Matt Tucker writes:
Personally, I am not an animal.
I regret to inform you that this statement is false.
If you are an animal, you surely would know.
I am, and I surely do know it.
As such you would be able to adequately comment on their social, behavioral, sexual, developmental, and intellectual abilities as you claim to have in the last paragraph of your first post.
I don't know how any of this necessarily follows from being an animal, but scientists are actually quite capable of commenting upon all of those phenomena regardless.
I, however much you dislike it, am not an animal.
I'm sorry, friend. No matter how much you dislike it, you are.
We have superior intelligence to anything you can name except for God...
What God?
...and that should most definitely set us apart.
Yet dolphins have superior swimming capabilities to humans
and high intelligence. Surely that sets them apart.
Yet gorillas have superior brute strength to humans
and high intelligence. Surely that sets them apart.
Yet bats have superior sonar capabilities to humans
and they can fly. Surely that sets them apart.
The point is that simply because you arbitrarily define "intelligence" as your distinguishing criterion doesn't mean that those distinguished by it are meaningfully "superior" in any general sense to those that aren't. Humans are quite
inferior to other animals in equally many if not more categories than those in which they are superior.
yet you failed to mentioned that there are 3.1 BILLION nucleotide sequences accounted for! Evolutionists always put forth this crap as definitive proof for the homology of men and chimps, and fail to show that there are over 62 THOUSAND completely different DNA sequences that have no relation in the Man/monkey comparison!
So what? That still means that humans and chimps are 99% identical. And curiosly enough, as we trace those similarities back through the phylogenic tree, we can see declining similarities that indicate points of genetic divergence... exactly what is predicted by evolutionary theory. You can see it beatifully illustrated
here.
This is the fallacy of not portraying the whole truth. In laymen's terms, A LIE!
He plainly states that the genetic similarity is 98-99%. That
is the whole truth. The percentage is just another way of expressing the the number of similarities compared to the number of difference.
If a measley difference of 62,000 proves homology to you, then sobeit. It sure doesn't prove it to me.
I've learned to never underestimate the incredulity of the ignorant. Believe me, your resistance is sadly unsurprising.
I suggest you research evolution more and look for ALL the evidence...
I can't believe that you can read that post as well-informed as it obviously is, first falsely accuse its author of lying, and then almost immediately after accuse him of ignorance of the subject matter. Is there no end to creationist hubris?
before you start saying we are monkeys, have tails, et al...
Umm... no one's saying you're a monkey. You're a primate. And yes, you have a tail. Anyone who's ever fallen on his ass learning to roller/ice skate should know that.
™ Version 4.2