Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]If you can't explain it in simple terms, perhaps it's because when you state it in basic language...it sounds too preposterous to be true.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Actually very little in science can be accurately explained to a six year old. Otherwise we could teach Thermodynamic Meteorology to first graders.

---

LOL!!!

[QUOTE]Hello T.,
(I won't hold it against you that you're a swede .. I'm from Denmark myself)Alright mr. Socialist country man.. if you will, present an every day analogy of what evolution is....it shouldn't be too hard, I would think, since you have such a grasp on it.Vi snakkes hved,
[/B][/QUOTE]Karl already did in message #34. Why don't you reply to him?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

---

That's a nice Argument from Personal Incredulity;"Wow, golly gee, I just can't imagine that happening, therefore it can't have!"Too bad it doesn't refute anything we have said.Maybe you would like to explain the barrier which prevents macroevolution from happening?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Karl, the guppies remained guppies, the salmon remained salmon...that's micro-ev.
It does NOT mean that a mammal can come from a reptile as you guys would have us believe.

---

If you ignore the genetic and fossil evidence, you might have trouble understanding this, I know.

quote:

---

It boils down to this, FAITH. You BELIEVE that guppies evolving to different GUPPIES means that a reptile evolved to a mammal...fine, but that is FAITH and not fact.

---

Nice strawman. We accept the evidence for reptile to mammal evolution because of evidence.Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B

quote:

---

I believe that God created the world and the different animals and plants, etc. That is also faith, but at least it makes more sense since we don't see any transitional creatures walking around and the immense fossil record shows fully formed creatures of the different species.

---

Another strawman!Evolutionary Biology NEVER, EVER states that any creature is not fully formed!!! Only Creationist cartoon versions of Biology state this.All creatures are fully-formed, and there are several very well-known transitional creatures literally "walking around" right now.Ever hear of lungfish?In addition, we have some very wonderful fossil transitional series which are quite detailed, such as for the horse and the whale.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
Karl, the guppies remained guppies, the salmon remained salmon...that's micro-ev.
It does NOT mean that a mammal can come from a reptile as you guys would have us believe.

---

If you ignore the genetic and fossil evidence, you might have trouble understanding this, I know.

quote:

---

It boils down to this, FAITH. You BELIEVE that guppies evolving to different GUPPIES means that a reptile evolved to a mammal...fine, but that is FAITH and not fact.

---

Nice strawman. We accept reptile to mammal evolution because of copious and excellent fossil evidence.Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B

quote:

---

I believe that God created the world and the different animals and plants, etc. That is also faith, but at least it makes more sense since we don't see any transitional creatures walking around and the immense fossil record shows fully formed creatures of the different species.

---

Another strawman!Evolutionary Biology NEVER, EVER states that any creature is not fully formed!!! Only Creationist cartoon versions of Biology state this.All creatures are fully-formed, and there are several very well-known transitional creatures literally "walking around" right now.Ever hear of lungfish?In addition, we have some very wonderful fossil transitional series which are quite detailed, such as for the horse and the whale.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
But that's your problem. The guppies had gained information - the information to grow bigger and mature later. The original salmon had only the information for one lifestyle - but now the two populations have two lifestyles. More information.

​

As to your question "what is the barrier then?", the answer is there is no barrier. As evidenced by the fossil record, the phylogenetic evidence, the biochemical evidence etc. etc. etc.

​

[This message has been edited by Karl, 12-02-2002]

---

​

I disagree. The information would have been pre-coded in the DNA, so it was not "new", simply unused...that's why it was still a guppy and not a shark.

​

As far as the barrier....it ....is....HUGE....Impassable.

​

---

The ToE does not, nor has it ever, suggested that a guppy would change to a shark in a few generations, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Therefore, this is yet another strawman, drawn from your Creationist cartoon versiopn of the ToE.It would do you well to actually get some kind of grounding in basic Biology, you know.Also, we are not asking you to tell us about the barrier...we want to know the MECHANISM or the description of the PROCESS of this alleged barrier to macroevolution.Macroevolution is microevolution on a longer time scale.Why can't small changes accumulate over time to equal big changes?That is what you are claiming and that is what you must demonstrate.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

Ever hear of lungfish?

​

---

​

http://www.pr.mq.edu.au/macnews/ShowItem.asp?ItemID=69
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
yeah, and it was a lungfish "400 million" years ago too...what's your point?

​

---

My point is, as Percy said, that Lungfish have characteristics of both mammals and amphibians.Tell us; what is your definition of a transitional? What characteristics would you, if you would see them, would convince you that yes, this is a transitional fossil between two species?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Most likely the idea to put humans in the animals categorie originated from some anti-religious atheists as a way to jolt religious beliefs about humans as the crown of creation.

​

It doesn't make any sense scientifically, or linguistically. Apart from going against established religion, it also goes against Holocaust teaching, which emphasizes the difference between man and animal. It also goes against common sense knowledge.
It makes evolutionists look like they are completely out of touch with society and reality. If you can't find a significant enough difference between animals and humans to warrant putting them in different categories, then you must simply not be using observation as your source of knowledge.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

What do you have against animals, Syamsu?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
YES, finally some people from the opposite side have shown up

​

It really does sicken the heart to think that some people see themselves as nothing more than a beast (animal)...God is very clear about the fact that we ARE the crown of His creation, and NOT a beast.

​

To honestly believe we are just a slightly more advanced ape.....well...what can I say, their eyes our blind, their mind is deceived.

​

We love and we hate, we design and we destroy, we birth and we bury, we conquer and we are conquered, we believe and we doubt, we laugh and we cry, we create...

​

WE ARE **NOT** ANIMALS!!!!!

​

---

Look, Just because we are naimals doesn't make us not special. I think we are very different from other creatures on the planed because of our unique cognitive abilities.But how are we not animals? We are placental mammals, no? We give birth to young, have warm blood, and produce milk.We are enough like other animals to be able to take parts from them and incorporate them into our own bodies as transplants, you know.I see nothing wrong with being animals. How does this make us less?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zipzip:
[B]The point is, Christianity (like some other faiths) is exclusive of all other belief systems.[/QUOTE]It is? I thought Christianity was derivative of Judaism, and Judaism was derivative of Sumerian religions, etc.?

quote:

---

In Christianity, God is the author of absolute morals. So his absolute morals have at least a finite probabilty of being real. It makes no sense to look for conservation of absolute morals across different belief systems in this context, because all others would be false.

---

Well, if God said it was just and good and moral to kill and rape at will, would it be moral to do so?

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:

---

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 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.