| 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. |
 | | 
18th June 2009, 12:59 PM
|  | Theistic Evolutionist / Ex-Atheist
41    
 | | Join Date: 8th June 2006 Location: Pensacola, FLorida
Posts: 707
Blessings: 72,872 My Mood 
Reps: 1,211,434,525,818 (power: 1,211,434,531) | | Originally Posted by Mallon  Once again, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
I thought maybe I was just hallucinating because I'm overdue for lunch and haven't slept well lately.
But alas, someone else on this forum doesn't understand what he is trying to say either.
Therefore, it's not just me. 
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
18th June 2009, 01:10 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 loveiseverywhere I thought maybe I was just hallucinating because I'm overdue for lunch and haven't slept well lately.
But alas, someone else on this forum doesn't understand what he is trying to say either.
Therefore, it's not just me.
Don't feel bad. MOST people here can't understand juvie. But we love him anyway. 
__________________
"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, 10:46 PM
|  | 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 My guess is that peace4ever tried asking it as a leading question that would eventually go down the path of saying evolution says humans are animals -> animals are savage -> "the world" says humans are only animals and thus we shouldn't care about morality -> evolution promotes atheistic immorality.
Or something like that anyway. Anyway, that being said I don't really understand your post.
My point is: If a simple question is asked: Is human animal?
The answer SHOULD be no, regardless the biological consideration. |
18th June 2009, 10:49 PM
|  | Chewbacha
| | Join Date: 15th February 2002
Posts: 17,114
Blessings: 45,126,563
Reps: 1,238,051,283,267,514,112 (power: 1,238,051,283,267,541) | | Originally Posted by juvenissun My point is: If a simple question is asked: Is human animal?
The answer SHOULD be no, regardless the biological consideration.
If the answer is in a biological context, the answer should be according to the biological context. In that case, the answer would be yes.
If the answer is in the colloquial "are humans civilized or savages?" The answer would be no, because clearly humans are not primitive savages.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Client-side CF enhancements for Google Chrome. Now with [bible=tag]power[/bible].
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Read CF in your mobile web browser. For all kinds of devices. |
18th June 2009, 10:51 PM
| | 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 loveiseverywhere I thought maybe I was just hallucinating because I'm overdue for lunch and haven't slept well lately.
But alas, someone else on this forum doesn't understand what he is trying to say either.
Therefore, it's not just me.
He understood perfectly. He just does not want to get into the debate. He is a paleontologist. I am criticizing that study. |
18th June 2009, 11:22 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 juvenissun He understood perfectly. He just does not want to get into the debate. He is a paleontologist. I am criticizing that study.
Your criticism doesn't make any sense. Palaeontology is "only" a morphological science? Even if that were true (which it obviously is not), how is that a criticism?
__________________
"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 |
19th June 2009, 12:08 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 Your criticism doesn't make any sense. Palaeontology is "only" a morphological science? Even if that were true (which it obviously is not), how is that a criticism?
Paleontology "is driven" by morphological study. Why is it wrong? Because it goes backward.
If so, why people study it? Because there is no other way to do it. However, this does not make this study right.
So, if one tried to use paleontology to argue origin problems, it is backward, inefficient, and it is a very wrong tool to get a conclusion. |
19th June 2009, 12:22 AM
| | 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 juvenissun Paleontology "is driven" by morphological study. Why is it wrong? Because it goes backward.
If so, why people study it? Because there is no other way to do it. However, this does not make this study right.
So, if one tried to use paleontology to argue origin problems, it is backward, inefficient, and it is a very wrong tool to get a conclusion.
Again, that didn't make any sense. Your argument is one long non-sequitur. Perhaps you could try explaining yourself using examples.
__________________
"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 |
19th June 2009, 12:42 AM
|  | Veteran
50
| | Join Date: 31st July 2003 Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,408
Blessings: 10,129,954
Reps: 35,233,846,689,871,508 (power: 35,233,846,689,882) | | Originally Posted by crawfish Is it our bodies that make us children of God, or our immortal soul?
What makes us children of God is that he created us in his image to be his children.
And to respond to the OP: yes, we are animals, and yes, we are primates (which I believe is the correct technical term, rather than "ape")
__________________
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you....For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink..."
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him...
John, Ch. 6 |
19th June 2009, 04:00 AM
|  | Drumming circles around you
31  
| | Join Date: 23rd December 2004 Location: Canada
Posts: 3,493
Blessings: 952
Reps: 26,510,215,182,048,496 (power: 26,510,215,182,059) | | | It's not just science that classifies us as animals. The bible says we are animals!!! So....it's settled then, we are animals.
Ecclesiastes 3:18-20:
18I said to myself concerning the sons of men, "God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts."
19For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.
20All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust.
__________________
"The Bible does not lend any moral support to natural selection...Ergo, natural selection is not a process that human beings should support." - SkyWriting | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
