And saying that humans have no better gifts or qualities than the animals is an incredible lack of gratitude for your life. We humans have the ability to be grateful and thankful because we have the capacity to understand the miracle of our lives which animals do not. Yet so many people don't use that ability at all, nor even acknowledge it! Humans were created to rule over the animals which is exactly how the world works. We have the capacity to outsmart them and the capacity to treat them with kindness even when they threaten our lives which they do not have the ability to do. This again, is basic Science 101 and is what the bible tells us man would have the ability to do. But again, evolutionists throw that out and exchange it for the opposite; saying that apes created man BY ACCIDENT over and over ad over again through millions of years. That in itself is an oxymoron!

Despite repeated warnings you seem totally incapable of rational discussion or following the guidelines.Your posting privileges are being suspended. They will be restored after a suitable period. On your return, your posts will be monitored. Continued failure to address the topic under discussion or unsupported assertions will result in an extended suspension or banning.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-09-2005 10:51 AM

---

I'd just like to say to Cairo that I think the following makes a very good point, and should be a focus of some thread sometime, though it doesn't seem to relate to evo mechanisms.

Is it appropiate for you to, as a mod, call the creationist poster "a troll"?I can point to repeated worse offenses by long-term evolutionist posters.

Suggest you post in the admin forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm sorry to hear that you think that. The text you quoted is nothing but an incoherent mixture of absurd strawman arguments.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

I'd suggest than rather than meriting a thread of its own this post seems to be raising a number of questions that could be appropriately addressed in the 'Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species?' thread.A number of people on that thread try and draw a distinction between 'Knowledge', the sort of socially acquired stuff Carico is talking about, and 'intelligence'.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-Dec-2005 08:56 PM

but the claim was that because of the way language developed differently from evolution that evolution was wrong ... that is what is invalid about the argument. They aren't reciprocal.You can use an analogy - {a} is like {b} - but don't think that the failures of the analogy to fully explain {a} apply to {b}, just that the analogy breaks down.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Off Topic. Please do not respond to this message

So far, no one has proven anything I've said wrong. All they have to do is prove me wrong and there would be no need to attack me personally. But no one has pointed out any contradiction I've made. It's very easy to say anything. That doesn't take any effort. What's harder is to back up those words with proof. So let's hear some proof that any of my posts are wrong or contradictory. Thank you.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 12:48 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-12-2005 12:07 PM

Off Topic. Please do not respond to this message

I'm also still waiting for an anwer to my questions:1) Is it not true that descendants are created through the mating of their ancestors? Yes or no. I've heard opposite answers on this forum. Some say we used to be able to breed with apes or primates, others say we've never been able to breed with them. So who knows the answer?2) If the answer to my previous question is yes, then how could human beings have "evolved" from apes without the mating between an ape and a human? Explanations like a "common ancestor" who has still not appeared in the first place, do not explain how he got human traits in him to begin with, nor how he could have created the human being when he himself already had human traits!3)And lastly, if evolution is factual enough to be the only theory of man's origin to be taught in the schools, then why are there so many conflicting statements by evolutionists on how man got here? Some say man got here by apes, others say not apes but primates who aren't around any more and have never been found, and still others say the ape was different millions of years ago when no one has a picture of this ape. So which is it? If it is factual, then why so much confusion by evolutionists? Also, if it is factual, then why does this common ancestor still exist only in the imagination? Thank you.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-12-2005 12:08 PM

Hi Carico,These types of questions belong in the [forum=-9] forum. If you can't find an open topic there that seems appropriate (I think From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3! would probably be a pretty good choice, though), then you can propose a new topic over at [forum=-25].

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This thread is in the science forums. It is titled "Why is evolutions primary mechanism mutation ?" We are discussing that subject.If you have something to contribute related to why mutation is a primary mechanism, fine, please contribute. If you have evidence of some other mechanism, or that mutation is only one of the mechanisms and not the primary one, fine, contribute. But that is the discussion.Try to get with the program.

---

This topic is the primary mechanism of evolution, is it not? Are we not discussing how evolution can be the primary mechanism of ppropogating each species?

This is Off Topic. Please do not respond to this message.

This post was not considered off-topic so I'll reply to it. One poster on here stated that the common ancestor had the traits of a human and a primate. Is this not true? if not, then how could he have traits common to both primates and humans? And if he doesn't have traits common to both humans and primates, then why do evolutionists look for a common ancestor? Will someone please explain that? Thanks you.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-12-2005 12:41 PM

yes. No.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion