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

[ppp]

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".

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

Merely claiming that I implied something doesn't make your assertion true just because you assert it.

Peer reviewed scientific journal references, please.

 

[McBell]

Peer reviewed scientific journal references, please.

You do know you are not going to get one, right?

 

[ppp]

You do know you are not going to get one, right?

Well, sure. There aren't any. But it's fun to watch him squirm trying not to admit it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Hi chinu.

The difference between man and animals is two things. The first is that although animals may have certain capacities to do things like use tools, there simply is no comparison between using a twig termite kit and sending a man to the moon. Somewhere along the line, humanity crossed the line and the difference became such a big quantity, that it became qualitative.

The second thing is that humanity has moral sentience. A very very few other animals also have a rudiementary morality, such as chimps, but again, even among this handful, there is simply no comparison as the sheer quantitative difference becomes a qualitative difference.

In spite of these difference, mankind remains an animial. We eat, poop, have sex, seek shelter, care for our young... But you might say we are animals in the process of evolving into something more.

 

[chinu]

Hi chinu.

The difference between man and animals is two things. The first is that although animals may have certain capacities to do things like use tools, there simply is no comparison between using a twig termite kit and sending a man to the moon. Somewhere along the line, humanity crossed the line and the difference became such a big quantity, that it became qualitative.

The second thing is that humanity has moral sentience. A very very few other animals also have a rudiementary morality, such as chimps, but again, even among this handful, there is simply no comparison as the sheer quantitative difference becomes a qualitative difference.

In spite of these difference, mankind remains an animial. We eat, poop, have sex, seek shelter, care for our young... But you might say we are animals in the process of evolving into something more.

Hi IG

Let me tell you what I believe, perhaps you will like that

Human (Not human body) is the crown of all species on this earth. But, I exclude human body from the group of this crown species because acquiring human body simply just NOT make one a human. There are human out there in this world who still behave like animals. Such humans does NOT hold the right to call them as humans, even when they acquire human body. Such humans look like humans, but, they truly are animals in the costume (Body) of a human.

Of course, there's something that makes a human different from animals. And that's definitely is NOT based on any materialistic/scientific prosperity which has been made by us till now. The word "Human" is quiet very old. Its even more older when the first electric bulb was discovered.

I also believe in reincarnation. I believe that animal soul become capable of human body after a lot of improvement. This improvement perhaps may take many rebirths. Yes, animals also learn from humans so that their soul could get improvement and they become capable of human body.

Animal becoming capable of human body simply doesn't make that animal a human in true terms. Human and Animal are two different words and of course there a point from where the human journey starts. But, before that animal in a human body is no more than a animal.

Question is.. what point is that, thereafter one is said to be a true human ?
My answer is.. Right from the moment when any soul start thinking upon.. "What is the purpose of life" or "Who am I" or "Why am I" or any such question / idea.

If any such question comes into one's mind ?
I congratulate that person because that's the point from where the journey of a true human-being starts

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi IG

Let me tell you what I believe, perhaps you will like that

Human (Not human body) is the crown of all species on this earth. But, I exclude human body from the group of this crown species because acquiring human body simply just NOT make one a human. There are human out there in this world who still behave like animals. Such humans does NOT hold the right to call them as humans, even when they acquire human body. Such humans look like humans, but, they truly are animals in the costume (Body) of a human.

Of course, there's something that makes a human different from animals. And that's definitely is NOT based on any materialistic/scientific prosperity which has been made by us till now. The word "Human" is quiet very old. Its even more older when the first electric bulb was discovered.

I also believe in reincarnation. I believe that animal soul become capable of human body after a lot of improvement. This improvement perhaps may take many rebirths. Yes, animals also learn from humans so that their soul could get improvement and they become capable of human body.

Animal becoming capable of human body simply doesn't make that animal a human in true terms. Human and Animal are two different words and of course there a point from where the human journey starts. But, before that animal in a human body is no more than a animal.

Question is.. what point is that, thereafter one is said to be a true human ?
My answer is.. Right from the moment when any soul start thinking upon.. "What is the purpose of life" or "Who am I" or "Why am I" or any such question / idea.

If any such question comes into one's mind ?
I congratulate that person because that's the point from where the journey of a true human-being starts

Thank you for your very thoughtful answer.

I think the term "human" encompasses the whole range of human expression and physiology. You have the philosopher that asks, Why are we here, and you have developmentally disabled people who are quite unable to pose such a question. Both are human.

Similrly, humanity's capacity for great good and great evil are both part of being human, at least at this point in our evolution.

 

[oldbadger]

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

I don't know about in the beginning, but....
Animals have existed and do exist on Earth.
Humans have and do mess it all up.

Easy......

 

[Rise]

Merely claiming that I implied something doesn't make your assertion true just because you assert it.

Your claim is demonstrably false.
I never said it was true just by asserting it is.
I gave specific logical reasons why it was true.
You ignored those reasons and responded with fallacies because you don't have a valid counter argument to them.

Since I gave valid reasons for my claim, the burden of rejoinder is on you to attempt to offer a counter argument to those reasons.

If you respond merely by asserting that I gave no reasons, without showing why any of my reasons were supposedly inadequate or invalid logic, then that makes you guilty of committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.
You don't prove that I did not give valid reasons just by asserting it's true.


Here are those reasons posted again for you:


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.


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 about why you did commit the fallacy of appeal to authority with valid counter arguments of your own.