Humans are not animals

I know creationists especially have problems with evolution because it says that we evolved from animals.

I'd like to hear an argument from somebody who believes that humans aren't animals, as I'd stumped as to how one might even start.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I know creationists especially have problems with evolution because it says that we evolved from animals.

I'd like to hear an argument from somebody who believes that humans aren't animals, as I'd stumped as to how one might even start.

D

I'm unclear, arguement for or against evolution?

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm unclear, arguement for or against evolution?

Humans are not animals. Please prove this to me, if that is what you believe.

Evolution was merely mentioned for contextual reasons. I saw a tv show the other day where a scientist tried to debate evolution and creationism with an american tv evangelical. The christian had him forcibly removed from his property for, and I quote "You called my children animals", ie: By saying that man evolved from apes, you implied that my children are animals. He got very hot under the collar about this, and I'm interested in hearing like minded people's arguments about how humans aren't animals.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Humans are not animals. Please prove this to me.

Evolution was merely mentioned for contextual reasons. I saw a tv show the other day where a scientist tried to debate evolution and creationism with an american tv evangelical. The christian had him forcibly removed from his property for, and I quote "You called my children animals", ie: By saying that ...[text shortened]... interested in hearing like minded people's arguments about how humans aren't animals.

D

The way I see it there are only two options here. Either I appeal to some higher supernatural power, or I appeal to language and deem the term 'animals' to hold some colloquial meaning from which humans are removed if talking specifically.

There seems to me no other way, and both are pretty suspect. I can't see how you can argue that humans did not evolve from or are indeed animals unless you are deluded or high on semantics.

Originally posted by Starrman
The way I see it there are only two options here. Either I appeal to some higher supernatural power, or I appeal to language and deem the term 'animals' to hold some colloquial meaning from which humans are removed if talking specifically.

There seems to me no other way, and both are pretty suspect. I can't see how you can argue that humans did not evolve from or are indeed animals unless you are deluded or high on semantics.

Nice spot.

To sidestep the semantics argument, this is what an animal is:
"A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure."

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Nice spot.

To sidestep the semantics argument, this is what an animal is:
"A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure."

D

So we are left with the anti-evolution arguments, all of which are dependant on a belief in the creation of man by god.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I know creationists especially have problems with evolution because it says that we evolved from animals.

I'd like to hear an argument from somebody who believes that humans aren't animals, as I'd stumped as to how one might even start.

D

The taste is totally different esp. after stir frying. Ergo, humans cannot be animals.

Originally posted by Starrman
So we are left with the anti-evolution arguments, all of which are dependant on a belief in the creation of man by god.

Well, I was kind of hoping that somebody who actually believes that humans are not animals would respond.

I don't see why the anti-evolution arguments can't be mutually exclusive to the humans are not animals arguments to a certain extent. Humans not being animals is only a part of the anti-evolution arguments put forward.

I want to see debate specifically about the humans not being animals part.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Well, I was kind of hoping that somebody who actually believes that humans are not animals would respond.

I don't see why the anti-evolution arguments can't be mutually exclusive to the humans are not animals arguments to a certain extent. Humans not being animals is only a part of the anti-evolution arguments put forward.

I want to see debate specifically about the humans not being animals part.

D

But the definition you gave ties it to evolution so to argue against humans being animals, you have to argue their position in the Animalia classification, a classification created on the basis of evolutionary science.

I just don't see how that's possible unless you appeal to a higher source, ie god.

Originally posted by Starrman
I just don't see how that's possible unless you appeal to a higher source, ie god.

Why don't we wait and see what somebody who believes that humans aren't animals has to say.

I put this thread in spirituality for a reason.

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
The christian had him forcibly removed from his property for, and I quote "You called my children animals", ie: By saying that man evolved from apes, you implied that my children are animals.

[Edit: Sorry, yet another one who believes humans are animals.]

Of course we're animals. Who can even question that? We're the only animal we know of who can communicate abstract ideas, but animals nonetheless. I see nothing pessimistic about that.

But to say that because we descend from apes (being animals), we are less than we would be if we were not animals, is strange to me. We're animals, and more specifically, we're humans. And a human is not the same as a gorilla, snail or snake. It's a human.

Besides, I do believe a gorilla should be more offended if compared to a human than vice versa. They are so much better than humans.

And if we're not animals, what are we? What can you point at and say this makes us something entirely different from animals? And I don't mean little things like our ability to communicate abstract ideas. That doesn't separate us completely from other animals. We still have loads of abilities in common with animals.

In my Religious Education Text book when I was in school it said "animals are different from humans in that animals cannot think, they only act on instinct." I lost all interest in Religious Education after that.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I know creationists especially have problems with evolution because it says that we evolved from animals.

I'd like to hear an argument from somebody who believes that humans aren't animals, as I'd stumped as to how one might even start.

D

I'll venture one:

We evolved. Invented language. Kicked the animals' @rses all over the shop. Then we made a linguistic distinction between them and us to denote our superiority. They are animals. We are man, master of the planet.

Take that Animal Kingdom, and Mother Nature!!! Muwhahaha!!! We rule the first, and the second invented us, and now deeply regrets it.

Sorry, missus! You came up with the game- now that you're losing, you cry foul? {Monty was right}

We (the Humans) are the champions,
We (the Humans) are the...

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I know creationists especially have problems with evolution because it says that we evolved from animals.

I'd like to hear an argument from somebody who believes that humans aren't animals, as I'd stumped as to how one might even start.

D

You want a creationist to argue that humans have been misclassified to the wrong kingdom? Should they be classified to a kingdom of their own?

The zoological classification is mere convention, nothing more. If I were to accept, this would mostly be a semantic argument IMO, since homology can be used as both proof of descent and common design.

Unless of course we want to drag the ol’ skeletons out of the closet and examine the fossil evidence, but then the onus is on the evolutionist to make an ironclad case.

The debate would then read: “Is there concrete scientific evidence to prove that man descended from the apes?”

Originally posted by Halitose
The debate would then read: “Is there concrete scientific evidence to prove that man descended from the apes?”

For Aristotle man was animal ridens, the laughing animal. Our putative simian ancestry need not enter into the debate (though the apes probably have an opinion).

The point being that Aristotle identified people as animals long before the theory of evolution was mooted.