There Was No First Human

by cofty 266 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  What about when you invest many hours over 12 pages patiently and respectfully trying to educate somebody, who ignores the content of all your efforts and responds with personal insults.

  To say somebody is clueless is simply an observation about their lack of basic knowledge of a subject - even worse when they argue about a subject they are totally ignorant of and refuse to learn.

  Calling somebody dense is a personal insult.

  Apog - I like you, please don't start lecturing people about their manners, we have already got FHN and Talesin for that.
• 

  Apognophos

  Well, I've made my suggestions, I won't keep harping on the subject. I do agree that it's worse to call someone dense than clueless.
• 

  RubaDub

  I was refering to the 10,000 years of the spiritual awakening of Homo Sapiens.

  cofty ...

  I don't see what gays have to do with this topic.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  atrapado

  cofty you started making harsh remarks in page 5, but I understand your point.

  To be honest I failed to fully understand the video when you posted it. I think if you have some evolution background it makes perfect sence to you. But as someone pointed out earlier for those of us not in your league some parts made no sense.

  For example in the video he states "clearly human" and "clearly not human." And then he jumps to there is no first human. Wait what? If you can clearly tell when you have a human and when you don't why can't you use that critiria to find the first human.

  I see the problem with what I suggested and I think I now understand you guys point.

  The way I would try to explain it is: Any defition of human would be arbitrary. Why? Well lets say you define human and say anybody that fits that definition 98% is human. So you go back in time and find were that started to happen. Isn't the last human you pick also human so why not use his characteristics to find humans. And his parents are so but so close to his characteristic lets assum 99.99*% why stop there. i.e. what would make that defition special, what would make it better than any other definition specially when imidiate generations are almost identical. Another example lets say someone in the future formulates some definition and by that definition you are human but your parents are not. Do you see the problem of trying to make an exact definition of human.

  One thing I'll apologise for is for trying to exchange insults with cofty. IMHO those type of comments you made earlier shutdown dialog, I tried to use sarcasm but that failed. We don't process info at the same rate specially if you know more about a topic so I am sorry I made personal attacks.

  Thank you for the list by the way.
• 

  cofty

  I think you are getting there atrapado.

  Thanks for the apology. Sorry if I came across as harsh, I have endless patience for anybody who genuinely wants to learn. There are other posters here as well who are really helpful with explaining science. Snare and Racket and Cantleave are experts. It makes sense to ask questions rather than champion a point that is based on a false premise.

  I think the take-away point of this thread is the importance of seeing the difference between reality and our imperfect ways of trying to describe it.

  The world is full of millions of varieties of creatures. We need a way of talking about them so we put precise labels on all of them. More than 99% of the varieties that have ever lived went extinct before humans ever made an appearance. Some extant creatures separated from other extant creatures quite recently and scientists can argue endlessly whether or not they qualify to go in a separate "box". Other creatures like humans have no close relatives left alive. Our closest cousins, Pan troglodytes - the chimpanzee - separated from our common ancestor so long ago that there is no possibility of confusion. But we must remember that this was not always the case. There are a huge number of fossils showing many of the steps back along the human family tree to that common ancestor. (The same can't be said for chimps however)

  Imagine that a representative of every generation of all of those ancestors met up in a football stadium. It would make absolutely no sense to even attempt to organise them into different species. We are all such complex mosaics of physical and mental features there would be no way to make those distinctions. It is a spectrum - a continuum - that only loooks discreet because of all the members that went missing over the aeons.

  Anyway hope that helped a bit. Keep reading and asking questions.
• 

  Phizzy

  Thanks Cofty for this thread, it has enabled me to explain in a far better way how Evolution worked in the past, and how it is still working.

  I know I shall need to articulate these matters well in the future, as I forsee a discussion or two on the matter with some former JW's who are still Bible believers, and with some active JW's as well. I hope I get the opportunity to present the facts to them.

  Thank you again, and to all who have contributed positively to this thread.
• 

  Make Lemonade

  Thank you.

  All this information reminds me of the expression, "careful what you pray for". Meaning you might receive an answer that you are not comfortable with or prepared for. This subject contains overwhelming amounts of information. It can be just to much all at once. Nice to be able to know it is here so one can pace themselves without quitting in frustration.