Design evidence # 177: male & female

[QUOTE] by sonnike++++++++++++++++++++
p.s. what happened to my other topic "taste buds" ?? it disappeared...I noticed one of TC's topics disappeared too...hmmm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++As the admin stated in this thread, it was simply moved to "Intelligent Design", where this one is now.So if you found this one, you should be able to find your "taste buds" topic.And if you find that one, you will find my reply (and a couple of others) awaiting your response. I'll let you address my taste buds post before I move on to this one, although I'll mention that it should be obvious to see that a book written by man would exhibit what man would see in the world around him (man, woman, limited "domination" of species).And unfortunately it also says a lot of other things that would have been seen by man back when it was written, but ended up not being true once more evidence came in. But that is a whole other topic (regarding the fallability of the bible).Anyhow, check out taste buds.holmes

I'm also curious about your laundry list of evidence for design. You seem to be jumping all over a very large list.Why not go in order? And is there a place I can go to see this enumerated list?And please don't say read the bible, as I have read the bible and there is no enumerated list of proof of God's design, though frankly that would have been a pretty intelligent thing for god to have included.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-26-2003]

In what way are humans not animals?

Peter: "In what way are humans not animals? "
-------------------------------------------------Well, for one we have a spirit.
Secondly, we bury our dead and THINK about mortality.
Thirdly, we have creativity and imagination beyond any animal (fine art, space shuttle, etc).
We can control fire, no animal can do that.
We make and use advanced tools.
We can speak, and write, and communicate with each other in intelligent ways.
We think about our brain.
We have dominion over the animals.
We debate about things, like evolution, origins, etc.We are NOT animals. We are created in God's image.Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

I as we during the course of a using my that I am an animal. Edited to add:
With apologies for the editorial liberties I took with your post![This message has been edited by Chavalon, 01-29-2003]

Sonnikke, I suggest you read Ecclesiastes 3:18-19. Its pretty much disagree with what you just said.I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless."[This message has been edited by AstroMike, 01-29-2003]

Hey AstroMike,Of my translations, only the NIV uses the word "animal." KJV, NASB, and Amplified all use the word "Beast." Clearly not all animals are beasts, per common usage, e.g. hummingbirds, earthworms, humans.If not part of the animal kingdom, where do you put us? Clearly mineral and plant kingdoms don't fit well.-Shiloh

Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia nobis
How like us is that very ugly beast, the monkey
-- Ennius, ~200 BCEI confess freely to you, I could never look long upon a monkey, without very mortifying reflections
William Congreve, 1695So, sonnikke, I suggest that you look long upon a monkey. More specifically, a chimpanzee. Of all the nonhuman species currently alive, chimps are the closest to our species, in anatomy, in genetics, and even in behavior.Well, for one we have a spirit. How does one distinguish between entities with spirits and entities without?And if one judges from some people believe about their pets, dogs and cats also have spirits -- some people seem to believe that they will be accompanied in Heaven by their favorite pets.Secondly, we bury our dead and THINK about mortality.
Thirdly, we have creativity and imagination beyond any animal (fine art, space shuttle, etc).
We can control fire, no animal can do that.
We make and use advanced tools. However, chimps can construct a variety of tools, and there is some evidence that suggests that they can create mental models. Very few other species have that capability.We can speak, and write, and communicate with each other in intelligent ways. However, chimps can learn lots of signs, though they do not seem capable of constructing full-scale sentences.We think about our brain. Chimps can recognize themselves in mirrors, something that very few other species can do.We have dominion over the animals. De facto dominion, certainly; however, some species of ants maintain fungus gardens in their nests, and some maintain herds of aphids that they "milk".We debate about things, like evolution, origins, etc. So?We are NOT animals. We are created in God's image.However, as a wise man once said, if horses and cows and lions were to make pictures of the deities they worshipped, they would make pictures of horses and cows and lions, as the case may be.

quote:

---

Sonnike say::

​

Well, for one we have a spirit.

---

And you know this because ... ?Likewise, even if you could prove that humans have a spirit
how do you know that other animals do not?Other cultures believe that all life is imbued with a spirit
and some that even inanimate objects have a spirit. What makes
your world view the correct one?

quote:

---

Secondly, we bury our dead and THINK about mortality.

---

All social animals exhibit varying social behaviours, how does
this behaviour mark humans as different?Are you sure that no other animals bury their dead?Are you sure that all human cultures bury their dead?How do you know what other animals do or do not think?

quote:

---

Thirdly, we have creativity and imagination beyond any animal (fine art, space shuttle, etc).

---

Could a zulu tribesman design a space shuttle, and does that
make him different to other humans?How do you know what any other animal imagines?Is a disabled person unable to co-ordinate his arms different
to a human who can paint portraits (in any significant manner
in the context of the question here)?

quote:

---

We can control fire, no animal can do that.

---

Very jungle book ... but I guess this one is about right.
The question from this is 'how does a practical capability
differentiate us from other animals?'We don't have spots on our fur either, nor can we run at speeds
greater than about 25mph (or thereabouts), but that is true of many
animals ... is a tiger not an animal because it is stripey?

quote:

---

We make and use advanced tools.

---

Other animals utilise objects as tools, and chimps will modify
sticks to make neat little termite pickers. Okay so you say
advanced tools, but there once was the view that man was different
because he used tools full-stop.Having different physical and intellectual capacity does not
make us different from other animals in any sense.Or are the mentally and physically disabled non-human?

quote:

---

We can speak, and write, and communicate with each other in intelligent ways.

---

All social animals communicate with one another in intelligent
ways. Mere cats have lookouts that shout warnings about snakes
and eagles. When warned about a snake the other mere cats take
to the trees, when warned about eagles they head for their
burrows ... that strikes me as intelligent communication and it
is verbal (different sounds are used for the different threats).Chimps and gorillas have been taught sign language, and I have seen
a documentary on a parrot that was taught to speak (not mimic)
and could tell when asked what shapes and colours it was being
shown. This parrot also showed intelligence in the sense that
at one point during the demonstration it refused to
participate any longer saying 'No.' when asked any questions.Not all human culture have had a written language so I can hardly
count that as a differentiating factor.

quote:

---

We think about our brain.

---

And you know that other animals don't?

quote:

---

We have dominion over the animals.

---

Exaplain this one ... in what way do we have dominion over
the animals?To take someone else's quote
(apologies can't remember who posted this)
get in a pit with a hungry lion and tell me who has dominion
over whom.

quote:

---

We debate about things, like evolution, origins, etc.

---

Perhaps other creatures don't have the slack time to discuss
idly the more cerebral aspects of life, the universe, and
everything ... after all they are too busy making a living.There are plenty of human cultures where the practical aspects
of life leave little room for such idle banter.

quote:

---

We are NOT animals. We are created in God's image.

---

Proove it.

AstroMike: "Sonnikke, I suggest you read Ecclesiastes 3:18-19. Its pretty much disagree with what you just said."
--------------------------------------------------First, I'm pleased that you are reading your Maker's word.
Secondly, you have to read the book in context, what he is actually saying is that without God life is meaningless and we are no different than the animals (notice this is mainstream evolutionary thinking). However, WITH God we realize that life is NOT meaningless, but rather created for a purpose, for every man, woman and child. And we are in fact, very special, set apart from the beasts.The book ends with this:
Eccl ch. 12:
v. 13. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.
v. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

Sonnikke,For as long as mankind has had "great thinkers" this arguement/question has rolled around. Each time a new compelling distinction between man and the rest of the animal kingdom is ushered out, it is met with great enthusiasm, and then is found to not be true.Eg. -Once it was thought that language was the defining characteristic of the human being. But that excluded many of the deaf, whose inability to hear retarded language development. Then along came sign languages (which had actually been in use forever, as far as we can tell); but they were rejected as not true languages, rather simple gesture representaions of other spoken language. That was finally demonstrated as false, as signing has its own sentax, is able to express abstract thought, etc. The language distinction had failed, and the deaf were accepted as fully human. Makes sense.Eg. -It was once thought that tool use was a defining characteristic of mankind, then we learned that sea otters (among others)use tools and the criteria changed. Now it became the making of the tool which defined humanity; that failed too, since chimps make tools. So, on we go with the making of complicated tools.At last we have set upon the almost unmeasurable characteristic of consciousness. Man knows who he is. It is this spirit which distinquishes man from animal. Of course there is no proof for this arguement, and dolphins/whales, elephants and chimps/gorillas have shown facinating suggestions of self-recognition and communication, family connection, etc.The nature of every being in the animal kingdom is indeed unique, as each possesses a set of characteristics which distinguish it from the next. None of these differances, however, erase the overwhelming similarities.BYW, in keeping with your criteria, my 3 y.o. duaghter is morphing from animal to human before my very eyes. Although she's not totally there yet, she does seem to satisfy three of your listed human distinctions:
1.Soul(which I believe),
2.creativity,
3.and by God the girl can talk!-Shiloh

I'm still waiting for your response to my points in either this thread or in your one on tastebuds.I'd also love to know where to find the long list of evidence for design you are jumping around. So far your first two examples have been pretty weak.In fact, this last post of yours doesn't even address the rebuttals of your evidence, which makes me think you don't have that much confidence in your evidence.holmes

Sonnike, what is your definition of "animal"?Mine is:Biology Dictionary Online | BiologyOnline.comAnimal KingdomAll animals on Earth are found in the animal kingdom taxonomic classification. Animals are divided into various subcategories to further define them, namely division, class, order, family, genus and species. Each classification matches similar organisms related physically, anatomically or behaviourally in some way. The similarities are closer as you move down the divisions, classes etc until unique species are defined in their own right.

quote:

---

Secondly, you have to read the book in context, what he is actually saying is that without God life is meaningless and we are no different than the animals (notice this is mainstream evolutionary thinking).

---

WRONG.Evolution, and in fact, science, make no statement whatsoever about "meaning", if you mean a greater philosophical meaning.Science ignores such questions and you are the one extrapolating inappropriate intentions.We ARE different from all other animals, just like a cheetah is different from all other animals and an elephant is different from all other animals and a giraffe is different from all othe animals.But we are all still animals.We are animals with big, fancy, complex brains that allow us to do and think all of the things you list in your post about how we aren't animals.Here are some reasons we ARE animals. We share these characteristics with many other creatures on the planet:We have DNA that acts just like all other DNA
We are warm-blooded
We have hair
We die
We are born
We produce milk to feed our young
We consume food to live
We grow our babies in placentas
We get similar diseases to other animals
We have the same body basic plan as all other animals

Sonnikke, I went to BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages. and read the entire text of Ecclesiastes, and you are in error.The conclusion you quoted did NOT reverse the portion which equated men with animals, and there were no statements which put that portion "in context" (ie, man is like an animal ONLY if he's without god).The text is quite clear that man cannot judge himself different than animals, or better than animals, as we not only share the same style of life and fate, but that in the end we have no way of knowing whether their souls don't go to the same place ours do.I wish the original poster had included that part about souls as that carries additional weight against Sonnikke. The bible says animals may very well have souls and humans are in no position to judge that they don't or that their souls go anywhere different than our own when they die!Of course in Ecclesiastes it also says that while their may be one good man amongst 1000, there are no good women amongst them all. I'd love Sonnikke's take on that little gem.holmes