Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

Actually, sonnikke, the rather silly three (now four) "Borger retrospective" posts were directly in response to your statement "Hey, I miss Peter Borger too, he would BLOW you guys out of the water if he entered this discussion." As such, they were neither attacking you personally, nor even your continuing unsupported assertion about humans not being animals. Since you appear to think Dr. Borger is so incredibly wise and capable, it was quite within the guidelines to point out some of his, hmm, more interesting mistakes. Admittedly they were presented sort of "tongue in cheek", but they are nonetheless accurate restatements of Borger's theories. Feel free to read through any of the threads he started (especially "Molecular and genetic proof against random mutation" and Molecular and genetic proof of the multipurpose genome") to see if he's been misrepresented in any way.Beyond that, what makes you think that Peter would agree with you that humans aren't animals? It was certainly never one of his assertions if I recall correctly.

quote:

---

Eeerrr, wasn't that simply a parody? He wasn't serious, was he? I was assuming it was a little bit of Australian humour - I certainly laughed.

---

Nossir, he was quite serious. Scary, hunh? The galactic anti-creaton waves (or sometimes particles - he wasn't really clear) interacting with Earth-based morphogenetic fields were his explanation for mass extinctions which he claimed had a periodicity of 26 million years. The antithesis, creaton waves, again interacting with Earth's morphogenetic fields, were the cause of speciation. I opened a thread to discuss it, but he never responded. I was REALLY interested in this, hmmm, unique approach.{edited to add: btw: I think Peter's Norwegian, not Australian. North European in any event.}[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

​

S: Highly speculative.
Neanderthals? They have been proven to be humans for quite some time now, no wonder they buried their loved ones.

​

M: Not speculative..neandertal mtDNA sequences do not show an overlap with the human mtDNA gene pool. So you obviously missed the genetic studies on neandertal that were only reported about 100 times a day when story broke! LOL! Proven for some time that neandertals were humans

​

---

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/EP/Neanderthal.htmlJust for you Mammuthus ------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

{edited to add: btw: I think Peter's Norwegian, not Australian. North European in any event.}Dutch I believe..

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

​

S: Highly speculative.
Neanderthals? They have been proven to be humans for quite some time now, no wonder they buried their loved ones.

​

M: Not speculative..neandertal mtDNA sequences do not show an overlap with the human mtDNA gene pool. So you obviously missed the genetic studies on neandertal that were only reported about 100 times a day when story broke! LOL! Proven for some time that neandertals were humans

​

---

​

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/EP/Neanderthal.html

​

Just for you Mammuthus

​

​

---

Just for you sonnikke...since you claimed you had not just fallen out of the turnip truck...I will give you the benefit of the doubt1: Gutierrez G, Sanchez D, Marin A.
A reanalysis of the ancient mitochondrial DNA sequences recovered from Neandertal bones.
Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Aug;19(8):1359-66.2: Relethford JH.
Absence of regional affinities of Neandertal DNA with living humans does not reject multiregional evolution.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2001 May;115(1):95-8.3: Krings M, Geisert H, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Paabo S.
DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the neandertal type specimen.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 May 11;96(10):5581-5.4: Templeton AR.
Out of Africa? What do genes tell us?
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1997 Dec;7(6):841-7. Review.5: Krings M, Stone A, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Stoneking M, Paabo S. Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans.
Cell. 1997 Jul 11;90(1):19-30.

You are interpreting my post in a way to make me look ridiculous, in stead of trying to interpret in a way that is intendend, or most meaningful. It's just a lawyertrick. I previously posted what I thought the main difference was, which was just the same as everybody else here thinks, the intellectual capabilities. I was just saying that it's not a matter of some particular religious doctrine that humans and animals are distinct, but that this is plain fact common to people of all kinds of religion, or without any religion. Again, you obviously don't know what it means to argue with a moral risk, that's why you use lawyertricks. You simply have no clue that you may end up a liar this way.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

S:
You are interpreting my post in a way to make me look ridiculous, in stead of trying to interpret in a way that is intendend, or most meaningful. It's just a lawyertrick.M: My intention is not to make you look ridiculous but to make you (or attempt to) substantiate your claims. This is not a trick. You assert without supporting your assertion and then compare me to the nazi's and any other insult you can throw because I don't just accept whatever you say.S:
I previously posted what I thought the main difference was, which was just the same as everybody else here thinks, the intellectual capabilities.M: You claimed that the differences were self evident and that this was sufficient to support your claim. That is bogus. While some aspects of our intellectual capabilities are more developed than in other animals this no more separates us from other animals than the fact that cheetahs's can run faster than other mammals. Therefore, unless you can come up with something novel, I consider it a failure on your part to support your assertions with evidence that we are biologically a separate entity on earth relative to the rest of the animals.S:
I was just saying that it's not a matter of some particular religious doctrine that humans and animals are distinct, but that this is plain fact common to people of all kinds of religion, or without any religion.M: Define a plain fact. I also don't see that it is widely accepted among the educated (religious or not) that your beliefs are self evident.S:
Again, you obviously don't know what it means to argue with a moral risk, that's why you use lawyertricks. You simply have no clue that you may end up a liar this way.M: And you obviously do not know how to support your assertions. It is both egomanaical and dishonest of you to claim that your views are self evident and correct without accepting the burden of substantiating them. Perhaps it is your own morality you should be questioning.And since you keep bringing up moral risk (whatever that is supposed to imply) are you suggesting that if you were to accept that humans are primates (and placental mammals) that we should expect you to go on a wild killing spree and that the only thing holding you back is your "self evident" belief that we are an alien life form on earth?cheers,
M

Hi Syamasu,If you claim that your post #154 was misinterpreted, perhaps you would take a moment to clarify what you meant:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamasu:

​

Neither me or Sonnike, or the great majority of scientists (excluding Darwinists), and people generally, are "completely unable" to demonstrate why animals and humans should be in separate categories. It's essentially not religious, but plain, that they should be in separate categories.

---

You state that it is "plain" that humans and animals should be categorized separately, yet provide no support for the claim. If it was as obvious as all that, the question wouldn't arise, correct?Here, you post the following as the criteria that distinguishes human from animal:

quote:

---

. I previously posted what I thought the main difference was, which was just the same as everybody else here thinks, the intellectual capabilities.

---

How do human intellectual capabilities make us "not animals", rather than merely very clever animals? What is the dividing line?You follow with this assertion:

quote:

---

I was just saying that it's not a matter of some particular religious doctrine that humans and animals are distinct, but that this is plain fact common to people of all kinds of religion, or without any religion.

---

It obviously isn't a "plain fact", or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'll even grant that it might not be a matter of particular religious doctrine (although that's certainly the basis for sonnikke's position). Robinrohan, for example, is having some difficulty with the implications of this on another thread - and I don't believe it's from a particular religious point of view. However, simply re-asserting that the distinction is a "plain fact" doesn't support your case.

quote:

---

Again, you obviously don't know what it means to argue with a moral risk...

---

Nor do I. What DOES it mean to "argue with a moral risk"?{edited to add: Rats! Cross-posted with Mammuthus.}[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-12-2002]

Let me ask you something:Do you consider animals to be humans?

I'm just watching this discussion at this point, but thought I just step in for a second.I think you might be misunderstanding what is being said. People are simply explaining that humans are a type of animal, not the other way around. Its the same as collies are a type of dog, or Persians are a type of cat, but never dog is a type of collie, or cat is a type of persian, or cars are a type of Ferrari (I wish!)--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

sonnikke writes:

​

Let me ask you something:

​

Do you consider animals to be humans?

​

I'm just watching this discussion at this point, but thought I just step in for a second.

​

I think you might be misunderstanding what is being said. People are simply explaining that humans are a type of animal, not the other way around. Its the same as collies are a type of dog, or Persians are a type of cat, but never dog is a type of collie, or cat is a type of persian, or cars are a type of Ferrari (I wish!)

​

--Percy

---

Firstly, are you a race fan? I'm a HUGE F1 and CART fan, although F1 was kind of boring this year...Anyway, yes but a collie IS a dog right?if humans = animals
then mathematically, animals = humans.I thought of this analogy the other day:Is a car an airplane? no, but both have wheels, both use fuel, both transport people, both are made of similar materials, both could be the same coloUr (notice Canadian ie. NOT color), both were DESIGNED..etc, etc...Here we're not even mentioning spirituality, and NO ONE would argue with me that an airplane is a car right? (If so I think we have problems )------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

Sorry, no, I'm not a race fan, but I'd love to drive a Ferrari to work instead of a BMW. My favorite sport is tennis, which I a play a lot, and my favorite sports to watch are basketball, football and soccer (Celtics, Patriots, Revolution). How about you? I think you're confusing the way we talk with what we mean. We just say it that way as a kind of verbal shorthand. A collie is a type of dog. It's a member of the Canis familiaris species, one of a family of species known as the Canidae, which includes wolves, foxes and so forth. Humans are a type of animal, so your equation is untrue. I believe there are symbols in set theory that mean "is a member of", and that's the symbol you should be using, and not "=". So naturally, if humans are members of the animal phylum, obviously the animal phylum can't be a member of humans. It doesn't make any sense to even try to say it. No one would argue that a plane is a car, but both are members of the class of objects used for transportation. You can be a member of your local racing club, but your local racing club can't be a member of you.--Percy

Sonnike,

quote:

---

if humans = animals
then mathematically, animals = humans.

---

The "species" ultimately belongs in a subset of the kingdom, in this case, animals. Lots of species can fit in the kingdom set & be different species but of the same kingdom. So, mathematically animals aren't humans just because they belong to the same set, just that anything within that set is an animal, including humans.A bat is an animal, so is a cow & an alligator. According to you an alligator is a cow, & a bat is an alligator because they belong to the same set!! Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

To argue with a moral risk means that you concede the possiblity that your position may be liarous, or expressing your own corruption.I didnt' accuse you of being a Nazi, I was just pointing out that the human-animal distinction has much significance in Holocaust studies. Your response as well as the responses of some others are completely infantile.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
To argue with a moral risk means that you concede the possiblity that your position may be liarous, or expressing your own corruption.

​

I didnt' accuse you of being a Nazi, I was just pointing out that the human-animal distinction has much significance in Holocaust studies.

---

And with a lot of other sciences as well. What is the point of your bringing this up?

quote:

---

Your response as well as the responses of some others are completely infantile.

---

And your logic is likewise.