Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals?

[Mallon]

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.

Once again, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

This is the base, or is the whole thing, about evolutionism.

However, I would suggest you to read the verse following it to complete the sentence.

King Solomon is really wise.

 

[metherion]

Did anyone look at the video?

About how humans:
Have one temporal fenestra
have gametes with a tail
are placental
have a spinal cord
lack gills

etc etc etc
that all indicate we meet the scientific definition of one specific type of animal known as primates?

Metherion

 

[theFijian]

Do evolutionists claim that humans are animals, namely some form of ape? Yes or no.

Akin to: have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no.

 

[Assyrian]

This is the base, or is the whole thing, about evolutionism.

Hardly. Evolution isn't based on scripture, it is based on scientific evidence, just like round earth theory, heliocentrism, atomic theory or germ theory. And instead of it being the whole base, there is a vast amount of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines for evolution.

What it does show is the one of the problems creationists have with evolution, a deep rooted reaction against the idea of humans being animals too, simply isn't scriptural.

However, I would suggest you to read the verse following it to complete the sentence.

I am not sure what version you are looking at, but any one I have seen start a new sentence in verse 18. Nor do I see how verse 18 is supposed to help you case. It does not change his statement in verse 17 they we are animals and the God wants us to realise we are animals. It also says we are more than animals. In ourselves we are animals, but he has also said that God has put eternity into man's heart (verse 11). So we are animals in ourselves, but animals in whose hearts God has put eternity. Verse 21 is really good too, and cuts through even more of our traditional ideas about the distinction between men and animals. Eccles 3:21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? Apparently Solomon thought animals have spirits too. Their spirits may have a different eternal destiny to ours and may simply disappear when the animal dies, but they do have spirits.

King Solomon is really wise.

He certainly was.

 

[Dark_Lite]

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.

I don't know anyone who says humans are animals outside of a biological context. Obviously, humans are a rather unique species on this planet in that we have the ability to introspect and have a higher realm of thinking. We are sentient. Dolphins are second in line, and they don't come close.

 

[juvenissun]

Hardly. Evolution isn't based on scripture, it is based on scientific evidence, just like round earth theory, heliocentrism, atomic theory or germ theory. And instead of it being the whole base, there is a vast amount of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines for evolution.

What it does show is the one of the problems creationists have with evolution, a deep rooted reaction against the idea of humans being animals too, simply isn't scriptural.


I am not sure what version you are looking at, but any one I have seen start a new sentence in verse 18. Nor do I see how verse 18 is supposed to help you case. It does not change his statement in verse 17 they we are animals and the God wants us to realise we are animals. It also says we are more than animals. In ourselves we are animals, but he has also said that God has put eternity into man's heart (verse 11). So we are animals in ourselves, but animals in whose hearts God has put eternity. Verse 21 is really good too, and cuts through even more of our traditional ideas about the distinction between men and animals. Eccles 3:21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? Apparently Solomon thought animals have spirits too. Their spirits may have a different eternal destiny to ours and may simply disappear when the animal dies, but they do have spirits.


He certainly was.

Animal.
Animal + something else --> human.

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

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know anyone who says humans are animals outside of a biological context. Obviously, humans are a rather unique species on this planet in that we have the ability to introspect and have a higher realm of thinking. We are sentient. Dolphins are second in line, and they don't come close.

Agree.

So, there are many disciplines and biology is only one.
Without any explanation, should we simply ask a question of the OP? Should we proclaim loudly on the street: humans are animals? Why not?
If we do explain the question, then is the question meaningful any more?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Agree.

So, there are many disciplines and biology is only one.
Without any explanation, should we simply ask a question of the OP? Should we proclaim loudly on the street: humans are animals? Why not?
If we do explain the question, then is the question meaningful any more?

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.

 

[loveiseverywhere]

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.

Excellent response!

 

[loveiseverywhere]

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.

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

 

[Dark_Lite]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

 

[Mallon]

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?

 

[juvenissun]

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.

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[chilehed]

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")

 

[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.