| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
17th June 2009, 04:40 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
29    
 | | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | If we're willing to recognize organisms as diverse as these as "fish": 
... then to be consistent, we must recognize ourselves as apes, biologically, because apes show much less diversity of form. 
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
17th June 2009, 06:40 PM
|  | Anglo Catholic Relict
  
| | Join Date: 1st September 2004 Location: England
Posts: 16,224
Blessings: 25,437,927 My Mood 
Reps: 1,100,777,478,970,303,104 (power: 1,100,777,478,970,327) | | Originally Posted by peace4ever  Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals, namely some form of ape? Yes or no.
This question has no simple yes or no answer.
Humans are certainly part of the animal world, yes. That does not mean the same thing, however, is saying 'humans are animals'.
Consider the United Kingdom in relation to Europe. We are part of the EU, and yet when we say 'Europe', pretty well invariably we mean 'the rest of Europe, not including the UK.'
It is the same with the human:animal divide. When humans talk of animals, we generally mean the other animals, not including us. But nonetheless we share many of the same characteristics, but with a few unique ones of our own.
As for the ape issue, I have answered this elsewhere. Humans are primates, and share a common ancestry with the ape, but that does not make us apes. Our nearest relation in the animal world is the chimpanzee, but that does not make us chimps, nor chimps human.
This is not just a claim. It is evidenced, and not just in DNA. It is also evidenced in human lice, would you believe. 
__________________ A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench. Isaiah 42:3 Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Ad Jesum per Mariam
Last edited by Catherineanne; 17th June 2009 at 06:52 PM.
|
17th June 2009, 06:47 PM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by Catherineanne As for the ape issue, I have answered this elsewhere. Humans are primates, and share a common ancestry with the ape, but that does not make us apes. Our nearest relation in the animal world is the chimpanzee, but that does not make us chimps, nor chimps human.
"Ape" is a colloquial term typically used in reference to hominoids, a group to which humans belong. So technically, we are apes.
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
17th June 2009, 06:54 PM
| | Anglo Catholic Relict
| | Join Date: 1st September 2004 Location: England
Posts: 16,224
Blessings: 25,437,927 My Mood
Reps: 1,100,777,478,970,303,104 (power: 1,100,777,478,970,327) | | Originally Posted by Mallon "Ape" is a colloquial term typically used in reference to hominoids, a group to which humans belong. So technically, we are apes.
How can 'ape' be technical if it is also colloquial?
Technically, the term is 'common ape-like ancestor'.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...Evolution.html
__________________ A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench. Isaiah 42:3 Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Ad Jesum per Mariam |
17th June 2009, 08:31 PM
|  | Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
51    
| | Join Date: 31st March 2006 Location: Wales
Posts: 12,367
Blessings: 27,003,753 My Mood 
Reps: 1,984,022,293,840,305,920 (power: 1,984,022,293,840,324) | | Originally Posted by peace4ever Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals, namely some form of ape? Yes or no.
The bible says we are animals too.
Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
When you come to the Ammonites, do not
harass them or provoke them. Deut 2:19
|
17th June 2009, 08:38 PM
| | Newbie
  
| | Join Date: 8th September 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 639
Blessings: 58,625
Reps: 458,358,390,381,383 (power: 458,358,390,387) | | Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. |
17th June 2009, 09:01 PM
| | Senior Veteran
29
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,547
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by Catherineanne
Are chimpanzees apes?
__________________
"There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |
18th June 2009, 12:02 AM
|  | Veteran
59  
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,546
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Dark_Lite That definition is what those certain characteristic properties are. You are confusing connotative meaning and denotative meaning. One connotative meaning of "animal" is "savage, primitive, uncouth" or what have you, and is the meaning that I suspect peace4ever is trying to link the idea of humans being animals to.
But given that evolution is a scientific theory, it deals with language in a scientific fashion. Therefore, the supplied definition is the only thing we are considering when we say humans are animals. No more, no less.
Scientific meaning of an object starts with a definition. But that is not the end of it. After the object is defined, the definition need to be used in other arguments so the object would become meaningful.
So, if human IS an animal, then what? Do you like to continue to explore the nature of human based on this definition?
I don't think so. |
18th June 2009, 12:04 AM
| | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,546
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by crawfish Is it our bodies that make us children of God, or our immortal soul?
Neither. That is why we are NOT animals. |
18th June 2009, 12:13 AM
| | Veteran
59
| | Join Date: 5th April 2007
Posts: 9,297
Blessings: 124,546
Reps: 44,404,246,110,554,912 (power: 44,404,246,110,568) | | Originally Posted by Mallon If we're willing to recognize organisms as diverse as these as "fish":
... then to be consistent, we must recognize ourselves as apes, biologically, because apes show much less diversity of form.
Your argument proves one more time that paleontology is only a morphological science. No more than that.
This is not a very precise argument, but it makes the point: If you are animal, then you do drive to work. Because no other animal is doing that. They don't drive. And they do not go to their office or lab to work. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
