Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

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

It's not the point to make a comprehensive list, that humans and animals are distinct should be held as self-evident similar to that humans are equal should be held as self-evident. The implication here is of course that those who would argue the opposite are not merely wrong but are lying. People who want to put humans and animals in one group, typically also want to change morality. Lying would neccessarily lead to changing morality, and although this is not proof they are lying, the evidence is in accordance with them lying.I think your response shows you don't know what it means to argue with a moral risk, I think you adhere to the doctrine of the preservation of very questionable ideas through the ruthless struggle for debatingpoints.The article I recently referenced in the post about the anti-evolutionist Thomas Paine surprisingly coincides with much of what's argued here. You should read that, and maybe some books about the Holocaust like Klaus Fischer's "The 12 year reich"."the rise of pseudo-biological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution." (Klaus Fischer in a letter to an evolutionist on talk.origins)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Klaus Fisher is not a creationist as far as I know, the evolutionist he wrote this to said to agree with it. (although some weeks later when I expressed the *exactsame* words as my own opinion to the *same* person, he said it was "nonsense") For reference about people who re-categorize which then proceed to change morality, read the reference in the Thomas Paine post. (edited to add: I wouldn't have bothered with it, if people didn't typically proceed to change morality) You can't have read much about the Holocaust if you don't know about the importance of the human-animal distinction. Obviously you have a problem with accepting the possibility that you may be morally wrong in argument, you just can't handle it, which disqualifies you for debating this. You should leave this debate to intellectuals, and Holocaust-scholars and the like who can handle this regardless of whether they are creationist or evolutionist. I'm not including myself in this, but what I mean to say is that it should be discussed in connection to that established debate. The doctrine of truths self-evident has served people well, you are really very callous for ramrodding over it in the usual ruthless style of Darwinists. It is selfevident, you should try and accept it as such, and see if it holds true from there on. The recategorization is nothing new, Darwinists have tried this before.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-06-2002]

And in the same way you would dismiss equality of people as selfevident truth, without once considering the possibility you might be morally wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor 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

I've tried to make my argument as neutral as possible, but I just can't ignore the possibility as you apparently do, of either of us lying. You should explore this possibility, just as in many other cases scientists should have explored the possibility that their work was expressing their own corruption.regards,
Mohammad Nor 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

You are interpreting my post in a way to make me look ridiculous, in stead of trying to interpret in a way that is intendend, or most meaningful. It's just a lawyertrick. I previously posted what I thought the main difference was, which was just the same as everybody else here thinks, the intellectual capabilities. I was just saying that it's not a matter of some particular religious doctrine that humans and animals are distinct, but that this is plain fact common to people of all kinds of religion, or without any religion. Again, you obviously don't know what it means to argue with a moral risk, that's why you use lawyertricks. You simply have no clue that you may end up a liar this way.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

To argue with a moral risk means that you concede the possiblity that your position may be liarous, or expressing your own corruption.I didnt' accuse you of being a Nazi, I was just pointing out that the human-animal distinction has much significance in Holocaust studies. Your response as well as the responses of some others are completely infantile.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The point why I brought it up is in the original post, and a next post. You should read before making an infantile reply.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu