Are humans animals?

[happyjoy]

so why are you here then to "enlighten" us ignorant folk.
sorry we believe that bible , that foolish thing that you seem to think is archaic
you dodge my logical conclusion of what your are saying and you confirm what i have said all along

you believe that we are only animals. then why do deny the conclusions of darwinisms. by that reasoning it reasonable to believe that since we came from a hominid cousin of primates that we have some things in common on a pyschological level. after theres no God and by word no special creation.

no i know this, its ok to doubt the word, but not ask those annyoyind hard questions on the how what where of science. cause we know that evolution is happening. if you have no doubt then why even look to the fossil record and the dna for evidence your mind is made up.

I think you have a fundamental non understanding of the difference between a true scientific education, and a liberal arts education.

Psychology is categorized as a liberal art. Biology is a science.

I can see where you have problems with an education that is both liberal and art. Liberal tends to have a political affiliation that you are not comfortable with, and art, well it's creative, and they tend to make things up.... be creative.

Science is not like that. Scientists for the most part are not liberal or creative.

 

[Caroline H]

It's a yes or no question, I'm not talking about scams...

If you don't want to answer that's fine. It has nothing to do with the topic anyway, except that you constantly bring up "superstitions," and in your definition/examples of "superstitions" you seem to have denied that God can have any involvement in his creation.

No I certainly don't deny the existence of God. Sorry if you take that from anything I have posted. I deny that superstition can substitute for faith.

LOL! Oh happyjoy, I think the big problem with this topic is that we're all missing each others' point

I didn't ask if you deny the existence of God, I know that you don't. I simply said that you seem to have denied that God can have any involvement in his creation.

So, do you?

 

[happyjoy]

[quote="Caroline H":3si5e80n]It's a yes or no question, I'm not talking about scams...

If you don't want to answer that's fine. It has nothing to do with the topic anyway, except that you constantly bring up "superstitions," and in your definition/examples of "superstitions" you seem to have denied that God can have any involvement in his creation.

No I certainly don't deny the existence of God. Sorry if you take that from anything I have posted. I deny that superstition can substitute for faith.

LOL! Oh happyjoy, I think the big problem with this topic is that we're all missing each others' point

I didn't ask if you deny the existence of God, I know that you don't. I simply said that you seem to have denied that God can have any involvement in his creation.

So, do you?[/quote:3si5e80n]


I think God is all powerful, so I don't deny that he can. I can only say I have seen no real miracles in my entire life.

 

[Caroline H]

So if you don't deny that he can, why do you say that it is "superstition" for one to belive that he does?

 

[jasoncran]

so these illness have no actual basis?
made up.

atusism
down syndrome
depression
bi-polar
and
any other psychosis

many of those are in that 'creative" field called psychologoy
comforting to know that my struggle with emotions after war is "made up" and 'fake", same goes to my wife and aunt and sister who is mentally challenged since birth.

 

[Lewis]

This topic is much longer than that one I started, called Do Animals Go To Heaven. Sheeeez

 

[happyjoy]

This topic is much longer than that one I started, called Do Animals Go To Heaven. Sheeeez

I agree.

I certainly didn't expect to see people who believe in psychology to be upset.

 

[happyjoy]

So if you don't deny that he can, why do you say that it is "superstition" for one to belive that he does?

My only response to that is show me when.

 

[Caroline H]

Happyjoy, my point is that you are just as "superstitious"...there is no difference.

 

[Mike]

happyjoy, I know this is a broad question, because there are likely some miracles in the Bible that you believe to be true and others aren't. Maybe you think they all are not true. If you see some as being true, where do you draw the line? Is it up to us to decide if they are true or not? That would lead to the existence of absolute truth: Something is definitely true or definitely not. No in between.

I understand your thoughts though (I think). Why don't we see the biblical outright miracles that are written in the Bible? I believe that when God revealed Himself in Jesus, the dye was cast. We have that to believe in, and no more biblical miracles are necessary. What would you say to that?

I do believe that education is good. But I don't see education and faith as mutually exclusive. There are a litany of well educated scientists who find reason to believe in creation, the Bible and faith.

 

[happyjoy]

I will be honest about what I know. I don't know anything. I am a stupid human. Not only do I not know anything, but I don't deserve anything. Everyone is trying to lie to me all the time. I am not smart enough to tell the truth from the lies. So I am ignorant. Either Jesus forgives me or he doesn't.

 

[happyjoy]

I believe that when God revealed Himself in Jesus, the dye was cast. We have that to believe in, and no more biblical miracles are necessary. What would you say to that?

I do believe that education is good. But I don't see education and faith as mutually exclusive. There are a litany of well educated scientists who find reason to believe in creation, the Bible and faith.

We haven't disagreed at all then. I still think that we are animals, and I still think that the earth is older than 6,000 years too.

 

[happyjoy]

so these illness have no actual basis?
made up.

atusism
down syndrome
depression
bi-polar
and
any other psychosis

many of those are in that 'creative" field called psychologoy
comforting to know that my struggle with emotions after war is "made up" and 'fake", same goes to my wife and aunt and sister who is mentally challenged since birth.

I think you need to find what the difference between psephology and psychiatry is.


I take that back, but I don't want to delete it. I don't want to fight with anyone. So I quit fighting.

For one week at least.

 

[Mike]

I believe that when God revealed Himself in Jesus, the dye was cast. We have that to believe in, and no more biblical miracles are necessary. What would you say to that?

I do believe that education is good. But I don't see education and faith as mutually exclusive. There are a litany of well educated scientists who find reason to believe in creation, the Bible and faith.

We haven't disagreed at all then. I still think that we are animals, and I still think that the earth is older than 6,000 years too.

Earlier you said that we are "animals" but implied that we weren't the same as the rest of animals. That I can agree with.

6,000 years old? I don't get wrapped up in that too much but leave the posibility that God created the world as is, with the age being pre-existent when He created it. Meaning the world was created with its age already in place. I simply can't deny ceationism and the Bible.

I also can't exclude the holes left in the evidence for a continuous line of earth's developement. I'm just not that well learned in the science. I have an MBA, not a doctorite in arch... (on my blackberry and can never spell that word without spell check)

It seems this thread wouldn't be so long if your separation between people and animals was stated from the beginning. But the long thread certainly makes it compelling!

 

[jasoncran]

happyjoy i am far versed in both.

my family history of phsycosis
mental retardation
depression
ptsd
paraniod schizoprenia
bi-polar

a physcologist and physcatrist(the later my wife sees) deals with all , but deal with them from different angles, I repeat one from an brain -chemical issue and the other how cope with them. both studies the illness via the scientific method
, i never said that evoluntary physocology thing was true and if you read that link the site, it said there is contraversy amongst the physocology community in regards to that. but i have read many articles on that stuff and its pushed as the settled truth.

 

[Lewis]

Do you all agree with this ? I got this argument from a Philosophy site, you can check out the replies, there. http://allphilosophy.com/topic/1454

I've seen a lot of people debate this, so i want to hear your opinions.

also...are humans the most intelligent species on earth? what do you think?

*
Biologically, most definitely yes.

Before exploring whether humans are animals, you have to understand what is meant by the terms you're using.

'Animal' is a word with a certain biological definition. Dictionary.com describes an animal to be "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."

For the bio-linguistically inept amongst us (myself included) a human adheres to all the qualities that are demanded for a thing to be termed an 'animal'. Almost all sensible dictionaries, encyclopaedias and biology text books agree in this aspect of the debate.

However, although, overwhelmingly, a human is most definitely an animal in biological terms, I have come across definitions which loosely claim the biological requirements, then fumblingly tack on the end..."excluding humans."

Linguistically, we often use "animal" to term a creature that is not human, and the definition is exclusively not human because it's easier in conversation. For example, you don't see "Animal Hospital, Excluding Humans" or the RSPCA(EH) "Royal society for the Protection of Animals (Excluding Humans)". (Being British and severely narrow minded I apologise that my analogies are confined to one side of the Atlantic) But yeah.

In spiritual terms, humans are quite often considered not animals, and somehow elevated in this position. This is fair enough, and I can see how someone can be lead to believe this.

What is wrong, however, is mixing the definitions. For example;

Saying that "because, SPIRITUALLY humans are NOT animals, they are therefore BIOLOGICALLY different to animals" (e.g. "for some animals (fruit flies, I think) a natural/human introduced genetic variation causes homosexual behaviour. But genetic homosexuality cannot be true for humans, because ‘they are not animals." You hear this sort of thing a lot. Of course, you cannot claim that *biological* conditions can be different from human to animal, after accepting that biologically; humans are animals, solely because *spiritually/ethically* humans are not animals. (Besides, just because there is reason to believe the "gay gene" exists in other animals, this is NOT reason enough to believe it does not exist in humans, whether they are animals or not. The bad logic being:

A) Homosexuality is genetic in animals

B ) Humans are not animals

C) Therefore homosexuality is not genetic in humans.

(There is no reason to suggest that, even though human's aren't animals, the Gay Gene could be present in us, too.)

But alas, I digress.

The most important thing i want to say is that humans are definitely animals in scientific terms. Definitely.

And whilst there are other definitions too, spiritual, ethical, for example, it is important not to make a biological claim with an ethical/religious reasoning.

That's just about that, then!
http://allphilosophy.com/topic/1454

 

[jasoncran]

lets keep this form becoming a gay gene debate.

 

[Sparkey]

Science has made huge progress in discovery, but has done a poor job of disseminating that knowledge to most people. Average people take the modern world for granted, and don't really understand anything around them, and how it works or how it was made.

When Copernicus suggested that the Earth was not the center of the universe in the 1500's he was labeled a heretic. I think it is safe to say that most people now accept that as true. It did take hundreds of years to catch on though.


Science says we are mammals just like dogs or whales I think it obviously true, but would like to see what others think. Has knowledge that we are animals as widely believed as the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

___________________________________________________________________________________
PREFACE:
"Science" is not alive, does not speak and holds no opinions. Our habit of personifying "Science" is shear imagination. No! "Science" is not part of the Animal Kingdom! :rolling
___________________________________________________________________________________

Before we go further, is there ANY argument about that first fact?
If there is, kindly depart this conversation, but if it is possible for "us" to agree on this (or anything, for that matter) continue.

Still here?
Great.

Okay, now to the OP's question. Are Humans "animals"?:
To rightly consider (and potentially resolve) this we now ask, "What is an 'animal' (for the sake of this conversation)?" It could be said that the term 'animal' is a descriptive term used in a classification system of various objects. Those objects would comprise the set of observable and known things (for want of a better word) in the universe. We could further zero in on the subject by qualifying our definition further - making it to be "Observable by Man" instead of the more general.

Checking: Can we agree that within the set of all things observable and known to man, some may be classified as belonging to the Animal Kingdom? Perhaps the word "kingdom" is a cause of stumbling and/or argument? Fine - strike it.

So then who would wish now to stand up and declare in any conclusive manner that Humans do not belong in that subset? Being as this is a Christian Forum, perhaps one would like to advance the concept that Humans, being created by God, are somehow "better than" and hence differentiated from the "lower forms" of life?

I would disagree. Emphatically disagree. Here's why.

To those, I would say that 'Animals' (with the exception of Man) are innocent of sin and have been unwillingly subjected to the consequence of our choice to sin. "We" defied God. All of creation is subject to the curse of "Work", or if you prefer -Travail. When we fell from the Grace of God we lost our place and to my way of thinking, let the dead bury the dead - we are worse than animals.

Do not even animals take care of their young? Where do we find examples of such excellence and godliness in general society amongst Fathers? Is it not the case that each person who reads this knows at least one (or more) human animals who have suffered abandonment from their human animal fathers?

Sadly, it is indeed.

Turn now, if you will - and read what the Good Word says to us in the very last verses of the Old Testament. Try to understand it. Please. <I'll leave that for those actually interested and below quote some of the first words.>

~Sparrow

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, "Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Unto the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

And unto Adam he said, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

 

[InquisitiveSkeptic]

From someone at university getting a physics degree, you an count on it i have a brain enough to put this bluntly for you.


Physically, evolutionarily or whatever yo want to call it. We are no different from animals. We have the same organs, same compontnes but in different shapes. We have a liver, stomah, eyes, ears, hair, skin, flesh, muscle, bone a brain ect.

The only thing that seperates us from other species is our intelligence and ability to manipulate matter to suit our needs and dominate the planet. I see nothing different from humans to animals.


If i stripped a human of his clothing, education and civilisation he would do what? He would become a beast.

Such cases are people who are raised by animals. they arent much different from the animals the where raised by. the only thing different is the physical form but their brain has developed to be more beastular. They have never integrated into humanity(civilisation) fully uness discovered at the crucial mental developing age.

That alone should illustrate a possibility that mankinds difference from animals is arbitrary. Its not a fact, its a theory. Wich automatically makes the 'fact' humans are diferent a theory also. Because the new opposinbg theory has evidence. If something has evidence against it, it cannot be fact. There are no observable phoenomonon that seperate us from animals. The only thing that would suggest it is a religeous scripture, but first you all need to varify that scripture to be true 100% reliable fact.

 

[jasoncran]

please post those stories on that humans living as animals that have been verified and recorded. the ones i have heard of arent exactly found to be truthful or unverifable.

from an actual acredited university or reliabel science organization :D