Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals?

fwwid · #41 19th June 2009, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by philadiddle

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.

I like the KJV as well...

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

...These few scriptures beautifully illustrate, to a certain degree, a paramount portion of Heavenly Fathers' plan - what better way to place our spirits in the "refiner's fire" then to place them in vessels that would try us as God Himself has indicated. Furthermore, this substantiates the reasoning behind why "it took God so long to create man" in the first place. Most creationists are afraid of the notion of evolution being the means by which God created man because they view a process which takes billions of years to conduct as a virtual sign of His weakness; this is NOT the case. It would make sense that God would create man in an evolutionary blink of an eye through supernatural means, IF IT WERE HIS INTENT TO PLACE US IN SUPERNATURAL BODIES; surely, this would place at naught the true purpose of our existence. Intead, God knowing that our spirits were to be tried "unto perfection", created our bodies through a natural means because He wanted our spirits to be tried by imperfect bodies (the refiner's fire) -"so that man hath no PREEMINENCE above a beast". This would ensure that our obedience to God would be tested throughout life and that we would have a stage upon which we might gain victory over self and thus "overcome this world" as Christ did.

juvenissun · #42 19th June 2009, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Mallon

Again, that didn't make any sense. Your argument is one long non-sequitur. Perhaps you could try explaining yourself using examples.

This type of response kills the conversation.

juvenissun · #43 19th June 2009, 08:55 AM

[quote=philadiddle;52128014]It's not just science that classifies us as animals. The bible says we are animals!!! So....it's settled then, we are animals.

Hi, animal.

Mallon · #44 19th June 2009, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

This type of response kills the conversation.

juvie, if your aim is to criticize my field of study, as you readily admit, then I would like the chance to defend my field. But I can't address your criticisms before I understand what it is you're trying to say. So no, I am not trying avoid debate. I genuine don't understand what you are saying (nor do others here, apparently).
What do you mean when you say palaeo is "only a morphological science"?
What do you mean by calling palaeo "backward" and "inefficient"?
If you're going to try insulting what it is I do, then at least have the gumption to explain yourself.

theFijian · #45 19th June 2009, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Animal.
Animal + something else --> human.

So, are we still animal?
Definitely NOT. This is a logic and scientific conclusion.

not really, try thinking venn diagrams instead.

Skaloop · #46 19th June 2009, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Animal.
Animal + something else --> human.

So, are we still animal?
Definitely NOT. This is a logic and scientific conclusion.

Man.
Man + wife --> Husband.

So, is he still a man? Yes.

Husband.
Husband + offspring --> Father.

So, is he still a husband? Yes.
So, is he still a man? Yes.

Your logic is faulty, unless you can specifically define what the "something else" in your equation represents.

fwwid · #47 19th June 2009, 05:46 PM

[quote=juvenissun;52129242]

Originally Posted by philadiddle

It's not just science that classifies us as animals. The bible says we are animals!!! So....it's settled then, we are animals.

Hi, animal.

Hi, animal - if that is indeed the title you wish to go by. Maybe if we were in a scientific forum discussing our place in nature it would be appropriate to address you as such, but even then it seems pretty outlandish...why? Because we have many titles. Apparently you fear the thought of man being considered an animal for the same reason creationists fear being considered descendants of "apes", "chimps", "primates" and the likes; you've been conditioned by society to believe that such words carry negative connotations - negative connotations that your own pride won't allow you to label yourself with. Well sorry, human's have many titles - animal being one and preferable not used because it gives no credit to our greater potential then the rest of the beasts, despite our having no preeminence over them. I for one consider all of us children of God, people (formed in His image), so hello child of God...or, animal if that is how you wish to be addressed. Suit yourself

juvenissun · #48 19th June 2009, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Skaloop

Man.
Man + wife --> Husband.

So, is he still a man? Yes.

No. If he continued to be a man, I guarantee him a divorce. Then he could go back to be a man.

juvenissun · #49 19th June 2009, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

juvie, if your aim is to criticize my field of study, as you readily admit, then I would like the chance to defend my field. But I can't address your criticisms before I understand what it is you're trying to say. So no, I am not trying avoid debate. I genuine don't understand what you are saying (nor do others here, apparently).
What do you mean when you say palaeo is "only a morphological science"?
What do you mean by calling palaeo "backward" and "inefficient"?
If you're going to try insulting what it is I do, then at least have the gumption to explain yourself.

This is better. So we continue.

All methods of study, geological, geochemical, geophysical etc. etc. employed by the study of paleontology are used for one purpose: to interpret and to justify the morphological characters of fossil. That is what I meant. Paleontology starts with a question to the shape of fossil, and ends with an interpretation to the shape of fossil.

If you really want to talk, then we take one step at a time.

Mallon · #50 19th June 2009, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by juvenissun

This is better. So we continue.

All methods of study, geological, geochemical, geophysical etc. etc. employed by the study of paleontology are used for one purpose: to interpret and to justify the morphological characters of fossil. That is what I meant. Paleontology starts with a question to the shape of fossil, and ends with an interpretation to the shape of fossil.

If you really want to talk, then we take one step at a time.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Your statements are quite nebulous. Please elaborate using examples.