We couldn't find a gorilla so we put a chimp in the white house insead.
12/20/2005 10:10:20 PM
12/20/2005 10:20:35 PM
Actually, the first sentence is what a lot of fundies tend to think...
12/20/2005 10:46:46 PM
It really gets annoying that no matter how often it is explained, these guys still dont get that its not \"descended from apes\". Its like they hang onto their ignorance simply because they love saying the same silly thing over and over. I'm reminded of gradeschool children calling someone \"poopy pants\" over and over.
12/21/2005 1:05:07 AM
Just Rick: Well, humans ARE apes, so we are in fact \"descended from apes.\" I mean, my mother and grandmother were apes, as am I. :P This doesn't mean, of course, that we're directly descended from gorillas or any of the other extant primate species. Now if they were saying \"descended from monkeys,\" that would actually be inaccurate.
12/21/2005 2:24:23 AM
Isn't an ape a type of primate? Or is it just another word for primate?
12/21/2005 2:55:28 AM
I just had a crazy thought. Do you think this guy is against sacrificing virgins because he considers it tantamount to abortion? I mean, you never know what God's gonna do.
12/21/2005 3:27:55 AM
I'm given to understand that humans are descendant to \"ape-like\" creatures, not apes as we have today - nearly every fundy is confused on this issue and will do little to further their own knowledge. They literally believe that evolution suggests that our primate relatives are great apes, chimpanzees, baboons, orangutangs, and any other monkey or ape creature found today.
I'm not a whiz at this and really only know enough to get me into trouble, but this means to me that humans and other primates simply share a common ancestor - ie. an \"ape-like\" creatures - not apes themselves.
The statement \"descendant from apes\" and \"my mother and grandmother were apes, as am I\" is very misleading and just the kind of statements that religious people dogedly misunderstand and hang on to.
It seems to me to be a minor clarification that yields major understanding. I'm admittedly out of my depth on the details of this so hope that a 3rd person could better explain what I poorly did, or better explain it to me if I am abismally wrong in my understanding.
12/21/2005 4:35:35 AM
None of those would make any less sense than teaching intelligent design. (Well, okay, the virgin sacrifice would be worse because it actually hurts someone in the name of a nonsensical belief, unlike ID which merely mentally cripples them. But it wouldn't be any less logical.)
And we beat you to it on the second one - just take one look at the Chimp in Chief and you can tell.
Seriously, though - we throw out your antiquated beliefs and you respond by saying we might as well go back to teaching other antiquated beliefs?
12/21/2005 4:30:22 PM
This phrase \"it would make more sense.\" I don't think it means what this person thinks it means.
12/21/2005 6:21:19 PM
The Last Conformist
The last common ancestor of George W. Bush (a human) and Kanzi (a chimp) was, by definition, an ape. It was, however, not of any presently extant species of ape.
In looks and general shape, it will have more resembled Kanzi than Bush.
12/21/2005 9:19:26 PM
12/22/2005 1:29:10 PM
Um, keep in mind that it was the religious people, the Christians of the day who backed the "world is flat" idea, same with any other ridiculous idea about the universe that could be proven wrong by science (like that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way around).
Like, to the point where they were killing/arresting people who thought differently. So the fact that you're saying that now is pretty funny.
4/23/2010 10:08:30 PM
ab4en's comment contains a unhealthy doses of stupidity and dangerous amounts of irony.
Unless you are willing to risk losing 10 IQ points, DO NOT read what ab4en has written.
Before reading ab4en's comment, also make certain that you have turned your irony meters off. . . the amount of irony found here will overload all but the strongest of irony meters. Coming in contact with ab4n's comment will cause most models of irony meters to explode.
4/23/2010 11:25:10 PM
Nope, flat world and virgin sacrifices makes just as little sense as "intelligent design".
You HAD a gorilla in the Oval Office at the time this was written. And, for the umpteenth time: we did NOT descend from apes, we ARE apes.
4/24/2010 7:06:03 AM
"What the heck, lets put a gorilla into oval office too since we teach we are desended from apes."
You lot already did, from 2000 to 2008:
Although he was more like a baboon. Now, the 'monkey' you Repubicans, Neocons, Teabaggers & Religious Right types refer to who's in the White House right now is
at least descended from the common ancestor, the same as all those other intelligent beings like him:
And is Homo Sapiens.
Although I can't be sure about you lot on Ruptured Retards...
4/24/2010 7:18:51 AM
Pennsylvania 1. Rupture Ready 0.
9/30/2010 3:49:19 AM
You do realize that it was RELIGION that forced "the world is flat" theory on everyone right? Not to mention the many sacrifices your god calls for in your holy book. Hypocrite.
12/1/2010 10:15:02 AM
Not only did we descend from apes. We are apes. And although gorilla and humans share a fairly recent common ancestor, we did not descend from gorillas. Even if we did, I don't know how you can logically draw the conclusion that we should put a gorilla in the oval office from that.
(Mind you, this comment was submitted in 2005 -- I admit that I would probably taken a gorilla as president over George W. Bush. At least the gorilla probably wouldn't have decided to attack Iraq. Come to that, if someone like Sarah Palin were to run for president, I'd take the gorilla any day. Even if Sarah Palin was the only person on the ballot, I'd probably still write-in gorilla.)
12/1/2010 3:58:32 PM
Dr. Jimes Tooper
Humans aren't apes; we are, however, hominids. Apes, also known as homininis, belong to a different subfamily. If one insists on referring to humans as apes, one could use the term great apes, as it is more taxinomicaly correct.
7/19/2011 5:05:32 PM
>>What the heck, lets put a gorilla into oval office<<
The Constitution Of The United States:
Article II, Section 1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
A 35-year old gorilla who was a citizen of the United States and had been a resident of the United States for 14 years would be perfectly qualified to run for president. The rules say "person", not "human".
In any case, Your Argument Is Invalid.
7/19/2011 5:58:36 PM