Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
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.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
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.
Last edited by Catherineanne; 17th June 2009 at 06:52 PM.
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.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
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.
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.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
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?
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.
Linear Mode
