Man is not an animal

[Kfox]

It's fascinating to me that we agree on so many things, but that you are so wrong regarding trans persons

I find it fascinating you think because we might agree on some things, we must agree on everything! Look; you can't be wrong all of the time; every now and then, you're gonna get it right and agree with me. (LOL)

 

[ppp]

I find it fascinating you think because we might agree on some things, we must agree on everything!

What a fascinating thing for you to assume. How did you arrive at the "must"?

 

[tas8831]

But they don't agree on the same God, so most theists are wrong when it comes to God.

Funny how that is never mentioned....

 

[Wildswanderer]

But they don't agree on the same God, so most theists are wrong when it comes to God.

They are still more right than the atheist.

 

[tas8831]

They are still more right than the atheist.

Sure, but do they feel the need to plagiarize?

 

[SkepticThinker]

They are still more right than the atheist.

Are they? Who says? You can't even demonstrate the veracity of your angel and god claims.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Animals do not have articulate speech and poets. Man is not an animal.

Yes, the animals can communicate. But they have no articulate speech. There is difference: articulate communication, and non-articulate one. Articulate one has alphabet. Do whales have letters in alphabet order?

Many humans do use alphabet. Some humans are sick or not developed so much, so they do not.
But no bear, wolf, nor spider is using alphabet.

According to this ridiculous theory a newborn baby is an animal??
No. I repeat: "Many humans do use alphabet. Some humans are sick or not developed so much"

IF you define an animal.....
I am not defining. I am saying fact:

Only humans use alphabet.

Some humans are humans, but do not use alphabet (they are e.g. babies).

But no single bear has used alphabet. Hence, humans are not bears.

HOWEVER, there are plenty of apes who use ASL (a type of alphabet)??
Why a type of alphabet, but not actual alphabet? Can you list right here the first 10 letters of monkeys alphabet? And what words are there in their language? How they sound?

But the real thing that sets us apart from animals is the spiritual component, almost all humans understand that they are spiritual beings??
They have replied, that monkeys built primitive holy places as well.

CONCLUSION:

Animals know the Lord, unlike the atheists. Top primates are religious, and praying, and having alphabet.
But they are not human, because they have mortal soul.

John Nash was a Nobel Prize winner in economic science and a member of the Academy of Sciences. He was also highly delusional and spent considerable periods in psychiatric hospitals.
Most people are schizophrenic, because schizophrenia is a person's split. Major splits are: Faith vs. Knowledge, Religion vs. Science, State vs. Church separation.

People with schizophrenia require lifelong treatment??
Not all people. For example, the atheists have schizophrenic split between God and reality. But most of them are not in mental clinics.

You have a very narrow minded definition of “animal” which is specifically designed to support a conclusion you reached before you ever decided to construct your own personal definition of animal. By any and all biological definition of the term “animal,” man is certainly an animal.


an·i·mal
/ˈanəməl/

noun

1. a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Your argument makes as much sense as saying a piece of cardboard isn’t paper because it’s not white and you don’t write a résumé on it.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have a very narrow minded definition of “animal” which is specifically designed to support a conclusion you reached before you ever decided to construct your own personal definition of animal. By any and all biological definition of the term “animal,” man is certainly an animal.


an·i·mal
/ˈanəməl/

noun

1. a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Your argument makes as much sense as saying a piece of cardboard isn’t paper because it’s not white and you don’t write a résumé on it.

Animals such as horses and birds, and gorillas, insofar as I know cannot learn to read music, or write history books, can they? Or test genealogical differences, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

They are still more right than the atheist.

I'm not speaking for all theists, only for myself as for my recognition of what happened. I have come to realize that when Joshua spoke to the people of Israel as they went into the Promised Land, he told them to choose for themselves which god they were to serve. "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.” Joshua 24:14.

 

[YoursTrue]

Funny how that is never mentioned....

In some cases it can be dangerous to mention. But it makes sense to me very much so when Joshua told the nation of Israel, "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15) Now it was clear from the context that this large group had a background as a group. Yet they were told to choose.

 

[Polymath257]

Animals such as horses and birds, and gorillas, insofar as I know cannot learn to read music, or write history books, can they? Or test genealogical differences, right?

Irrelevant. Those are not the characteristics that determine whether or not something is an animal.

Animals are characterized by being heterotrophic (don't make our own nutrients, like plants), have cells with membranes made of lipids as opposed to cell walls made out of glycogens (like plants and fungi), are multicellular, and are motile (can move around, at least during part of their life cycle).

Examples of animals: sponges, insects, worms, vertebrates, mammals.

Animals are multicellular and are contrasted to plants, which have cell walls and are autotrophs (make their own nutrients, usually using sunlight) and fungi, which have cell walls and are heterotophs.

We can go further, though. Humans are vertebrates (we have backbones), and are placental mammals (ever heard of a placenta?).

 

[Secret Chief]

Animals such as horses and birds, and gorillas, insofar as I know cannot learn to read music, or write history books, can they? Or test genealogical differences, right?

It's simple: you don't know what the word "animal" means.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Irrelevant.

As a call for the pinnacle of the truest trueness is of the utmost and immediate urgency, allow me to put this to bed once and for all, objectively and verily... ---->

We can speak. There is only one conclusion this can lead one to:
We're African Grey Parrots.
Grey parrot - Wikipedia

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Animals such as horses and birds, and gorillas, insofar as I know cannot learn to read music, or write history books, can they? Or test genealogical differences, right?

No they can’t. Do you have a pertinent point to make? Are we really reduced to this level of (nonexistent) logic?

One of my professors told me many years ago, if two people are having a conversation, and they have different definitions for the same term, they are not communicating, they are babbling. I have provided above definition for the term “animal” that would be perfectly acceptable to me and 99% of the other people on this planet. If this definition is unacceptable to you please provide one that is and we can go from there.

But at the moment it sounds like you’re implying that if a human can do something any other animal can’t than a human can’t be an animal. Is that your position? By that logic if a human can do something that any other animal can’t (read music) than a human can’t be an animal. If a bird can do something that any other animal can’t (fly) then a bird can’t be an animal. If the fish can do anything and any other animal can’t (breath water) then fish can’t be an animal. This is a ridiculous way not only to define terms but it’s a ridiculous way to think. Intelligent people normally define terms by reducing the basic characteristics common to all objects included in the term. But please feel free to provide your definition of the term “animal.”

If you can’t provide a clear and concise definition of the term “animal,” then wouldn’t discussing what is and is not an animal with you be a fool’s errand?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Or test genealogical differences, right?

wouldn’t discussing what is and is not an animal with you be a fool’s errand?

If there is truth to the hypothesis that a room full of chimpanzees with typewriters will create the work of Shakespeare, given enough time.
Then we consider true, the conspiracy that Shakespeare was a fictional author, and we aren't aware of the actual playwright/s that produced the works attributed to the name Shakespeare...

Does this mean Chimpanzees are the true H. saps saps? We that 'call' ourselves humans aren't even capable of being chimps... *SQUAWK!*

Sorry, I couldn't help me self.

 

[YoursTrue]

Irrelevant. Those are not the characteristics that determine whether or not something is an animal.

Animals are characterized by being heterotrophic (don't make our own nutrients, like plants), have cells with membranes made of lipids as opposed to cell walls made out of glycogens (like plants and fungi), are multicellular, and are motile (can move around, at least during part of their life cycle).

Examples of animals: sponges, insects, worms, vertebrates, mammals.

Animals are multicellular and are contrasted to plants, which have cell walls and are autotrophs (make their own nutrients, usually using sunlight) and fungi, which have cell walls and are heterotophs.

We can go further, though. Humans are vertebrates (we have backbones), and are placental mammals (ever heard of a placenta?).

Plants die yet can have seeds that produce other plants. Animals die, too.They do of course, produce offspring. Humans now die, but are the only ones that have the idea of everlasting life in their minds. Now naturally not all ideas are the same, but still -- plants do not think they can live forever -- or be resurrected when they die -- although they have seeds, neither do lions or tigers or chimpanzees have ideas about resurrections or everlasting life. Only humans have that idea. Even if I don't agree with all human ideas about death and eternal life -- humans are still the only ones who express ideas about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

If there is truth to the hypothesis that a room full of chimpanzees with typewriters will create the work of Shakespeare, given enough time.
Then we consider true, the conspiracy that Shakespeare was a fictional author, and we aren't aware of the actual playwright/s that produced the works attributed to the name Shakespeare...

Does this mean Chimpanzees are the true H. saps saps? We that 'call' ourselves humans aren't even capable of being chimps... *SQUAWK!*

Sorry, I couldn't help me self.

Cute, but a whole lot of editing would go into a room full of chimpanzees typing and the works of Shakespeare coming out of it. That idea (theory?) is almost like the idea of -- you got it -- EVOLUTION. In other words -- impossible. Odds are...

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

resurrections or everlasting life

Have you hear of the Immortal Jellyfish?

Turritopsis dohrnii - Wikipedia

The animal kingdom of which we are a part of, is frickin' amazing.

 

[YoursTrue]

No they can’t. Do you have a pertinent point to make? Are we really reduced to this level of (nonexistent) logic?

One of my professors told me many years ago, if two people are having a conversation, and they have different definitions for the same term, they are not communicating, they are babbling. I have provided above definition for the term “animal” that would be perfectly acceptable to me and 99% of the other people on this planet. If this definition is unacceptable to you please provide one that is and we can go from there.

But at the moment it sounds like you’re implying that if a human can do something any other animal can’t than a human can’t be an animal. Is that your position? By that logic if a human can do something that any other animal can’t (read music) than a human can’t be an animal. If a bird can do something that any other animal can’t (fly) then a bird can’t be an animal. If the fish can do anything and any other animal can’t (breath water) then fish can’t be an animal. This is a ridiculous way not only to define terms but it’s a ridiculous way to think. Intelligent people normally define terms by reducing the basic characteristics common to all objects included in the term. But please feel free to provide your definition of the term “animal.”

If you can’t provide a clear and concise definition of the term “animal,” then wouldn’t discussing what is and is not an animal with you be a fool’s errand?

The problem with your argument is the fact that chimpanzees cannot learn to read music -- horses cannot learn to read and speak other languages. Oh neither can gorillas. They can't test theories, they don't express thoughts in newspapers, the internet -- but if you think so and you think that means that the human brain evolved from some unknown common ancestor somewhere -- ok -- that's you. Not me. I used to believe that, but I no longer do. Anyway, have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Have you hear of the Immortal Jellyfish?

Turritopsis dohrnii - Wikipedia

The animal kingdom of which we are a part of, is frickin' amazing.

Yes. I've heard of the immortal jellyfish. So what happened, it didn't evolve into other forms that were immortal? And yes, animals are truly amazing. Beyond human making animals up. Furthermore, these types can die. Immortal jellyfish: the secret to cheating death | Natural History Museum (nhm.ac.uk) Yes, they can die. But they can be self-rejuvenating too. But they can die anyway.
I personally didn't have a choice in being born as a human. But I'm glad I am. I'm also glad to know that I can live forever at a certain point in time, the knowledge of which I am very glad about.