thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 https://www.google.com/search?q=monkey+holding+human+skull+statue&client=firefox-a&hs=3sm&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=eNUkFPe5VYf__M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcSnLfj6XELgITcdEIKGLspegj5K6iBy4nlKw7TT6DO5uh5o1A5DSQ%253B375%253B375%253Bnzft4x_VJMJIwM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fblog.showcaseantiques.com%25252Fstatue-of-ape-with-skull%25252F&source=iu&usg=__9vYb8Z96ceDphBhPBCwgJFX0b6U%3D&sa=X&ei=hc2OU9iGN9H8oATxo4HgBA&ved=0CFUQ9QEwBA&biw=1366&bih=579#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=eNUkFPe5VYf__M%253A%3Bnzft4x_VJMJIwM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblog.showcaseantiques.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2013%252F11%252Fstatue-ape-with-skull.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblog.showcaseantiques.com%252Fstatue-of-ape-with-skull%252F%3B375%3B375
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) In all animals there has to be a mating pair or reproduction doesn't take place. We have no clue as to whom that first mating pair was. But genetics, time requirements, and population dynamics put it at at least one pair of 40 genetically unrelated individuals of the same species somewhere in central Africa 200,000 to 250,000 years ago. Well outside the range of any Adam and Eve 7,000 years ago whether in the Middle East or America.I am confident that these numbers are off about 194,000- 244,000 years. Edited June 4, 2014 by Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 I can meet you in the middle on that, and understand your position and reasoning. For me, the way biologists use it signifies an embodied God. The notion of a biological God, with a physical body of flesh and bone, multicellular, eukaryotic in nature is a glorious one. For me, the fact that I have a biological body with the same characteristics as that strengthens my belief that I am a son of God. That other organisms share some of these characteristics sets forth a pattern of God as the creator, but my testimony of the spiritual creation, and humanity's unique position of being not only the biological, but spiritual image of God grounds me. So, all I would ask is understanding that when I say "animal" that term has a different meaning that does not put humanity on equal footing with lesser-beings. I understand your position, and actually agree with you that given the nature of semantics that how those less schooled in scientific terminology can view the use of the word "animal" with regards to human nature.If we used a strict biological language when discussing things in the biologic concept I do not see a problem. I fear though all too often they take it too far and it leaves biologic discussion and turns into defining humans in the context or every day talk. It truly is about semantics. The average Joe hearing we are "animals" then tells his buddy that "hey its no trouble to sin- were all just animals anyway". This is why I dislike the word because its meaning has changed and its now used in the context of placing us with animals on a more equal "naturalistic" level.
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 I am confident that these numbers are off about 194,000- 244,000 years. From the guy who thinks that Adam and Eve rode around on a coconut eating T-Rex.
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 From the guy who thinks that Adam and Eve rode around on a coconut eating T-Rex.There is ample evidence of man and dinosaur living together. Killing off the dragons in the dark ages was no fanciful pipe dream- brave warriors were actually killing off dinosaurs just a few hundred years ago.
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 If we used a strict biological language when discussing things in the biologic concept I do not see a problem. I fear though all too often they take it too far and it leaves biologic discussion and turns into defining humans in the context or every day talk. It truly is about semantics. The average Joe hearing we are "animals" then tells his buddy that "hey its no trouble to sin- were all just animals anyway". This is why I dislike the word because its meaning has changed and its now used in the context of placing us with animals on a more equal "naturalistic" level. Dictionaries are wonderful things. I recommend you use one. Animal: nounn 1. Any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 There is ample evidence of man and dinosaur living together. Killing off the dragons in the dark ages was no fanciful pipe dream- brave warriors were actually killing off dinosaurs just a few hundred years ago. True. That's how we humans developed one of our senses.
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Dictionaries are wonderful things. I recommend you use one. Animal: nounn 1. Any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes. This would be your "biologic" definition. But that definition stops at the lab doorway. In everyday language this is not how we use the word. Even in discussing man and why he is here it is not proper to refer to him as "animal". This is how we use it (semanitcs, like I said) 2. any such living thing other than a human being.
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 There is ample evidence of man and dinosaur living together. Killing off the dragons in the dark ages was no fanciful pipe dream- brave warriors were actually killing off dinosaurs just a few hundred years ago. Yep. They're right there in Ken Ham's Young Earth Creationist Museum that you constantly claim not to believe.
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Yep. They're right there in Ken Ham's Young Earth Creationist Museum that you constantly claim not to believe. Yeah, go ahead and laugh. Just realize you laugh at God.
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Yeah, go ahead and laugh. Just realize you laugh at God. Why should God be constrained by your lack of imagination? 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 This would be your "biologic" definition. But that definition stops at the lab doorway. In everyday language this is not how we use the word. Even in discussing man and why he is here it is not proper to refer to him as "animal". This is how we use it (semanitcs, like I said) 2. any such living thing other than a human being. Learn how to use a dictionary the secondary definitions are just that. It MAY be used depending on context. IE; 1. A stoop is physical position of to bend one's head or body forward and downward. 2. To lower one moral standards so far as to do something reprehensible.
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Yeah, go ahead and laugh. Just realize you laugh at God. So now you're the God I should have anything to do with?
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Learn how to use a dictionary the secondary definitions are just that. It MAY be used depending on context. IE; 1. A stoop is physical position of to bend one's head or body forward and downward. 2. To lower one moral standards so far as to do something reprehensible.I am properly using the dictionary. You do not understand things at all. ITS ALWAYS "context" first if there is more than one definition for a word. If I ask my neighbor how many animals he has he is not using definition #1 and never will use #1 in that context. Its #2 definition because of the "context". In everyday language we use the word "animal" pretty much exclusively as the definition I gave. We never use #1 unless using it in the strictest of biologic talk in scientific contexts.
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 So now you're the God I should have anything to do with? You should read the scriptures. In them in several places it speaks of humanity as "gods".
Gray Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 There is ample evidence of man and dinosaur living together. Yabba dabba doo? Sorry, couldn't resist
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Yabba dabba doo? Sorry, couldn't resist "The Flintstones is only partially based on fact." -- Stephen Merchant
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Yabba dabba doo? Sorry, couldn't resistNo problemo Barney
Gray Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Yeah, go ahead and laugh. Just realize you laugh at God. I don't think a misunderstanding of the way the natural world works can be reasonably characterized to be God.
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 I am properly using the dictionary. You do not understand things at all. ITS ALWAYS "context" first if there is more than one definition for a word. If I ask my neighbor how many animals he has he is not using definition #1 and never will use #1 in that context. Its #2 definition because of the "context". In everyday language we use the word "animal" pretty much exclusively as the definition I gave. We never use #1 unless using it in the strictest of biologic talk in scientific contexts. That you are using a secondary definition as the primary speaks to your improper use. The context is what is the biological definition of animal. Stop using a social convention as a definition. An Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy.
Calm Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) There is only one true Animal:http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111102220653/muppet/images/2/26/Animal_crazed-NEW.png Edited June 4, 2014 by calmoriah 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 There is only one true Animal:http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111102220653/muppet/images/2/26/Animal_crazed-NEW.png
halconero Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 If we used a strict biological language when discussing things in the biologic concept I do not see a problem. I fear though all too often they take it too far and it leaves biologic discussion and turns into defining humans in the context or every day talk. It truly is about semantics. The average Joe hearing we are "animals" then tells his buddy that "hey its no trouble to sin- were all just animals anyway". This is why I dislike the word because its meaning has changed and its now used in the context of placing us with animals on a more equal "naturalistic" level.I understand and agree, semantics are completely relevant and vital to the subject. Good discussion, Rob. Thank you for your input.
Stargazer Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Perhaps there are some of you who believe I am descended from a ape...
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 There is only one true Animal:http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111102220653/muppet/images/2/26/Animal_crazed-NEW.pngIs that a gnat?
Recommended Posts