dduckwessel Posted February 10, 2011 Author Report Posted February 10, 2011 You mean ants, bees and termites only go so far in social development and - stop? Why do only bees build those hives with all those hexagon patterns for storage? My original point was that humans have a 'creative' side: the other animals don't sit around strumming on guitars or painting on canvasses.
Moontanman Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 Apparently they weren't 'that' smart or they would have exterminated us!! The jury is still out on whether or not we exterminated them, I suggest you look at some of the threads about Neanderthals, I doubt smarts had anything to do with it.
Moontanman Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 My original point was that humans have a 'creative' side: the other animals don't sit around strumming on guitars or painting on canvasses. You are making some enormous assumptions here, animals do indeed make sounds that could be called primitive music, from hitting hollow logs to actual singing animals do make music, admittedly we do it much more complex but it is just a matter of degrees not one of kind. And as i pointed out in a another recent post animals also do art.
coldcreation Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 My original point was that humans have a 'creative' side: the other animals don't sit around strumming on guitars or painting on canvasses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asQcyG4QedI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ860P4iTaM&feature=fvw CC
Moontanman Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) You're not talking about missionary position are you? There are other animals that copulate that way. A good one can be found on youtube. :unsure: CC Where's your mind CC? :rolleyes: (btw, is there any sex act only humans participate in?) The one thing we do is communicate from beyond the grave! YES! We are able to teach our descendants from the grave, we can pass down instructions, culture, complex thoughts, emotions, imaginary things, rituals, symbolic ideas, writing is what we do, we actually record information that can be accessed long after we are gone. The dead influence the living via the written word, no other animal does this, at best they might pass down oral traditions but no written words, no direct communication of thoughts and ideas from people who are long gone. The written word has allowed humans to do very nearly everything we do past simple technology and rituals. From libraries to rocket ships to music, the written word or the ability to write down ideas and preserve for future generations the knowledge we have acquired and allow others to build on this information is what sets us apart from other animals, it doesn't mean we are not animals but that is the one thing we can claim as ours. Edited February 10, 2011 by Moontanman Qfwfq 1
coldcreation Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 Where's your mind CC? :rolleyes: Apparently on something other that writing. :lol: [...] the ability to write down ideas and preserve for future generations the knowledge we have acquired and allow others to build on this information is what sets us apart from animals, it doesn't mean we are not animals but that is the one thing we can claim as ours.my bold. True, but I would have written 'what sets us apart from other animals.' :blink: CC Moontanman 1
Moontanman Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 Apparently on something other that writing. :lol: my bold. True, but I would have written 'what sets us apart from other animals.' :blink: CC Good point, not enough coffee yet!!!
modest Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 You had better go back and re-read the thread!! I guess I don't see the distinction between "humans are not 'only' animals" and "humans are not animals". If you drew a venn diagram, we are putting the human circle inside the animal circle. You are putting the human circle part inside and part outside the animal circle. In other words, saying that Adam was 'only' an animal does not imply that he was a neanderthal or monkey or chimpanzee as the OP says. ~modest
dduckwessel Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Posted February 12, 2011 The jury is still out on whether or not we exterminated them, I suggest you look at some of the threads about Neanderthals, I doubt smarts had anything to do with it. You said: "...They were at least as smart, and maybe smarter, than we are. But, we exterminated them." This seems to suggest that smarts had 'something' to do with it. Now you're saying 'I doubt smarts had anything to do with...'
dduckwessel Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Posted February 12, 2011 I guess I don't see the distinction between "humans are not 'only' animals" and "humans are not animals". If you drew a venn diagram, we are putting the human circle inside the animal circle. You are putting the human circle part inside and part outside the animal circle. In other words, saying that Adam was 'only' an animal does not imply that he was a neanderthal or monkey or chimpanzee as the OP says. ~modest My definition of animal is a 'creature devoid of a higher consciousness' (in other words it's strictly instinctive). Here's my time line, please keep in mind that I have no idea how much time elapsed between events: 1) animal/instinctive - (hermaphrodite) climbed from the primordial soup into the trees 2) hermaphrodite animal gets a higher consciousness (God's image) 3) hermaphrodite animal (with higher consciousness) evolves into pre-Neanderthal 4) pre-Neanderthal gives birth to a female: a) now pre-Neanderthal is Adam/male only) 4) when she's mature, Adam mates with its own female offspring and produce pre-Neanderthal offspring B) therefore, Adam was Eve's parent 5) pre-Neanderthal-Adam returns to the place where it got a higher consciousness, with pre-Neanderthal-Eve, leaving their pre-Neanderthal offspring on the earth. 6) Adam and Eve return to earth now 'clothed with skin' (fur is mostly gone). Their Neaderthal offspring are still on the earth. a) Adam and Eve have evolved again and are now Homo-erectus or sapien! So then, man/Adam was the animal from which all Neaderthals and Homo-sapiens originated.
Moontanman Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 My definition of animal is a 'creature devoid of a higher consciousness' (in other words it's strictly instinctive). I'm not sure even fish can be described as entirely instinctual and totally devoid of any higher thought, even some invertebrates are capable of more than instinctual behavior. Your definition makes no sense what so ever. Here's my time line, please keep in mind that I have no idea how much time elapsed between events: 1) animal/instinctive - (hermaphrodite) climbed from the primordial soup into the trees What does hermaphordite have to do with it? Only some fish amoung the vertebrates are truely hemaphordites. 2) hermaphrodite animal gets a higher consciousness (God's image) What animal? 3) hermaphrodite animal (with higher consciousness) evolves into pre-Neanderthal It's a sure bet no primate much less Neanderthals were hermaphrodites. 4) pre-Neanderthal gives birth to a female: a) now pre-Neanderthal is Adam/male only) I don't understand this at all. 4) when she's mature, Adam mates with its own female offspring and produce pre-Neanderthal offspring B) therefore, Adam was Eve's parent 5) pre-Neanderthal-Adam returns to the place where it got a higher consciousness, with pre-Neanderthal-Eve, leaving their pre-Neanderthal offspring on the earth. 6) Adam and Eve return to earth now 'clothed with skin' (fur is mostly gone). Their Neaderthal offspring are still on the earth. a) Adam and Eve have evolved again and are now Homo-erectus or sapien! So then, man/Adam was the animal from which all Neaderthals and Homo-sapiens originated. None of this makes any sense what so ever and is mostly word salad.
modest Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 You said: "...They were at least as smart, and maybe smarter, than we are. But, we exterminated them." This seems to suggest that smarts had 'something' to do with it. No, I said that. I believe we very much had something to do with the extinction of neanderthals. Evidence is, however, less than conclusive on that specific point so my belief should not be taken as proof. This, by the way, is why I said "most likely" when I said, "the other was wiped out, most likely by us." ~modest
modest Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 1) animal/instinctive - (hermaphrodite) climbed from the primordial soup into the trees 2) hermaphrodite animal gets a higher consciousness (God's image) 3) hermaphrodite animal (with higher consciousness) evolves into pre-Neanderthal 4) pre-Neanderthal gives birth to a female: a) now pre-Neanderthal is Adam/male only) 4) when she's mature, Adam mates with its own female offspring and produce pre-Neanderthal offspring B) therefore, Adam was Eve's parent 5) pre-Neanderthal-Adam returns to the place where it got a higher consciousness, with pre-Neanderthal-Eve, leaving their pre-Neanderthal offspring on the earth. 6) Adam and Eve return to earth now 'clothed with skin' (fur is mostly gone). Their Neaderthal offspring are still on the earth. I think you would have to learn quite a bit more biology than you presume to know to realize just how odd this sounds. ~modest
Moontanman Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 You said: "...They were at least as smart, and maybe smarter, than we are. But, we exterminated them." This seems to suggest that smarts had 'something' to do with it. Now you're saying 'I doubt smarts had anything to do with...' I suggest you read this thread in it's entirety before making any more grandiose claims about hermaphrodite neanderthals... http://scienceforums.com/topic/16705-neanderthals/
dduckwessel Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Posted February 13, 2011 I'm not sure even fish can be described as entirely instinctual and totally devoid of any higher thought, even some invertebrates are capable of more than instinctual behavior. Your definition makes no sense what so ever. And you're right. Some animals and fish are highly intelligent but I believe we have abilities they do not. What does hermaphordite have to do with it? Only some fish amoung the vertebrates are truely hemaphordites. You're getting lost no doubt because you entered into the topic in the middle. It's one of those things you have to follow from the beginning. What animal? Had to have been an early monkey - as I have been saying from the beginning. Why do I have to keep reiterating that point! It's a sure bet no primate much less Neanderthals were hermaphrodites. Are you absolutely sure about that? Think of it, evolution by its very nature would have favoured hermaphrodites. The genders were a later by-product. Nature does it all time in plants and animals, so why should that be such a surprise? I don't understand this at all. None of this makes any sense what so ever and is mostly word salad. It might be advisable to go back to the beginning and read the progression.
dduckwessel Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Posted February 13, 2011 I suggest you read this thread in it's entirety before making any more grandiose claims about hermaphrodite neanderthals... http://scienceforums.com/topic/16705-neanderthals/ Only one Neanderthal (pre-Neanderthal) was a hermaphrodite. After it produced a female, it became strictly male. Then it mated with its own offspring when she came into maturity. Their offspring would have been either male or female. Again, nature does it all the time in both plants, animals and insects so I'm surprised this hermaphrodite idea appears so strange to you! I started this thread to show how the Bible agrees with evolution. Granted, there's a bit of a twist but again, I don't believe it conflicts with evolution.
Moontanman Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 Only one Neanderthal (pre-Neanderthal) was a hermaphrodite. After it produced a female, it became strictly male. Then it mated with its own offspring when she came into maturity. Their offspring would have been either male or female. You are welcome to believe what ever you want but even when hermaphrodites are born in human (or any other mammal) they cannot mate with themselves, generally they are unable to concieve at all. Again, nature does it all the time in both plants, animals and insects so I'm surprised this hermaphrodite idea appears so strange to you! I'm going to need some citations on mammal hermaphrodites producing off spring with themselves before this circus can raise the tent, i am well aware of hermaphrodites in animals and plants but as I said before functioning hermaphrodites only occur in vertebrates in fishes, not mammals and certainly not in Neanderthals and humans. On a side note we did not descend from Neanderthals anyway you look at it. I started this thread to show how the Bible agrees with evolution. Granted, there's a bit of a twist but again, I don't believe it conflicts with evolution. You are demonstratably wrong, read Genisis your self, don't let someone else tell you what it says READ IT! THEN TELL ME HOW IT AGGREES WITH EVOLUTION, SO FAR FROM WHAT YOU'VE SAID YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
Recommended Posts