toufaroo-ga #fundie

toufaroo-ga #fundie answers.google.com

[Looks like someone's missed the last 500 years of biology class]

We haev four
kingdoms; the mineral kingdom, the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom,
and finally the human kingdom. [...]

So, humans are to animals as plants are to minerals. Sure, we have
animalistic properties, but I believe we are in a class by ourselves.

40 comments

old comment by McCulloch

@"fundie biology genious"

So, humans are to animals as plants are to minerals. Sure, we have
animalistic properties, but I believe we are in a class by ourselves.

Let's see. Mineral. Quartz for example. Has none of the defining characteristics of a plant and all of the defining characteristics of a mineral. Yes, it is a mineral. Plant. Elm Tree for example. Has all the characteristics of a plant and none of the defining characteristics of a mineral. Yes, it is not a mineral. === Animal. Horse for example. Has none of the defining characteristics of a human and all of the defining characteristics of an animal. Yes, it is an animal. Human. Me for example. Has all the characteristics of a human and all of the defining characteristics of an animal. Yes, I am an animal.

old comment by Yahweh

The whole quote is worth a read:
@BJU scholar

One interesting way I like to look at it is as follows. We haev four kingdoms; the mineral kingdom, the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom, and finally the human kingdom. Each kingdom has a property that makes it unique. The mineral kingdom has the property of cohesiveness. Nobody really knows all too well what keeps the atoms in a piece of iron for instance all connected together without just breaking apart. The next kingdom is that of plants. These guys have the power of growth. Likewise, they also carry the property of the lower kingdom, so plants also have the property of cohesiveness. The converse is not true, as rocks do not have the power to grow. Next are animals. The animal kingdom has the property of senses. Animals have eyes and ears and respond to their environments. Sure, you can argue that plants respond to stimuli, but I'm sure we'd all agree that there is a huge difference between the two. Finally comes humans. From a religious perspective, you could say humans have souls, and that is what makes us stand out above the animals. However, you specifically said you are looking for a non-religious view. If that's the case, then humans have the power of rational thought and communication. Humans are aware of self, display rational thought (we don't do things based on instinct, but on logic), and we are able to communicate with one another. Sure, some animals display rudimentary communication skills, but nothing on the level of humans. So, humans are to animals as plants are to minerals. Sure, we have animalistic properties, but I believe we are in a class by ourselves.

old comment by The Last Conformist

Also, mineral kingdom? Are minerals some sort of life form now?

Linnaeus' Systema Naturae attempted to classify all creation, living and non-living, into a hierarchical system. The most basic divisions of phenomena was into the three Kingdoms of Animals, Plants, and Minerals. For various reasons his system of classification stuck in biology and zoology, but not mineralogy. (As an aside, Linnaeus not only placed humans in Kingdom Animalia, but placed us in the same genus as the great apes. They later got moved to separate genera, partly because further research showed them to be less human-like than Linnaeus had thought, partly because many people were squeamish about recognizing closer relationship to them than absolutely necessary.) Today, Kingdoms, along with higher Linnaean ranks in general, are going out of fashion, thanks to the rise of cladistics.

old comment by toufaroo

Now that's really not fair...you guys seem to be taking this whole thing out of context. The quote specifically states "one interesting way...to look at it" Maybe if some of you had taken a few reading comprehension classes, you'd understand the context of the quote.
The question presented on the Google website is whether humans are animals or not. Well, that's akin to asking whether a square is a rectangle. Sure, by definition, a square is a rectangle. However, a square is no generic rectangle. It is in a subset by itself. It has properties that a generic rectangle does not. Likewise, if you want to call a human an animal, that's fine. Define it however you want. However, humans are a specific subset of animals, with unique traits and characteristics that make us stand out from other animals. As far as nonhomogenized's remark, tell me oh wise one...what keeps protons in the nucleus of an atom from repelling each other? Oh yes, strong force; weak force; of course! But explain to me, oh guru, where do these forces come from? We know these forces exist, but why? how? Don't be a dick if you don't understand the premise or context of the quote.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

(emph-ass-is added):

"We haev four"

And right from the start, does your entire argument fail. Those who don't possess even basic spelling faculties, thus are proven to be educationally inferior, forfeit the right to formulate a credible opinion, never mind a theory.

"So, humans are to animals as plants are to minerals."

And there's me - not exactly an Emeritus Professor of Biology - thinking that all life on this planet was Carbon-based. Wow. I didn't know there was also Silicon-based lifeforms here too?! toof-a-ROO-ga!, your Nobel Prize awaits...!

[/OVER 9000-levels of sarcasm]

"Sure, we have animalistic properties, but I believe we are in a class by ourselves."

(*Switches to Doug Piranha mode*)

Well, you are...! [/Spartan Laconic Wit]

@toof-a-ROO-ga!

"you guys seem to be taking this whole thing out of context."

Ah, here we go: 'taking out of context'. The standard excuse so beloved of politicians, bullshit artists, and fundies, used whenever they're caught saying what they shouldn't (but only when in 'preaching to the converted'-esque situations), and/or caught spewing bullshit - least of all that which is born of ignorance based on their own educational inferiority - and therefore unjustifiable.

Least of all in the 'context' of Reality. Scientific facts which prove otherwise. Based on Evidence.

Your Bible fairytale-based pseudo-science 'faith' bullshit 'theory', in the context of so-called 'belief'-based apologetics to try to explain (and therefore justify) the ultimate fairytale called 'Creationism' doesn't even have the right to exist. Kitzmiller vs. Dover proves that.

"Now that's really not fair..."

So? All's fair in Love and annihilating fundies and their unjustifiable 'beliefs' based on even more unjustifiable, unprovable bullshit they unjustifiably claim to be 'fact'.

Also, in the context of what we at FSTDT do...:

image

Destroying the arguments of fundies is fun. After all, tear apart - via the Atheist intellect - a fundie, you get the 'Fun' out of watching them logically Die, therefore proving our more than infinite Superiority to them. >:D

...oh, and to answer your last question, that's why the scientists at CERN built the Large Hadron Collider. To answer those questions your so-called Bible omitted to supply, in full, exact, precise detail (via diagrams, formulae, equations etc) the answer(s). Enquiring minds need to know, and all that jazz...!

Why, it's as if a 'God' doesn't exist, and the Bible itself was merely the (bovine scatological) product of Bronze Age goatfuckers with ideas above their stations...!

...to say nothing of the industrial-strength hallucinogens they must've taken, to have come up with the military-grade bullshit that is Revelation! It's the only possible explanation for such.

Least of all those who later codified the Bible as we know it; to what we ultimately have today...!

(emphasis added):

'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.'

-Seneca the Younger

'There's a sucker born every minute.'

-PT Barnum

Or one even 'born again' every minute

And then you fundies wonder why we Atheists exist...?! Like I say...:

Enquiring minds need to know.

toufaroo-ga #fundie answers.google.com

40 comments

Confused?