"I am NOT an animal"

[Zzyzx]

.
"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You see I am NOT an animal, never was and never in a billion years will I evolve to be one, my family tree all the way back to Adam don't have one ape in it.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

3) Since humans differ from other animals only in degree (some mental and physical characteristics), what is the objection to recognizing that they are animals?

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?


In the quoted statement someone (whose theological position apparently defies description) claims knowledge of his family tree back to Adam – as though that proves the claimant is not an animal. However, if the hypothetical Adam was human (H. sapiens), he (Adam) classifies as an animal.

[Zzyzx]

.

You really should stop posting stuff like this. It is irrelevant and only makes you sound crazy.

Moderator Comment

Kindly refrain from such comments. They are unnecessary, contribute nothing to debate, and are attempts to tell someone how or what to post.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

.

Whether the scripture is acknowledged or not anyone can observe the evils of man externally.

Humans exhibit some "evil" (or negative) personality traits and behaviors – some "good" (or positive) traits and behaviors.

Some religions and individuals seem to focus upon the negative (perhaps to offer a "solution").

You bring up a good point.
You cannot sell the medicine until first you convince someone that they are sick.

If squint didn't think so poorly of himself, would he even look to religion?

[WinePusher]

Perhaps it is a sincere (if unintended) compliment when opposing debaters cannot dispute major points / arguments (such as "H. sapiens are animals" or "Religion requires 'take my word for it'") but focus on whatever small "mistakes" they can find. This is amplified when they are congratulated as though it was a major coup.

Thank you for admitting your mistake once again. Arian believes that humans are not animals, and Zzyzx believes that the alternatives to the animal kingdom are plants and virus. Both are wrong, and both need to check a biology textbook to learn what is actually true.

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning.

Agreed.

[Danmark]

Perhaps it is a sincere (if unintended) compliment when opposing debaters cannot dispute major points / arguments (such as "H. sapiens are animals" or "Religion requires 'take my word for it'") but focus on whatever small "mistakes" they can find. This is amplified when they are congratulated as though it was a major coup.

Thank you for admitting your mistake once again. Arian believes that humans are not animals, and Zzyzx believes that the alternatives to the animal kingdom are plants and virus. Both are wrong, and both need to check a biology textbook to learn what is actually true.

Your conclusion, "Thank you for admitting your mistake once again," does not follow from the quote you posted. Adding "again," is also not helpful.

What are the five kingdoms into which living beings are divided? Which group of living being is out of this classification?
The five kingdoms of living beings are the kingdom Monera, the kingdom Protista, the kingdom Fungi, the kingdom Plantae and the kingdom Animalia.
Viruses are out of this classification and sometimes they are said to belong to their own kingdom, the kingdom Virus.
http://www.biology-questions-and-answer ... gdoms.html

Classifying organisms is not as simple as 'animal' or 'vegetable.'

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studi ... gdoms.html

One thing is abundantly clear from a scientific perspective. Homo sapiens are not only in the animal kingdom, they are apes.
From the religious perspective, there are no rules. Each religion makes its own. Their rules are bound by neither logic nor reality. To the scientist religious beliefs are in the realm of fantasy and magic. There are no agreed rules.

[Clownboat]

Perhaps it is a sincere (if unintended) compliment when opposing debaters cannot dispute major points / arguments (such as "H. sapiens are animals" or "Religion requires 'take my word for it'") but focus on whatever small "mistakes" they can find. This is amplified when they are congratulated as though it was a major coup.

Thank you for admitting your mistake once again. Arian believes that humans are not animals, and Zzyzx believes that the alternatives to the animal kingdom are plants and virus. Both are wrong, and both need to check a biology textbook to learn what is actually true.

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning.

Agreed.

Winepusher. Please back up this claim (in bold above).
Can you show that plants and viruses are not alternatives?

Either way, you can't claim he made a mistake and even admitted it, while also claiming he still holds to the initial mistake. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 85 by Clownboat]

It is indeed fortunate when a forum has resident "mistake finders" – those who specialize in finding mistakes by others, particularly capable debaters with opposing positions. They are probably as important and respected as grammar police.

Occasionally "finders" attempt to actually engage in debate of substantive issues. However, many seem to restrict their activities to finding "mistakes" by others (whether significant to the topic of discussion or not), and seem to regard that as quite an accomplishment. Shooting from the sidelines is safer than actual debate.

Back to the OP -- Arian claims to not be an animal. Has he demonstrated that to be true?

[WinePusher]

It is indeed fortunate when a forum has resident "mistake finders" – those who specialize in finding mistakes by others, particularly capable debaters with opposing positions. They are probably as important and respected as grammar police.

Everybody makes mistakes. Some more so than others. The difference is between those who make a mistake and honorably retract or clarify it and those who do not.

Occasionally "finders" attempt to actually engage in debate of substantive issues. However, many seem to restrict their activities to finding "mistakes" by others (whether significant to the topic of discussion or not), and seem to regard that as quite an accomplishment. Shooting from the sidelines is safer than actual debate.

Please show this to be true with something other than conjecture and unverifiable testimony. Otherwise, this is just a blanketed, unsupported statement with no value.

Back to the OP -- Arian claims to not be an animal. Has he demonstrated that to be true?

No, he hasn't. This is ok though, people make mistakes and clearly arian made a big blunder here. However, unlike the OP, arian has not said, "many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning" nor has arian called people who challenge him 'nitpickers.'

The problem is when somebody states that other people are not knowledgeable about biology, and that same person makes a very basic error/mistake about elementary biology.

Zzyzx, before creating this thread did you know that animals are classified as a kingdom? Did you also know that there are five other kingdoms? You said that the alternatives to animals are plants and virus, do you now understand that this is demonstrably false? There are 5 alternatives to the animal kingdom, not two.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

I have no clue why some people are upset, indignant or in denial about a biological/taxonomic clasification.

[WinePusher]

One thing is abundantly clear from a scientific perspective. Homo sapiens are not only in the animal kingdom, they are apes.
From the religious perspective, there are no rules. Each religion makes its own. Their rules are bound by neither logic nor reality. To the scientist religious beliefs are in the realm of fantasy and magic. There are no agreed rules.

Not sure what you mean by 'agreed rules' but ok. Earlier in this thread you raised the topic of the mind and made a claim that isn't true. Would you like to back up your claim?

if you believe the 'flesh' is all we are, then acting on instinct would be perfectly normal, but we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we?

Arian, this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue.

Danmark and arian, do you have any evidence to support either of your claims? If you do then please present the articles you've read that have led both of you to your respective conclusions. If neither of you has any evidence, which I suspect is the case otherwise you would've already presented it, then perhaps it would be wise to state beforehand that these are just your opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but people are not entitled to masquerade their opinions as facts when they clearly aren't.

Sadly, both of you are wrong, Danmark in particular. Danmark states that this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue. (For those interested, this issue is formally known as dualism between the mind and body). He has provided no evidence for this claim, and this is unfortunate because those of us who have actually read on this issue know that he's wrong. Thusfar, the only thing we know for certain is that there is still no consensus among philosophers, psychologists and cognitive scientists about this issue. There is no definitive answer concerning consciousness and the question concerning dualism between the mind and the body. We do not know the nature of consciousness and whether or not mental activity can exist without a physically functioning brain.

Unlike Danmark and arian, I actually have sources to back up my claim:

Here is a popular article explaining the on going debates surrounding consciousness.

Here is another article explaining some of the latest research in this area.

And here is an intriguing book which essentially purports that consciousness, at its essence, is an inexplicable phenomena.

[Zzyzx]

.

Everybody makes mistakes. Some more so than others. The difference is between those who make a mistake and honorably retract or clarify it and those who do not.

Thank you. My clarification is in post #47 (four pages ago)

I should have specified "major or commonly known alternatives."

However, that seems to have been overlooked in an effort to . . . do what? Explain to readers why it is important or significant to continue the harangue after clarification was issued long ago?

Zzyzx, before creating this thread did you know that animals are classified as a kingdom?

Yes

Did you also know that there are five other kingdoms?

Yes

You said that the alternatives to animals are plants and virus, do you now understand that this is demonstrably false? There are 5 alternatives to the animal kingdom, not two.

I have acknowledged that I should have prefaced with "major or most commonly known" (four pages ago).

A terrible, terrible, terrible omission. Is it worthy of derailing a thread (after a clarification has been made)? Or, is there a different agenda and is the derailment transparent to readers?


In an effort to return the thread to the OP, are H. sapiens sapiens animals according to biological / scientific / taxonomic classification?

Are H. sapiens sapiens NOT animals according to Christian literature and dogma?

Is there a conflict?

Can Arian rationally claim to be NOT an animal?


BTW, WP, is there a topic fundamental to Christian beliefs that you would be willing to debate Head to Head? Substantive issues include such fundamentals as divinity of Jesus, presence of a soul and afterlife, truth of resurrection tales, credibility of gospel writers, miracle claims.

[WinePusher]

Thank you. My clarification is in post #47 (four pages ago)

And yet you continue to post things like:

"Perhaps it is a sincere (if unintended) compliment when opposing debaters cannot dispute major points / arguments (such as "H. sapiens are animals" or "Religion requires 'take my word for it'") but focus on whatever small "mistakes" they can find. This is amplified when they are congratulated as though it was a major coup."

"It is indeed fortunate when a forum has resident "mistake finders" – those who specialize in finding mistakes by others, particularly capable debaters with opposing positions. They are probably as important and respected as grammar police.

Occasionally "finders" attempt to actually engage in debate of substantive issues. However, many seem to restrict their activities to finding "mistakes" by others (whether significant to the topic of discussion or not), and seem to regard that as quite an accomplishment. Shooting from the sidelines is safer than actual debate."

Please show this to be true with something other than conjecture and unverifiable testimony. Otherwise, this is just a blanketed, unsupported statement with no value.

Did you also know that there are five other kingdoms?

Yes.

Oh? Then why didn't you include them? And why do you say that arian is not knowledgeable when it comes to biology? Is it because he made a mistake? Do you realize that you also have made a mistake?

A terrible, terrible, terrible omission. Is it worthy of derailing a thread (after a clarification has been made)? Or, is there a different agenda and is the derailment transparent to readers?

I already answered your OP. Did you miss it? See post 45.

In an effort to return the thread to the OP, are H. sapiens sapiens animals according to biological / scientific / taxonomic classification?

Are H. sapiens sapiens NOT animals according to Christian literature and dogma?

Is there a conflict?

Can Arian rationally claim to be NOT an animal?

Classifying humans as animals may cause discomfort to young earth creationists, but so do a lot of things about modern science. I hope that arian will admit his error as you have done.

BTW, WP, is there a topic fundamental to Christian beliefs that you would be willing to debate Head to Head? Substantive issues include such fundamentals as divinity of Jesus, presence of a soul and afterlife, truth of resurrection tales, credibility of gospel writers, miracle claims.

Yes, I've done many head to head debates with capable debaters like McCulloch, otseng, Abraxas, etc. A capable debater makes compelling arguments and does not just ask questions. Imo, asking questions is not debate and those who ask many questions generally are not informed on the topic and shouldn't be debating it in the first place. Do you agree with this? If one is going to debate the resurrection or the credibility of the Gospels shouldn't they be well read in the topic?

BTW, Z, what books have you read about the historicity of the Bible or the historicity of the life of Jesus? Could you list them if it isn't to much trouble?