Thread: So, I think Christians are stupid.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So since we are defining things. I wonder, hmmmm what defines a Human? Sit tight we'll get to that one soon.

Well, I read through your post and saw nothing answering such a question.

My response to Xei would apply to you as well then. Since you're obviously cheering from the side-lines :p Do you have any thoughts of your own to add to this discussion or are you going to keep instigating?

I'm trying to get you to be honest and on-topic for once. Instead I'm constantly disappointed. I've yet to see an answer to his question.

You could start by answering the MHLE question that Xei dodged and you're attempting to doge.

I don't know what the hell MHLE means.

Really so let's broaden the scope then. I'll tell you some of the similarities that I find very intriguing about animals.

My Dog for instance, has the capability to construct an argument, extend a line of logic, propose a conclusion and frame hypotheses. It's actually quite remarkable you gotta see it to believe it.

My neighbors cat is pretty amazing also. I was talking to the cat the other day and her vocabulary is enormous! with extreme grammar complexity, in which I've found all of her conversations thought provoking and deeply meaningful.

I was reading an article in the Washington Post the other day which was written by an chimpanzee who was making a blatant assertion about how apes evolved from humans. I was like WOW! how intriguing! This chimp may be on to something! With his ability to codify language in writing, his article blew me away.

The Elephant is extremely amazing possessing a strong spirit of inquiry. It's very apparent with their works in the areas of mathematics, physics, chemistry and astronomy.

I've been told that Apes yearn for the meaning of life which is why you see so many of them expanding their intellect in the fields of philosophy, ethics and theology.

And lets not forget Leo the Lion, the famous philosopher who coined this piece "I think therefore I am"

I truly love how the common giraffe has a shear undefined aesthetic sense. Longing to surround themselves of beauty. This is most apparent when you see their homes filled with flowers in vases and beautiful arts and paintings displayed on their walls and the amazing gardening they do all to beautify their surrounding with the essentials of love and total beauty.

I really admire the strong creative impulse by the Tiger. Who write exceptional music, compose classics, delve into the arts, dance, poetry, pottery, crafting.

Language, reason, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, philosophy, theology creativity, morality, poetry, aesthetics, imagination, aspiration and humor. such intangible but fundamental qualities are by no means unique to only to humans. These list is just a short exerpt of what makes animals, ummm animals

So since we are all animals as you say, then feel free to be as low down and dirty as a snake and as filthy as the swine. Be a Jackass if you want. As for me, I think I'd rather be what I am. A Human-being.

This is the sort of bullshit that makes Xaqaria think atheists are naturally hostile to theists. Humans have greater (or at least more noticeable) reasoning skills...and that makes them not human. Why do I even bother...

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't know what the hell MHLE means.

Mildly Heretical Laser Elephant

I think humans are stupider than most animals even if they do have reasoning skills.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Ya know Ne-yo I used to think you were pretty damn cool but after reading this post I lost all respect for you.

Here's a news flash for you. I'm not here to win the respect of some atheist.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Also octopi can change colors, humans cant. So I guess this means octopi are not animals, they are....made in the image of god.

The image of God is not a physical attribute.

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay, so, I explained why the argument, "no animal has quality X possessed by humans, hence humans aren't animals", is fallacious. And as a response, you provided further examples of how no animal has quality X possessed by humans.

I literally cannot believe you haven't killed yourself whilst attempting to use cutlery yet.

I literally cannot believe how obvious your attempt is to dodge.

Here, I'll sweeten the pot for you. Humans are not Animals, why?
Answer: One of the major reasons would be that, we do not share a common ancestor.

Prove otherwise. However, I would suggest you take caution in this area If you want your atheist colleagues to continue to think highly of you.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Answer: One of the major reasons would be that, we do not share a common ancestor.

Prove otherwise. However, I would suggest you take caution in this area If you want your atheist colleagues to continue to think highly of you.

You have a very short/selective memory, eh.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I literally cannot believe how obvious your attempt is to dodge.

Here, I'll sweeten the pot for you. Humans are not Animals, why?
Answer: One of the major reasons would be that, we do not share a common ancestor.

Prove otherwise. However, I would suggest you take caution in this area If you want your atheist colleagues to continue to think highly of you.

The common ancestor of animals and humans is humans. Derp much? You've made another cyclical fallacy, tee hee.

Humans also have a common ancestor with plants, which is far more fascinating.

In other news, our closest related Kingdom is the fungi, which is also awesome.

Originally Posted by Xei

The common ancestor of animals and humans is humans. Derp much? You've made another cyclical fallacy, tee hee.

So how exactly is that possible when Humans and Animals do not share a common ancestor?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well, I read through your post and saw nothing answering such a question.

It's in that thread you had closed by the Admin. Stop playing dumb, you had it closed simply because of that question and you are here still dodging just like Xei.

Originally Posted by Blueline

I'm trying to get you to be honest and on-topic for once. Instead I'm constantly disappointed. I've yet to see an answer to his question.

I've already answered the question.

Originally Posted by Blueline

I don't know what the hell MHLE means.

Originally Posted by Mark

Mildly Heretical Laser Elephant

Ring any bells?

Originally Posted by Blueline

This is the sort of bullshit that makes Xaqaria think atheists are naturally hostile to theists. Humans have greater (or at least more noticeable) reasoning skills...and that makes them not human. Why do I even bother...

Wat? This has absolutely nothing to do with that question regarding MHLE's, stop dodging.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So how exactly is that possible when Humans and Animals do not share a common ancestor?

Humans and animals don't share a common ancestor, hence it's impossible for humans and animals to share a common ancestor?

Careful with that spoon now, Ne-Yo.

The glass is always half full for me. I'm open, but I'm referring to as far as we know "right now". Are you willing to concur that Humans do not share a common ancestor with Animals. As of right now?

You've lost me dude, please just refer to post #707 where I answered your question. :/

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

It's in that thread you had closed by the Admin. Stop playing dumb, you had it closed simply because of that question and you are here still dodging just like Xei.

I had to look at the locked threads in this forum to see which one you were talking about, but I remember now. I had it closed because you had (1) been shown to be embarrassingly incorrect about nearly everything you posted, and (2) never replied to a post of mine even though you said you would. Other than that the thread wasn't following the topic of the OP. But still, I don't know what MHLE means.

I've already answered the question.

No, you posted some stuff about you talking to your cat. We're eagerly awaiting an answer to:

...please explain which of the following characteristics do not apply to humans:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions)
(2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment

Ring any bells?

I had to dig (shocking, I know) again, and Modern Human-like Europeans doesn't apply to me. I wasn't part of that conversation.

Wat? This has absolutely nothing to do with that question regarding MHLE's, stop dodging.

Because it's totally irrelevant...

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Here's a news flash for you. I'm not here to win the respect of some atheist.
The image of God is not a physical attribute.

I'm not an atheist.
You never answered my question. Are you saying that humans are not animals because we have attributes that are uncommon in other animal species?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Are you willing to concur that Humans do not share a common ancestor with Animals. As of right now?

Let me try to explain:
Your question does not logically make sense. It's like asking if one believes that the precursor to crabs were mollusks, or, in a simpler metaphor, asking the distance between London and England.

Humans and animals don't share a common ancestor because humans still are animals. Look up phylogenetics. Look up the scientific definition of animal. Look at the kingdom classification on the Wikipedia page.

Originally Posted by Xei

You've lost me dude, please just refer to post #707 where I answered your question. :/

I did and I replied to it so.....

Originally Posted by Xei

The common ancestor of animals and humans is humans. Derp much? You've made another cyclical fallacy, tee hee.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So how exactly is that possible when Humans and Animals do not share a common ancestor?

How do you explain this?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I had to look at the locked threads in this forum to see which one you were talking about, but I remember now. I had it closed because you had (1) been shown to be embarrassingly incorrect about nearly everything you posted,

So let me get this straight. A group of Atheist, supposedly debunked me, a Creationist and you had the thread closed so that it could get buried deep within the archives never to be discovered by the multitude of Atheist that ventrue into the R/S forum? Do you really expect us to buy into that?

Originally Posted by Blueline

(2) never replied to a post of mine even though you said you would. Other than that the thread wasn't following the topic of the OP.

I had explained to you over and over again to just be patient while I finished up my debate with Spartiate. My question to you is, why couldn't you just sit tight? What was the rush? Having the thread closed pretty much defeats the purpose of receiving and answer now doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Blueline

But still, I don't know what MHLE means.

Originally Posted by Xei

Modern Humans Like Europeans... classic. Abbreviated to MHLEs in scientific circles, naturally. They are distinguished from other human species by their ability to drive cars and their affection for pop music. This is all highly technical of course.

And now you know. So now who is the direct predecessor to this group of people?

Originally Posted by Blueline

No, you posted some stuff about you talking to your cat. We're eagerly awaiting an answer to:
...please explain which of the following characteristics do not apply to humans:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions)
(2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment
(7) Reproduction that does not involve Meiosis
(8) Oviparity - having the ability to lay eggs with little or no other embryonic development within the mother

7 and 8

Originally Posted by Blueline

I had to dig (shocking, I know) again, and Modern Human-like Europeans doesn't apply to me. I wasn't part of that conversation.

It doesn't matter, you're a part of it now. It requires and answer because spartiate was stumped and couldn't answer it so, whenever you're ready, go for it.

Also, I know you're only stalling because you're waiting to see how Xei or someone else responds to it because you're a follower like that. Pulled your card.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I'm not an atheist.
You never answered my question. Are you saying that humans are not animals because we have attributes that are uncommon in other animal species?

I'm saying Humans are not Animals because I'm a Creationist and I believe humans are made in God's image and animals are not. I don't care how Science categorize it. Science change all the time. They'll get it right eventually :p Today Humans are Animals, tomorrow, Humans will be whatever seems good to support evolution.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Let me try to explain:

Pardon me for my frankness but you're not in any position to try to explain anything at the moment. You left an entire post unanswered a few pages back. :p
Right now forming a rebuttal to you would be a waste of time considering you're probably going to run out on it again.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Pardon me for my frankness but you're not in any position to try to explain anything at the moment. You left an entire post unanswered a few pages back. :p
Right now forming a rebuttal to you would be a waste of time considering you're probably going to run out on it again.

What was all that about dodging and stalling and all that you're accusing blueline and xei of doing? how is this not that? You're gonna ignore his perfectly valid points over some arbitrary technicality? What next -- you refuse to respond to someone because their eyes aren't blue, their hair not blonde, and their skin not white? Funny, too, is your absolute bias against all atheists (indeed, going as far as to assume that any who dare oppose you must be an evil, vile atheist to be destroyed), your willingness to distort truths and reality to suit your own purposes, and continue to spread fear, hate, and propaganda.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

It's sort of like if I asked you "Do cars wear socks?" You'd probably say no. But if you saw a car wearing socks you would still consider it a car, I'd imagine. You answered "no" to the question because wearing socks is not related to what defines a car. Therefore wearing socks doesn't necessarily mean that something is not a car.

huh? Why would I say "no" I see cars with socks all the time.



I've seen cars with bra's also :p



and these are shoes for your car

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I'm saying Humans are not Animals because I'm a Creationist and I believe humans are made in God's image and animals are not. I don't care how Science categorize it. Science change all the time. They'll get it right eventually :p Today Humans are Animals, tomorrow, Humans will be whatever seems good to support evolution.

Ok then. Sorry to be a bit pushy but that answer is not good enough for me. I just want to know if you believe an octopus to not be an animal because it has an attribute that other animals lack, which considering your line of reasoning about why humans are not animals, you should logically except.

There is a reason why humans are considered animals and not plants or rocks for instance. Forget the genetic similarity issue for now. Lets focus on the physiological similarities like that fact that we share a similar anatomical structure to other mammals, breath oxygen and are and require external sustenance for starters. We do not function in a similar manner to rocks and plants for instance so it would be absurd to label us as such.

We are animals. Some people are humble enough to admit it but next time you are overcome with lust, or hunger or are taking a shit, keep telling yourself you are not an animal but a special creature made in the image of god.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Ok then. Sorry to be a bit pushy but that answer is not good enough for me. I just want to know if you believe an octopus to not be an animal because it has an attribute that other animals lack, which considering your line of reasoning about why humans are not animals, you should logically except.

If it's not good enough for you then, oh well. I classify them as "kinds" as originally dictated by the Scriptures. An Octopus is a sea creature.

Also since you're here. Whats up with this?

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I'm not an atheist.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

@mario92- Under your criteria I suppose I am a weak atheist but I still voted other.

contradict much?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by stormcrow

We are animalshumans. Some people are humble enough to admit it but next time you are overcome with lust, or hunger or are taking a shit,Poetry, creating music, reasoning, or any Spiritual expression keep telling yourself you are not an animal but a special creature made in the image of god.

Fixed

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

If it's not good enough for you then, oh well. I classify them as "kinds" as originally dictated by the Scriptures. An Octopus is a sea creature.

Also since you're here. Whats up with this?

contradict much?

I wrote under your (Mario92's) criteria for a reason. You can take that up with me in that other thread if you like.

Ok what I'm trying to shake out of you is an answer...You believe that because humans have the ability to "write Poetry, create music, reason, or (have) any Spiritual expression", qualities which other animals do not posses, therefore your conclusion is we are not animals, is this correct?

Soooooooo my rebuttal was: Since octopi have qualities (ability to change color) that other animals do not posses, therefore (under your line of reasoning) they cannot be considered animals. And you are still dodging me....

I would appreciate an honest reply, thank you.

What of coma patients, that do not possess any higher mental capacities? No music, no poetry, no thoughts at all. But then they recover. Do they stop being human while in said coma? Then do they become animals? Where in this arbitrary list of requirements do you draw the line?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I did and I replied to it so.....

You asked what is the common ancestor of humans and animals.

I said that it's humans; kookyinc further elaborated why the entire question and line of enquiry was retarded in the first place.

You then said, "how can the common ancestor of humans and animals be humans when they don't share a common ancestor".

You are literally an imbecile if you think this is a logical argument. You're saying, "X isn't true, because X isn't true, hence it can't be true". What is wrong with you?

Originally Posted by stormcrow

I wrote under your (Mario92's) criteria for a reason. You can take that up with me in that other thread if you like.

I don't see the point. You say you're not one thing in one thread and then say you're exactly what you stated that you're not in another thread. Your position is inconsistent how do you really expect someone to take you seriously?

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Ok what I'm trying to shake out of you is an answer...You believe that because humans have the ability to "write Poetry, create music, reason, or (have) any Spiritual expression", qualities which other animals do not posses, therefore your conclusion is we are not animals, is this correct?

You've forgotten also that I believe Humans and Animals do not share a common ancestor. i.e., we did not evolve from billions of years with any other creature, from any other creature, or parallel to any other creature on this planet.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Soooooooo my rebuttal was: Since octopi have qualities (ability to change color) that other animals do not posses, therefore (under your line of reasoning) they cannot be considered animals. And you are still dodging me....

Dude, I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself. And once again *sigh* I label an Octopus as a "kind" of sea creature as dictated by the Bible. Animals to me are all living creatures that are not created in GOD's image. So in lieu of this then yes, they are Animals. This is not extremely complex stuff, it's very easy to understand. So is it clear to you now? I mean do you really understand this? Please do not let me have to repeat myself because it's getting old.

Originally Posted by Xei

You asked what is the common ancestor of humans and animals.

No I didn't, Where did I ask this question? Link the quote where I've asked you this particular question or accept that you are a liar.

Originally Posted by Xei

You then said, "how can the common ancestor of humans and animals be humans when they don't share a common ancestor".

Originally Posted by Xei

You are literally an imbecile if you think this is a logical argument. You're saying, "X isn't true, because X isn't true, hence it can't be true". What is wrong with you?

Here I'll make this even more simplified even though I know you were smart enough to catch it in the first place, or maybe I just gave you too much credit :p
Me -X isn't true -(Modern Humans and Apes do not share a common ancestor)
You -X is true (Modern Humans and Apes do share a common ancestor)
Me- Prove it.

It's as simple as that. The more you try to make something so simple, anymore complex you're only going to confuse yourself more and more, pretty much like you're doing now.

Whats really strange is that you're an Atheist. I explicitly stated to you that this particular theory of evolution is basically bunk. It's like the equivalent of me getting directly in your face and telling you that this idea of evolution is wrong and you have not cited one scientific journal, you haven't linked not one evolutionary article, and you haven't referenced not one peer reviewed published journal to support your claim. Why is this? What are you afraid of?