Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

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.M: You claimed that NO animals other than humans use or make tools. Other primates can. So can crows. So you are wrong. That we differ by degree from other animals is irrelevant. A cheetah can run faster than a human so that is a trait where they are different by an enormous degree.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...M: Entirely subjective. I have seen paintings that look very childish but are held in high regard. Again, you claim that no other animals can express itself through art and you are wrong..again!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)M: Deaf people cannot speak like other humans yet they also have a wide communication capability through sign language. Animals can convey a huge amount of information via different methods of communication which you stated makes us unique. It does not. You were wrong again.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.M: You claimed that we do not flee from fire as a difference between humans and animals. That is clealy false. Do you claim being able to control fire is a biological difference that makes us distinct from other placental mammals?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 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?M: Common sense (or even a basic science education) demonstrates that we are mammals i.e. animals....what is part 2? It is obvious from your posts that you have never studied any of the relevant fields that you are opposed to...not a personal attack..just an observation.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,M: So you were involved in the moon landing, splitting the atom, painting the sistine chapel, and building 500 meter towers? Or which disease should we be thanking you for having cured?S:
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.M: Then list the biological differences between humans and all other life on earth and make a case for why we should not be considered mammals and more specifically primates....that is if you have time in between restoring the sistine chapel or working on a cure for CJD.

deleted by M due to yet another duplication event (followed by random mutation [This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
deleted by M due to yet another duplication event (followed by random mutation

​

[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-10-2002]

---

Would that be a non-random mutation deletion? (Sorry, I'm in a weird mood.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
deleted by M due to yet another duplication event (followed by random mutation

​

[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 12-10-2002]

---

Would that be a non-random mutation deletion? (Sorry, I'm in a weird mood.)

---

Or perhaps non-random mutation in a crouton in the morphogenetic salad? ...we should be getting the evidence any day now...sound of wind blowing and crickets chirping...any day now.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

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....

---

Whaddaya mean?I'm right here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

---

LOL!!!Your "demonstration" of why humans are not animals is three words; "It is plain."Wow, what a detailed and compelling "demonstration!"Here I thought that because we have every attribute that placental mammals have, that we are indeed, placental mammals.Humans are not animals because Syamsu says we aren't. How silly of me. What could I have been thinking?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

---

******************How compelling.....then it is absolutely plain that a gigantic red frog with a banana in its ear is responsible for lightening...nobody can see the frog (or banana), nobody can support that what I assert is true (well maybe someone who ingests lots of hallucinogens), but I say it is "plain" and "self evident" therefore it is so....not religious..just plain...wow, that argument works for anything you want..so there is no god..glad we got that cleared up

Yes, I really wish Borger were here to impress sonnike and put us all in our respective places.He always presented such sound, irrefutable arguments. I am just so humbled by his towering intellect and scientific acumen..Like the time he claimed that a paper that provided evidence that directed mutations do not occur as described by creationists and he pointed that, no, the paper really proved that directed mutations DO happen! Superb!Or the time he claimed that there is an entire field of science dedicated to 'reconsiling' incongruent gene trees and species trees. That he could not demonstrate this does not mean it isn't true - probably just being covered up by the Conspiracy...Or the time that he claimed that there are genes in locus control regions. And extrapolated sequence data from one exon in one gene to the entire genome. Brilliant.Or the time he claimed that a paper indicated that humans and chimps separated 150,000 years ago, when what the paper really said was that humans and the last non-human hominid separated - but they didn't fool Peter!Then the brilliance of the 'creaton' and morphogenic filed hypotheses - yes, to paraphrase the man himself, he is going to change biology, my friends.Make no mistake... change biology, he will...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 12-10-2002]

don't forget the multipurpose genome for which he never provided a single purposeor non-random mutation...which any day now will be demonstrated in the alignment you provided or how it was shown that W.nobilis which is a clonal population refutes evolution because clones should be different or how the genome is completely stable due to repair enzymes (which ones?) but completely variable anyway.or that introns cannot have conserved features.or that RAG2 dropped out of the sky and nobody has ever researched it even though I posted 4 papers exactly on the subject.Or that the genetic similarity between offspring and parent is completely due to the illusion of common descentor that abiogenesis is the accepted definition of evolution.Yup, with this new science that sonnike etal. thinks is so great we should all be back in the stone age in no time....

And let us not forget the creaton/anti-creaton waves/particles that appear every 26 million years, simultaneously causing global mass extinction and global mass speciation as they interact with the morphogenetic fields. {*Quetzal's brain implodes*}

Are you three school boys having fun yet?
What's the name of your gang?
Better hurry, recess is almost over..------------------
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.

Don't you and Syamsu bear some responsibility for the decline? The last argument from your side of the discussion was that humans are not animals simply because this is plainly obvious. This is not only a non-starter and a non-sequitur, which is why it was ridiculed ( I know the guidelines council respect, but the ridicule was for boneheaded debate technique, not your beliefs), but it also answers none of the arguments from the other side, such as that humans fit the definition of animal, the definition of mammal and the definition of primate. With regard to spirituality man may have a special place in the universe separate from all other creatures, but with regard to biology humans are no more or less unique than all other species.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
...With regard to spirituality man may have a special place in the universe separate from all other creatures, but with regard to biology humans are no more or less unique than all other species.

​

--Percy

---

Thank you Percy, I have respect for you. I've noticed you treat people decently and fairly.I think the point you made, is exactly what perhaps myself and Syamsu felt we couldn't say, and that is what makes the entire difference.
You guys are correct in the fact that the dictionary definition :Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Animal \An"i*mal\, n. [L., fr. anima breath, soul: cf. F.
animal. See Animate.]
1. An organized living being endowed with sensation and the
power of voluntary motion, and also characterized by
taking its food into an internal cavity or stomach for
digestion; by giving carbonic acid to the air and taking
oxygen in the process of respiration; and by increasing in
motive power or active aggressive force with progress to
maturity.of "animal" can just as easily describe a human, but that is because it doesn't venture into the area that you just did. We are not animals because God made us in His image, and we DO hold a very special place in the universe.It also says2. One of the lower animals; a brute or beast, as
distinguished from man; as, men and animals."Distinguished from man", we are set apart, and if you guys can see that it is at minimum "spiritually", well then I think you are at least honest and open.Anyway, I may not be a molecular biologist, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck either, and it is good to see people, like Percy, showing their class.------------------
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.[This message has been edited by sonnikke, 12-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
And let us not forget the creaton/anti-creaton waves/particles that appear every 26 million years, simultaneously causing global mass extinction and global mass speciation as they interact with the morphogenetic fields.

​

{*Quetzal's brain implodes*}

---

A schoolgirl is going to get in on this too...Lastly, let us not forget that he stated that a paper talking about the purpose of the large DDF (deep digital flexor) muscle in horses being more to absorb vibration than to flex the leg when galloping as evidence for intelligent design.What he most likely did was find the cite from an out of context quote on some creationist site, or something similar, because one part of the paper had the phrase "apparent design" in it. He didn't understand what the paper was talking about, certainly, and most likely never read it in the first place. The paper, of course, never says anything about intelligent design.And I thought that it wouldn't be likely that my Equine Studies degree would be very useful!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
And let us not forget the creaton/anti-creaton waves/particles that appear every 26 million years, simultaneously causing global mass extinction and global mass speciation as they interact with the morphogenetic fields.

​

{*Quetzal's brain implodes*}

---

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.And I'm pleased to see that the argument for humans not being animals has been given more substance - the bible says that humans were created in the image of god. They've played their trump card, might as well pack up and go home, we can't overtrump that sort of argument.