Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

Differences Between Humans and Animals | Answers in Genesis I'm sure even you "primates" can smile at this...------------------
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.

Yes, Judaism and Christianity are exclusive of other religions -- that is why they are so unpopular with the New Age crowd -- too confining. I don't know any Jews or Christians who practice Sumerian religion or agree that Sumerian moral codes supercede their own. Besides, Sumerian religion was strongly polytheistic with little true resemblance to Judaism, which is strongly monotheistic. Sumerians certainly did not hold up the Ten Commandments or Levitical law as important moral codes. And neither recognize Christ as the only means of salvation.Your second question -- God did not say those things in the Bible, so what is your point? You seem to be unhappy with the idea that our creator would be able to dictate what is good and just, seemingly at will. The point is that God's character is the *definition* of what is good and just, so that anything that is at odds with his character is not either of these things. The fact that you think that raping and killing are bad stems from your innate ability to know right from wrong. Without the idea of moral absolutes, they might as well be great fun depending on your perspective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
In Darwinism there is supposed to be a war of Nature, Nature is defined by it's being "red in tooth and claw". Wherever Darwinists get their humanitarinism from, it's certainly not from their view of Nature. War precludes the more meaningful forms of unity.

​

What makes animals distinct from man is obviously their intellectual capabilities, where maybe the ability to think in terms of spoken language is truly unique, or metathoughts etc. If we would find a being that had similar intellectual capabilities, but otherwise walked on all fours etc. we would of course categorize them together with humans.

​

Whenever I discuss effects on emotive views by Darwinism everybody here always says that those effects are insignificant. This debate shows that people do have emotive views associated with Darwinism and evolution in general to a significant extent.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Somebody nudge the record player, eh?This album has been repeating itself for the longest time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Differences Between Humans and Animals | Answers in Genesis

​

I'm sure even you "primates" can smile at this...

​

---

I found plenty to laugh at in the piece, but I don't think for the reasons you probably found it funny.I found it pretty silly in an uneducated way, and rather arrogant and sarcastic in tone.The following is from the essay inked to above:"This being the case, Christians are plainly wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different."This is NOT what anyone here is saying.We are different from everything on the planet, just like every other animal is special and unique in it's own right. Eagles are not like pumas are not like tree squirrels are not like chimpanzees are not like dung beetles are not like flatworms.But we are all animals.The quote goes on to say:"And they are also obviously wrong to insist that this difference arises from the fact that God created us humans in His own likeness."It's a fact? I thought it was something one believed on faith."And if they are wrong to insist that God made us in His own likeness, then they are wrong to insist that God has any claim on us."Um, I don't really see how this follows logically..."Furthermore, if God has no claim on us, then we are free?free to be animals like our evolutionary ancestors?free to be as low-down as snakes, and to make pigs of ourselves, and to act like donkeys."Yeah, right. All of those prisons are filled to the brim with non-believers who act like animals.If people acted more like Bonobo chimpanzees, our closest evolutionary relatives, we would have a lot more peace and happiness. They are extraordinarily peaceful creatures.

quote:

---

Your second question -- God did not say those things in the Bible, so what is your point?

---

First of all, God most certainly did tell people to kill and rape and bash babies' heads upon rocks, so he does justify immoral acts, at least temporarily.My point is that you are claiming that God is the source for morality.This logically means that God could make anything moral.If you disagree that God could/would do this, they you are admitting that God is not the source for morality, but is actually bound by your own concept of it.

quote:

---

You seem to be unhappy with the idea that our creator would be able to dictate what is good and just, seemingly at will.

---

No, not at all. I am trying to determine if you understand the logical implications of your claim that God does/can do this.

quote:

---

The point is that God's character is the *definition* of what is good and just, so that anything that is at odds with his character is not either of these things.

---

So, you do put restraints upon what God can declare moral.So, logically, God cannot be the source for morality but is, in fact, bound by your version of morality.

quote:

---

The fact that you think that raping and killing are bad stems from your innate ability to know right from wrong.

---

No, it doesn't.It stems from the cultural training and socieltal rules I was raised in in, and my own personal sense of fairness that I have developed over the course of my life.I do think that there is some innate human sense of self protection which is extended, more or less, to groups, but that's about it.I don't think all killing is bad, by the way; I eat meat, I believe in euthanasia of terminally ill animals, I believe in anyone's right to kill if their life is in danger, etc.If I lived 100 years ago, you and I probably wouldn't have thought that there was such a thing as marital rape, though. The concept just didn't exist.Morality clearly is culturally-based.

quote:

---

Without the idea of moral absolutes, they might as well be great fun depending on your perspective.

---

This is technically true, but not really what I was getting at.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Here are but a few differences that embody the immense chasm that separates us from the beasts:

---

All of your 'chasm' is accomplished by one (maybe two) things - an enlarged neocortex, which is most likely (we will know soon) the result of develomental gene mutations.Your subjective litany of our 'uniqueness' is no evidence or justificiation for not considering us to be animals as per the definitioon I provided earlier.Emotional rhetoric and subjective opinions have no place in this discussion.

Hi SLPx,Somehow the current discussions have almost dropped dead in their tracks i.e. no arguments about molecular bio, pop. gen. etc etc...I am starting to miss Peter Borger. That we are even in a debate over whether humans are animals completely and sadly verifies the title you chose for this thread.Cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Hi SLPx,

​

Somehow the current discussions have almost dropped dead in their tracks i.e. no arguments about molecular bio, pop. gen. etc etc...I am starting to miss Peter Borger. That we are even in a debate over whether humans are animals completely and sadly verifies the title you chose for this thread.

​

Cheers,
M

---

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me....I'm sorry we're boring you. What's sadder are the "rebuttals" to the 5 differences between humans and animals. I am supposed to accept those as enough ?
If that's the case, my original "basic evolution description" should EASILY suffice as valid, if those are the terms of justification.Hey, I miss Peter Borger too, he would BLOW you guys out of the water if he entered this discussion.As far as emotionally charged conversation, well, it takes one to know one...------------------
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.

All these "differences" show is that we can do things other animals can't. So, we're different. All animals are different from one another. It's a bit like claiming that a car is not a car if it has air conditioning.

-----------------------------
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Originally posted by sonnikke:
Here are but a few differences that embody the immense chasm that separates us from the beasts:1. We make and use tools.M: So do other primates...so do crows!S: Are you honestly saying that the rock an ape picks up to dig a hole with is comparable to the intricate tool designs we humans create? There is no comparison, we are so far superior that it isn't even funny.2. Art. No animal has ever drawn beautiful pictures and expressions
of their creative imagination.M: Sorry, chimps can paint to...S: giving a chimp a paintbrush and watching him make a mess on a canvas is not even close to a 4 year old child who draws a picture using his imagination, not to mention a fine artist who renders a breathtaking ocean view for example...3. Speech. Although animals can communicate, our speech is far superior including lenghty online debates between intelligent people, in written form.M: Since other animals are also capable of communication this point does not separate us from animals. Some animals have a superior sense of smell and use odor as a form of communication so I guess they must be superior?S: perhaps I should have been clearer. Animals cannot make words and speak like humans (some can IMITATE sounds, but that is a far cry)4. Fire. Animals flee from fire, we USE fire.M: OK, if your house if burning down around you, you will not flee? LOL!S: Yes I would, after I had my family in a safe place, but that in no way proves anything. We still use and control fire, no animal can do that.5. Burial. Humans bury their dead. We are aware of our mortality. We think about the forever after.M: How do you know what a chimp thinks about? Shoot at one and they don't just stand there...
Neandertals buried there dead...S: Highly speculative.
Neanderthals? They have been proven to be humans for quite some time now, no wonder they buried their loved ones.S:
To believe we are animals, is to deny the very basic inate sensation of knowing we are human beings.M: To believe we are not animals is due to religious indoctrination and a complete lack science education.S: No it is common sense. And as far as part 2 goes,..is that a personal attack?We've put men on the moon, split the atom, sent probes to distant space, discovered and cured many diseases, painted the sistine chapel, built 500 meter towers, etc etc...It is obvious we are different.M:Let's see, you were not personally involved in any of those endeavors..I guess you are not human or special?S: What a strange and unwarranted conclusion based on pure assumptions...regardless of whether I was personally involved in any of those things, does not reduce the point, but I suppose that was the only answer you could come up with, realizing that the truth is so obvious, and our human differences explicitly deny that we are animals.------------------
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:

---

S: Are you honestly saying that the rock an ape picks up to dig a hole with is comparable to the intricate tool designs we humans create? There is no comparison, we are so far superior that it isn't even funny.

---

Ah, but this isn't what you said. You said "We make and use tools." So do crows, other primates, and otters, for example. If you now want to talk about how complex the tools we make are, fine, but that is a seperate question.

quote:

---

S: giving a chimp a paintbrush and watching him make a mess on a canvas is not even close to a 4 year old child who draws a picture using his imagination, not to mention a fine artist who renders a breathtaking ocean view for example...

---

Again, this is not what you claimed. You said that humans were different because, "2. Art. No animal has ever drawn beautiful pictures and expressions of their creative imagination."It is clear that humans are not the only animal to do this. If you want to talk about differences in abilities between species to do certain tasks, fine, but this is a seperate question.

quote:

---

S: perhaps I should have been clearer. Animals cannot make words and speak like humans (some can IMITATE sounds, but that is a far cry)

---

I think that the ability to produce complex speech IS a defining, remarkable difference between humans and other species. I also think that the eagle's ability to see it's prey from thousands of feet away under the surface of a lake is a remarkable difference between eagles and other species. The ability of cheetahs to sprint at 60mph is a remarkable difference between cheetahs and other species.I still don't understand how we are not considered placental mammals. Can you please explain?

quote:

---

S: Yes I would, after I had my family in a safe place, but that in no way proves anything. We still use and control fire, no animal can do that.

---

Yes. How does our ability to use fire disqualify us as being placental mammals?

quote:

---

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

---

Proven? Care to proovide some citations to the professional literature to support this claim?

quote:

---

S:To believe we are animals, is to deny the very basic inate sensation of knowing we are human beings.

​

M: To believe we are not animals is due to religious indoctrination and a complete lack science education.

​

S: No it is common sense. And as far as part 2 goes,..is that a personal attack?

---

It was common sense that the sun circled the Earth, and that the Earth was flat, too. Our "common sense" is good for figuring out where water might be or where to find the best berries, but it breaks down miserably when we try to figure out things like the movement of the planets.That's why the scientific method is so powerful. It frees us from having to rely on our deeply-flawed "common sense".So, are you going to answer my question, sonnike? How do you figure that humans are not warm-blooded placental mammals in the primate family who happen to have really big brains which accounts for our very complex communication and problem solving abilities?How, if we are not animals, are we able to use organs from other animals and transplant them into our own?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-09-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Hi SLPx,

​

Somehow the current discussions have almost dropped dead in their tracks i.e. no arguments about molecular bio, pop. gen. etc etc...I am starting to miss Peter Borger. That we are even in a debate over whether humans are animals completely and sadly verifies the title you chose for this thread.

​

Cheers,
M

---

Indeed!I do wonder what happened to the resident megalomaniac....

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me....I'm sorry we're boring you. M: Honestly, your posts are boring sonnikke. You cannot substantiate your claims, make childish statements, and are opposed to evolution for the sake of opposition and not because you are actually well versed in the science.s:
What's sadder are the "rebuttals" to the 5 differences between humans and animals. I am supposed to accept those as enough ?M: You claim that humans are not animals yet you and Symansu are completely unable to demonstrate why. Your assertions i.e. that animals don't use tools merely reveals another discipline that you are too lazy to read up on and would rather just be opposed to for the sake of feeling good about your religious beliefs.s:
If that's the case, my original "basic evolution description" should EASILY suffice as valid, if those are the terms of justification.M: Your cartoonish version of evolution is something that might suffice for someone who's sole scientific education comes from watchign the X-files but otherwise it was both insufficient and wrong.s:
Hey, I miss Peter Borger too, he would BLOW you guys out of the water if he entered this discussion.M: You would be in no position to evaluate how well Peter Borger does in a debate as you have shown you do not understand the science he referred to either.s:
As far as emotionally charged conversation, well, it takes one to know one...M: Keep practicing your insults..that one was just plain lame.

deleted by M due to duplication[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-10-2002]

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.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu