Why won’t creationists participate in open and honest debate?

[Ondoher]

You can't. That's the issue. Speaking non categorically, you can't call man an animal. That is corrupting the meaning of the words 'animal' and 'man'.

Animal is a taxonomic classification. It includes humans. There really isn't anything here to argue.

And with reference to the ones who say man is an animal, it is only categorically true if the story is true and only meaningful in telling the story. How meaningful is that? You have to decide. That's the issue we are debating. And even if you want to call man an animal, you have to be justified. I don't see how you are justified. If you're going to define man as an animal, then we have no words in common.

Any reasonable definition of animal that makes reference to biology and evidence is going to include humans.

Even words like species are artificial, designed to fit the story. I wouldn't make any distinction between a species and a breed without sufficient justification. It looks like birds and insects and fish speciate more than mammals. I guess more variety is possible. But that doesn't mean we should automatically call some animals breeds and other animals species.

Species can be hard to define, especially for the asexually reproducing. However, that some sets of populations, such as ring species, make drawing such boundaries especially hard is something we'd expect if evolution were true.

 

[mark kennedy]

Now read the follow-up in the same publication which contests that on several points, and comments impolitely on the basis of the assertions made prior. Of course you can also read a summary of that on Talk.Origins:

Anatomist Maciej Henneberg has claimed that the skull is extremely similar to that of a microcephalic specimen from Crete, microcephaly being a disease that causes small brain sizes. However, Peter Brown and his team have considered and rejected this explanation:​

It's more difficult to rule out, I suppose, the analogy with abnormal modern humans, like pituitary dwarfs or microcephalic dwarfs, because there you can have small-bodied people who have small brain sizes as well. Very few of these people actually reach adulthood and they have a range of distinctive features, depending upon which particular syndrome they have, throughout the cranial vault and rest of the skeleton. None of these features are found in Liang Bua. It has a suite of clearly archaic traits which are replicated in a variety of early hominids and these archaic traits are not found in any abnormal humans which have ever been recorded. We now have the remains of 5 or 6 other individuals from the site, so it's not just one. There's a population of these things now and they all share the same features. (Peter Brown, in an interview with Scientific American)​

There is some talk about clearly archaic traits but they are short on the specifics. The did provide a single pictorical comparison but it didn't show me much:

Except that their anatomomy in many key aspects lies directly half-way between the proportions of chimpanzees and modern humans, and humans still adhere to the definition of "ape".
According to Minnesota State University, the average brain size is 80cc higher than your highest estimate, and the largest specimen to date is "about" 800cc, a mark which your own resource admits was only an arbitrary choice to determine humanity, and which has since been reduced by 200cc.

Who is this Homo habilis who has the cranial capacity of 800cc? I'm not going to accept something like this since most of these estimates are based on fragmentary evidence to begin with.

I would agree, except of course for the utter lack of any forehead, the profoundly jutting brow, and the fact that the brain size averages only 75% of that of modern humans. As I told you before, most creationists would never accept this as being a human skull! Most creationists would say that this was "just an ape".

Who would not accept Homo erectus as human? Turkana Boy is anatomically human in every way meaningfull except for the size of the cranium and some other aspects I won't go into right now. I would be very suspecious of anyone who classified Turkana Boy or Homo erectus as anything other then human.

Of course, if you accept this H. erectus as human,
then why wouldn't you accept this A. africanus as human too?

Because A. Africanus has a cranial capacity of around 400cc and Homo Erectus is more like 1000cc.

What would you accept? I've asked you this before, but you never gave me an answer.

I would accept Homo habilis as a chimpanzee ancestor, KNM-WT 17000 as a gorilla ancestor and Turkana Boy as a human ancestor. Does that clarify anything because that was one of the easiest pop quizes I've had on here in a long time.

 

[shernren]

The Bible says we're created. That means we are creatures and the animals are also creatures. It doesn't say man is an animal. And the reference to the spirit is to the life of the creature. Life comes from God. The Bible doesn't say animals have souls.

It depends on how you define "soul". In Genesis 2 both man and animals are called "living creatures", without any further qualifications on either. If that isn't a Biblical admission that man is biologically an animal I don't know what is.

Who would not accept Homo erectus as human? Turkana Boy is anatomically human in every way meaningfull except for the size of the cranium and some other aspects I won't go into right now. I would be very suspecious of anyone who classified Turkana Boy or Homo erectus as anything other then human.

You'll be very suspicious of me for a very long time, because this:

and this:

... are not going away, and will be posted every time you talk about Turkana Boy, until you can substantively refute them.

 

[USincognito]

You can't. That's the issue. Speaking non categorically, you can't call man an animal. That is corrupting the meaning of the words 'animal' and 'man'. And with reference to the ones who say man is an animal, it is only categorically true if the story is true and only meaningful in telling the story. How meaningful is that? You have to decide. That's the issue we are debating. And even if you want to call man an animal, you have to be justified. I don't see how you are justified. If you're going to define man as an animal, then we have no words in common.

It's rambling blather like this that makes discussions with Creationists a one way ticket to Bizarroworld. Because you're right, we apparently don't have any words in common since every inclusive definition of "animal" is inclusive of humans. Let me type out for you the first definition of animal from a 1977 edition of the Websters New Colligiate Dictionary.

animal
1: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living beings typically differing from plants in capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor respone to stimulation.

What part of this does not apply to humans? We're not plants. We can move spontanously. And we respond to stimulation with rapid motor response.

 

[USincognito]

There have been extensive endocranial comparisons that do not distinguish Homo erectus, at least to my satisfaction, from anatomically modern humans.

Right....

We're you ever going to get around to explaining why Turkana Boy has that giant ape like jaw at some point, or, like other things you can't horsefeather a response to, will you continue to ignore it?

 

[MarkT]

It's rambling blather like this that makes discussions with Creationists a one way ticket to Bizarroworld. Because you're right, we apparently don't have any words in common since every inclusive definition of "animal" is inclusive of humans. Let me type out for you the first definition of animal from a 1977 edition of the Websters New Colligiate Dictionary.

That's right. We are speaking a different language. I'm not out to correct the dictionary but my argument is that man is not an animal. Notice I said argument. Your argument is the dictionary says so, so man is an animal. Someone else says every scientist agrees, so man is an animal. I think we can not discuss anything in those terms. You win. You proved the dictionary says man is an animal. You proved every scientist says man is an animal. You proved you say man is an animal. The only thing you haven't proven is that man is an animal. But never mind. Don't strain your brain. This is obviously too much for you people.

 

[Chalnoth]

That's right. We are speaking a different language. I'm not out to correct the dictionary but my argument is that man is not an animal. Notice I said argument. Your argument is the dictionary says so, so man is an animal. Someone else says every scientist agrees, so man is an animal. I think we can not discuss anything in those terms. You win. You proved the dictionary says man is an animal. You proved every scientist says man is an animal. You proved you say man is an animal. The only thing you haven't proven is that man is an animal. But never mind. Don't strain your brain. This is obviously too much for you people.

Then by what definition of animal is man not included?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The only thing you haven't proven is that man is an animal. But never mind. Don't strain your brain. This is obviously too much for you people.

It's quite simple, even for 'us people'.
An animal is defined as anything in the Animalia taxonomical kingdom.
The Animalia taxonomical kingdom is defined as:

• Eukaryotic
• Heterotropgic
• Having no cell walls
• Having moved through a blastula stage during gestation
• Usually multicellualr
• Usually locomotice
• Usually responsive to environmental stimuli
• Usually having fixed body plans

Since humans fit all of these qualifiers, humans are animals.

If you have a more robust definition, please, post it.

 

[MarkT]

It depends on how you define "soul". In Genesis 2 both man and animals are called "living creatures", without any further qualifications on either. If that isn't a Biblical admission that man is biologically an animal I don't know what is.

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Genesis 1:26

Man has dominion over the animals doesn't he? "Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" No animal was found fit for the man so God made a woman for the man from the man's own flesh.

So man was created in the image of God, in his likeness. The animals were brought to the man and the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. How many animals give names? Name me an animal that can give a name. What does your dog call you? By what name does he know you?

 

[Chalnoth]

So man was created in the image of God, in his likeness. The animals were brought to the man and the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. How many animals give names? Name me an animal that can give a name. What does your dog call you? By what name does he know you?

Dolphins: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-09-02.asp

Dogs aren't all that intelligent compared to a number of other animals.

 

[USincognito]

The only thing you haven't proven is that man is an animal. But never mind. Don't strain your brain. This is obviously too much for you people.

I'm only straining my brain wondering why you responded with a long rambling paragraph that didn't show how humans do not exhibit any characteristics of animals instead of just telling us what characteristics exclude humans from being classified as animals.

 

[USincognito]

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Genesis 1:26

Man has dominion over the animals doesn't he?

It's a shame that the writers of Genesis didn't know more about ants and aphids or they wouldn't claim that we have dominion over everything that creepeth. Because the aphids, which are pests to us, to the ants, are livestock.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

It's a shame that the writers of Genesis didn't know more about ants and aphids or they wouldn't claim that we have dominion over everything that creepeth. Because the aphids, which are pests to us, to the ants, are livestock.

Perchance it was a deliberate oversight as they did not want children to read about farming animals just for their excrement.

 

[MarkT]

Then by what definition of animal is man not included?

Every living thing that God created for the man that walks upon the earth on all fours is an animal except for birds and insects and snakes and lizards and salamanders and everything that creeps and swarms on the earth, which are not animals.

 

[USincognito]

Every living thing that God created for the man that walks upon the earth on all fours is an animal except for birds and insects and snakes and lizards and salamanders and everything that creeps and swarms on the earth, which are not animals.

Hmmm, I should just make up a formula or checklist.
A. walks on earth, all fours
B. created for man
C. not a bird, insect, snake, lizard, salamander or creeps or swarms.
D. on the earth.
is then an animal.

Cow - A, B, C, D = animal
Chicken - B, D = not animal
Duck - B = not animal
Eagle - D = not animal
Moose = A, D = not animal
Orca = not animal
Toad - A, D = not animal
Trout = not animal
Grasshopper = A, D = not animal
Sea anemone = not animal
Jellyfish = not animal

It seems like the only thing you define as an animal is livestock?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Hmmm, I should just make up a formula or checklist.
A. walks on earth, all fours
B. created for man
C. not a bird, insect, snake, lizard, salamander or creeps or swarms.
D. on the earth.
is then an animal.

Cow - A, B, C, D = animal
Chicken - B, D = not animal
Duck - B = not animal
Eagle - D = not animal
Moose = A, D = not animal
Orca = not animal
Toad - A, D = not animal
Trout = not animal
Grasshopper = A, D = not animal
Sea anemone = not animal
Jellyfish = not animal

It seems like the only thing you define as an animal is livestock?

Well played, sir. Well played.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Every living thing that God created for the man that walks upon the earth on all fours is an animal except for birds and insects and snakes and lizards and salamanders and everything that creeps and swarms on the earth, which are not animals.

What about human infants walking on all fours? Animal or no?

I guess they evolve into adults.

 

[shernren]

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Genesis 1:26

Man has dominion over the animals doesn't he? "Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him" No animal was found fit for the man so God made a woman for the man from the man's own flesh.

So man was created in the image of God, in his likeness. The animals were brought to the man and the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. How many animals give names? Name me an animal that can give a name. What does your dog call you? By what name does he know you?

The President of the United States (roughly) has dominion over the citizens of the United States. But isn't he still a citizen of the United States? He does not stop being a man just because he has dominion over other men.

Not every man of the United States is fit to be the Vice President. The Vice President has to be capable of assisting the President, has to be at least as knowledgeable, authoritative, and charismatic. It may well be that no man in the whole of the United States is fit to be Vice President. But just because the President (hypothetically) has no equal among others in the United States, does he stop being a citizen of the United States, or a man like all other citizens?

The President is uniquely qualified to make decisions concerning the welfare of the whole nation, which no other man has authority to make. But does he then stop being a citizen of the United States, or a man like all other citizens?

In the same way, just because man
- has dominion over animals
- has no equal among other animals
- is uniquely qualified to name other animals

that does not stop him from being biologically an animal himself.

 

[MarkT]

Hmmm, I should just make up a formula or checklist.
A. walks on earth, all fours
B. created for man
C. not a bird, insect, snake, lizard, salamander or creeps or swarms.
D. on the earth.
is then an animal.

Cow - A, B, C, D = animal
Chicken - B, D = not animal
Duck - B = not animal
Eagle - D = not animal
Moose = A, D = not animal
Orca = not animal
Toad - A, D = not animal
Trout = not animal
Grasshopper = A, D = not animal
Sea anemone = not animal
Jellyfish = not animal

It seems like the only thing you define as an animal is livestock?

A moose walks on all fours so it would be an animal. The other creatures are not animals. Apes walk on all fours. Apes would be animals.

You can not possibly think that any Creationist would agree with your definition of 'animal'. Ever. If we did, we would be ignorant as you are ignorant. We would not be saying evolution isn't true. We would be lost as you are lost.

Websters has a pretty good definition except it makes an incorrect distinction. It says, 'any living organism except a plant or bacterium (this assumes bacteria are living), typically able to move about, a lower animal as distinguished from man (this implies man is a higher animal but we would not agree he is an animal at all), esp. mammals (mammal as opposed to man comes closest to what we mean by animal).

So let's say we mean the living creatures that can move about on all fours on land, except us.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So let's say we mean the living creatures that can move about on all fours on land, except us.

Why not us? You just add that little qualifier on the end with no reason.

An organisms taxonomical position is determined soley by physical characteristics and, more specifically, genetic sequence.
An animal is any organism in the kingdom Animalia, and that kingdom includes all heterotrophic eukaryotes lacking cell walls. Since we are heterotrophic eukaryotes, and our cells lack cell walls, we are in the kingdom Animalia, and are therefore animals.