Humans are not animals

Originally posted by Halitose
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 ...[text shortened]... ld then read: “Is there concrete scientific evidence to prove that man descended from the apes?”

Nice try, but the use of 'ironclad' and 'concrete' are spurious, Hal. In a debate like this, where the aim is not to prove evolution conclusively, but to offer support to one of two options, all that has to be shown is whether the evidence for the evolution of man from ape is more convincing than that for god creating man.

It is not as simple as it seems. Most Christians including those who accept evolution still believe that God chose man to be unique and somehow different from animals. One important question is whether animals have souls and whether they can go to heaven or hell.

What if all animals are equal in God's eyes? Think about it. This self-righteous christian (not at all representative for all christians) comes to heaven and walks straight up to the pearly gates and then what's his name says: "Would you please stand in line", and this christian has to go stand behind a racoon, a mule and a disoriented bear. That'd be amusing. 😀

Originally posted by stocken
What if all animals are equal in God's eyes? Think about it. This self-righteous christian (not at all representative for all christians) comes to heaven and walks straight up to the pearly gates and then what's his name says: "Would you please stand in line", and this christian has to go stand behind a racoon, a mule and a disoriented bear. That'd be amusing. 😀

At least he'd be jumping in the queue somewhere ahead of the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Sweden.

😀

Originally posted by Halitose
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 ...[text shortened]... ld then read: “Is there concrete scientific evidence to prove that man descended from the apes?”

I'm not at all interested in a debate on evolution.

You say that the zoological classification is mere convention, but I can't agree with that.

There are a few life facts which show that we are the same as other animals(I'm not going to research the exact science behind what I'm about to say, as I believe a general idea of my point is sufficient); requirement of oxygen to breath, general method of reproduction, ways of death, etc. We are members of a specific family of the animal kingdom: mammals. This solely means that our properties are more similar to other mammals than members of other animal families.

I'm just curious as to why/how some people believe that humans aren't animals, even though we need to follow 100% of the rules that other animals (mammals) need to follow to survive.

Tell me, how would your argument differ if you were trying to debate that racoons aren't animals?

D

Originally posted by Starrman
Nice try, but the use of 'ironclad' and 'concrete' are spurious, Hal. In a debate like this, where the aim is not to prove evolution conclusively, but to offer support to one of two options, all that has to be shown is whether the evidence for the evolution of man from ape is more convincing than that for god creating man.

I have a somewhat related question. If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? I thought the theory was that species evolved by keeping the more beneficial traits. These new traits would enable them survive better and the "old" version would die out. Why didn't the apes die out when they supposedly started evolving into humans? Why don't we have all kinds of "old" less-evolved species, like fish with feathers, and such.

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
I have a somewhat related question. If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? I thought the theory was that species evolved by keeping the more beneficial traits. These new traits would enable them survive better and the "old" version would die out. Why didn't the apes die out when they supposedly started evolving into humans? Why don't we have all kinds of "old" less-evolved species, like fish with feathers, and such.

DF

They did. The apes I am referring to were ancestors of both us and the other primates alive today. We are one evolutionary branch of the tree. Call them protoapes if you want to help distinguish them from modern ones. So the apes of today are our cousins, not our fathers, to simplify things.

Originally posted by Starrman
Nice try, but the use of 'ironclad' and 'concrete' are spurious, Hal. In a debate like this, where the aim is not to prove evolution conclusively, but to offer support to one of two options, all that has to be shown is whether the evidence for the evolution of man from ape is more convincing than that for god creating man.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I'm not at all interested in a debate on evolution.

You say that the zoological classification is mere convention, but I can't agree with that.

There are a few life facts which show that we are the same as other animals(I'm not going to research the exact science behind what I'm about to say, as I believe a general idea of my point is sufficient); r ould your argument differ if you were trying to debate that racoons aren't animals?

D

Humans share too many common characteristics with mammals to sustain an argument to the contrary. If there is any position I would argue for, it is that we are more than animals -- capable of rational abstract thought (a tough ask in this forum) and having moral discernment -- to name a few characteristics

Originally posted by Starrman
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.

sorry, but I have to disagree. Classification of species' and geni (or what ever teh plural of genus) existed a loooong time before evolutional theory ever poked its head up. It's done by looking at the similarities between animals species and classifying them into groups based on these. eg. All birds have wings = 1 group. All mammals have boobs = another group. The differences inside these groups lead to subgroups being identified until you have specific species. If I remember correctly, you the defenition of when differences (eg hair colour) become so minor that they do not class as a large enough difference to make a new species is whether or not the two can reproduce and get fertile offspring, although in some cases this becomes a little frayed.

Evolution simply takes this one step further and suggets that species have similar traits because the evolved from a similar a similar ancestor (but not in all cases!). In short, to say that the defenition of what is an animal is defined by evolution is incorrect.

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

Simple - one would define "animal" to refer to all species of Kingdom Animalia except Homo sapiens sapiens.

Originally posted by sjeg
At least he'd be jumping in the queue somewhere ahead of the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Sweden.

😀

ha ha ha 😵

What can I say? What if it's a Swedish christian?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Simple - one would define "animal" to refer to all species of Kingdom Animalia except Homo sapiens sapiens.

That's not an argument, but a definition. Is there any reason why you would define it that way? Or could I just as well define "animal" to refer to all species of Kingdom Animalia except Procyon lotor?

Originally posted by Nordlys
That's not an argument, but a definition. Is there any reason why you would define it that way? Or could I just as well define "animal" to refer to all species of Kingdom Animalia except Procyon lotor?

I was just about to reiterate my question regarding racoons, until I decided to look procyon lotor up. 😀

I'm still very interested in the answer to the question though.

D

Originally posted by belgianfreak
sorry, but I have to disagree. Classification of species' and geni (or what ever teh plural of genus) existed a loooong time before evolutional theory ever poked its head up. It's done by looking at the similarities between animals species and classifying them into groups based on these. eg. All birds have wings = 1 group. All mammals have boobs = anoth ...[text shortened]... n short, to say that the defenition of what is an animal is defined by evolution is incorrect.

But you have just described the origins of evolutionary science... It may not have been called evolutionary theory, but it was definitely the basis of it.