case that acceptance of evolution is based upon lies and fraud.I'm not moderating this thread and I haven't discussed this with AdminNosy yet, but I think AdminNosy's intent is to give Archy some time and some room for his fervor to diminish. As an observer just following discussions I greatly enjoy your ironic counters, but I think they can leave you vulnerable to moderator action.--Percy

NO AA, an Ape is a big monkey which was created by God will all of the other lower animals. It is not related to us in any way which is evidence by the fact that it is still living just as it did on that first day of creation. As for the fossils you attempt to label as our human ancestors, they too were lower animals who although interesting, simply went extinct and no longer exist. Most likely because of pressure and over hunting by human beings. Not because we evolved from them in any way over hundreds of thousands, or millions of years.You must stop expecting me to explain my worldview according to your evolutionist definitions of life and how it came to be as it is.

So, Archangel, do explain.In your first post on this thread, you admitted that Neanderthals were "just as human as us".Today, you tell us that they were: "a big monkey which was created by God with all of the other lower animals ... lower animals who although interesting, simply went extinct and no longer exist".I should like you to tell me which of these two contradictory positions you think is true.You whine that: But no-one is asking you to do that. What we want to hear from you is the creationist "worldview". Are Neanderthals "just as human as us", as you wrote, or are they just "a big monkey which was created by God", as you wrote?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Wrong, an ape is not a monkey. There are 2 types of monkeys, new world that have prehensile tails & old world which have non-prehensile tails. Apes on the other hand are tailless. And stop saying that humans are above all other creatures that is an archaic idea st forth by men several thousand years ago. HUMANS are APES.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

SORRY my friend, but you are deluded if you actually believe that humans are related to Apes in any real or specific way at all. I reject that definition of who and what we are and refuse to apply it to my human origins no matter how many times you attempt to affiliate me with being related to lower animals.So let me repeat it for you. I am above all other primates/lower animals on Earth. Maybe the reason why you and I can't relate to each other or understand each other is because "YOU" are directly related to apes, but I am NOT!!! I am a human being who was created in my father Gods image, by Him, for fellowship, and I am NOT the result of evolution from lower animals. So stop attempting to define me with your degrading and offensive perspective that human beings are just more complex animals, because I am much more than that with my personal awareness of MY Heavenly Father/Creator/God as well as my ability and desire to fellowship with Him. Degrade yourself and your proper place in this world if you like, but don't place me in that degrading box with you.

Awwwww. You're no fun.Reading your elaborate fantasies and observing your deliberate and self-imposed ignorance is most amusing and entertaining.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hey, you're the one that said humans are apes. Don't remember? Read your own Message 31 again, where you call all skulls in the picture (including a modern human skull, skull N.) "APEskulls"So, according to your very own words, humans are APES.

---

I hunt for the truth