Spy Car Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Well, you know a man came up with the mammalian classification thing since it's all about the boobs. :lol: Yes ma'am :D Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Yes. I didn't know that question was up for debate. Now I'm curious about what you read. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypamama Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 As far as classification goes yes, but I do not think of humans as equal to animals. We are in a class of our own so to speak.;) That's what I would say as well. Scientifically-speaking, yes, I would call humans mammals. Religiously-speaking, I would say we're different from animals. I do not think those two statements are mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maela Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Yes, we are mammals. I am an animal and proud of it. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 The kids had a co-op class on animal classification & the teacher instructed that humans were not mammals. That they shared characteristics but were exclusive & above the animal kingdom. My oldest dd was raised in a 7th Day orphanage and was taught that humans are not animals. She has lived with us for seven years and still believes this. And get this ... her favorite classes at school have been anatomy and human biology! :001_huh: Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Where we're stripe on my recent thread about how in a situation with a new born baby and no mother could the baby be feed? The thread would have been so much better with you around. :) :ack2: I can't imagine that would be seen as helpful. Do men who lactate get a growth in breasts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Smith Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 :ack2: I can't imagine that would be seen as helpful. Do men who lactate get a growth in breasts? Hay, the people in the situation didn't have many good options. Warning it contains a spoiler for a tv show. http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=438089 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Could amphibeans replace lima beans in a recipe, do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Do men who lactate get a growth in breasts? No. But you should see their pituitary glands :D Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I can't imagine that anyone would think we aren't. I didn't know it was up for debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Could amphibeans replace lima beans in a recipe, do you think? Absolutely. Sub 1 tablespoon of corn startch + 1/2 a cup of amphibeans per every one cup limas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Maybe part of my ease with not including humans as mammals is that I spent time w/ a fabulous and absolutely non-Christian neuroanatomy professor who waxed on about how Linnaean taxonomy isn't science either, or at least not anymore. Of course that would lead to the statement that mammals don't exist at all which is getting a bit heady for this time of night and this type of platform. :DHere is an interesting article about the validity of Linnaean taxonomy http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973966/. It is pro Linnaean but as it points out traditional taxonomy is not sacred even amongst those who we all would be willing to classify as scientists. Thank you for that! I think a lot of people are under the false assumption that Linnaean taxonomy is based on evolution. I used to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Abso-oodly-doodly. Somewhere in the last ten years I have persuaded my husband that humans are animals, and also mammals. Accepting the mammal part was not the bitter bite: accepting that we are animals was. Was he happier to be lumped in with vegetables or minerals? Wow, six pages while I ate dinner! My kids are in a science class with a friend. They are using BJU Science 6. I hate it with the white hot passion of 1000 suns but it has started many interesting discussions (the reason they are in the class is a long, boring story). My kids are dino-loving, evolution-believing Catholics. This book has really opened our eyes to what some people believe. Anyway, the book says we share traits with mammals but we're in a class all our own. I had honestly never ever heard of such a thing. How could a child that is taught this ever go on to study science in college?? I made the same mistake in a co-op class with a book called Exploring Creation. WHY the title didn't tip me off I don't know, but the KIDS were finding so many mistakes in the texts. The teachers ended up just using it as a spine so they could avoid the mistakes and the parents could edit for content. Poetry, poetic language, lyricism -- that is, dealing in subjective language while conveying metaphysical truths. It is not scientific or objective language being used, because there is nothing described or explained that can be observed or measured by the five senses. These discussions always make me think of that scene in The King and I where Anna explains that the Bible was written by men of faith, not by men of science. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) :confused::confused: How are they NOT? :confused::confused: If I show you, will I get beads? :lol: Oh, and the Christian Bible is not a science book. In fact, I think it loses a lot when we try to make it one. Edited November 8, 2012 by Joanne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I am working on my Ph.D. in biology in a comparative vertebrate physiology research lab at a major Christian university. I can guarantee that EVERY professor in our Bio department would think a student who believed this needed to find a field other than science, and would tell said student that in fairly blunt terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I am working on my Ph.D. in biology in a comparative vertebrate physiology research lab at a major Christian university. I can guarantee that EVERY professor in our Bio department would think a student who believed this needed to find a field other than science, and would tell said student that in fairly blunt terms. :iagree: I spent 3 years at a Christian graduate schoool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dory Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I had no idea this was up for debate before and I am a young earth believer. I'm not sure what else we would call humans other than mammals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kubiac Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Just for Bill: Give a man a pituitary tumor, and he will lactate. As for the mammal thingie: It's a taxonomic chart of all living organisms. I consider myself to be a living organism, or at least I appear to be alive most days. Are we multicellular? Yes. Are our cells nucleated? Yes. Do we exhibit bilateral symmetry and differentiated tissues? Yes. Do we have a backbone? Yes. Therefore we are vertebrates. Do we give birth to live young? Do we produce milk? Do we have fur or hair? yes yes yes. Therefore, on the chart, we fall in line as mammals. QED. If you want to extend the taxonomic chart further, bully for you. Keep in mind that the definition of science is that it is testable. I am a Christian, but I consider that to be a matter of faith, not of science; my faith is not "testable" by the scientific method and therefore issues such as whether or not any given organism has a soul do not belong, for me, in matters of scientific taxonomy, as they are not testable scientifically, and confounding the two is like asking whether the wind is happy. I like you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Taxonomy sounds like an ideology invented by liberals :D Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basschick Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Jumping in here just so I don't feel left out. I told my husband what the topic being discussed was, and without skipping a beat he said in a slithery, dark voice, "Humans are a virus...." And then I missed the rest of his monologue because I was laughing too loud. Shoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awisha. Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 This thread is getting good :D Bill typical male :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 typical male :lol: :lol: We prefer: Man :D Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awisha. Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 We prefer: Man :D Bill Alright then... Typical man :lol: :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awisha. Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 And to answer the OP, humans are mammals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I guess don't see what the big deal is. Maybe I would need to know what exactly it was the teacher said. I've taught my dc that humans are scientifically classified with mammals because it is a fact that a Swedish scientist labeled humans as such. I also tell them that we are different because we have spirits and are made to have a relationship with God. Maybe I should have waited until the part of our day labeled "religion" before I mentioned that. One can believe that humans are different than animals and still be interested in biology and go on to study science at a college level and do just fine. This either/or stuff gets old after awhile. There aren't many people in this country who live their lives as if humans were animals in every sense of the word so people do recognize a difference. The political season has just ended so maybe I'm still jaded over all the exaggerations, overemotional responses, misinformation, and mockery. I guess I'm just a party pooper tonight. :tongue_smilie: Here is an interesting article about the validity of Linnaean taxonomy http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973966/. It is pro Linnaean but as it points out traditional taxonomy is not sacred even amongst those who we all would be willing to classify as scientists. Interesting. Thanks for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I can't imagine that anyone would think we aren't. I didn't know it was up for debate. Well, it isn't. Humans are mammals. Fact. Period. Let's not stoop to pandering by calling ignorance of fact grounds for debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Of course humans are mammals. That wasn't the issue when my youngest took science in a co-op but something else was- probably age of the earth. Anyway, for the people who are wondering why I would put my child in a class where I disagree about the age of the earth or universe, it was because the class was billed as food science, not geology or astronomy. I have had to lecture to my kids when a minister once said that Earthquakes are from Satan. I had to inform them that our lives as we know it depend on earthquakes so I doubt that Satan produced them. Oh and yes, I am a Christian and a fairly conservative one at that. I do agree with the view a PP said, the image of God was the spiritual image, not that any one of us looks like God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lailasmum Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Yes. I didn't know that question was up for debate. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrappyhappymama Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 a) God spoke the animals into being b) God created Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed the breath of life into him c) Adam is made in the image of God and the animals are not d) Humans have souls, animals do not. I believe in all of these points, yet I still believe that we are mammals. Of course my opinion is informed by the fact that I've been nursing for the last 10 years. Either I am a mammal or all that sweet chunky baby legs came from the voodoo-magic! This discussion also calls to mind playing Alive/Not Alive with my preschoolers. Just because we as humans are classified as Alive along with Giraffes and Leaves does not diminish our differences or make us only as valuable as a Leaf. Rocks are Not Alive, but this is not a value judgement, just a statement of fact. However, in most cases it does support the notion that we are not 'dumb as rocks.' :lol: There are plenty of further classifications that can be made among mammals. Live Young or Not. Sentient or not. Human/Not Human. Made in God's Image/Not. I really fail to see the harm in a mammalian classification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jpoy85 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Oh and yes, I am a Christian and a fairly conservative one at that. I do agree with the view a PP said, the image of God was the spiritual image, not that any one of us looks like God. It says "Made In The Image Of God" it doesnt say spiritual. In Fact, the Bible (unless ive been missing something) doesnt specify ever what God looks like. Heaven, Jesus, Satan, yes but what God looks like....no. Which may make it seem like it leans towards spiritual image, but then what does a spirit look like? How is a spirit and adam made of dirt but we are in the image of God? ** NOT starting a religious debate, im asking for what you mean by what you said... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soror Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I really don't understand how using the scientific classification of humans somehow means I'm stating we don't have a soul. Science doesn't define the spiritual or religious, it just classifies our physical characteristics. It doesn't seem that complicated to me to say yes we are animals/mammals but we are also different as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Thank you for that! I think a lot of people are under the false assumption that Linnaean taxonomy is based on evolution. I used to. Ah, I never thought of that, that people would have that impression. I read a very exhaustive (exhausting) bio of Linnaeus to my kids (by Margaret Anderson), so I knew that Linnaeus' father was a minister and plant enthusiast, and his mother's father was a minister as well. In fact, he was a theologian as well. He was employed as a professor of medicine, incidentally, at the university where he worked. Indeed, many scientists of history were quite devout, whether they were Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or something else, and I think it is really unfortunate when religious people assume there is some fundamental divide, or conflict, between themselves and scientists. The whole misperception that scientists throughout history have all been somehow hostile to religion alternately baffles and unfuriates me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Yes. It's a system of classification, description, organization. It has nothing to do with my faith to observe shared characteristics and group life accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I agree with all BUT D. I believe animals have souls. Do I believe my dogs will be waiting in heaven? yes. The bible doesnt really say one way or the other on the issue. The Bible does say that animals have souls: Job 12:10 Also... God has made covenants with animals: Genesis 9:8-11, Genesis 9:12-17, Hosea 2:18 God knows every animal in the world: Luke 12:6, Psalm 50:10-11 Animals can cry to God: Joel 1:20, Job 38:41 Animals can praise God: Psalm 148:10-13, Psalm 150:6, Revelation 5:13 Animals can hear and obey God: 1 Kings 17:2-6, Jonah 2:10 God considers animals when making decisions: Jonah 4:11, Genesis 8:1 When Christ returns, ALL creation (including animals) will be delivered and liberated: Romans 8:18-23 Animals will be present in the new heavens and new earth: Isaiah 65:25, Isaiah 11:6-9 I think Bob Jones--and many Christians--have less respect for animals than God does. ;) I'm a mammal and fail to see how there is any shame in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a27mom Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I think it is really unfortunate when religious people assume there is some fundamental divide, or conflict, between themselves and scientists. The whole misperception that scientists throughout history have all been somehow hostile to religion alternately baffles and unfuriates me. I agree. Unfortunately that impression is also generally presented to them by those labeled as scientists in the world today. There have already been several in this thread that have stated that science has to be separate from religion. Since my faith permeates my entire life and being, it can not be separate from anything I do or think including science. And while I do not have a graduate degree in science, I have certainly studied more of it that the majority of college graduates. I love science. But I believe the spiritual and physical are intertwined. It is sad. I realize that there are "Christians" who have contributed to the problem by condemning anything they do not understand. Sadly too many "scientists" of today would have drummed Linnaeus out since he was studying the order of creation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted November 8, 2012 Author Share Posted November 8, 2012 I guess don't see what the big deal is. Maybe I would need to know what exactly it was the teacher said. I've taught my dc that humans are scientifically classified with mammals because it is a fact that a Swedish scientist labeled humans as such. I also tell them that we are different because we have spirits and are made to have a relationship with God. Maybe I should have waited until the part of our day labeled "religion" before I mentioned that. One can believe that humans are different than animals and still be interested in biology and go on to study science at a college level and do just fine. This either/or stuff gets old after awhile. There aren't many people in this country who live their lives as if humans were animals in every sense of the word so people do recognize a difference. It wasn't the teacher. She knows and (mostly) shares my feelings. It is BJU Science textbook for homeschooled children that made the statement. I find that really concerning. As for my children, I'm glad that they are reading this book. We've had a lot of great discussions about this and other things that probably wouldn't have come up otherwise. It has been a great way for me to show my children why we as Catholics don't view the Bible as a science text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Yes. All humans are mammals..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom-ninja. Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 This is still being discussed? I find that interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Since my faith permeates my entire life and being, it can not be separate from anything I do or think including science. The problem is when people have a choice between a tested and proved scientific theory and a religious sentiment and they reject the science in favor of the sentiment. At that point, science and religion have definitely been separated, detrimentally, imo. Even the Dalai Lama, an internationally renown religious figure, has said that when science disproves a Buddhist idea, we must choose the science. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NittanyJen Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I agree. Unfortunately that impression is also generally presented to them by those labeled as scientists in the world today. There have already been several in this thread that have stated that science has to be separate from religion. Since my faith permeates my entire life and being, it can not be separate from anything I do or think including science. And while I do not have a graduate degree in science, I have certainly studied more of it that the majority of college graduates. I love science. But I believe the spiritual and physical are intertwined. It is sad. I realize that there are "Christians" who have contributed to the problem by condemning anything they do not understand. Sadly too many "scientists" of today would have drummed Linnaeus out since he was studying the order of creation. :iagree: Also, too many people think they can wrap their heads around another person's thoughts on a complex matter based on one paragraph on a message board, when truly understanding one another would likely require more of a sit down over dinner or tea over several days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a27mom Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 The problem is when people have a choice between a tested and proved scientific theory and a religious sentiment and they reject the science in favor of the sentiment. At that point, science and religion have definitely been separated, detrimentally, imo. Even the Dalai Lama, an internationally renown religious figure, has said that when science disproves a Buddhist idea, we must choose the science. Tara I have yet to run into a proven scientific theory that disagrees with my faith. I do believe that many are poorly educated in both science and religion, those who have a poor understanding of their faith are especially dangerous. But I have studied history as well as science, so I don't believe that every accepted scientific theory is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nan in Mass Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Yes, and I consider it a very strange question because "mammal" has a definition and we humans meet that definition. It is a semantics thing, to me, not any sort of ethical thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mytwomonkeys Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 there are so many things i read here that i have just never heard before in my life. i've always thought humans were mammals by definition. i've never considered that classification as making me equal with animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a27mom Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 :iagree: Also, too many people think they can wrap their heads around another person's thoughts on a complex matter based on one paragraph on a message board, when truly understanding one another would likely require more of a sit down over dinner or tea over several days. Good point. I thought this would go back several pages overnight. And to actually explain the deeper reason why I object to classifying humans as animals would send people into a massive tizzy. I am just a sucker for scientific/philosophical discussion. But my 5 y/o doesn't hold up her end very well ;) and my hubby is an accountant. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 The Bible does say that animals have souls: Job 12:10 Also... God has made covenants with animals: Genesis 9:8-11, Genesis 9:12-17, Hosea 2:18 God knows every animal in the world: Luke 12:6, Psalm 50:10-11 Animals can cry to God: Joel 1:20, Job 38:41 Animals can praise God: Psalm 148:10-13, Psalm 150:6, Revelation 5:13 Animals can hear and obey God: 1 Kings 17:2-6, Jonah 2:10 God considers animals when making decisions: Jonah 4:11, Genesis 8:1 When Christ returns, ALL creation (including animals) will be delivered and liberated: Romans 8:18-23 Animals will be present in the new heavens and new earth: Isaiah 65:25, Isaiah 11:6-9 I think Bob Jones--and many Christians--have less respect for animals than God does. ;) I'm a mammal and fail to see how there is any shame in that. :iagree::iagree: I'm fine with classifying humans as mammals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unicorn. Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Umm, Yes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolyn in Ohio Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 The real question is "are amphibeans actualy animals?" Are they an acceptable ingredient in vegan cupcakes? Carolyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 It is a semantics thing, to me, Most disagreements, debates and arguments are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennifer3141 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 (edited) There are people who think humans aren't mammals?!?! Wow. Please tell me they are NOT writing science curriculums!! Edited November 8, 2012 by Jennifer3141 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I have yet to run into a proven scientific theory that disagrees with my faith. I'm not trying to pick on you or your specific beliefs, because I don't know what they are and I wouldn't presume to guess. But I see too much of of the idea (in general) that things that disagree with someone's religious faith simply haven't been proved true by science rather than a willingness to re-examine one's faith in light of scientific understanding. When scientific evidence is dismissed as an attempt by the devil to mislead people, I hold little hope that certain people would ever be open to an actual scientific examination of things. Of course not all scientific ideas of the past have held true. But these days, with the tools we have, we are far less likely to hold forth an idea that seems true even though it has not been adequately tested. In fact, as I'm sure you know, by definition a scientific theory has been proved. I have a religious faith that I hold very deeply. But I simply don't see how science and faith need to commingle and support each other in order to both have credence. Imo, science and faith speak to very different things. I believe in each. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.