To: Stultis
The fact is that man can have mammal characteristics but not be an animal, just like a Whale is not an animal, but a fish. Four (or more, depending on how you count them) elementary errors in one sentence. Nice packing! Man IS equivocally an animal. (Any biological organism that forms a blastula in its early embryological development is by definition an "animal".) The whale IS an animal (and a mammal). The whale is NOT a fish. All fish are non-mammals by definition. Fish ARE animals (but not mammals). Only if you are following the modern way of defining the various species.
Man is not an animal, no matter how much the evolutionists want to make him one.
Ofcourse, evolutionists may consider themselves as such, but they would be wrong.
To: fortheDeclaration
Only if you are following the modern way of defining the various species.As opposed to which classical definition...? LOL
To: fortheDeclaration
" Man is not an animal, no matter how much the evolutionists want to make him one."
It wasn't evolutionists who categorized Man as an animal.
226 posted on
03/24/2006 6:11:44 PM PST by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: fortheDeclaration
Only if you are following the modern way of defining the various species. BWAHAHAHA! "Modern" in this context covers the 300+ years! Excepting defining animals in terms of blastulation. That "only" goes back a couple hundred.
Give it up. Yeah you found an old dictionary that includes colloquial, and nonstandard, definitions of "fish" and such. But everyone, including you, knows that's not what you meant to invoke in the message I responded to.
If you're able to simply admit that you made an (read: several elementary) error(s) and move on you'll instantly raise yourself head and shoulders above the average antievolutionist here.
233 posted on
03/24/2006 6:19:34 PM PST by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: fortheDeclaration
Man is not an animal, no matter how much the evolutionists want to make him one.
If this is the case, then into which biological kingdom should homo sapiens be classified?
What justification do you have for rejecting taxonomic classifications established and used in biology?
237 posted on
03/24/2006 6:23:57 PM PST by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: fortheDeclaration
Man is not an animal, no matter how much the evolutionists want to make him one. Ofcourse, evolutionists may consider themselves as such, but they would be wrong.
...therefore we're vegetable, right?
254 posted on
03/24/2006 6:45:48 PM PST by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING NOW: your mind)
To: fortheDeclaration
"Man is not an animal, no matter how much the evolutionists want to make him one." What are the differences?
298 posted on
03/24/2006 7:46:55 PM PST by
b_sharp
(Unfortunately there is not enough room left here for a tag line.)
To: fortheDeclaration
Man is not an animal, no matter how much the evolutionists want to make him one. Linnaeus put people and apes in the same group. He was a creationist.
Aristotle said (in the "Politics") . "Man is the only animal that has the gift of speech."
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson