Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: fortheDeclaration
Here we go with the playing of terms.

I am not attempting to play with terms. I am pointing out an apparent contradiction in your statement.

We are talking about a transition from ape to man (correct?) which means from animal to mankind.

Humans are animals. There is no transition from one to the other.

So, the transitional species would be a kind of both, now wouldn't he/it?

Yes, but there would be no point at which the species is not "animal". Humans are classified as part of the kingdom Animalia.

So the evolutionists are looking for something that is neither completely animal or human.

This is not accurate. The specimen would in fact be completely animal.
82 posted on 03/24/2006 2:56:20 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: Dimensio; fortheDeclaration
I am not attempting to play with terms. I am pointing out an apparent contradiction in your statement.

Allow me to clarify: You're "playing" with "terms" because you're using ones the poster doesn't understand. Kindly limit your vocabulary to words used by Jack Chick.

85 posted on 03/24/2006 3:01:35 PM PST by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

To: Dimensio
Here we go with the playing of terms. I am not attempting to play with terms. I am pointing out an apparent contradiction in your statement. We are talking about a transition from ape to man (correct?) which means from animal to mankind. Humans are animals. There is no transition from one to the other.

No they aren't.

That is where the 'new' terms come in.

A man is not an animal.

So, the transitional species would be a kind of both, now wouldn't he/it? Yes, but there would be no point at which the species is not "animal". Humans are classified as part of the kingdom Animalia. So the evolutionists are looking for something that is neither completely animal or human. This is not accurate. The specimen would in fact be completely animal.

No, the thing would be neither be animal nor human.

It would be a transition from the one to the other.

Once, again playing games with terms.

But leaving aside the word games, it would be a transition from an ape to a man, an intermediate creature which does not exist, nor ever existed.

These are the transition creatures that the fossil record was suppose to show but never did, so now you are looking at skulls.

89 posted on 03/24/2006 3:04:25 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Gal. 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson