Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Primates"
From Conservapedia
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:I don't like the tone of the term "[[primate]]" as it relates to the [[Theory of evolution]]. Isn't it used dismissively, to imply that [[people]] are only [[animal]]s? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT) | :I don't like the tone of the term "[[primate]]" as it relates to the [[Theory of evolution]]. Isn't it used dismissively, to imply that [[people]] are only [[animal]]s? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Are you a vegetable? [[User:RDre|RDre]] 14:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:34, April 11, 2007
Don't even think of categorizing human beings here. That is a matter which must be discussed and agreed upon first. --Ed Poor 14:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- Won't discussions increase your chances of being permablocked under the new rule, Ed. RDre 14:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- <chuckle> I'll just have to take that chance. --Ed Poor 14:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
umm, that already happened when homo sapiens was included. Flippin 14:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Human beings clearly are primates. As God made them. --Jeremiah4-22 14:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- I don't like the tone of the term "primate" as it relates to the Theory of evolution. Isn't it used dismissively, to imply that people are only animals? --Ed Poor 14:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
- Are you a vegetable? RDre 14:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
