Design evidence # 177: male & female

S: It's just saying that we are NOT animals.Here we go again....You can talk to a brick wall until you are blue in the face, but the brick changeth not.

Originally posted by SLPx:
All humans are animals, therefore, all animals are human.
Sonnike said so, therefore, it is true!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------First of all....I didn't say that..I said humans are NOT animals...2ndly, ...are you going to keep saying that to everything I write forever and ever??SLPX:Yes. It goes to show the way in which you think.
It could potentially prevent some folks from wasting - yes, wasting - lots of time trying to have a reasoned discussion with you.

slpx: "You can talk to a brick wall until you are blue in the face, but the brick changeth not."
-----------------------------
I'm glad you admit you are a brick wall. The question is, are you load-bearing or non-load bearing?Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

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

---

Schraf, I think your categories are too restricted to mammals.added: I'm following Lynn Margulis' definition of animals, which is developed from a blastula embryo. I guess Sonnikke does not believe that we all were blastula...

I agree that I stuck mostly to mammal characteristics, but I thought that would be enough to make my argument.

And if you look further, you will find that we are essentially an oddball species of African great ape.Part of the confusion is what is meant by "animal". The term is sometimes used as an insult, to suggest nasty behavor. Also, "animal", when contrasted with "human" roughly means "nonsentient".So we are animals sensu lato but not sensu stricto, as some taxonomists would say.

quote:

---

Part of the confusion is what is meant by "animal". The term is sometimes used as an insult, to suggest nasty behavor. Also, "animal", when contrasted with "human" roughly means "nonsentient".

---

That's one misguided insult... Do animals do bad things? Yes, they kill, poison, dominate each other, cheat, parasitize, copulate in public etc. but don't they also defend their young, trying relentlessly, cooperate, wait in patience, comminucate in various ways, console each other?Maybe it's the animals who would object being deingrated by humans. I don't see human behaviour, either modern or archaic as morally superior to animals. Don't we kill each other, cheat, torture, propagandize?

"And if you look further, you will find that we are essentially an oddball species of African great ape."
---------------------------------------
So now you have us as being an ape....do all your other evo-friends agree with this too???sad sad sad...------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

Sure, we are primates.We are primates with immensely complex brains capable of thinking we are somehow not animals.Each species of animal is special and different and wonderful. We homo sapiens sapiens are wonderful creatures that have certain abilities. Cheetahs are also wonderful and special and have certain abilities which are different from ours. The same can be said for every single species on our planet.Why this insecurity about our own species, sonnikke? Why is it so terrible to be part of this great tree of life? We are wonderous and actually I do think we are unique and special. We are able to overcome many of our physical weaknesses (when compared with other animals) because we are able to make technology, and this is because of our brains.However, I really don't understand how our having these big fancy brains makes us stop being animals.Again, what is your definition of "animal" and how is it that humans are not?Put another way, if we are not animals, why do we share so many characteristics of so many other species on the planet?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-03-2003]

quote:

---

So now you have us as being an ape....

---

Of course we're apes! Why do you think Linneaeus named us Homo sapiens and the chimpanzee Homo troglodytes back in the 1750's? He could see the obvious relationship even then, that's why! And 250 years' study has only found more and more evidence to confirm his hunch: anatomy, DNA, incipient "culture" among chimps and orangutans,.... on and on.

Biblical Verse [Ecclesiastes 3:18-21]++++++++++++++++++++
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. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Sonnikke, if you don't have a bible handy then go to biblegateway.com and look it up yourself, because I want an answer.Clearly, the biblical passage above says that men are like animals. I'm not printing the entire passage to show that it isn't taken out of context because it is too long, but people can go to the link and read it for themselves just like I did.At the very LEAST, the word of GOD says that animals have spirits!Sonnikke, why has God forsaken thee? Or why hast thou forsaken Him? Or at the very least why hast thou forsaken fessing up when thou art proven wrong?holmes

here is your answer dear Holmes:ECC 3 AMP - A Time for Everything - There is a - Bible Gateway"FootnotesDoes the Bible really teach that "a man has no preeminence over a beast"? No! The Bible only records that the book of Ecclesiastes says it. Then why is this book in the Bible? Can it possibly be called inspired by God when it makes such "under the sun" pronouncements, some only partially true, others entirely false? Here is the tested answer: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching ... reproof... correction, for instruction... in righteousness." (II Tim. 3:16 ASV.) The divine purpose in including Ecclesiastes in the Bible is obvious. It gives a startling picture of how fatal it is for even the wisest of men to substitute man's "wisdom" for God's wisdom, and to attempt to live by it. Solomon's reign began with God, gold, and glory. It ended with bafflement, brass, and bewildered acceptance of man's having "no preeminence over a beast"!--man, who was made "in the image and likeness of God" (Gen. 1:27) and "but little lower than God [or heavenly beings]"! (Ps. 8:5.) "(emphasis added)In other words, God doesn't call us beasts, only MAN does.Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

Sonnikke writes:
Does the Bible really teach that...

---

Can we agree that it is all meaningless if one does not consider context?Can we apply that to this CvE debate? That is, does the Bible really teach creationism, or does it only record that the book of Genesis says it?-Shiloh[This message has been edited by shilohproject, 02-03-2003][This message has been edited by shilohproject, 02-03-2003]

who is sonnille?

Sorry, Typo, corrected by edit.
-Shiloh