breast milk... (Moved from Female section)

---

In reply to:and while I'm thinking about it (mammalian glands and all that) I DO NOT believe humans are "animals" in any sense, how about you folks? (said with no animosity) The only difference between us and other animals is the much higher congnitive capabilities in humans and the sense of self (or some term I can't think of). Primates have similar hands as we do although they are not as dextrous as humans, but it's similar. So we too are animals, and some are more so than others.

mammel, Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young.

(to be the antagonist) I don't think of humans as animals because we were created "in the image of God." So we have a soul. Therefore we are not animals.Btw, not trying to start a religious debate of any kind.

You saying animals don't have souls? Where do you think your hamster went when he died? Disneyland? We are mammals, as are many other animals, we differ from hamsters in the fact were bigger, have less hair and by looking at our 'undercarrige' you can tell if were male or female, i could never tell.I had a hamster once called Hammy, original i know but he actually was put down to the fact he had a vaginal infection...hmm.Anyway, we just happen to be more inteligent and have evolved in a way where we can use our inteligence effectivly, ie we cant lick our balls like dogs because we have the interlect to use our hands and a bar of soap or shower gel if you prefer, i know i do.Also, i thourght that God didn't actually have an image of sorts and that he was whatever you thourght he was, if there is a god i always think he'd look a bit like Zeus outta Disneys Hercules(tm) :PBut we do consider ourselves superior to 'aminals' when where not really, we all have our place in this world it's just accepting that place.But im sure that there is a hamster god and a dog god and a monkey god and a fish god and a cat dog and a aligator god and a lemming god and a gerbil god and a zebra god and a platterpuss god and a whale god as well as a human god.

"(to be the antagonist) I don't think of humans as animals because we were created "in the image of God." So we have a soul. Therefore we are not animals."that's rediculous

Dude, its her belief, mine as well. We're not saying the way you're thinking is "ridiculous"Keep on preachin' suckikitten

No one can definitively answer the "soul" question. It boils down to a matter of religious beliefs; we can't fault people for holding beliefs different than our own on this subject. Nothing is “ridiculous” here.However, whether or not you believe that animals have souls (or humans do not) has absolutely no bearing on the biological functionality of humans as compared to "animals." This also has no bearing on the composition of breast milk (but I don't limit this observation to such a narrow point). In other words, even if you don't think that we're "animals," it's still useful to categorize us as mammals. We function like other mammals, and our physical form is analogous to other mammals. Thus, they are our brethren in function and form even if not in spirit. There is no reason why faith and science should clash on this point.

all dogs go to heaven

As a natural sciences major (Biological sciences) I agree that there is little difference in the biological function between humnas and other mammals except for a few differences, the biggest of course being thought process and decision making ability as well as free will (back off this topic now). However, many views that animals and humans are the same are essentially null and void, why else would we be so much more advanced (again another back off topic).I assume you knew my point was merely in defense of suckikittens view point from simply being dismissed by some as "ridiculous" as it is my viewpoint.I have had to find a fine line between my future profession and religious beliefs as I have a prof that hasn't (devout atheist and biology teacher).

Yes, my statement stems from a religious belief. To further make some of you think I'm a moron (go ahead, I do too sometimes ) I also don't believe in evolution (aside from the natural development of species - mammoth-->elephant, etc.). As to where pets go when they die, I don't think they "go to heaven" or to any afterlife. They kinda just exist as part of the world around us. Like plants or stones. A great example of this is in the "Wheel of Time" books if any have read them. In "Tel'aran'rhiod" (or the world of dreams) humans can be there, but animals are a part of the place.

Even kitties?

Let me clear something up. I wasn't specifically responding to you, Worried (the Re:Worried was only a product of me replying to the last post). In fact, I whole heartedly agreed with your point that Sucki's view wasn't ridiculous. Take no offence- none was intended my friend My point was more responsive to the initial post. Let me condense it into one sentence: The view that humans have souls does not logically imply that humans are not animals in “any sense,” nor does it imply that thinking about analogous anatomical structures (mammary glands in other mammals as compared to humans) is invalid. In my opinion (this point is not directed at Worried), Christian fundamentalists have created an artificial, and unnecessary dichotomy between biology and religion. Why do empirical observations about the similarities between other animals and humans create such controversy? Is it because evolution differs from creationism? But what compels literalism in creationism when it literalism is shunned in so many other areas? There are a thousands of points in which biblical text diverges from current human practices and empirical observations (the age of the planet, for instance). There are hundreds of points in which biblical text is internally contradictory (for example, according to the Gospels, there are 4 different views on Jesus’ last words- they can’t all be the “gospel truth”). I have no idea why fundamentalists Christians have chosen to take a stance on this particular issue while calling for a less literalist reading on other issues. The same can be said of the text allegedly condemning homosexuality- why take a stance here? Why not advocate the stoning of adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), for instance. I’m not condemning Christianity, but simply concluding there’s no need to throw away science to preserve an inconsistent literalist stance.

Oooohh, I see. No offense was taken at all, I tend to agree with you on a lot of things.That was my point as well. In my belief, God gave us science for a reason. There is absolutely no doubt that humans have evolved, the fossils and bones are proof enough. However, people often times take what Darwin said out of context. He DID NOT say that we evolved from fish or monkies, he said that fit survive and ther are changes over time, we know this absolutely true.Creationism as a science:Is it a science, it could be. To many it is, to many it's not...to each his own.Now to conclude, my biology prof., Prof. X to protect the dumb, used to be a minister. His wife died and he whole-heartedly turned his back oin his beliefs. Now to understand my p.o.v., I WOULD NEVER DO THAT!!! He is one of the top Bio profs in the country, but in order to get a Letter of Recomendation students had to sign a letter disavowing ANY belief in God, specifically the Christian God, in order to get it. Needless to say this ended up in the Texas Sup. Court and they said he couldn't do this. This is the problem that I have with all this.

yes, even kitties, though they may have all the personality in the world, do not have souls or a heaven to go to.

Well, my idea of heaven has kitties in it.

And just what is a soul?? Other religeons such as the Hindus believe in reincarnation. Reincarnation can take the form of other lifeforms. Who's to say that animals don't have this "life energy".