How do creationists answer these questions: Are you an Ape? A Mammal? A Vertebrate?

[RickG]

Don't we have antibiotics for those?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a bit of a slippery slope argument. It's possible to believe humans are apes without going to that sort of extreme. Being apes doesn't necessarily imply that we are no different from chimps or orangs. Border collies and chihuahuas are both dogs, but there are very good reasons you wouldn't want the latter herding your sheep.

You made me think of this commercial:
Herding Cats - YouTube

 

[verysincere]

Did you forget to log out of your husband's account again MrsLurking? Or has verysincere started referring to himself in the third person?

Dear NotedStrangePerson:

I am responding to your questions written as follows:

"Did you forget to log out of your husband's account again MrsLurking? Or has verysincere started referring to himself in the third person?"

You quoted from thread post #2 and you included the CF post link. And my automated signature block is at the closing of my general annoucnement So I didnt understand why you have worded your questions toward Mrs.Lurking. But it sounded like your opening remarks were tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps an inside joke as they say? If so I can forward your comments to her as an email because she is out of town for a few days and may not have full Internet access as far as websites go. But yes she can get email from there. So please let me know if I can be helpful in that way.

I handle much of the professor's email sent through the pseudonyms and the Internet messages from the general public. What I can't handle with automated replies and FAQs gets forwarded appropriately. Obviously anything of a private nature should be sent to one of his private email addresses. (Students needing letters of recommendation should continue to use the university email address or that of the Institute. I only handle the latter.)

My apologies for any confusion I may have created. But most requests for articles in the Bible.and.Science.Forum archives are my responsibility and I only forward them to Professor Tertius (Verysincere) if they require some decision on his part.

Saito Singh
Assistant to the Director
IGAT (Bible.and.Science.Forum)


.

 

[Naraoia]

You made me think of this commercial:

That's brilliant! Did one of the guys actually pull out a lint roller?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's brilliant! Did one of the guys actually pull out a lint roller?

Yes, that was the best part!

That, and the guy rolling up the ball of yarn!

 

[KWCrazy]

I would answer it this way:


I am a man; descended from Adam and Noah; created in the likeness of the God who knew me before he formed me in my mother's womb. From Adam's rebellion I know the difference between good and evil. From my sinful nature, I too often choose evil over good. By the grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, I am forgiven and offered by grace the eternal home I could never achieve through my own works. As a man, I have dominion over all other animals. I share a common Creator with all but a common ancestor with none. I was ordained by God to love one woman as Adam loved Eve. All of my ancestors were as I am, as will be my descendants until the coming of the Lord. ​

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

This is all so confusing...

Several of us had asked for back-issues and articles from VerySincere's Bible.and.Science.Forum. When the professor's Executive Assistant [My apologies for referring to him as a "secretary."] posted one of those old articles as this thread's OP, NotedStrangePerson thought it was posted by the professor's wife, MrsLurking. (But I'm not sure why that would have mattered to anyone.)

I think the entire issue is about semantics. Like you said, "ape", "animal" etc. obviously mean different things to different people. To me they aren't loaded terms, they simply describe aspects of our biology*. They are separate from the question of humans being special (or not). But if I call a creationist - or, to be fair, a large number of non-creationists too - an animal, they'll perceive it as an insult because the word carries other connotations in their eyes.

AV is a prime example - he acknowledges the scientific classification and if we ask whether humans possess whatever biological property of animals, vertebrates, apes or whatever, I'm sure he'll agree that we do. He just refuses to call himself an ape because for him the word has spiritual as well as biological implications.

(AV, did I get that about right?)

It seems like equivocation fallacies and word games are ALWAYS part of the tactics of the young earth creationist leaders. And whenever they can turn some evolution-related issue into an emotive one, it is easier to prod donors to send money. To built up the war chest of an army, you need to concoct the most sinister and dangerous enemy possible!

*Well, I lie. In this particular context, they are loaded terms, because I really don't like people looking down on "just animals". (Especially when their feelings are based on ignorance of real animal behaviour.) I'm not totally decided on whether I consider humans "special" (or what that even means to me), but if you come and insult non-humans, I'm bloody well gonna stand up for them!

Amen to that! Sincerely. Even VerySincerely.

In fact, at any other time the creationists would be praising God for the wondrous creation all around us. (Just like the rest of us Christians.) And they would insist that every one of the animal species, including all of the apes, are magnificent created works of God and their "intelligent designs" are a tribute to the Creator's glory. But in this kind of context, the animals suddenly become loathsome and comparisons to them are insults.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Not just spiritual and biological implications, but--if Dawkins' point is to erase every distinction between man and other primates--then legal and moral implications as well.

What's the distinction between a man and a chimpanzee that we count humans for representation in Congress and don't count chimpanzees? Dawkins apparently sees no distinction.

That's a bit of a slippery slope argument. It's possible to believe humans are apes without going to that sort of extreme. Being apes doesn't necessarily imply that we are no different from chimps or orangs. Border collies and chihuahuas are both dogs, but there are very good reasons you wouldn't want the latter herding your sheep.

Admittedly I can see where RDKirk is coming from: one argument I have heard several times is that rights shouldn't be based on species - so certain animals should have rights, and certain humans humans shouldn't.

Since I don't want to open that particular argument up (although I suspect it might be anyway ) I'll just say that many people try to refute this argument by emphasizing the differences between humans and animals, particularly apes. A lot of people do this but christians - particularly creationists - seem to do it the most.

(I say "christians" rather than "theists / religious people" because Hindus and Buddhists have long believed that some animals deserve more respect than certain people, due to their belief in reincarnation.)

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You quoted from thread post #2 and you included the CF post link. And my automated signature block is at the closing of my general annoucnement So I didnt understand why you have worded your questions toward Mrs.Lurking. But it sounded like your opening remarks were tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps an inside joke as they say?

When the professor's Executive Assistant [My apologies for referring to him as a "secretary."] posted one of those old articles as this thread's OP, NotedStrangePerson thought it was posted by the professor's wife, MrsLurking. (But I'm not sure why that would have mattered to anyone.)

Yes it was rather tongue-in-cheek. In case anyone was wondering, MrsLurking once posted under the username verysincere because she had accidently forgotten to log out of her husband's computer. I thought she may have done it again.

I don't understand this remark you made in responding to the OP. The office staffer who posted the Professor's article clearly identified himself:
Saito Singh
Assistant to the Director
IGAT (Bible.and.Science.Forum)

So why would it seem strange to you that Mr. Singh would refer to Professor Tertius in the third person?

I thought the person posting under the username verysincere was simply re-posting a message made by someone else on a different forum. Plus, there seems to be an ever-growing horde of people who know Prof. Teritus and I sometimes forget who is who.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm sorry.

I thought the OP was phrasing it as a question.

For some reason, I felt I had the option of saying either YES or NO.

You're welcome to say whatever you want. Reality is unaffected.

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

YPlus, there seems to be an ever-growing horde of people who know Prof. Teritus and I sometimes forget who is who.

Yes, I think word got around and people from the Yahoo Answers "Religion & Spirituality" section, where the professor posted as Aonghas Shrugged, and the subscribers to the old BSF forum have come here. Sometimes I see names on the "currently active" list that are the same as their Yahoo Answers names.

Perhaps it is a small world for real!

 

[AV1611VET]

You're welcome to say whatever you want. Reality is unaffected.

Then what's this:

Yes, you absolutely are. Reality does not kowtow to your opinion.

... just a sterile cheap shot?

 

[TLK Valentine]

-- I am honored that you would devote so much of your time to wanting to learn how creationists think.

I took a course in college which dedicated an entire month to abnormal psychology.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Then what's this:

A statement of fact. You're welcome to assert otherwise, but it will not impact reality.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

-- I am honored that you would devote so much of your time to wanting to learn how creationists think.

I took a course in college which dedicated an entire month to abnormal psychology.

Considering almost half the US public and the majority of people in Islamic countries believe in some form of creationism, I'm not sure it can really be considered "abnormal".

 

[TLK Valentine]

Considering almost half the US public and the majority of people in Islamic countries believe in some form of creationism, I'm not sure it can really be considered "abnormal".

True, but even among creationists, folks like AV are special cases.

 

[freezerman2000]

Am I a mammal?-yes
Am I a vertebrate?-yes
Am I an animal?-The two above answers dictate that I must say,yes
Am I an ape?-I am an ape,but not simian..I am of the highest classification of ape.
I am Human.

BTW, I am a TE for those who do not know.

 

[freezerman2000]

on a side note...enjoy this!
Nervous Norvus Ape Call Novelty Rock 'n' Roll - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

True, but even among creationists, folks like AV are special cases.

 

[Doveaman]

Richard Dawkins' "I am an ape" video on Youtube delivers a strong message. Dr. Dawkins tells a clergyman, "I am an ape. Are you an ape?" The pastor says, "No. I am absolutely NOT an ape."

As a disciple of Jesus Christ, how would you reply to Richard Dawkins' question? Why? And how would you apply the same reasoning to the following questions?

Am I a Mammal?
Am I a Vertebrate?
Am I an animal?

I am a spirit.

*It is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding...For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.* - (Job 32:8, 1 Cor 2:11).

I am a spirit living in a temporary body. I am not defined by my body. I am defined by my spirit.

*Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven...We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.* - (2 Cor 5:1-8).

We will live on, even without this physical body.