[_ Old Earth _] AIG: Are humans just another kind of animal?

[Khristeeanos]

More similarities. Just look at DNA, chimp DNA is 98-99% identical to our DNA.

That proves nothing except that the same Creator made them.


The engine from a chevy will also fit into a pontiac.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Oran,

Could you show me the title and author of the book which says there is a fungus 'KINGDOM'? Scientific journal? Whatever?

Is this the Robert Whittaker(?) suggestion of extra kingdoms or what are you using here?

noble6

 

[noblej6]

Sorry...double post

 

[Heidi]

Hi,

I cannot believe that Heidi and a few others are still here hung up on the human is animal thing. I explained the scientific classification system to you months ago. Someone just went thru the whole thing in detail up a few posts and you still don't understand.

Scientists are not making any mistakes about humans being animals. That is the basic classification of humans. Their only other choice as far as what 'kingdom ' are they from is PLANT.

There is only PLANT or ANIMAL...gee, which one would aunt Elsie best fit in?????

Is there a difference between an ape and a fella from Mississippi? Yes, there is, a real big difference. Are there any simularities? Yes, some real big simularities.

Now who told you that modern man evolved from modern day apes?

When something EVOLVES the old thing disappears and a new entity comes into being...over many many centuries usually.

I just bet you a thick nickel you have never yet taken a cyber trip to the Smithsonian to look at the skulls of ancient skeletal remains. Don't be scared that what you will find will go against the bible because it doesn't. All it means is God created earth and everything on it using the amazing tool of evolution.

noble6

So because these people who claim humans are animals have completed certain coursework, do you think they are omniscient? :o Sorry, but all you'll get from fallible human beings is fallibility.

But I have a question: Do "scientists" think that animals are humans? :o If not, then why not if humans are animals? Thank you.

 

[Oran_Taran]

That proves nothing except that the same Creator made them.

It proves that animals and humans have a lot more similarities than differences, and that is exactly what I was trying to prove.
But fine, if you want to talk about evolution then let's. It also proves that chimps and humans have common ancestors. There are MANY ways of building proteins with the exact same function and yet the more closely related two species are, the more closely their proteins match.
For example, if you compare the hemoglobin of humans, rats, chickens, and rhesus monkeys, you will find that human hemoglobin is the most similar to the rhesus monkeys, then to rats, and then to chickens.
They are all hemoglobin, the protein in blood to carry oxygen, but they're different.

The engine from a chevy will also fit into a pontiac.

If you compare the proteins from a shark and a dolphin, which both look very much alike, live in the same environment, sometimes eat the same foods, etc, you will find that the shark's proteins will be much more alike to that of any other fish, whether it lives in the deep sea, or whether it's a flying fish, than to the proteins from the dolphin. And the dolphin's proteins will be more like any other mammal than the shark.

If god had created each organism individually, you wouldn't expect such findings. You would expect organisms to be as closely related as one rock is to another (By that I mean that rocks are basically impossible to classify very well. Sure, you can classify them by how they were formed, where they are found, etc... but it's nowhere NEAR how you can classify organisms)

 

[noblej6]

Hi Heidi,

No, scientists KNOW that humans are animals. This comes from the classification system that has been developed.

From my days of schooling there was only the two kingdoms, but Oran has stated there are actually 7. Could be, I remember something about that, but don't follow this stuff as a rule.

You are trying to prove that a rat is not a human(man) or something and everybody already knows that. However, both are animals using that scientific classification system. It really doesn't have much to do with evolution.

So Heidi, can you tell me why those skulls in the Smithsonian Institute and the skeletons there are some much different than yours and mine....and yet are so much the same.

noble6

 

[Heidi]

Hi Heidi,

No, scientists KNOW that humans are animals. This comes from the classification system that has been developed.

From my days of schooling there was only the two kingdoms, but Oran has stated there are actually 7. Could be, I remember something about that, but don't follow this stuff as a rule.

You are trying to prove that a rat is not a human(man) or something and everybody already knows that. However, both are animals using that scientific classification system. It really doesn't have much to do with evolution.

So Heidi, can you tell me why those skulls in the Smithsonian Institute and the skeletons there are some much different than yours and mine....and yet are so much the same.

noble6

That's like saying that German schoolchildren in the 1930's know that Jews are scum because they were taught that in school. :wink: That's also like the schoolchildren at the turn of the century being taught that brain size determines intelligence as the "science" pf phrenology once proponed.

Science books are constantly being updated because "they now know" that what they once thought was true is no longer true. The skulls of dogs and cats look the same but to leap to the conclusion that a dog came from a cat by looking at a skull has nothing to do with reality. If you put long blond hair, blue eyes and transparent skin on some of those skulls, they wouldn't look much different than some people today looked. Also the skull of Andre the Giant looked a lot different than most of the skulls of average human beings. And there were also many species of animals that lived thousands of years ago which have died out that scientists have yet to identify.

But since scientists have tunnel vision and a predetermined idea of what they're looking for, they see no other variables in what they find except what they want to see. That's like a criminal investigator prejudging a suspect as guilty and ignoring all possibilities of what the evidence can suggest except to make his suspect guilty. That's hardly scientific! But that is how scientists dupe the publiic by using materials they find in the ground to pass along their theories as facts, instead of theories. And the absurditiy of all of this is how many people buy it because they too have tunnel vision and want to believe that humans are no better than animals. Yet the irony here is that if you call those people animals they get offended! :o

 

[Oran_Taran]

The skulls of dogs and cats look the same but to leap to the conclusion that a dog came from a cat by looking at a skull has nothing to do with reality.

No they don't! They look nothing like each other, especially to trained experts (and I am not one of them)

cat skull

Dog skull.

If you put long blond hair, blue eyes and transparent skin on some of those skulls, they wouldn't look much different than some people today looked

Sheesh, where do you live so I can stay FAR, FAR away? or come to think of it, maybe we could get them to work for the circus...

Also the skull of Andre the Giant looked a lot different than most of the skulls of average human beings.

Scientists can tell bones from people with giantism, dwarfism, children, etc. apart. The fossil bones of our ancestors were definately normal, healthy adults.
Besides, if it WAS because of diseses, they would NOT be found in chronological AND geographical order.

edit: I guess the images aren't working... you can copy and paste to see them.

 

[Heidi]

So if scientists can tell the difference in bones, then why have there been 3 identifications of the missing links that were later found to be hoaxes? :o

Sorry, but each generation thinks it has the truth until the next generation proves them wrong. But nevertheless, people keep saying, "But this time we're right." That has happened in every century since the creation of man. ;-)

 

[ArtGuy]

That's like saying that German schoolchildren in the 1930's know that Jews are scum because they were taught that in school. :wink:

If the global scientific community developed an official classification system which defined Jews as being "scum", then yes, it would be exactly similar.

 

[Oran_Taran]

So if scientists can tell the difference in bones, then why have there been 3 identifications of the missing links that were later found to be hoaxes?

OH wow. 3 identifications have been wrong. Well, considering how humans are perfect, the evidence is perfect, and everything else, 3 is a huge number.
What 3 IDs are you talking about? I know at least one of them was completely exaggerated by creationists. In reality, only a couple of scientists thought piltdown man (or I forget what it was called) was an actual hominid fossil. The vast majority of scientsits thought it was doubtful it was even a primate!
Besides, all the misIDs were YEARS ago.



EDIT:Relevant current news:
Chimps should be in the homo genus. (Humans are in the homo genus, we're Homo sapiens)
Take a look at this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10994885/
Chimps more like humans than apes
...
And by revealing this through DNA analysis, scientists have provided support for a controversial hypothesis that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to other species of great apes with which they're currently classified.
...
But a study in 2003 found that 99.4 percent of important DNA sites are the same in chimps and humans.
...
"I think we can say that this study provides further support for the hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees should be in one genus, rather than two different genus' because we not only share extremely similar genomes, we share similar generation time,"

 

[armed2010]

Heidi, "multicellular organisms, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure."

This is what the biological classification of an animal is. You seem to have an issue with Humans being described as what I have posted above. I would like for you to tell me which of these things are incorrect, and why they are incorrect.

1. Humans are multicellular organisms

2. Humans have the capacity for locomotion

3. Humans have a nonphotosynthetic metabolism

4. Humans have a pronounced response to stimuli

5. Humans are restricted in growth

6. Humans have a fixed bodily structure.

 

[Heidi]

Hi Heidi,

No, scientists KNOW that humans are animals. This comes from the classification system that has been developed.

From my days of schooling there was only the two kingdoms, but Oran has stated there are actually 7. Could be, I remember something about that, but don't follow this stuff as a rule.

You are trying to prove that a rat is not a human(man) or something and everybody already knows that. However, both are animals using that scientific classification system. It really doesn't have much to do with evolution.

So Heidi, can you tell me why those skulls in the Smithsonian Institute and the skeletons there are some much different than yours and mine....and yet are so much the same.

noble6

Skulls can look very much alike on the outside, but the differences on what was in the skull can be enormous! This is the same mistake that phrenologists of the 19th century made when claiming that brain size actually determined intelligence! Evolutionis simply think the looks of a skull can. But they thought they were as right as evolutionists think they are right today.

So I am not going to make a conclusion about those skulls because I wasn't there and nobody who lived then has told us what or who they are. So I am not arrogant enough to claim that I could ever know such things and pass my opinion along as the truth. Evolution is a theory (opinion)and should be taught as such.

But since it is only an opinion then creationism should be taught right along with it in the schools because reality actually agrees with the biblical account of creation. And this is what I object to. Since evolution is the only opinion ever taught, then our children are so brainwashed to believe that evolution is a fact.

I have actually seen scientists and doctors on television who have said that evolution is a fact. And this is what happens if only one opinion is allowed to be taught; brainwashing. The evolutions forums I have visited is evidence of how long it takes to undo the teachings in school. It took me a long time and I'm a Christian! But once someone has the courage to think for himself and defy his teachers, he can actually see how impossible the theory of evolution is.

 

[army_of_juan]

Evolution is a theory (opinion)and should be taught as such.

Theory =/= opinion
The ToE is not an opinion, it is a scientific theory explaining the fact of evolution. Evolution is a fact, the Theory explains how evolution works.

Of course everything else in your post was just as wrong but I'm lazy today so I'm just pointing out the obvious.

 

[Heidi]

Evolution is a theory (opinion)and should be taught as such.

Theory =/= opinion
The ToE is not an opinion, it is a scientific theory explaining the fact of evolution. Evolution is a fact, the Theory explains how evolution works.

Of course everything else in your post was just as wrong but I'm lazy today so I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Sorry, but that's a strawman. ;-) You have no proof of who or what the missing link was. It's just a scenario about human existence that people have conjured up in their imaginations. It also contradicts the way species breed and produce offspring. So I guess you'll have to wait until you die to be able to discern what's true and what's false since you are not capable of seeing it while you're alive.

 

[army_of_juan]

Evolution is a theory (opinion)and should be taught as such.

Theory =/= opinion
The ToE is not an opinion, it is a scientific theory explaining the fact of evolution. Evolution is a fact, the Theory explains how evolution works.

Of course everything else in your post was just as wrong but I'm lazy today so I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Sorry, but that's a strawman. ;-) You have no proof of who or what the missing link was. It's just a scenario about human existence that people have conjured up in their imaginations. It also contradicts the way species breed and produce offspring. So I guess you'll have to wait until you die to be able to discern what's true and what's false since you are not capable of seeing it while you're alive.

LOL, what missing link? (hint: there isn't one)

And yes, what you posted prior to mine was a strawman. Thanks for pointing that out though that was a another pretty obvious mistake you made as well.

 

[armed2010]

Carico, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what I incorrectly listed that describes humans.

 

[ArtGuy]

Theory =/= opinion
The ToE is not an opinion, it is a scientific theory explaining the fact of evolution. Evolution is a fact, the Theory explains how evolution works.

Of course everything else in your post was just as wrong but I'm lazy today so I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Sorry, but that's a strawman. ;-)

Heidi, do you know what a strawman is? If so, could you please explain how the above statement is a strawman?

 

[Heidi]

Carico, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what I incorrectly listed that describes humans.

I didn't see the post to which you are referring. But that makes no difference whatsoever because any child can see the difference between humans and aimals. In fact, the term "bestitiality" was coined precisely to describe human sex with animals. And everyone knows what that implies because everyone knows what a beast is and what a human is. If people really thought that humans were animals they would simply call bestiality copulation, and consider it natural, but they don't. So they betray their true knowledge that humans are not animals.

 

[ArtGuy]

If people really thought that humans were animals they would simply call bestiality copulation, and consider it natural, but they don't. So they betray their true knowledge that humans are not animals.

So are you saying that a walrus having sex with a poodle is natural? They're both animals...