• 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!

Man is not an animal

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
It's still boasting to brag about your supposed glory and honor and near divinity, even when it is said in the middle of praising someone else.
But he's not bragging about that... in fact he asked why God noticed humanity and never even mentioned himself. And being lower than angels isn't near divinity. Angels are also created beings.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What do you mean? They know quite a lot about the Cambrian period. They also know quite a lot about the pre-cambrian period.

Be more specific. Which 'gaps' are you interested in?
Moving into another area for a moment, I am speaking not here of the Cambrian period, but of this:
"Bonobos look like smallish chimpanzees, with whom they share 99.6% of their DNA. And both of these great apes share 98.7% of their DNA with humans, making them our closest living relatives"
So they "share 98.7% of their DNA with humans," it is said. There is a difference which I called gap, probably wrong word. Yes I mentioned Cambrian period but that is another topic.
But a difference between supposedly humans "closest living relatives" is only a 1.3%? which evidently makes a big change, would you say? But then maybe some would say there is not a big difference. :)
Anyway -- here is a more erudite article I suppose about the situation than I can express:
Some Generous Apes May Help Explain The Evolution Of Human Kindness.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Arrogant and self-centered, too, apparently.

Sadly, even Google dictionary knows what an animal is:

an·i·mal
/ˈanəməl/
Learn to pronounce

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.
We are animals, and all your self-righteous whining will not change that.
Look, some people consider evolution to be a law and not a theory. Or a law that is a theory. Or a theoretical law. Meantime, there's a little but rather profound difference between gorillas, bonobos, and humans. :) Some Generous Apes May Help Explain The Evolution Of Human Kindness.
(Yeah -- may help explain the "evolution" of human kindness. How about the evolution of man's inhumanity to man? I'll tell you in advance there's a theoretical explanation by the theory/law? of evolution natural selection? (yes? no?) for that too. :))
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Look, some people consider evolution to be a law and not a theory. Or a law that is a theory. Or a theoretical law. Meantime, there's a little but rather profound difference between gorillas, bonobos, and humans. :) Some Generous Apes May Help Explain The Evolution Of Human Kindness.
(Yeah -- may help explain the "evolution" of human kindness. How about the evolution of man's inhumanity to man? I'll tell you in advance there's a theoretical explanation by the theory/law? of evolution natural selection? (yes? no?) for that too. :))
Non sequitur.

Pity you cannot be a man and accept your errors.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Do not trust my words, trust the facts. The fact is what I have an idea to prove the Goldbach's conjecture:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359413095_ARGUMENTS_FOR_GOLDBACH'S_STRONG_CONJECTURE
Hello?

You claim human DNA is biologically different from non-humans.

Please identify which of these 3 sequences is from a human:

79066_f9e6634984dc8014145c64c248855e4b.png
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Non sequitur.

Pity you cannot be a man and accept your errors.
Frankly I doubt I will evolve to become a man. lol. Now the question comes up, in your opinion, what came first? A male or female that produced offspring, I guess their offspring were male and/or female. But suffice it to say sir, I am not a male and have no intention or desire to become one. :)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Hello?

You claim human DNA is biologically different from non-humans.

Please identify which of these 3 sequences is from a human:

79066_f9e6634984dc8014145c64c248855e4b.png
Let's just say you're right and the sequence is scientifically correct. What happened to the 1.6% difference between gorillas and humans? Or bonobos and humans, I forget whether the difference is between gorillas and humans or bonobos and humans. I can check, but either way -- why do you think or imagine there is a marked difference, albeit slight, between bonobos, gorillas, and humans? Hmm? Please do answer cogently. Thanks. With facts. :) thanks again.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Let's just say you're right and the sequence is scientifically correct. What happened to the 1.6% difference between gorillas and humans? Or bonobos and humans, I forget whether the difference is between gorillas and humans or bonobos and humans. I can check, but either way -- why do you think or imagine there is a marked difference, albeit slight, between bonobos, gorillas, and humans? Hmm? Please do answer cogently. Thanks. With facts. :) thanks again.
Why do you think there is a difference between your DNA and that of your grandparents? Does the difference mean you aren't related?

(It appears I am on ignore. Too many tough questions, I guess. ;))
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp

ppp

Well-Known Member
A theist can also adhere to a specific religion.
I am not saying that one cannot. I am saying that theist is a broader category. Some theists are religionists, but not all. For that matter, some atheists are religionists(Jain, some forms of Buddhism, non-theistic Quakers), but not all.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So I guess that would mean that most social norms like rape being immoral are questionable.

No. It just means that rape isn't immoral because it is popular to think so.
Rape is indeed immoral. But for other reasons then "people believe it".
For actual reasons. Like the physical and mental harm it causes.

Usually if something is pretty much universal across the board in human experience it is considered to have merit.

Slavery was once universally accepted.
Earth being stationary was once universally accepted
The flow of time being a constant, regardless of observers, speed and gravity, was once universally accepted.


Again; popular opinion is not a pathway to truth.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
If you think they're no longer needed you might want to take a look around at society. The people who have kept up on the old skills are looking more and more wise,

Really? Then how come that there is an inverse correlation between the level of religiosity and overall societal health in pretty much all countries?
The more free and secular a society is, the better it performs across the board.


as our society starts to crumble due to the insane cost of everything. Knowing how to raise a garden and shooting and butcher your own meat, has never been more relevant

How is that "more relevant then ever"?
I'ld say the exact opposite.
 
Top