Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to arian]

Do you dislike the idea that humans evolved from non-human apes? Personally, I find the whole question entirely academic. I am who and what I am, regardless of where I came from.

[arian]

[Replying to arian]

Do you dislike the idea that humans evolved from non-human apes? Personally, I find the whole question entirely academic. I am who and what I am, regardless of where I came from.

If you insist on insulting yourself from the academics POV, at least learn what you defend. According to the Academic Evolutionary Fairytale, you are an ape, and an animal.

Maybe it's time to brush up on your academics, ay?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 72 by arian]

Why would that be insulting? Please elaborate.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to arian]

Do you dislike the idea that humans evolved from non-human apes? Personally, I find the whole question entirely academic. I am who and what I am, regardless of where I came from.

If you insist on insulting yourself from the academics POV, at least learn what you defend. According to the Academic Evolutionary Fairytale, you are an ape, and an animal.

Maybe it's time to brush up on your academics, ay?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to be considered part of the great ape family, like every human on earth, is insulting somehow? I don't understand how.

Ironically, we have many believers purporting that by being born on this earth, we are evil sinners that deserve to burn in hell for eternity.

At least humans being a part of the Great Ape family is something that can be observed and evidenced. No such thing can be done about being born evil nor that we deserve hell fire.

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to arian]

Do you dislike the idea that humans evolved from non-human apes? Personally, I find the whole question entirely academic. I am who and what I am, regardless of where I came from.

If you insist on insulting yourself

The person in this conversation that seems to be insulted by acknowledging that humans are animals, primates, and members of the great ape category is NOT FW.

from the academics POV, at least learn what you defend.

Again, it does not appear to be FW who needs to gain some understanding of taxonomy.

According to the Academic Evolutionary Fairytale, you are an ape, and an animal.

Correction: According to biologists (people who actually study such things) humans are members of those groups.

Maybe it's time to brush up on your academics, ay?

Again, it does not seem to be FW who needs to brush up on academics.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to arian]

Do you dislike the idea that humans evolved from non-human apes? Personally, I find the whole question entirely academic. I am who and what I am, regardless of where I came from.

If you insist on insulting yourself from the academics POV, at least learn what you defend. According to the Academic Evolutionary Fairytale, you are an ape, and an animal.

Maybe it's time to brush up on your academics, ay?

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "academic" in this context. It means "irrelevant except as a matter of intellectual curiousity". It's not a deference of authority to people in academic fields.

So, when I say that I see it as an entirely academic question, it means that no answer could possibly "insult" me because I just don't feel any emotional investment in any particular answer.

[Zzyzx]

.

We all should be very careful to distinguish between belief and knowledge. It is easy to confuse the two. Anyone can believe anything ("the moon is made of blue cheese" for example, or "Leprechauns live in the forest" – or other things I won't mention in the spirit of cooperation, mutual respect, and civility) but those beliefs do NOT constitute knowledge.

Knowledge without belief is like a horse without the carriage, the carriage (knowledge) just sits there. No use for anything until you attach belief to it.

Perhaps you have it backward and knowledge is the horse (which is useful without the carriage) and belief is the carriage. Of what use is the carriage (belief) without knowledge – even though belief seems more popular than knowledge among some groups and individuals?

What is knowledge worth if you don't believe in it?

If we know it is raining is it necessary to "believe" it is raining?

Also, I try hard not to store my brain with false knowledge,

By what means do you verify that God exists?

but only verified knowledge.

Many here have asked you to verify the knowledge you claim to possess.

So when I say I believe in something like God for instance, I don't want people to think that; "Oh he said he believes in God, so he must be thinking of Leprechauns or something, lol.. What a dumb ass!"

If you don't wish to be considered "dumb" present the evidence you claim to possess

Thus, you should be willing to do so since you made the claim. You may start any time.

Typically, genuine knowledge (defined as: "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation") is verifiable / testable by anyone interested and motivated. If one claims to know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid / ellipsoid of revolution that rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, for instance, one should (must) be able to present compelling evidence that what they say is true.

Do you know anything about the Theory of Relativity? About observers, reference points, frames of reference, etc.?

I may know a little about such things

OK then go out into space with a rocket ship, look at the earth and prove to me it is spinning? Maybe it's just going up and down?

Rather than prove to you with your scenario (or any other), I can cite and have cited evidence that the Earth rotates and revolves around the sun.

Is that proof of the existence of a creator – which you are supposedly trying to present – or is it just another smokescreen / diversion / evasion?

Same with a heliocentric and geocentric universe, or that the earth is rotating around the sun, or the sun around the earth. If you were on the sun observing earth, the earth would be rising and setting everyday.

From a vantage / vision point on the sun the Earth would appear as a point of light (as would the other planets). However, it would NOT rise and set daily. The sun rotates differentially (depending on location) and takes several days (24 near its equator to 36 near its poles). http://planetfacts.org/rotation-of-the-sun/

What I am trying to point out is that what you might think as verified and tested knowledge could be a bunch of hocus-pocus.

The objective of verification is to eliminate "hocus pocus" and the objective of scientific study is to continually improve understanding of nature.

Contrast that with religious belief that claims to possess ultimate knowledge based upon what cannot be distinguished from hocus pocus (defined as: sleight of hand / nonsense or sham used especially to cloak deception)

So no matter how much education one may have had, or what quality college they went to doesn't mean the knowledge they poses is correct!?

That is correct. One's knowledge is subject to being incorrect.

Remember, that applies to religious knowledge.

Likewise, those who claim (or suggest) that the Earth does not rotate and is the center of the solar system and/or universe are responsible for demonstrating their proposals to be truthful and accurate.

you mean like the Big-bang Evolution fairytale, only they moved it up to a theory, and to no surprise, today it is referred to as fact.

Religionists tend to think that astrophysicists claim BB as factual. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who actually study such things fully acknowledge that their findings are tentative.

Is BB proof of the existence of a creator? You are still hoping to present evidence, aren't you?

So I guess; "I Am An Ape" who am I, just an animal, a chimp, with no college, 3 years of sporadic grade school to be allowed to debate hundreds of years of accumulated religious fairytales by scientists that have been elevated to the pinnacle of scientific discoveries, masters, geniuses, gods!?

Is this evidence of a creator?

One may "debate" with little or no knowledge of the subject. However, to debate with credibility and to be taken seriously one must substantiate their claims with verifiable information. Education is not synonymous with schooling.

If one does not object to having no credibility or being regarded as a laughingstock they can present any harebrained concoction they wish and claim they are debating.

Besides I wouldn't waste any more of my time on these things, I have bigger fish to fry, like hoping to convince others of the fact that there IS a God, and now they too can prove it. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction

I await information concerning how to prove there is a God. Great thinkers, scholars and theologians have sought that information for millennia – so the world awaits

Those who claim knowledge that is not demonstrable to, and verifiable by, others are "blowing smoke." This include claims of knowledge of how the universe originated or how life began. Notice that those who study such matters scientifically IDENTIFY their work as THEORY and do not claim absolute knowledge.

The Big-bang is NOT a theory, come on now let's be honest here.

Okay, lets be honest (and open) in all matters discussed.

What is BB if not a theory? You do know the definition of the term theory, don't you?

Notice carefully that I do NOT promote or defend BB or any other origin of the universe speculations – and have opened a thread related thereto http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=26736

And neither is picking up and looking at a fossil and making up billion year old stories to prove the evolution religion, and that is all it is, a religion. No substance and no evidence, just faith in whatever religion you are worshiping at that time.

Those who have not studied geology often attempt to demean its findings without knowing whereof they speak. Some also demean medical knowledge (but seek care from doctors when ill or injured).

Look, the universe and the world is a fact, right? We can see, feel and observe it.

I do not disagree.

We create with our mind first, this too is fact - Dream, contemplate, come up with a concept, how, where everything goes, the materials that will be needed etc. all in our mind, while the brain is just waiting to get information what parts of the body to move next.

Your point?

Our mind then creates signal, and sends these signals to our brain which is physical,
which then maneuvers the body, extremities, fingers to do the required tasks, and takes whatever physical things it needs to create the concept. If this is how we the created do it, it must be because it is the way our Creator does it. Since we the created are not the Creator, then we can rest assured that what we have is from our Creator. There is nothing that we do that could be different from what our Creator does.

Can you verify the claims in bold font?

This is not a theory but a fact, .. unless you believe the hand decided to create the 'concept' and sent information to the brain to tell the hand to create the concept? Now that wouldn't even make a good hypothesis, let alone a theory. That would also mean that the created is creating the Creator. Well, actually they do try, they are called idols.

Perhaps the "creator" or "god" is an idol (particularly since you cannot present evidence that it exists).

I have found some detailed information how God creates, and looking at how we create as evidence of this, it makes perfect sense. It is all done through Gods Word.

So you say, over and over, that you have detailed information. However, when asked to demonstrate that knowledge all you have come up with is unsubstantiated personal testimonial.

Many who claim to know such things from the study of theology often (usually) claim absolute knowledge – after reading a book of opinions by unidentified ancient writers, listening to sermons from the book, and/or having or hearing of personal emotional / psychological experiences.

I know, I know, .. that's why I'm not a theologian, nor do I claim to have absolute knowledge. If I did, I would not had to work so hard to search, seek and knock for my Lord to give me this information? and then sift through the garbage that comes from the supernatural realm with all that false info. mixing in with the truth. Not all spiritual info is true, so we have to figure out which one works and what don't.

What, exactly, is the nature and origin of the knowledge you claim to possess (but fail to demonstrate).

I still listen to some good preaching that is not too opinioned or interpreted through religious doctrine.

It seems evident that you listen to preaching – the quality and characteristics of which is not evident.

God reveals step by step, but Satan divines and offers it in a pretty package, all complete so you would just accept it and not worry about minor details.

Kindly show that this is more than conjecture, opinion or blowing smoke.

This does not mean that my eyes and ears are not open for some new revelation, which may come from anyone, even someone who hates the idea of a Creator God, or ID as Richard Dawkins does.

Agreed. One should be open to verifiable information presented by anyone of any persuasion.

Scientific search for truth and accuracy encourages and depends upon having its conclusions challenged, disproved, modified, improved. When one's ideas are "locked in" to and dependent upon certain conclusions, they are no longer interested in truth – but are seeking confirmation of preordained conclusions.

Exactly, this is why I would not expect verifiable information from Dawkins since he is so 'locked in' as you said. Instead, I would use his ideas in the correct logical sense, like I did with the Blue brain Project idea.

Okay, let's dismiss Dawkins and focus upon the vast knowledge that you claim to possess.

I do not debate for or against Dawkins, Hawking, or any other person – and none of them appear to be participants here.

The idea to ask 'who is God' did not, .. I repeat; did not come from my religious Christian upbringing, back then I would not dare to ask such a question in the fear of banishment and even excommunication.

That common characteristic of organized / commercial / popular religions demonstrates that proponents and practitioners fear challenge and question. Perhaps such people realize that they cannot openly and honestly answer questions about their claimed knowledge without demonstrating that it is OPINION rather than knowledge and that they cannot support what they say (other than referring to "scripture" which cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate). Which may account for Catholic elementary school authorities suggesting that I attend public school after I insisted on asking questions to which they could not supply coherent answers – even to a ten year old).

I agree that they use the Bible selectively to use sections that support their religious doctrines. We can use the Bible either as supporting evidence, or use pieces of it to support some man made doctrine.

How, exactly, are you doing any different?

I use it as supporting evidence, to see what it has to offer in support of the evidence I already have proof of, like God our Creator in this case.

The "evidence" you already have (as presented) is a personal, emotional testimonial.

In the religions that deal with god/gods, asking details of God is not something that is easily tolerated. Questions like; "Does God exist?" goes against their faith that is based solely on faith (blind faith)

Agreed – and that really upset the Catholic school nuns and priests.

However, as famous a religious figure as Mother Teresa clearly doubted the existence of God for all her adult life – as evidenced by her letters posthumously published.

Woe, .. that's not something you hear every day, right? Poor woman, she must have gone through hell being a religious icon of the Catholic Church, and the wrong she seen in the churches doctrines and practices, which she obviously had to hold back.

In my opinion Mother Teresa was a hypocrite – acting as a religious icon who truly believed while actually doubting or disbelieving that God existed. She did not exhibit the strength of character exhibited by OnceConvinced and others who debate here to actually reject the supernatural beliefs openly and honestly (and often regret the years they spent believing superstition and supernatural nonsense).

This now I know is not what God wants, but quite the opposite.

Perhaps it would be more accurate and credible to say that you THINK you know what God wants. To claim actual knowledge of God's desires invites challenge to demonstrate such "knowledge" – which cannot be done (to the best of my knowledge and experience).

Come on, do you think when Darwin came up with the Evolution theory that no one was calling him, instructing him what explanations he should use for the huge gaps in his theory?

I am not surprised that you envision that someone was "calling him." Who do you propose was the caller?

Is this part of the "undeniable scientific evidence" you claim to possess?

I mean I doubt he witnessed even one species change into another, right?

Did he make such claim?

Is this related to the topic?

He must have had a lot of sleepless nights being tormented by such outrageous claims. I'm sure the Devil came giving him his divinations on how to fill in those gaps to make it somewhat believable.

Are you claiming that the "Devil" is an actual, existing, supernatural entity? How can you show that to be true?

Is this related to the topic?

But I doubt the devil would want me to reveal the Undeniable and scientific Evidence of the Creator.

If the Devil exists (as you imagine) and did not want you to reveal "Undeniable scientific evidence of the creator" (as you imagine), he won because you failed.

I do really thank you, and by all means let's seek more of this Creator?

Why not seek TRUTH based on evidence rather that starting with a CONCLUSION that what we see is attributable to a "creator?"

When one presupposes a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support their conclusion they are NOT looking for truth but are trying to find confirmation of their already-formed conclusion. That is NOT the way to actually, honorably, seek truth (because you assume that you already KNOW truth and just want some way to prove it – which doesn't work very well in debate as you may have noticed)

I am and have been convinced of this for some time now because of solid evidence, or the evidence I have seemed solid enough. If you have any disagreement with the evidence, by all means point it out?

What "evidence" have you presented?

Saying that you had personal emotional, psychological, mystical episodes (as you did in one of the posts) is decidedly NOT evidence in any meaningful sense of the word – is not scientific – and is decidedly NOT significant in debate.

Do you actually think that what you present is taken seriously by anyone other than yourself?

Here is a Zzyzx claim for you: Present your evidence for a creator and I demonstrate that it IS "mush" (as you aptly mentioned earlier).

Specifically, any evidence you are bold enough to present I will endeavor to demonstrate conclusively is invalid, unverifiable, irrelevant, incorrect, and/or meaningless.

Fair enough? Are you bold enough to try to present the scientific evidence you claim to possess?

I welcome correction as I said. Faith is built on evidence, the more evidence the more faith.

Okay, here is a correction: Present evidence that is more substantial than personal testimonial.

You don't have to show me physical evidence,

That is correct. It is YOU who have made the claim and YOU who have the obligation to provide evidence.

if it is the truth, I will search it out and add it as more evidence. If it sounds wrong, I just discard it.

Yes, discarding any evidence that does not fit your presuppositions should allow you to confirm whatever you already believe.

How something "sounds" is not much of a test of accuracy.

Do you want me to live in error?

How others live is not my responsibility. I do not make their decisions.

So please point out the flaws, not just keep saying there may be flaws.

Okay, present your "evidence" and we will see if it turns to mush.

Like I said, I know all about living a lie, when I was attending church, remember me telling you that?

If you say that you live or lived a lie, I do not disagree.

Zzyzx, I mean what you just said here (in green) is so beautiful and true, how is it that you have not used it to proof the Big-bang and evolution theories?

I have no interest in proving BB or evolution. That is not my field of study. AND that is not the topic of this thread. Remember that you boasted of having "undeniable scientific evidence of a creator."

Or what Hawking's teaches, or what Einstein claimed? Or is this only when it comes to our Creator? Scientist talk a lot about all kinds of concepts that are not seen and as knowledge grows in these quantum fields, we may never see them. yet (maybe not you) but every unbeliever seems to simply accept their claims.

It is not uncommon for religionists to claim to know what non-believers accept – as though everyone who says "I do not believe in gods" must think alike, be alike, accept the same things.

Is this related to the OP topic?

I have a few million questions (just saying) which I would love to share with you all.

Questions are valid. One doesn't "share" questions, but ASKS them – without implying that they already have THE answers.

No, I wanted to share the questions to see if you found them solid, or good questions? Besides, you may have much better and improved question I may not have considered.

As I said, if you have questions ASK them. However, you have claimed to possess knowledge. That claim has been challenged. You are expected and required in honorable debate and by Forum Rules to support your claim.

I mean there are things like 'smart questions' right? What are 'smart questions'?
Smart questions are informed questions, as if the person knew the answer already, right?

Questions come in wide variety.

I mean you are the teacher, so I'm sure you know all about questioning.

I make no claim to know "all about questioning" but I have learned that when I ask you a question about the undeniable scientific evidence you claim to possess the answer is "mush."

Besides, even if I did know the answers to my questions, by sharing them with you shows the validity of my claim, no? You may not have even thought to ask that?

Validity of a claim is not demonstrated by asking questions of others – but by DEMONSTRATING its validity.

But for now, let's analyze what I said,

Why start with what you said (and failed to substantiate)?

I said and revealed a lot, which part did I fail to substantiate? The OP?

You have failed to present credible evidence.

tear it apart if we can, or see if my claims are justifiable, and see if there is more evidence?

Your CLAIM to have evidence has been "torn apart" decisively, your claims have been challenged and have not been supported.

If there is "more" evidence, it has not been presented – but is the responsibility of those who claim (or think) they have knowledge of the supernatural (no matter what they call it or what beliefs they harbor).

Torn apart decisively? Challenged?? Where? Can you at least show me which part?

Have you read responses to your "revelation" of personal emotional, psychological, testimonial – the only attempt you have made to provide scientific evidence?

Is it because you don't believe we have a mind, or that you believe it is just part of the brain? That's fine, we can debate that? I already gave a few alternatives if you don't believe the mind is separate from the brain!?

That is not material to presenting "undeniable scientific evidence"

Well, .. so is that it?
You keep telling me I have no evidence, yet I present undeniable evidence.

WHAT undeniable evidence have you presented?

What, do you want me to point out some supporting evidence from scripture?

NO, I ask you to present exactly what you claimed SCIENTIFIC evidence.

I can do that!

Presenting "evidence" from scripture is decidedly NOT presenting scientific evidence. Are you not aware of the difference?

Are you trying to waffle or wiggle out of presenting scientific evidence as you claimed?

I was just holding back since that answers everything else we could ask about God. Maybe not verbatim, but close enough to proof the answers.

I agree that you are "holding back" (if there is anything scientific to be offered)

Remember this is science, not church.

Science does NOT deal with that which cannot be detected (or even described by proponents).

Tell me please, which part of our Eternal Creator did I leave undescribed?[/quote]
Describing your opinion is not describing any "creator" – so you have left the "creator" described.

And be serious, science doesn't deal with that which cannot be detected? Really?

That is correct. If it cannot be detected it cannot be studied scientifically.

So they have detected quantum gravitational waves? Not just the gravitation, but it's waves?

I have not studied quantum gravitation in enough depth to discuss it intelligently. Have you?

Quantum theory, is it about all them tiny things floating around the room after I finish my laundry?

Is that intended as humor?

Scientific study does NOT assume or start with conclusions – but starts with observation and measurement and follows wherever that leads (even though it may contradict one's preferences).

The OP clearly states: "Undeniable and Scientific evidence of The Creator", and I have shown it.

It is not about; "IS THERE Undeniable Evidence of The Creator?" Maybe that's what you should have called the OP?

I was just giving you a chance to be part of this evidence,

Thanks anyway. I decline the opportunity. Just present your supposed evidence.

and see if we could build more on this undeniable truth so everyone could understand it better? You know, like all them Big bangers continuously building on their lies. Why should they be allowed to build on lies, and us not build on the truth?

We are not debating BB or evolution or infinity or any of the other evasions you might present. We are waiting for you to present the evidence as claimed – and waiting – and waiting. All we get is more word salad.

Scientific study does NOT disregard or ignore information or evidence that conflicts with any preordained ideas.

That's great, so do you have any information or evidence that would conflict with my answer to the OP, .. or not?

Are you referring to the "evidence" you presented in post #62? If so, most replies have been kind enough to not characterize that as garbage "information" unworthy of reasoned debate. I see NOTHING in what you have said that is even remotely scientific.

Thanks again, I don't get much positive acknowledgements like this, so it sure is nice.

One gains possitive affirmations / acknowledgments by debating honorably, stating their case clearly, avoiding evasion and other disreputable tactics (including focus on another member),

Yes, I have apologized, and do apologize about that focus.

But you do find fault in just about everything I say Zzyzx, right? [/quote]
So far, I have found nothing of merit in what you have claimed is "undeniable scientific evidence"

One time I started a long sentence with: "I am confused.", and you cut that out and responded to it, apart from the following sentence I was referring to. You have a habit in cutting up my sentences and respond to them incomplete like that. Others have done the same, I guess that is not a personal attack, right?

Correct. It is not a personal attack to dispute statements that have been made.

I mean it's not like you were trying to make fun of me, or degrade my answers/comments right old buddy?
I didn't think so.

You do a good job of that all by yourself.

And it's not like you have a preordained conclusion in you heart regarding any evidence of a Creator either?!

I have an open mind to EVIDENCE of a creator – but do not consider as evidence opinions, conjectures, imagination, fantasy, fiction

Richard Dawkins comes to mind, a true, unbiased evolutionary scientist. You not going to see any preconceived notions in him when he presents his biological Evolution facts, right?

We are not debating Dawkins. We are supposedly debating your non-existent evidence.

(actually I sort of credit Otseng and his Warning to stop fighting/arguing with my friend Zzyzx that may have shocked me back on track!?! Kind of like psycho shock therapy, lol)

Promoting honorable debate is the objective of Admin, Moderators, and good members.

I, for one, am willing to give you a "fresh start" and see how it goes from there.

Thank you my friend.

May I ask you for a favor though? you know as a precaution so it won't happen again. Can you not drag me into saying personal comments like that?

Deciding to make or avoid personal comments is strictly up to the individual. If you don't want to make personal comments, don't make them.

It really does make me feel bad after I read it, and especially after I get a warning like that.

It is reasonable to "feel bad" when it is pointed out that we have made mistakes or violated Forum Rules.

I am not asking you to ease up on your opinions, or except a poorly researched response. I am not seeking any handicap by all means. What I ask is if you could ease up on your indirect tactics that bring me down to such level to respond to you with disrespect. That's all.

Perhaps what you see as "'indirect attacks" are actually challenges to your claims and statements – that you may take personally.

A direct insult would be telling someone to f-- off, right? An indirect insult would be to shove a middle finger in their face. Sorry, but I don't see the difference?

I don't do either of those.

And I have asked you many times, if you find fault point it out,

I and others do that repeatedly. You don't seem to have any credible or coherent response.

not just say 'that is false' which when repeated can cause annoyance which eventually could result in a disrespectful comment from me, as I have seen from other posters to you. I'm just asking?

If you ever actually present what you claim – scientific evidence of a creator – I will gladly point out any errors I see.

Thanks for the dance.

[arian]

[Replying to post 72 by arian]

Why would that be insulting? Please elaborate.

Why is it an insult to my human intelligence to be labeled an animal, specifically from the ape family, .. a chimp? Because I have Undeniable Scientific Evidence of The Creator, and He created us in His image, not an animals. Yes, our body was created of dust just like stones, trees, and every other inanimate objects were, but I don't claim my ancestors were made in the image of stone. But I guess that does explain why religions create and worship gods made of stone!

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 78 by arian]

What's so bad about animals?
What's wrong with images of stone?

Comparing someone to a rose is usually considered a compliment, though not all people like roses.

What would you think of someone insulted by a spherical Earth? A heliocentric model?
What if someone found the idea that they weren't an animal to be insulting?

[arian]

.

[Replying to arian]

Do you dislike the idea that humans evolved from non-human apes? Personally, I find the whole question entirely academic. I am who and what I am, regardless of where I came from.

If you insist on insulting yourself

The person in this conversation that seems to be insulted by acknowledging that humans are animals, primates, and members of the great ape category is NOT FW.

Sad, and even as frightening as this may sound, .. I know! Like the others who responded after FW, they are not insulted either. Now you understand why I say to stay away from religious fanatic ideologies, because before you know it they will classify you and make you believe in anything, even that you are a chimp from the ape family. Others are made to believe that if they wear their Nikes and commit suicide, they will get to hop on a meteor and take a ride to never-neverland.

from the academics POV, at least learn what you defend.

Again, it does not appear to be FW who needs to gain some understanding of taxonomy.

Sorry if I don't classify myself somewhere between a few thousand year old fossilized lizard and a dead chicken imprint in stone just because some religious scientists want to put me there. I am not an evolving fossil!

Now FW may believe whatever he wants, I am an advocate for free will, .. freedom to pick and choose your religious beliefs.

According to the Academic Evolutionary Fairytale, you are an ape, and an animal.

Correction: According to biologists (people who actually study such things) humans are members of those groups.

Come on now, .. biologists lol. They are 'fossil organizers', they follow their religious handbooks and all they do is organize fossils which are nothing but rocks with imprints of dead animal and some human remains, and make up billion year old stories about them.
How about we keep Biology a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, .. not make up billion year old stories of fossils found in rocks? Perverting the meaning of 'science', which is 'observing the world around us' to include chance, by I don't know, .. picking up a handful of fossils and throwing them on the table, and accept whatever order they fell as the unplanned order of evolution' and make up some ridiculous story like; "Once upon a time, billions and billions of years ago, .." I am sorry but that is not science.

Maybe it's time to brush up on your academics, ay?

Again, it does not seem to be FW who needs to brush up on academics.

Here is what Far Wonderer said: "Do you dislike the idea that humans evolved from non-human apes?"

I corrected him that according to the Evolution story, humans didn't evolve from non-human apes, .. you ARE still an evolving animal, an ape, specifically a chimp.
He said "evolved from apes", and I corrected him that he still IS an ape, according to the old, old story.

If this is how it really was, then we would hear;

Forensic Expert: "We found some animal remains here, and upon further investigation we found that it is from the ape family, specifically a chimp. Madam, this MAY BE, the remains of your murdered husband Joe!? Now we are not sure yet until the body fossilizes over the years, then our paleontologists will reexamine it and tell you EVERYTHING about it, including his ancestors, cousins and girlfriends he may or may not have had sex with, what he ate, where he lived, etc. "

This is called religious beliefs, following strict religious guidelines not science. And if he or anyone is to believe in this religious stuff, then at least they should understand what their faith teaches.