Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

S:WE ARE **NOT** ANIMALS!!!!!

​

M: Yes we are...did you rip that quote off from the elephant man?

---

​

Mammuthus, are you getting paranoid my hairy, betusked friend? Perhaps this wouldn't be the time to tell that joke about the nun, the policeman, & Cyrano de Bergerac.

​

Mark

​

---

I am not paranoid...the paranoids are all out to get me

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

We eat and breath, sweat and defecate, are born and die. We have cells and blood and nerves and bones and organs. Like the apes, we have hands and feet and body hair. We reproduce and suckle our young like any mammal. We are fauna just like any other fauna on the planet.

​

--Percy

---

*********WARNING********The following information could be detrimental to young believers in the antiquated theory of evolution.By admission of the evolutionistic society that humans are just another "animal", the ensuing statement naturally follows:*******************
If it can be clearly demonstrated and proven that humans are **NOT** animals but are distinct and superior, the theory of evolution **COMPLETELY and UTTERLY** disintegrates!!!
******************------------------
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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
The following information could be detrimental to young believers in the antiquated theory of evolution.

---

I love the arrogance. Sincerely.....

quote:

---

If it can be clearly demonstrated and proven that humans are **NOT** animals but are distinct and superior, the theory of evolution **COMPLETELY and UTTERLY** disintegrates!!!

---

I could quibble about this a bit but more or less its on the money. In fact, if you could prove that any animal is utterly distinct, meaning unrelated to, any other animal you'd accomplish the same goal. You don't even need the 'superior' part of the equation. So knock yourself out.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Most likely the idea to put humans in the animals categorie originated from some anti-religious atheists as a way to jolt religious beliefs about humans as the crown of creation.

---

I'm sorry, I had an appointment on planet earth today....

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

​

*******************
If it can be clearly demonstrated and proven that humans are **NOT** animals but are distinct and superior, the theory of evolution **COMPLETELY and UTTERLY** disintegrates!!!
******************

---

Well, sonny, I think it is about time you put your jammies on and went night-night.I think you are in way over your head.

Klaus Fisher is not a creationist as far as I know, the evolutionist he wrote this to said to agree with it. (although some weeks later when I expressed the *exactsame* words as my own opinion to the *same* person, he said it was "nonsense") For reference about people who re-categorize which then proceed to change morality, read the reference in the Thomas Paine post. (edited to add: I wouldn't have bothered with it, if people didn't typically proceed to change morality) You can't have read much about the Holocaust if you don't know about the importance of the human-animal distinction. Obviously you have a problem with accepting the possibility that you may be morally wrong in argument, you just can't handle it, which disqualifies you for debating this. You should leave this debate to intellectuals, and Holocaust-scholars and the like who can handle this regardless of whether they are creationist or evolutionist. I'm not including myself in this, but what I mean to say is that it should be discussed in connection to that established debate. The doctrine of truths self-evident has served people well, you are really very callous for ramrodding over it in the usual ruthless style of Darwinists. It is selfevident, you should try and accept it as such, and see if it holds true from there on. The recategorization is nothing new, Darwinists have tried this before.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-06-2002]

Will one of you answer the question - within a scientific framework (because that is what evolution is working in), in what way are humans distinct from other animals?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Klaus Fisher is not a creationist as far as I know, the evolutionist he wrote this to said to agree with it. (although some weeks later when I expressed the *exactsame* words as my own opinion to the *same* person, he said it was "nonsense") For reference about people who re-categorize which then proceed to change morality, read the reference in the Thomas Paine post. (edited to add: I wouldn't have bothered with it, if people didn't typically proceed to change morality)M: I see, so if you suddenly did accept the fact that humans are animals you would run into the streets and start killing people? Do you regularly torture and kill other animals? I see this entire line of argument as handwaving away the fact that you cannot come up with the distinction between humans and animals but due to your religious views still cling to the fallacy.S:
You can't have read much about the Holocaust if you don't know about the importance of the human-animal distinction. Obviously you have a problem with accepting the possibility that you may be morally wrong in argument, you just can't handle it, which disqualifies you for debating this.M: I love it when creationists with no argument claim that I am disqualified from debating with them because I disagree...Wordswordsman said he would no longer debate me because I am a sorcerer...what next, aliens told me I cannot talk to you?
Why are humans being animals such a threat to your morality? And why am I immoral? We have DNA just like all other animals...wow, that makes me immoral.S:
You should leave this debate to intellectuals, and Holocaust-scholars and the like who can handle this regardless of whether they are creationist or evolutionist. I'm not including myself in this, but what I mean to say is that it should be discussed in connection to that established debate.M: Having read Galton's influence in beginning the eugenics movement (with opposition from Darwin) I think I know more about this than you do. And what established debate? You claim all your points are self evident and refuse to provide support for your claims.S:
The doctrine of truths self-evident has served people well,M: LOL! Yes, dictators can claim it is self evident that they should remain in power and that they are the best possible choice all evidence to the contrary. Self evidence does not cut it.S:
you are really very callous for ramrodding over it in the usual ruthless style of Darwinists.M: Get used to it..lots of people will disagree with you..this is a DEBATE forum. People disagree with me all the time and I keep debating them.S:
It is selfevident, you should try and accept it as such, and see if it holds true from there on.M: Nope, I am not that gullible...or are you going to now try to sell me stock in Enron?S:
The recategorization is nothing new, Darwinists have tried this before.M: Trying to link evolution and specific evolutionists to Hitler is nothing new..it is the debating tactic of the creationists who has no other possible way to make a point since they cannot support themselves with science.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
Will one of you answer the question - within a scientific framework (because that is what evolution is working in), in what way are humans distinct from other animals?

---

*********************+Was this for sonnikke and Syamsu? I am not claiming humans are not animals.

S:
If it can be clearly demonstrated and proven that humans are **NOT** animals but are distinct and superior,M: Then clearly demonstrate and prove that humans are not animals. You make a lot of assertions but never support any of them.S:
the theory of evolution **COMPLETELY and UTTERLY** disintegrates!!!M: Says the guy who wanted somebody to explain evolution to him as if he were a six year old...talk about trying to define science by the least common denominator.

The point is, Christianity (like some other faiths) is exclusive of all other belief systems. In Christianity, God is the author of absolute morals. So his absolute morals have at least a finite probabilty of being real. It makes no sense to look for conservation of absolute morals across different belief systems in this context, because all others would be false.As far as mocking God -- you acknowledge the existence of God as a possibility, so you are unsure of the truth. In that context, mocking God is stupid because you are mocking one you acknowledge may in fact exist. Regardless of whether you or those around you believe in God or not, having a little internal humility is wise as well as socially palatable.[This message has been edited by zipzip, 12-06-2002]

quote:

---

The point is, Christianity (like some other faiths) is exclusive of all other belief systems. In Christianity, God is the author of absolute morals. So his absolute morals have at least a finite probabilty of being real. It makes no sense to look for conservation of absolute morals across different belief systems in this context, because all others would be false.

---

I'm not sure if this was intended to be a response to my post as well, but I'd like to explore this position. I find it difficult to equate the concept of "absolute morality" with its apparent cross-cultural inapplicability. I think I'm missing something in your argument. IF the "absolute morality" you proclaim doesn't apply to ALL humans, then I'm not clear on how you can state that it is "absolute". You seem to be stating that "absolute morality" is entirely culturally subjective: Christianity is "right", the belief systems of the other 5+ billion people on the planet are "wrong" - an arguable point, to say the least. By extension, then, any morality intrinsic to these other cultures is, by definition, "wrong" if not immoral. Hence, there is no universal morality shared among all members of our species.Please correct me if I've misunderstood you.

And in the same way you would dismiss equality of people as selfevident truth, without once considering the possibility you might be morally wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
And in the same way you would dismiss equality of people as selfevident truth, without once considering the possibility you might be morally wrong.M: What planet are you on? I said that humans are animals. Now you are turning this into an equal rights AMONG people issue and claiming that I am against it? How about I start making up false statements and attributing them to you?So if you have moved on to are all people equal...depends on what you mean..there are people both more intelligent and less than average. Kinder, less kind. I am shorter than average..my wife is taller than average. There are differences in all sorts of measurable abilities. We are not the same. Does not mean we are not equal under the law (depending on the country you live in). And I see no reason for one group to be allowed to mistreat another. However, this happens all the time...ironic that the motivation and justification is often religion...so I guess your "self evident" truths are not very self evident.All this is irrelevant to the fact that we are animals...primates in fact. If you ask nicely, I am sure SLPx will give you a much more comprehensive phylogeny of primates with details and references I cannot provide as I study elephantids and xenarthrans primarily.Rather than make personal attacks against me or claim I am immoral for not just accepting your so called "self evident" truths, you may wish to reflect on why you are unable to provide a list of distinct biological, chemical, etc features that separates us from other primates or other animals or that would justify distinguishing us from the rest of the animal kingdom as something completey independent.cheers,
M

I've only just takn a look into this thread, so I'd like to be told what differentiates us from other animals.