• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What actually made the difference between animals vs man in the beginning ?

Rise

Well-Known Member
Well, what actually made the difference between.. Animals vs Man in the beginning ?

According to the Bible:

Man was made in the image of God.
Animals weren't.

Man was given dominion over the earth and the animals.

Man's purpose was different than the animals.
We can infer that Man's purpose was to reflect God to creation and rule over it as God would. Man is designed to "tend the Garden".

Part of this requires understanding the Biblical principle that God creates things in the temporal to reflect and instruct on spiritual realities.

Based on what I know about permaculture and regenerating landscapes through livestock, I would conclude that the purpose of animals was as a necessary part of healing land, maintaining life giving ecological cycles, and increasing the earth's capacity to support life by increasing soil fertility and stimulating more organic matter production (Ie. More life begets more life. A reflection of who God is and how He works).

This isn't something you really appreciate until you understand how these various sizes and types of animals all fulfill different aspects in a permaculture system that we as humans try to make up for with our labor and technology. You could almost see the animals as living machinery designed to fulfill a specific function as part of a larger integrated system. But calling them machines is not meant to imply they weren't treated with value and respect. It is simply meant to point to how specifically they could be designed to fulfill a vital function within the whole ecological system.

And that the purpose of man was to direct and steward this process. Presumably to maximize gains and ensure all the animals got what they needed by being allocated certain areas and roles. (You'd have to understand that, before the fall, man appears to be able to communication with animals. As seen with the snake).

I often wondered how man was suppose to "tend the Garden of Eden" with just his bare hands. But if Adam had the capacity to give directions to animals as his co-laborers in tending creation, then there would be no need for tools or for Adam to even have the physiology to do everything himself.

Need those branches up high pruned? An elephant or brontosaurus could do it.
Need an area of brush and brambles cleared to make way for grass? Specific animals like goats can do that better.
Need a grass field mowed down low? You need grazing rather than browsing animals for that.
Those are just some examples to give you an idea.

The reason satan wanted to corrupt the image of God in the earth and corrupt creation was because he wanted to stop it from being a reflection of who God is and how God works. We see this all throughout the Bible and history where satan tries to corrupt the things God has established so that they no longer are an accurate reflection of God's truth.

The fall of man was when corruption and death entered the world. And now the way man and animals interact with each other and creation can often be more destructive than creative. Satan wanted to recreate man and the world in his own image.

When Jesus returns things will be restored as they were originally intended to be.
The Bible says the lion will eat straw and the child will play next to the snake's den.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
A civilization so advanced can be likened to being god like. Same with angels and stuff. They can be likened to god's hands on earth.
at some point a story came up.....about angels and their relationships with women here on earth

such things became ....forbidden
 

chinu

chinu
Have you ever owned any pets? My dog used to get terribly bored at home alone all day long. Used to have a cat that did nothing but mope around... until I got her a companion to play with, and now she's a more active and clearly a happier animal. It seems to me that you've never spent much time around animals if you've never noticed how bored they can get.
There's a big difference between feeling lonely and getting bored.

During COVID-19 lock down periods many people get bored of doing the same things over and again. But they weren't lonely because they were with their family.
 

chinu

chinu
Most animals don't have goals, but humans do. See what I did there?
But to my mind it's simply around intelligence.

If you're interested in the ability of some creatures to forward plan (which is the first basic element required to have 'higher goals') this might interest you;
Like Humans, Other Apes Plan Ahead | Live Science
Apes are human ancestors, that's right.
But still there's difference.
human-evolution-stages-evolutionary-process-gradual-development-visualization-monkey-primate-to-businessman-human-116625251.jpg

All are animals in the above picture,
Except, the one who started thinking about the "Purpose of life" or "Who am I" ?
NO matter one believe there's any purpose or not. Just thinking upon this matter is enough to be a human.

That's what the higher goal am taking about :)
That's what make human different from animals.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Apes are human ancestors, that's right.

We share a common ancestor.

But still there's difference.

There is more than one difference between (say) a gorilla and a human.

All are animals in the above picture,
Except, the one who started thinking about the "Purpose of life" or "Who am I" ?
NO matter one believe there's any purpose or not. Just thinking upon this matter is enough to be a human.

I'm not sure why you're asking the question, really, if you already 'know' the answer.
What are your thoughts about the ability of chimps to plan for the future?
What is your response to my thoughts that 'higher goals' in your terms...or ability to self-actualise in my old psych classes...is a function of intelligence and the luxury of time (simplistically)?

That's what the higher goal am taking about :)
That's what make human different from animals.

Humans are different to other animals. Chimps are different to other animals too.
All creatures have differences...and commonalities.
Ours are more obvious and pronounced.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
According to the Bible:
Man was made in the image of God.
Animals weren't.
Man was given dominion over the earth and the animals.
Is that what you believe? You did not arise in the line of mammals and primates as the biologists say. Do you deny evolution? Your ancestors did not fornicate with Homo habilis, the Neanderthals and the Denisovans? But your DNA, if checked, will say something different. Your DNA is 99% the same as that of a chimp. You still believe in this bronze age clap-trap? You have not taken any advantage of what might have been taught to you in school. You wasted your time and your nation's money. Even an Indian village student will know better than that. And then, Satan. Your all-mighty God could not do anything against him. What funny stories you have!

"The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. Aug 31, 2005" similarity betwen human and chimp dna - Google Search
 
Last edited:

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
There's a big difference between feeling lonely and getting bored.

During COVID-19 lock down periods many people get bored of doing the same things over and again. But they weren't lonely because they were with their family.

Again, have you ever owned a pet before? If you'd ever had a dog follow you around the house impatiently waiting for you to take them on a walk, because they're BORED TO DEATH in the house you KNOW just how bored animals can get. Both cats and dogs get excited when you get them a new toy... because they get BORED with the old ones. Ask any zoologist if animals kept in cages don't get bored and require habitats to live in at zoos. You're making all sorts of assumptions that aren't based on any real life experiences with animals.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Is that what you believe? You did not arise in the line of mammals and primates as the biologists say.

It's not about what I believe - it's about what can be proven or not proven.

Can you prove that mankind arose from other types of animals through a process of natural selection?

You cannot. If you tried to I would be able to refute your attempts.

Do you deny evolution?

You say "deny" as though it were a theology you must adhere to.

We don't use terms like "deny" when talking about science.

Either it's something you can prove is true or you can't.


But your DNA, if checked, will say something different.

Your DNA is 99% the same as that of a chimp.

That is false. That false claim comes from either a very logically flawed or intentionally deceptive study.

Human chimp dna similarity re-evaluated - creation.com

It may be as little as 81%. Not more than 87%.

And regardless of how one might want to quibble over the exact percentages in order to try to push it higher, the fact is that you cannot even logically draw the kinds of conclusions you would like to from merely looking at percentages.

Doing that is based on a wrong premise - the assumption that tallying up the number of differences will tell you how similar two things are. It's a wrong premise because it ignores the fact that not all changes to DNA are equal in their effects and magnitude of change.

An analogy would be looking at the differences between two ancient Old or New Testament manuscripts. You might say "these have 1000 differences between them". But not all differences are equal. It's entirely possible all the differences are merely issues of grammar and spelling that won't even alter the english translation of the text. But on the other hand if those differences are all targeted at changing key words you could alter the entire message of the Gospel or God's plan of salvation to be completely different.


Furthermore, to try to point to similarities as proof of descendance is operating from another false presumption that there is no other explanation for similarities.

Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, who has a PHD in genetics, explained why that's a false presumption:

Yet they’re still “85% similar.” What does that mean?

When comparing genomes, it’s useful to use an analogy of comparing two books. If you pick two mystery novels off a bookshelf and compare the text using a computer algorithm, the computer will find many similar isolated words and phrases. Both books must follow the same rules of grammar (as does every genome), and both books follow literary conventions that produce an exciting mystery novel (if you like mysteries). But the similarity does not mean that one book evolved from the other.

Of course, this is a foolish supposition. It’s a natural result of two different books being designed and written for similar purposes. The same is true of genomes, which God designed to produce many similar designs, such as bones, organs, and so on, for chimps and humans to eat similar foods and survive in similar environments. But we’re still different and fulfill unique purposes.

Another good example is the similarity among computer programs that come from the same programmer. The programmer doesn’t start from scratch each time he develops a new program. Instead, he uses the same general commands that he used for other projects. It shows the creator’s efficiency and ingenuity. We see the same pattern of both similarity and differences in organisms’ genomes.

Biblical creationists say the similarities in DNA arose because the same Creator adapted the same basic code for separate created kinds. If a gene in different creatures encodes a similar protein for a similar biochemical pathway, it’s not because of evolution, but because of a single programmer. This similarity is a hallmark of all human-engineered systems, so why would we not expect to see it in God’s creation?

(The Untold Story Behind DNA Similarity)


And then, Satan. Your all-mighty God could not do anything against him.

You won't find that idea anywhere in the Bible.
So where are you getting that idea from?
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
Peer reviewed scientific journal references, please.
Logical fallacy, "Appeal to authority".

Truth is not determined by whether or not it appears in only a particular publication that you deem acceptable.

You cannot refute any of the data and arguments presented.

This article has given 39 citations for it's conclusions, which you are free to look up and try to dispute:
Human chimp dna similarity re-evaluated - creation.com

Merely claiming that it can't be true because it hasn't appeared in the particular publication you find acceptable, is not a valid counter argument against anything found in that article.

That's only a baseless fallacy of appeal to authority.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Never said it was, you silly billy.

It was necessarily implied by your response.

You have dismissed all the valid facts and arguments presented in that article, with it's 39 citations, merely because it does not come from a source you deem acceptable.

The only implication of your response is that you believe truth must be determined by whether or not it appears in particular publications.

That is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".

It's no different than a catholic who says an interpretation of the Bible can't be true unless it comes from an official catholic publication. Without any regard for the merits of an argument or the facts presented.

Now. Peer reviewed scientific journal references, please.

Logical fallacy, "argument by repetition".

Merely repeating your original fallacy of "appeal to authority" doesn't make it stop being a fallacy just because you repeat it.

If you don't believe you committed that fallacy then you would need to attempt to refute my argument that you did with valid arguments of your own.

Merely repeating your assertion is not offering valid arguments about why you think your assertion is supposedly true, in light of my refutation of your assertion.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
You gratuitously inferred it from my response.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".

Merely asserting that my inference was unwarranted doesn't make your assertion true just because you assert it.

You would have to give valid counter arguments about why you think my inference was unwarranted, considering that I gave a valid argument about why it was warranted.

If you cannot do that then your claim stands as refuted.

Peer reviewed scientific journal references, please.

Logical fallacy, "argument by repetition".

Merely repeating your original fallacy of "appeal to authority" doesn't make it stop being a fallacy just because you repeat it.

If you don't believe you committed that fallacy then you would need to attempt to refute my argument that you did with valid arguments of your own.

Merely repeating your assertion is not offering valid arguments about why you think your assertion is supposedly true, in light of my refutation of your assertion.
 
Top