Discussion:
Attention stupids
(too old to reply)
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-16 23:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.

One more time

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/

Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call ‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are lizards, and humans are apes.

The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys). Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.

In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.

Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.

Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.

You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.

My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades – Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
Joe Bruno
2017-04-17 00:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 4:16:47 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:


POT, KETTLE, BLACK
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-17 02:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
POT, KETTLE, BLACK
Your posting of lies over and over again is not the same thing as me occasionally forgetting which lie of yours I'm responding to.

It's also not the same as me saying something and you call it lie because your butthurt that science does not agree with you.

I know it must be hard to find that science, that most friendly way to group facts so that we can get a better understanding of reality says that one of your most important holidays (assuming you aren't lying about being Jewish too) is in the view of the majority of archaeologists is all fiction.

You should not be surprised, the history of all religion is that eventually people figure out that they are bullshit. Now that the information age has arrived, be ready for more people to figure out the falseness of religion and choose the reality of science. Fomputers give access to just about every bit of ihnformation ever written.

The more people see what cretins and assholes you guys are the less likrely they are going to be inclined to join your little hate groups.

Go some place where you might be wanted.
ernobe
2017-04-18 00:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
POT, KETTLE, BLACK
Your posting of lies over and over again is not the same thing as me
occasionally forgetting which lie of yours I'm responding to.
It's also not the same as me saying something and you call it lie because your butthurt that science does not agree with you.
I know it must be hard to find that science, that most friendly way to group
facts so that we can get a better understanding of reality says that one of your
most important holidays (assuming you aren't lying about being Jewish too) is in
the view of the majority of archaeologists is all fiction.
You should not be surprised, the history of all religion is that eventually
people figure out that they are bullshit. Now that the information age has
arrived, be ready for more people to figure out the falseness of religion and
choose the reality of science. Fomputers give access to just about every bit of
ihnformation ever written.
The more people see what cretins and assholes you guys are the less likrely they
are going to be inclined to join your little hate groups.
Go some place where you might be wanted.
Or, enjoy your holidays here in alt.atheism. Occasional, choice word
salads guaranteed.

Come to think of it, I haven't seem much of those around recently.
Apparently, they don't work that well on hangovers, so maybe that is
why so many atheists complained about them when I was around. Though,
calling people cretins and assholes shows that whatever they are taking
is not really doing a good job either.
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
Your Founding Fathers Erred
2017-04-17 17:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
Well.....The rest of the apes should have elvoved by now If evolution were true. Why pick just one ape out of the entire existing population?
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-17 22:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
Well.....The rest of the apes should have elvoved by now If evolution were true. Why pick just one ape out of the entire existing population?
Thank you for once again proving the concept of evolution is beyond you and you have no idea what it means.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-18 00:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here agai=
n. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't remember =
that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
=20
One more time
=20
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-fro=
m-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
=20
Let=E2=80=99s say upfront that asking =E2=80=9Cif humans/apes evolved fro=
m monkeys, why are there still monkeys?=E2=80=9D=20
Well.....The rest of the apes should have elvoved by now If evolution were =
true.
Why would they have?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
hypatiab7
2017-04-18 04:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here agai=
n. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't remember =
that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
=20
One more time
=20
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-fro=
m-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
=20
Let=E2=80=99s say upfront that asking =E2=80=9Cif humans/apes evolved fro=
m monkeys, why are there still monkeys?=E2=80=9D=20
Well.....The rest of the apes should have elvoved by now If evolution were =
true.
Why would they have?
He still doesn't understand how evolution can be affected by environment.
He doesn't want to understand.
%
2017-04-18 04:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
On 17 Apr 2017 10:23 AM ,Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here agai=
n. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember = that this has been responded to and explained multiple
times.
=20
One more time
=20
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-fro=
m-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
=20
Let=E2=80=99s say upfront that asking =E2=80=9Cif humans/apes evolved fro=
m monkeys, why are there still monkeys?=E2=80=9D=20
Well.....The rest of the apes should have elvoved by now If
evolution were = true.
Why would they have?
He still doesn't understand how evolution can be affected by
environment. He doesn't want to understand.
so you can stop trying to push it then
Joe Bruno
2017-04-18 05:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
Well.....The rest of the apes should have elvoved by now If evolution were true. Why pick just one ape out of the entire existing population?
Don't believe that scumbag. I've been posting here since 2005 and I've never seen that monkey thing he's talking about.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-18 05:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
Well.....The rest of the apes should have elvoved by now If evolution were true. Why pick just one ape out of the entire existing population?
Don't believe that scumbag. I've been posting here since 2005 and I've never seen that monkey thing he's talking about.
None so blind as he who will not see.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-18 06:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Your Founding Fathers Erred
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
Well.....The rest of the apes should have elvoved by now If evolution were true. Why pick just one ape out of the entire existing population?
Don't believe that scumbag. I've been posting here since 2005 and I've never seen that monkey thing he's talking about.
You may not have seen that particular piece before, but this question has been dealt with before. It is one of the most incredibly stupid questions ever.
We Will Always Hang FagZ And Castrate Jews
2017-04-18 17:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:24:00 AM UTC-7, Your Founding Fathers
Don't believe that scumbag. I've been posting here since 2005 and I've never seen that monkey thing he's talking about.
Yet they call it science, while NO scientist has ever replicated the experiment of evolving even a tiny ape into a human. If you are going to talk about something set in the past, we need a historical record or a revelation. Those atheists have none. Nothing but a METAPHYSICAL speculation marketed as science to fool the simpletons.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-20 02:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by We Will Always Hang FagZ And Castrate Jews
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:24:00 AM UTC-7, Your Founding Fathers
Look, here comes some of the idiots now.
Post by We Will Always Hang FagZ And Castrate Jews
Don't believe that scumbag. I've been posting here since 2005 and I've never seen that monkey thing he's talking about.
Yet they call it science, while NO scientist has ever replicated the experiment of evolving even a tiny ape into a human.
Stupid fuck, that's not what is needed to prove evolution or that we have ancestors in common with Monkeys and Apes.

If you are going to talk about something set in the past, we need a historical record or a revelation. Those atheists have none. Nothing but a METAPHYSICAL speculation marketed as science to fool the simpletons.

Many, you really are stooooopud. So in your mind there is no such thing as forensics? Or fossils. Or DNA.

Go read a science book.
Ted
2017-04-17 23:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Olrik
2017-04-18 04:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
And we still have the same number of ribs!
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
hypatiab7
2017-04-18 04:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Olrik
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
And we still have the same number of ribs!
Both men and women. You have to specify with the kind of trolls we have.
hypatiab7
2017-04-18 04:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
Smiler
2017-04-18 20:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
duke
2017-04-19 22:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-20 00:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Poor poor dukie once again declares his terror of women.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
hypatiab7
2017-04-20 03:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Poor poor dukie once again declares his terror of women.
And his lack of faith in his pope.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-21 12:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Poor poor dukie once again declares his terror of women.
And his lack of faith in his pope.
I wonder if the Pope wants to crack down on the idiotic fundies in his flock.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-20 22:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Poor poor dukie once again declares his terror of women.
Can you answer?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-21 12:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Poor poor dukie once again declares his terror of women.
Can you answer?
I'm just not that interested in your mythology.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-21 18:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Poor poor dukie once again declares his terror of women.
Can you answer?
I'm just not that interested in your mythology.
That's good. But didn't woe_man come in a cup of dirt?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-22 12:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Poor poor dukie once again declares his terror of women.
Can you answer?
Answer what?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-22 15:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Poor poor dukie once again declares his terror of women.
Can you answer?
Answer what?
The solution of 2a x 2b = 2c for d.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-24 09:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Poor poor dukie once again declares his terror of women.
Can you answer?
Answer what?
The solution of 2a x 2b = 2c for d.
Oh, lookie, he thinks he's good enough at math to fool me.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-24 21:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Poor poor dukie once again declares his terror of women.
Can you answer?
Answer what?
The solution of 2a x 2b = 2c for d.
Oh, lookie, he thinks he's good enough at math to fool me.
Why, I couldn't have made it more obvious. Don't cha think. However, you
didn't even try.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Kevrob
2017-04-20 01:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
You aren't one of the dolts who think Yahooey dictated the babble in
English, are you?

Read up on where the word "woman" came from.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=woman

I doubt the ancient Hebrews used that term in the original.

Earl: Ever the troll, but a particularly ignorant troll.

Kevin R
duke
2017-04-20 22:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
You aren't one of the dolts who think Yahooey dictated the babble in
English, are you?
God dictated nothing.
Post by Kevrob
Read up on where the word "woman" came from.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=woman
I doubt the ancient Hebrews used that term in the original.
Earl: Ever the troll, but a particularly ignorant troll.
I love woe_men. Didn't you know that God told Adam "do NOT.......", and Adam's
back stabber, the woe_man, told him to ignore God and follow his own desires?
Now look at the mess she caused, and for us men to boot..
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-20 22:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
You aren't one of the dolts who think Yahooey dictated the babble in
English, are you?
God dictated nothing.
Post by Kevrob
Read up on where the word "woman" came from.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=woman
I doubt the ancient Hebrews used that term in the original.
Earl: Ever the troll, but a particularly ignorant troll.
I love woe_men. Didn't you know that God told Adam "do NOT.......", and Adam's
back stabber, the woe_man, told him to ignore God and follow his own desires?
Now look at the mess she caused, and for us men to boot..
Thank for giving another reason to reject your god even if it were real, it treats women as if they are nothing more than incubators for sons and generally second class.

One other note. The whole Adam and Eve scenario never happened. It is fiction.
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
the dukester, American-Shit for Brains
duke
2017-04-21 18:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
You aren't one of the dolts who think Yahooey dictated the babble in
English, are you?
God dictated nothing.
Post by Kevrob
Read up on where the word "woman" came from.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=woman
I doubt the ancient Hebrews used that term in the original.
Earl: Ever the troll, but a particularly ignorant troll.
I love woe_men. Didn't you know that God told Adam "do NOT.......", and Adam's
back stabber, the woe_man, told him to ignore God and follow his own desires?
Now look at the mess she caused, and for us men to boot..
Thank for giving another reason to reject your god even if it were real, it treats women as if they are nothing more than incubators for sons and generally second class.
If you read scripture, you'd know that it was Eve that violated God's
instructions. But adam was blamed because the man was seen as superior to
woe_man.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
One other note. The whole Adam and Eve scenario never happened. It is fiction.
Even if true, the purpose of the issue is solid.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
hypatiab7
2017-04-21 20:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
You aren't one of the dolts who think Yahooey dictated the babble in
English, are you?
God dictated nothing.
Post by Kevrob
Read up on where the word "woman" came from.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=woman
I doubt the ancient Hebrews used that term in the original.
Earl: Ever the troll, but a particularly ignorant troll.
I love woe_men. Didn't you know that God told Adam "do NOT.......", and Adam's
back stabber, the woe_man, told him to ignore God and follow his own desires?
Now look at the mess she caused, and for us men to boot..
Again you disobey your Pope who says the Garden of Eden story is just that - a story. It's just one of at least three versions of the Hebrew Garden of Eden myth. The Pope accepts evolution as a reality. That makes you a blasphemer, Earl.
duke
2017-04-22 16:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Kevrob
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
You aren't one of the dolts who think Yahooey dictated the babble in
English, are you?
God dictated nothing.
Post by Kevrob
Read up on where the word "woman" came from.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=woman
I doubt the ancient Hebrews used that term in the original.
Earl: Ever the troll, but a particularly ignorant troll.
I love woe_men. Didn't you know that God told Adam "do NOT.......", and Adam's
back stabber, the woe_man, told him to ignore God and follow his own desires?
Now look at the mess she caused, and for us men to boot..
Again you disobey your Pope who says the Garden of Eden story is just that - a story.
But I agree.
Post by hypatiab7
It's just one of at least three versions of the Hebrew Garden of Eden myth. The Pope accepts evolution as a reality. That makes you a blasphemer, Earl.
But you don't understand it all. If there was nothing, how could something
evolve?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-20 02:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
the dukester, American-Dumb Ass
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.

The Book of Genesis begins with two contradictory creation accounts (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:24). In the first, God created humans (male and female) after he finished making all of the other animals. In the second, God made one man (“Adam”) and then created all of the animals in order to find a helpmate for Adam. God brought all of the animals to Adam, but none of them appealed to him. So God made a woman from one of Adam’s ribs to serve as his helpmate.
duke
2017-04-20 22:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
the dukester, American-Dumb Ass
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The Book of Genesis begins with two contradictory creation accounts (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:24). In the first, God created humans
(male and female) after he finished making all of the other animals. In the second, God made one man (“Adam”) and
then created all of the animals in order to find a helpmate for Adam. God brought all of the animals to Adam, but none
of them appealed to him. So God made a woman from one of Adam’s ribs to serve as his helpmate.
That's only so Adam could use the popular statement "bone of my bones" thingie.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-20 22:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
the dukester, American-Dumb Ass
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The Book of Genesis begins with two contradictory creation accounts (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:24). In the first, God created humans
(male and female) after he finished making all of the other animals. In the second, God made one man (“Adam”) and
then created all of the animals in order to find a helpmate for Adam. God brought all of the animals to Adam, but none
of them appealed to him. So God made a woman from one of Adam’s ribs to serve as his helpmate.
That's only so Adam could use the popular statement "bone of my bones" thingie.
the dukester, American-Pedophile Priest Apologist
duke
2017-04-21 18:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
the dukester, American-Dumb Ass
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The Book of Genesis begins with two contradictory creation accounts (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:24). In the first, God created humans
(male and female) after he finished making all of the other animals. In the second, God made one man (“Adam”) and
then created all of the animals in order to find a helpmate for Adam. God brought all of the animals to Adam, but none
of them appealed to him. So God made a woman from one of Adam’s ribs to serve as his helpmate.
That's only so Adam could use the popular statement "bone of my bones" thingie.
the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
hypatiab7
2017-04-21 20:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The Book of Genesis begins with two contradictory creation accounts (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:24). In the first, God created humans
(male and female) after he finished making all of the other animals. In the second, God made one man (“Adam”) and
then created all of the animals in order to find a helpmate for Adam. God brought all of the animals to Adam, but none
of them appealed to him. So God made a woman from one of Adam’s ribs to serve as his helpmate.
That's only so Adam could use the popular statement "bone of my bones" thingie.
Them bones, them bones,
Them dusty bones.

Both men and women have an equal number of bones.
duke
2017-04-22 16:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
The Book of Genesis begins with two contradictory creation accounts (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:24). In the first, God created humans
(male and female) after he finished making all of the other animals. In the second, God made one man (“Adam”) and
then created all of the animals in order to find a helpmate for Adam. God brought all of the animals to Adam, but none
of them appealed to him. So God made a woman from one of Adam’s ribs to serve as his helpmate.
That's only so Adam could use the popular statement "bone of my bones" thingie.
Them bones, them bones,
Them dusty bones.
Both men and women have an equal number of bones.
Well, what would you expect from 2 cups of dirt?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-24 09:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-24 21:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Smiler
2017-04-25 01:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:55:24 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why
is there still dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our
fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?
Like Adam, out of the minds of some ignorant sheep herders.
*****
"Masturbation is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI *****
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
duke
2017-04-25 13:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:55:24 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why
is there still dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our
fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?
Like Adam, out of the minds of some ignorant sheep herders.
Does this mean that, you as an atheist wannabe, is denying creation.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-26 06:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:55:24 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why
is there still dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our
fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?
Like Adam, out of the minds of some ignorant sheep herders.
Does this mean that, you as an atheist wannabe, is denying creation.
There's no such thing as creation.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-26 22:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:55:24 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why
is there still dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our
fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?
Like Adam, out of the minds of some ignorant sheep herders.
Does this mean that, you as an atheist wannabe, is denying creation.
There's no such thing as creation.
Thanks be to God. That means that you're just a puff of gaseous nonsense.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-27 08:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:55:24 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why
is there still dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our
fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?
Like Adam, out of the minds of some ignorant sheep herders.
Does this mean that, you as an atheist wannabe, is denying creation.
There's no such thing as creation.
Thanks be to God. That means that you're just a puff of gaseous nonsense.
How does it mean that?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-27 16:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:55:24 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why
is there still dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our
fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's
rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?
Like Adam, out of the minds of some ignorant sheep herders.
Does this mean that, you as an atheist wannabe, is denying creation.
There's no such thing as creation.
Thanks be to God. That means that you're just a puff of gaseous nonsense.
How does it mean that?
Magic toying with the mind of a child

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-28 03:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:55:24 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why
is there still dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our
fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's
rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like
adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?
Like Adam, out of the minds of some ignorant sheep herders.
Does this mean that, you as an atheist wannabe, is denying creation.
There's no such thing as creation.
Thanks be to God. That means that you're just a puff of gaseous nonsense.
How does it mean that?
Magic toying with the mind of a child
You're the one with the invisible friend.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-26 08:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:55:24 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why
is there still dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our
fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?
Like Adam, out of the minds of some ignorant sheep herders.
Does this mean that, you as an atheist wannabe, is denying creation.
Does this mean as a fake Christian that you am unfamiliar with grammar?

https://app.grammarly.com/
Post by duke
the dukester, American-Dipshit
duke
2017-04-26 22:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:28:43 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:55:24 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why
is there still dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our
fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?
Like Adam, out of the minds of some ignorant sheep herders.
Does this mean that, you as an atheist wannabe, is denying creation.
Does this mean as a fake Christian that you am unfamiliar with grammar?
Are you denying that existence mandates creation.


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Smiler
2017-04-27 02:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 04:55:24 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:08:04 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:46:08 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 20:28:32 +0000 (UTC), Smiler
Post by Smiler
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 7:47:34 PM UTC-4, PIBB
<snip>
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then
why is there still dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if
our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Same as he made man from, in that part of genesis.
Well, make up your mind. Was it a cup of dirt, or was it adam's rib?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Doesn't that depend on how much of genesis you read.
Are you buying into that "rib of adam" thingie?
Neither. It's a myth.
Oh, noooooo. You mean that eve might just be a cup of dirt like adam??
Nope, that's a myth, too.
Then where did she come from is not the same as adam?
Like Adam, out of the minds of some ignorant sheep herders.
Does this mean that, you as an atheist wannabe, is denying creation.
PIGGYBACKING

Does this mean that you, as a Satanist, have evidence of a creator?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Does this mean as a fake Christian that you am unfamiliar with grammar?
Another thing, in a very long list, that he's unfamiliar with.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://app.grammarly.com/
Post by duke
the dukester, American-Dipshit
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
hypatiab7
2017-04-20 03:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time. You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
duke
2017-04-20 22:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
hypatiab7
2017-04-21 20:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-22 12:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
"BILLIONS" of years????
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-22 16:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Kit
2017-04-23 09:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2017-04-23 15:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Facts are facts. You're an idiot.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Tim
2017-04-23 20:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Facts are facts. You're an idiot.
But you've mistaken myth for fact, so you're an idiot. But we already knew that.
duke
2017-04-24 21:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Facts are facts. You're an idiot.
But you've mistaken myth for fact, so you're an idiot. But we already knew that.
See, you line people don't even know what a fact is.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Tim
2017-04-24 21:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Facts are facts. You're an idiot.
But you've mistaken myth for fact, so you're an idiot. But we already knew that.
See, you line people don't even know what a fact is.
You fat people keep mistaking myths for facts.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-24 01:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Facts are facts. You're an idiot.
It is a fact that the Bibliczal Adam and Eve and the talking serpent did not exist.

Prove God.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-Shit For Brains
duke
2017-04-24 21:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Facts are facts. You're an idiot.
It is a fact that the Bibliczal Adam and Eve and the talking serpent did not exist.
Physical or as in spiritual analogy?
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Prove God.
Can't. Can only offer evidence for his existence.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
the dukester, American-Shit For Brains
Now what do you think you are?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-24 09:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Facts are facts.
Yes, they are. Where are yours?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-24 21:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Facts are facts.
Yes, they are. Where are yours?
Facts.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Kit
2017-04-24 11:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Facts are facts. You're an idiot.
What's so idiotic about pointing out the fact that you haved a disdain for women?

Had any dates lately, duke?
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2017-04-24 21:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
Facts are facts. You're an idiot.
What's so idiotic about pointing out the fact that you haved a disdain for women?
Only stupid ones. Yet facts are facts - the woe_man screwed up and adam got
blamed.
Post by Kit
Had any dates lately, duke?
How about you?


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-24 09:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-24 21:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
If I was, I wouldn't flaunt that you don't deserve apologies.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-25 03:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
If I was, I wouldn't flaunt that you don't deserve apologies.
That's EXACTLY what you'd do.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-25 13:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
If I was, I wouldn't flaunt that you don't deserve apologies.
That's EXACTLY what you'd do.
Then face what you are.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-26 05:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
If I was, I wouldn't flaunt that you don't deserve apologies.
That's EXACTLY what you'd do.
Then face what you are.
What am I?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-26 22:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
If I was, I wouldn't flaunt that you don't deserve apologies.
That's EXACTLY what you'd do.
Then face what you are.
What am I?
A stupid man looking forward to being fed to the flames of hell for refusing to
live in the love of God. And to think it's such a loving and wonderful way to
live.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-26 08:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
If I was, I wouldn't flaunt that you don't deserve apologies.
That's EXACTLY what you'd do.
Then face what you are.
Smarter, happier, with lives uncluttered by religious nonsense?
That's pretty much every non-theist here.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-Pedophile Priest Apologist
duke
2017-04-26 22:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:30:53 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
If I was, I wouldn't flaunt that you don't deserve apologies.
That's EXACTLY what you'd do.
Then face what you are.
Smarter, happier, with lives uncluttered by religious nonsense?
That's pretty much every non-theist here.
If you love, you are of God. If you care for others, you are of God. If you
give to others, you are of God. And on and on and on.

That's the part you fail to grasp.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-27 08:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:30:53 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
If I was, I wouldn't flaunt that you don't deserve apologies.
That's EXACTLY what you'd do.
Then face what you are.
Smarter, happier, with lives uncluttered by religious nonsense?
That's pretty much every non-theist here.
If you love, you are of God. If you care for others, you are of God. If you
give to others, you are of God. And on and on and on.
That's the part you fail to grasp.
Because you're so worthless you can't convince us.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-27 16:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:30:53 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
If I was, I wouldn't flaunt that you don't deserve apologies.
That's EXACTLY what you'd do.
Then face what you are.
Smarter, happier, with lives uncluttered by religious nonsense?
That's pretty much every non-theist here.
If you love, you are of God. If you care for others, you are of God. If you
give to others, you are of God. And on and on and on.
That's the part you fail to grasp.
Because you're so worthless you can't convince us.
Thus you lose.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-28 03:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:30:53 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
In one version of the Adam and Eve myth, both Adam And Eve were made from the same dust at the same time.
You chose the wrong version of the myth. Didn't your pope tell you that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. He
believes in evolution. Are you saying the pope is a blasphemer?
Nobody was there to record first man and woe_man billions of years ago.
Then we can't trust the version you chose, either. No 'woe man', then.
Actually, "woe_man" has a case for legitimacy. She screwed up, and adam got
blamed. Only a woe_man would do that to a man.
You are an unapologetic misogynist.
And we all know that it's because he's terrified of us.
If I was, I wouldn't flaunt that you don't deserve apologies.
That's EXACTLY what you'd do.
Then face what you are.
Smarter, happier, with lives uncluttered by religious nonsense?
That's pretty much every non-theist here.
If you love, you are of God. If you care for others, you are of God. If you
give to others, you are of God. And on and on and on.
That's the part you fail to grasp.
Because you're so worthless you can't convince us.
Thus you lose.
What do I lose?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Kit
2017-04-20 18:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Your repeated misspelling of the word "woman" is tiresome and betrays your blatant misogyny. Please stop.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2017-04-21 18:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Your repeated misspelling of the word "woman" is tiresome and betrays your blatant misogyny. Please stop.
Eve was the sinner, but adam was blamed. She's a rotten woe_man for not
advising the truth and clearing the air..


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-28 05:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kit
Post by duke
Post by Smiler
<snip>
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get
the point.
They are too stupid for that.
What did he make woe_men from? Wouldn't that be dirt?
Your repeated misspelling of the word "woman" is tiresome and betrays your blatant misogyny. Please stop.
He's quite proud of his misogyny so he ain't gonna stop.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-19 22:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
Why, I don't. Can you explain. Does this mean that God scooped up a cup of
dirt and changed it into a man??

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
hypatiab7
2017-04-20 03:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
Why, I don't. Can you explain. Does this mean that God scooped up a cup of
dirt and changed it into a man??
You tell me. It's your silly myth.
duke
2017-04-20 22:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
Why, I don't. Can you explain. Does this mean that God scooped up a cup of
dirt and changed it into a man??
You tell me. It's your silly myth.
I'm just following up on a cup of man and a cup of woe_man.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-21 12:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let?s say upfront that asking ?if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?? is exactly the same as saying ?if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards??, ?if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish?, or ?if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans??. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
?monkeys? evolved into the animals that we call ?apes?: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don?t; they?re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let?s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together ? the so-called ?higher primates? ? constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ?fossil monkeys?, even
though none of the taxa or groups I?ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ?monkeys? with little hesitation.
My point here is that it?s clear that the term ?monkey? does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades ?
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively ? it?s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ?non-hominoid
anthropoids?. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are ? as I already said above ? big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you?re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there?s even merchandise?
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
Why, I don't. Can you explain. Does this mean that God scooped up a cup of
dirt and changed it into a man??
You tell me. It's your silly myth.
I'm just following up on a cup of man and a cup of woe_man.
Was that meant to be funny? Or clever?

Or something?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-21 18:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let?s say upfront that asking ?if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?? is exactly the same as saying ?if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards??, ?if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish?, or ?if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans??. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
?monkeys? evolved into the animals that we call ?apes?: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don?t; they?re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let?s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together ? the so-called ?higher primates? ? constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ?fossil monkeys?, even
though none of the taxa or groups I?ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ?monkeys? with little hesitation.
My point here is that it?s clear that the term ?monkey? does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades ?
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively ? it?s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ?non-hominoid
anthropoids?. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are ? as I already said above ? big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you?re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there?s even merchandise?
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get the point.
Why, I don't. Can you explain. Does this mean that God scooped up a cup of
dirt and changed it into a man??
You tell me. It's your silly myth.
I'm just following up on a cup of man and a cup of woe_man.
Was that meant to be funny? Or clever?
Or something?
Yep.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-21 12:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
t>
=20
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can'=
t
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple time=
s.
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
One more time
=20
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolve=
d-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Let=E2=80=99s say upfront that asking =E2=80=9Cif humans/apes evolve=
d from monkeys, why
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
are there still monkeys?=E2=80=9D is exactly the same as saying =E2=
=80=9Cif there are
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
snakes, why are there still lizards?=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9Cif there are=
tetrapods, why are
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
there still fish=E2=80=9D, or =E2=80=9Cif there are European America=
ns, why are there
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
still Europeans?=E2=80=9D. The point that stubborn creationists appa=
rently refuse
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
=E2=80=98monkeys=E2=80=99 evolved into the animals that we call =E2=
=80=98apes=E2=80=99: other ancestral
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinct=
ion
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape linea=
ge
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
still existed. But they don=E2=80=99t; they=E2=80=99re extinct. So y=
ou should think of
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
=20
The shape of the tree. Let=E2=80=99s look at all of this within the =
context of
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys =
and
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
apes together =E2=80=93 the so-called =E2=80=98higher primates=E2=80=
=99 =E2=80=93 constitute
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram =
should help you out.
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described t=
hat
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius=
from
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ances=
try
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Ken=
ya is
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines =
and cercopithecines.
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene =
and
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
=20
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that=
some of them evolved.
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhi=
nes
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as =E2=80=98fossil monkey=
s=E2=80=99, even
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
though none of the taxa or groups I=E2=80=99ve just mentioned are me=
mbers of
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life =
we
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
would regard them as =E2=80=98monkeys=E2=80=99 with little hesitatio=
n.
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
=20
My point here is that it=E2=80=99s clear that the term =E2=80=98monk=
ey=E2=80=99 does not only
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades =E2=80=
=93
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively =E2=80=93 it=E2=80=99=
s also a catch-all
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for =E2=80=98non=
-hominoid
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
anthropoids=E2=80=99. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspecti=
ve, hominoids
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are =E2=80=93 as I already said above =E2=80=93 bi=
g, tail-less, bipedal
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you=E2=80=99re a regular =
Tet Zoo
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
reader. And, look, there=E2=80=99s even merchandise=E2=80=A6
=20
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
Just some of it, according to the myth. I wonder if our fundies will get=
the point.
=20
Why, I don't. Can you explain. Does this mean that God scooped up a cup=
of
dirt and changed it into a man?? =20
You tell me. It's your silly myth.
And he proves every day that he doesn't know his myth at all. It's like he's stuck in the Catholicism of his childhood.

An actual question: Are you happy that Mass is in English or do you think it was some kind of heresy giving up Latin?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-19 22:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
More dirt than needed.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
hypatiab7
2017-04-20 03:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
More dirt than needed.
Are you saying that your god created your Adam and Eve out of dirty dirt or garden dirt?
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-20 18:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
More dirt than needed.
Are you saying that your god created your Adam and Eve out of dirty dirt or garden dirt?
Most likely from Bandini products.
duke
2017-04-20 22:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let’s say upfront that asking “if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?” is exactly the same as saying “if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards?”, “if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish”, or “if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans?”. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
‘monkeys’ evolved into the animals that we call ‘apes’: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don’t; they’re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let’s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together – the so-called ‘higher primates’ – constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ‘fossil monkeys’, even
though none of the taxa or groups I’ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ‘monkeys’ with little hesitation.
My point here is that it’s clear that the term ‘monkey’ does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades –
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively – it’s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ‘non-hominoid
anthropoids’. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are – as I already said above – big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you’re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there’s even merchandise…
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
More dirt than needed.
Are you saying that your god created your Adam and Eve out of dirty dirt or garden dirt?
All I know is that it was red dirt.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-21 12:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let?s say upfront that asking ?if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?? is exactly the same as saying ?if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards??, ?if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish?, or ?if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans??. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
?monkeys? evolved into the animals that we call ?apes?: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don?t; they?re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let?s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together ? the so-called ?higher primates? ? constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ?fossil monkeys?, even
though none of the taxa or groups I?ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ?monkeys? with little hesitation.
My point here is that it?s clear that the term ?monkey? does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades ?
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively ? it?s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ?non-hominoid
anthropoids?. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are ? as I already said above ? big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you?re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there?s even merchandise?
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
More dirt than needed.
Are you saying that your god created your Adam and Eve out of dirty dirt or garden dirt?
All I know is that it was red dirt.
Why is that all you've remembered from all those Sunday School classes?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-21 18:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let?s say upfront that asking ?if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?? is exactly the same as saying ?if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards??, ?if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish?, or ?if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans??. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
?monkeys? evolved into the animals that we call ?apes?: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don?t; they?re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let?s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together ? the so-called ?higher primates? ? constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ?fossil monkeys?, even
though none of the taxa or groups I?ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ?monkeys? with little hesitation.
My point here is that it?s clear that the term ?monkey? does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades ?
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively ? it?s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ?non-hominoid
anthropoids?. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are ? as I already said above ? big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you?re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there?s even merchandise?
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
More dirt than needed.
Are you saying that your god created your Adam and Eve out of dirty dirt or garden dirt?
All I know is that it was red dirt.
Why is that all you've remembered from all those Sunday School classes?
As opposed to green or purple dirt.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-22 12:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let?s say upfront that asking ?if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?? is exactly the same as saying ?if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards??, ?if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish?, or ?if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans??. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
?monkeys? evolved into the animals that we call ?apes?: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don?t; they?re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let?s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together ? the so-called ?higher primates? ? constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ?fossil monkeys?, even
though none of the taxa or groups I?ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ?monkeys? with little hesitation.
My point here is that it?s clear that the term ?monkey? does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades ?
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively ? it?s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ?non-hominoid
anthropoids?. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are ? as I already said above ? big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you?re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there?s even merchandise?
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
More dirt than needed.
Are you saying that your god created your Adam and Eve out of dirty dirt or garden dirt?
All I know is that it was red dirt.
Why is that all you've remembered from all those Sunday School classes?
As opposed to green or purple dirt.
Hey, poor poor dukie, are you a Poe?
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-04-22 16:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Cloud Hobbit
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here
again. I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't
remember that this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
One more time
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/
Let?s say upfront that asking ?if humans/apes evolved from monkeys, why
are there still monkeys?? is exactly the same as saying ?if there are
snakes, why are there still lizards??, ?if there are tetrapods, why are
there still fish?, or ?if there are European Americans, why are there
still Europeans??. The point that stubborn creationists apparently refuse
to appreciate is that only one group among the animals that we call
?monkeys? evolved into the animals that we call ?apes?: other ancestral
monkeys begat more monkeys, and apes are, in fact, merely one monkey
lineage among several. Yes, you should think of apes as big, weird
monkeys. We just use a different name for that lineage of big weird
monkeys because we find this distinction a useful one. This distinction
would be less obvious if early, monkey-like members of the ape lineage
still existed. But they don?t; they?re extinct. So you should think of
apes as monkeys in the same way that birds are dinosaurs, snakes are
lizards, and humans are apes.
The shape of the tree. Let?s look at all of this within the context of
primate evolutionary history. First of all, some key terms. Monkeys and
apes together ? the so-called ?higher primates? ? constitute
Anthropoidea. Within Anthropoidea, Old World monkeys and apes form
Catarrhini, the sister-group to Platyrrhini (the New World monkeys).
Within Catarrhini, the ape lineage is Hominoidea, and the Old World
monkey lineage is Cercopithecoidea. The adjacent labelled cladogram should help you out.
In recent years several new fossil anthropoids have been described that
appear close to various of the key branching points in anthropoid
phylogeny. Catopithecus from the Upper Eocene of Egypt is a
stem-catarrhine close to the platyrrhine-catarrhine split, Saadanius from
the Oligocene of Saudi Arabia must have been very close to the ancestry
of the catarrhine clade that includes both apes as well as Old World
monkeys, Nsungwepithecus appears to be a stem-member of the
cercopithecoid clade, while Victoriapithecus from the Miocene of Kenya is
an early Old World monkey outside the clade that includes colobines and cercopithecines.
Many other fossil taxa have been identified as stem-members of
Anthropoidea, Catarrhini and Cercopithecoidea. In addition, several
completely extinct anthropoid lineages existed during the Oligocene and
Miocene, including the pliopithecoids and dendropithecids.
Because the monkeys we evolved from did not all die the instant that some of them evolved.
You, and all your friends, are monkeys. Because all of the fossil
primates just mentioned fall somewhere on the tree between platyrrhines
and Old World monkeys, all can be regarded as ?fossil monkeys?, even
though none of the taxa or groups I?ve just mentioned are members of
modern lineages. And if we were to see any of these animals in life we
would regard them as ?monkeys? with little hesitation.
My point here is that it?s clear that the term ?monkey? does not only
apply to the members of two specific living anthropoid clades ?
Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea, respectively ? it?s also a catch-all
label for primates of a certain evolutionary grade: for ?non-hominoid
anthropoids?. But from an evolutionary, tree-based perspective, hominoids
are just one monkey lineage among many. We humans, and all our other
hominoid cousins, are ? as I already said above ? big, tail-less, bipedal
monkeys. This concept might be familiar if you?re a regular Tet Zoo
reader. And, look, there?s even merchandise?
If man was created from the dust of the Earth, then why is there still
dust?
More dirt than needed.
Are you saying that your god created your Adam and Eve out of dirty dirt or garden dirt?
All I know is that it was red dirt.
Why is that all you've remembered from all those Sunday School classes?
As opposed to green or purple dirt.
Hey, poor poor dukie, are you a Poe?
Hang on. Let me check and see.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Jeanne Douglas
2017-04-20 00:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here again.=
I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't remember th=
at this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
They have to forget it and pretend it never happened. They live in so much terror that their god will send them to hell if they even acknowledge the existence of other beliefs.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
hypatiab7
2017-04-20 03:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
I can't believe that this most stupid of questions has shown up here again.=
I can only surmise that some theists are so stupid they can't remember th=
at this has been responded to and explained multiple times.
They have to forget it and pretend it never happened. They live in so much terror that their god will send them to hell if they even acknowledge the existence of other beliefs.
Earl always forgets what he's written. That makes it easier to make fun of him.
Loading...