Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[DamianWarS]

I don't know how you define human's "uniqueness". And if you can't or won't explain it, then I can only conclude that you don't know either.

If you can't describe it, how can you be so sure that it is a qualitative rather than quantitative difference?

I am unsure why you think that is a meaningful and satisfactory reply. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not just jerking my chain, but as @pitabread says, if you cannot describe this unique thing then it seems you don't really have any idea what it is. If you ever figure it out send me a pm, as I shall be disregarding your future posts.

Biologically speaking we are no different, but things like our tech, culture and society have no other counterpart. Not to mention our ambitions and motivations are simply unparalleled. I find it a little silly this is being rejected. Look around, we are different.

 

[Speedwell]

Biologically speaking we are no different, but things like our tech, culture and society have no other counterpart. Not to mention our ambitions and motivations are simply unparalleled. I find it a little silly this is being rejected. Look around, we are different.

And nobody denies it--but you haven't answered my question.

 

[DamianWarS]

And nobody denies it--but you haven't answered my question.

Naming something doesn't prove it. It either is or is not. My point is not to name it but simply state it's there. The OP seems too narrowly focused on a biological argument.

You've just said no one denies it, so I'm confused what the issue is. You can call it what you want but this difference that no one denies would be in disagreement with the OP.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It doesn't matter what it is, there is still a inarguable separation. Since nothing else has reached these heights than it is reasonable to think that our uniquenesses are perhaps are specific to us and unattainable to others.

Not only is the notion of separation of humans from the rest of the animals arguable, it is more clear from the biological evidence that it is instead inarguable that humans are *not* separable from the rest of the animals.

From the biological evidence (genetics, anatomy, behavior) humans are clearly mammals that fall within the ape group of primates.

 

[Speedwell]

Naming something doesn't prove it. It either is or is not. My point is not to name it but simply state it's there. The OP seems too narrowly focused on a biological argument.

You've just said no one denies it, so I'm confused what the issue is. You can call it what you want but this difference that no one denies would be in disagreement with the OP.

The substance of the OP is that differences exist, in some cases marked differences, but that they are not qualitative.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It doesn't matter what it is, there is still a inarguable separation.

An 'unarguable separation' from all others is common to most species - that's what makes them species (although it's true that it's debatable whether some closely related species should be taxonomically separate).

Since nothing else has reached these heights than it is reasonable to think that our uniquenesses are perhaps are specific to us and unattainable to others.

As above, every species has specific, unique differences from all others - those may or may not be attainable to others - it depends what you mean by 'attainable'.

We evolved our exceptional cognitive abilities as a result of certain kinds of environmental challenges that could conceivably occur again for other creatures, particularly if we were no longer around.

The indications are that intelligence, and probably consciousness, can develop under conditions where flexible behaviour is an advantage - and when a mollusc can show intelligence and signs of self-awareness, it would be foolish to think our cognitive success couldn't be repeated by other creatures - given appropriate evolutionary conditions.

 

[DamianWarS]

The substance of the OP is that differences exist, in some cases marked differences, but that they are not qualitative.

The substance of the OP is strictly biological and casts a negative space of that which is not, undoing its own argument. Humans are different and since our biology is the same it would be reasonable to look for the difference in that negative space that the OP refuses to address.

 

[DamianWarS]

Not only is the notion of separation of humans from the rest of the animals arguable, it is more clear from the biological evidence that it is instead inarguable that humans are *not* separable from the rest of the animals.

From the biological evidence (genetics, anatomy, behavior) humans are clearly mammals that fall within the ape group of primates.

Biological speaking we are the same, yet we still are clearly different. Since we all can agree that it's not a biological difference this logic would dictate to look at outside of biology.

 

[Speedwell]

The substance of the OP is strictly biological and casts a negative space of that which is not, undoing its own argument. Humans are different and since our biology is the same it would be reasonable to look for the difference in that negative space that the OP refuses to address.

"Negative space?" Are you mind/body dualist?

 

[DamianWarS]

that could conceivably occur again for other creatures

There's the rub. It hasn't, and that's where a biological argument cast doubt.

 

[Speedwell]

Biological speaking we are the same, yet we still are clearly different. Since we all can agree that it's not a biological difference this logic would dictate to look at outside of biology.

We all agree that it is not qualitative biological difference, but there are many quantitative differences.

 

[Speedwell]

There's the rub. It hasn't...

How do you know? How about the Neanderthals?

 

[DamianWarS]

"Negative space?" Are you mind/body dualist?

Once you define a boundary you implicity define an outside. If a question can't be answered with biology maybe it's because it's not a biological answer. I'm casting doubt to the argument as a strict biological answer not as a definition of what's outside biology.

 

[DamianWarS]

We all agree that it is not qualitative biological difference, but there are many quantitative differences.

Sure, we are made up the the same stuff, just different amounts. But this doesn't answer why we are unique.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Biological speaking we are the same, yet we still are clearly different. Since we all can agree that it's not a biological difference this logic would dictate to look at outside of biology.

But the thread is about the discomfort of creationists to admit that other animals are made of the same biological stuff as we are. The same proteins, the same DNA translation, the same cell structures, the same tissues, the same organs, etc.

So if it's not biology what else could it be? After all like other mammals we begin as fertilized ova embedded in the uterine wall and grow from there.

 

[DamianWarS]

How do you know? How about the Neanderthals?

we can't adequately do comparitive studies between differences to know how they rank. What remains is 1 without competition.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure, we are made up the the same stuff, just different amounts. But this doesn't answer why we are unique.

Obviously it doesn't satisfy you as an answer, but until you can more clearly articulate why that is, we can't help you.

 

[DamianWarS]

But the thread is about the discomfort of creationists to admit that other animals are made of the same biological stuff as we are. The same proteins, the same DNA translation, the same cell structures, the same tissues, the same organs, etc.

So if it's not biology what else could it be? After all like other mammals we begin as fertilized ova embedded in the uterine wall and grow from there.

It doesn't matter what it is, if it's enough to look outside of biology then it answers the OP.

 

[Speedwell]

It doesn't matter what it is, if it's enough to look outside of biology then it answers the OP.

Well, not exactly. What the OP wanted was the Creationists' answer, necessary or not, true or not.

 

[DamianWarS]

Obviously it doesn't satisfy you as an answer, but until you can more clearly articulate why that is, we can't help you.

I wasn't aware that you were trying to help me. Doubt is enough to answer the OP. Humans are different, undeniable. If we are all made of the same biological stuff then biology is not a sufficient answer as to why we are different. What's beyond biology is not the point, the doupt is enough.