Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 258 (26053)
12-09-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Mammuthus
12-09-2002 12:41 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Mammuthus, posted 12-09-2002 12:41 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Mammuthus, posted 12-10-2002 3:14 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 153 by Mammuthus, posted 12-10-2002 3:14 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 258 (26072)
12-09-2002 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Mammuthus
12-06-2002 11:01 AM


-----------------------------
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Mammuthus, posted 12-06-2002 11:01 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by nator, posted 12-09-2002 7:03 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 155 by Mammuthus, posted 12-10-2002 3:33 AM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 156 by Mammuthus, posted 12-10-2002 3:34 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 258 (26222)
12-10-2002 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Quetzal
12-10-2002 10:42 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Quetzal, posted 12-10-2002 10:42 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 12-10-2002 3:37 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 170 by Quetzal, posted 12-11-2002 1:31 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 258 (26234)
12-10-2002 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Percy
12-10-2002 3:37 PM


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 says
2. 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 12-10-2002 3:37 PM Percy has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 258 (26335)
12-11-2002 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Mammuthus
12-10-2002 3:33 AM


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
------------------
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 is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Mammuthus, posted 12-10-2002 3:33 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Mammuthus, posted 12-12-2002 4:53 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 258 (26429)
12-12-2002 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Quetzal
12-12-2002 9:43 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Quetzal, posted 12-12-2002 9:43 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 12-12-2002 3:28 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 189 by Quetzal, posted 12-13-2002 10:13 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 258 (26446)
12-12-2002 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
12-12-2002 3:28 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 12-12-2002 3:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 12-12-2002 5:40 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 182 by mark24, posted 12-12-2002 6:19 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 188 by derwood, posted 12-13-2002 9:19 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 258 (26521)
12-13-2002 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
12-13-2002 11:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Having a rough idea of the background of the person you're discussing with helps a lot. Some kids come in here and say, "Hey, I'm a kid." Other kids try to pretend they're adults, and how are we to know? Was Sonnikke trying to make some subtle point that we haven't detected yet, or was he being serious when he asked if we believed animals are humans? If he was serious, does he deserve explanations or ridicule? And is this the level of dialogue most people are hoping for?
One idea I've been entertaining is to have two levels of forums. The novice forums would be for everyone. The expert forums would be only for those who have demonstrated a capacity for informed discussion through their participation in the novice forums. This is just an idea at this point, but I think it has some potential.
--Percy

Once again, Percy has proven that some people do have class...and MORE do NOT, and I thank him again.
My "simple" math equation was obviously a "stab" to say that humans are NOT animals...whether a real math equation can actually be derived to prove the distinction of man; that possibility is not unreasonable.
Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 12-13-2002 11:49 AM Percy has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 258 (26986)
12-17-2002 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
12-17-2002 1:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Thanks for the feedback from both you and Funky. My thinking about the criteria for the expert forums would not be degree of knowledge, but rather a demonstrated ability to debate and discuss productively. This idea is similar to the distinction between the Free For All forum and the other forums. The novice forums would be like the Free For All forum - nothing you do in the novice forums can cause your posting privileges to be temporarily suspended or get you banned, and in fact there would be no such things. But demonstrating an ability to engage in productive discussion gains you entrance to the expert forums. Violations of guidelines would cause relegation back to the novice forums.
It's just an idea at this point - any additional feedback is much appreciated.
--Percy

Hi Percy,
Some thoughts:
1. Would the mockery displayed by the experts previously, result in a demotion?
2. How would you evaluate the criteria? What would be the deciding factor that either promotes or demotes you?
3. "Percy: But demonstrating an ability to engage in productive discussion"...to me, and I admit I'm a novice, that would also mean that the experts should respond with respect and courtesy, without mockery.
I don't know if it is appreciated the difficulty in discussing matters with "evo-experts", in that they always want "peer-reviewed proof", well the problem lies in that obviously "main stream" science doesn't want to deal with what they call "religious science", so any proof I could offer to back up my claims, would most likely come from an ID reference or a creationist reference. Those references seem to be immediately dismissed, and possible ad hominem responses follow.
My basis in this thread has been to attempt to show, that when you state something at a basic level, it doesn't seem to make sense, this has been ridiculed. I maintain that even the most advanced and difficult scientific scenario, should and could be explained in simpler terms, and the failure to do so, is in my opinion, a diversion to avoid illuminating obvious flaws.
I personally, would sooner have a forum as we have now, but simply agree that we will treat each other with respect and avoid ad hominem responses. If an opponent feels a question or statement is, in their opinion, childish, then simply choose not to respond.
I would very much enjoy these discussions provided we keep it courteous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 12-17-2002 1:30 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by derwood, posted 12-17-2002 2:45 PM DanskerMan has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 258 (27053)
12-17-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by derwood
12-17-2002 2:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:

... A newbies' first few posts determine, at least in my experience, how they are treated by the "old timers"...

I would have thought the "old timers" would have the experience to treat everybody with respect.
quote:

.. Did you really think that your "humans are animals, therefore, animals are humans" schtick was anything other than sophomoric gobbledegook? Does that make sense to you - REALLY make any sense whatsoever?

I explained that earlier, I was trying to make an obvious point. If you were so offended simply ignore it, it shouldn't undermine your position.
quote:

There is nothing to deal with. Any "proof" you could offer that is suposedly "religious science", whatever that measn, form creatinist of ID sources would not BE science...

That was the point I made, and you just verified it. Creationists are in a no-win situation with you evo's.
quote:

...Of course, one should dumb down the concept in a manner that at least is a genrally correct reflection of the concept...

So at least we agree on one thing.
quote:

Your pigheaded refusal to acknowledge event he baselessness of your 'syllogism' deserved the wrath it got.

ad hominem
quote:

The easiest, best way to avoid getting crushed is to simply stop making ridiculous posts.

Well, I have learned alot from these past weeks. Some of the posts may seem riduclous to you, but only because you are at the other end of the spectrum. If indeed, you were a creationist, you would agree that humans are not animals, and the post would make more sense.
At any rate, let bygones be bygones and keep the civil discussions going.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by derwood, posted 12-17-2002 2:45 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by derwood, posted 01-02-2003 12:10 PM DanskerMan has replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 258 (28358)
01-03-2003 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by derwood
01-02-2003 12:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
... What is "religious science"? From what I gather - and from what I have read - "religious science" is the type of "science" performed by individuals with prior commitments - sometimes via oath - to certain religiouos concepts. Any discoveries that do not lend credence to or at least fit within the framework established by those beliefs is ignored, rejected, or distorted. Is that hyperbole? Ad hominem? Not at all. I possess several creationist books. I have 4 issues (and have read many others) of CRSQ. And in each one, one can find obvious examples of what I mentioned. For example, in one article in CRSQ, it is assumed that humans are not related via descent to other primates. The authors then perform a phylogenetic analysis on many primate species, using humans as the outgroup. That is, they MAKE humans not related to other primates in their analysis, then they 'concluded' that their assumptions were correct!
THAT is what "religious science" means to me. And as such, it is not science at all.

Sounds like you just described "evolutionary science". "Prior commitments" to naturalism at all cost. If evidence doesn't match naturalistic belief or "framework", it is "ignored, rejected, or distorted". ie. utter lack of transitional fossils, inability of natural selection (and random mutation) to advance organisms to higher order, origin of life & matter - mystery, etc.
Regards,
S

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by derwood, posted 01-02-2003 12:10 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by derwood, posted 01-04-2003 5:17 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 216 by Peter, posted 03-05-2003 8:55 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024