Are humans simply intelligent animals?

by JH 41 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  I have always thought it funny (as in peculiar)... and still do... that when people speak of earthling man... and certain animals... "evolving"... we can look back over hierogliphs and other, ummmm... portraits... depicting earthling man... and animals... THOUSANDS of years ago... and we/they STILL look the same: upright and fairly hairless for man... and four legs with, say, "regular" size teeth for animals.

  True, some SPECIES of certain genuses have come and gone... extinct... but nothing today PROVES that the species OF today... "evolved"... from such primeval species. It is all pure speculation.

  Am I knocking science? Absolutely not! Science is a WONDERFUL industry... much needed and much accomplished. And yet, it is in fact SCIENCE... that proves the existence of God... much more in any form... than religion. Should the two get together, would they ultimately "find" God? Nope! For science cannot fathom that which it cannot prove empirically... and religion cannot fathom that which exists beyond their superstition and manipulation of it.

  Someone sees... ummmm... "humaness" in the eyes of an ape. Another sees it in the eyes of a dog. Another in horses and cows. Yet, another, in porpoises and whales. Why is THAT? Because all are seeing the SAME THING: life. Which exists... in ALL living things.

  Do you not see "comprehension" in the eyes of any pet you have endeavored to get to know? Do you not see "sorrow," "contrition," "elation"? True, some have eyes which seem a bit "duller" than others, but ask the little girl who spent hours with the newborn calf who follows her around... or the geese... or the deer. Ask Sigfried (?) and Roy whether or not their great cats have any "personality"... express themselves.

  We are no BETTER than animals... we are not "superior"... any more than the human male is superior the human female. To have something "in subjection" to you does not make you BETTER... and it inferior. Rather, it makes you SERVANT to that something: although a wife is in subjection, it is NOT in the way that earthling man has related to you. It means that her husband is HER servant: he is to care for her, take care of her... and, in TURN, she must make his doing so not burdensome. Animals... do not make our caring for them burdensome; indeed, they welcome it and are quite grateful. You can SEE it... in their eyes. (Yes, cats, too - although you gotta look quite hard! LOL!)

  However, we are SAME in that we all die and return to the dust... for now... earthling man and beast alike... whether wild or domesticated. We are DIFFERENT, however, when it comes to our "KIND": just as they are different from one another.

  But... what do I know? "Foolish things"... and their foolishness... are rarely believed... and even less understood.

  I bid you all peace.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Realist

  Jerry,

  i assume you read the paper stating that humans and chimps are 95% identical. (if not please do so). the difference comes mainly from insertions and deletions (3.6%). also you can do a blast search for identified genes and compare the similarities between human and chimp genes. in any case chimps were selected as primary study organism and its genome will be sequenced soon. than we can answer that question with 100% certainty.

  introns can encode enhancer and repressor sequences but are usually not conserved (with the exception of the branching point etc.). also as you know genes comprise only 1-2% of the genome so the majority of bp are located in noncoding areas.

  Than why is it viewed so negative today??? Why do men consistently rate obesity an the number one turnoff (and women do as well)? Also, the obesity problem is a critical issue with teenagers and younger children (and it is a major cause of death. Fat kills, and the problem is so bad that it kills more than smoking, the second leading killer)

  interesting sociological question.

  until some 100 years ago pale was also viewed as beautiful...today one has to be as tanned as possible. sportivity became very important over the last 100 years. why that is i am not sure. maybe obesity was beautiful because most people were close to starving? fact is however that previous generations had different ideals.

  AGuest,

  woman are subject to their man......oh oh i will let the feminists comment on that one!
• 

  OUTLAW

  It would depend on the animal and the human..I have pets that are smarter than some humans...OUTLAW
• 

  DanTheMan

  People still attract mates with their display of physical health (all the things humans regard as signs of beauty are health linked)

  What a healthy looking woman!!!!! LOL
• 

  AGuest

  AGuest, woman are subject to their man...oh oh i will let the feminists comment on that one!

  If they deign to do so, hopefully they will be intelligent enough to read what I said... and respond to that... versus what you have ignorantly stated here. And that is the problem, isn't it, that one thing is said... and meant... and another, with obviously limited comprehension skills, as demonstrated here, comes along and makes it what he/she deems it to be, often times purely for the sake of contention (as it seems here)?

  Ah, well... I am really too tired to be surprised.

  Peace to you.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Realist

  hey guest,

  sorry for so terribly misrepresenting your statements!!!
• 

  AGuest

  Dearest Realist... may you have peace... and may you accept MY apology... for being so "tired" so as to not "check" my words... and tone. I sincerely apologize. But I must admit that it does irk me a bit when things said in all seriousness... and love... are misrepresented to mean something they don't, particularly with the goal of provocation and in a way which can be taken as malicious.

  I thank you, then, for seeing this and offering your peaceful apology, which I truly accept.

  YOUR servant, and a slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Abaddon

  I have always thought it funny (as in peculiar)... and still do... that when people speak of earthling man... and certain animals... "evolving"... we can look back over hierogliphs and other, ummmm... portraits... depicting earthling man... and animals... THOUSANDS of years ago... and we/they STILL look the same: upright and fairly hairless for man... and four legs with, say, "regular" size teeth for animals.

  Because the drawings show what the animals looked like when the drawings were made. Check for the dates of drawings like you refer to. Then go and read a book on evolution and check the dates in there. Then realise that your point is invalid.

  True, some SPECIES of certain genuses have come and gone... extinct... but nothing today PROVES that the species OF today... "evolved"... from such primeval species. It is all pure speculation.

  Again, your point is invalid. We have observed cases of speciation taking place around us. If you’re making a big thing about ‘PROOF’, where is yours? In fact, define 'PROOF'.

  Am I knocking science? Absolutely not! Science is a WONDERFUL industry... much needed and much accomplished. And yet, it is in fact SCIENCE... that proves the existence of God... much more in any form... than religion. Should the two get together, would they ultimately "find" God? Nope!

  I wonder why...

  For science cannot fathom that which it cannot prove empirically...

  You mean religionists persist in making specific claims that they cannot support and get all bent out of shape when scientists point out they have no evidence? Provide one Biblical proof that shows that god would be unprovable in the modern age. Provide explainations of why our sexual biology is incompatible with Biblical moral codes.
• 

  AGuest

  Because the drawings show what the animals looked like when the drawings were made. Check for the dates of drawings like you refer to. Then go and read a book on evolution and check the dates in there. Then realise that your point is invalid.

  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Oh, that's right - prehistoric man... couldn't draw. It just happened, one day... out of the blue. UGH!

  Funny, though: human skulls and skeletons always seem to look like HUMAN skulls and skeletons... and ape skulls like APE skulls. With the exception, of course, of those times when "science" finds an unusual or deformed ape skull they can't explain and so SPECULATE that it HAS to be human... or an unusual or deformed human skull... and SPECULATE that... well... ALL humans of the time must have looked so (versus some tribal member who was ostracized from the rest purely BECAUSE of such deformity... many primitive people thinking such was a curse... "by the gods"... which would explain why they always only find ONE... and not a tribe of 'em... and then, its always way out in the boondocks of whatever continent they find it on...)

  And well, of course, since THEY (scientists) say so... it must BE so. (And yet, some of these same ones... and their followers... chide people who follow religious science... for putting their belief in a written, illustrated, recorded history... as being followers of myths and tales... while scientists tend to use those very same writings, illustrations and records to support their findings. Can we spell "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s"?)

  Things that make you go "hmmmm"....

  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

  Again, your point is invalid. We have observed cases of speciation taking place around us.

  And yet, the new species is STILL of the same GENUS. Heck, we've even cloned sheep! But a sheep... is STILL a sheep. Now, when they start cloning rabbits into, say, deer... THEN you've got an argument. (Why rabbits and deer? Because although a different SPECIES... they originate from the same GENUS. So, of course, it should be NOTHING to have a little rabbit, say, over time, "evolve" into a moose, yes?). I'm waiting...

  If you’re making a big thing about ‘PROOF’, where is yours? In fact, define 'PROOF'.

  "Proof," would be TRUE evidence, not that which is speculation or contrived. At least, that is my definition for purposes of this discussion. Now, MY 'proof' is in earthling man himself: what you see now held up against what has been written, illustrated and recorded about him... then. No change. You mention timeframes. Okay, MY timeframe is the recorded history of man, whether from the Hebrews, the Sumerians, the Chinese, the Africans, the Aborigines, Native Americans... what have you. All have pretty much the same recorded history, at least in terms of timeframe, give or take a couple thousand years. Now YOUR timeframe... has none. You got something to show me from a million years ago? No? A hundred thousand years ago? No? Ten thousand years ago? No? Hmmmm...

  "... it is in fact SCIENCE... that proves the existence of God... much more in any form... than religion. Should the two get together, would they ultimately "find" God? Nope!""

  I wonder why...

  I said why: "science cannot fathom that which it cannot prove empirically..." You do remember that folks... no, let me be specific... SCIENTISTS... were CERTAIN that the earth was flat, don't you? And that man could/would never fly? That the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it? That all animals were dumb (and I don't mean "mute")? You remember what SCIENTISTS thought BEFORE understanding tetonic plate movement and BEFORE understanding the formation of the solar system and BEFORE understanding that the universe was expanding, etc., etc., etc.?

  To say that science has never been wrong... is to say that the WTBTS has never been wrong. Both contain more "new light" that the entire universe itself can hold.

  You mean religionists...

  Be careful... because IF you knew your science, you would know that more scientists believe in God than don't... more surgeons and physicians do than don't... that in fact the greatest among these do... and simply refrain from comment on the subject based (1) on their faith, and (2) their inability to explain what cannot, from the sole point of science BE explained... which is, to me, quite wise, give their respective professions.

  But if by "religionists" you are meaning ME... you are in total error: I do not believe in religion, I do not support religion, I do not apologize for religion... and would be quite happy to see it go. For all it is to ME... is a means by which deceitful people mislead otherwise good and well-intentioned people... into following them and their beliefs... versus the One who gave his life so that we would follow him... and him only. Which One condemned religion.

  persist in making specific claims that they cannot support and get all bent out of shape when scientists point out they have no evidence?

  I'm sorry... but methinks you are "calling the kettle 'black'" here. Yes, methinks you are. For in truth, if we are comparing science... and RELIGION... neither have any 'proof': science in evolution of man from apes... and religion in the existence of God. For you cannot see God... heck, you cannot even FIND Him... through either.

  Provide one Biblical proof that shows that god would be unprovable in the modern age.

  By "science", and since we've included it, by "religion"? Sure! Certainly! In fact, I'll give you a few:

  Matthew 13:13-15; Jeremiah 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2; Mark 4:12; John 12:40

  But, I did not say that God was "unprovable"... in this age or any other. (Although I did make comment elsewhere about folks who take one thing said and its implied meaning and turn into something completely different, usually for the sake of pure contention - and I invite you to look for that and read it...). He is, in fact, QUITE provable.

  Provide explainations of why our sexual biology is incompatible with Biblical moral codes

  Now, here, I would have to advise you to speak... for yourself. Just because YOU may not be able to control yourself doesn't mean EVERYONE can't. Personally, I don't necessarily agree with your assertion, as I know MANY people who adhere to the "code" (which is their right to do so, if they so chose. It is not their right, however, to impose it upon others...)

  And for those that can't or don't adhere to it... those who do not possess such self-control... and quite possibly by choice as much as my inability... but may possess other strengths that those who DO have such self-control do not possess - like... kindness... mildness... FAITH - there is forgiveness by means of Christ so that they don't have to go around hang-dog and condemning theirselves.

  Doesn't matter if others condemn you (unless, of course, they have received holy spirit and judge by means of that - but even then, THEY must themselves be careful, for by whatever means THEY judge... they will BE judged - so that the BEST course is to judge none... but forgive ALL). What matters is whether your own conscience condemns you so that you cannot stand "clean" before the Holy One of Israel... which
  "cleansing" can only come by means of holy spirit... "living water"... which water, by means of baptism with it... can clean even the spirit. But this is only done by means of the One who has authority to grant such "living water"... the Son of God, my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH.

  But, perhaps that's not what you were getting at... or wanted to hear. Only you can say...

  Peace to you.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Realist

  AGuest,

  you seem to venture into a field you don'T know too much about...so be careful!

  Because the drawings show what the animals looked like when the drawings were made. Check for the dates of drawings like you refer to. Then go and read a book on evolution and check the dates in there. Then realise that your point is invalid.

  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Oh, that's right - prehistoric man... couldn't draw. It just happened, one day... out of the blue. UGH!

  i assume abbadon was talking about the timeframe....the oldest human drawings are some 10-30.000 years old...but you would need drawings that date back millions of years to see a difference in fauna and flora.

  Funny, though: human skulls and skeletons always seem to look like HUMAN skulls and skeletons... and ape skulls like APE skulls. With the exception, of course, of those times when "science" finds an unusual or deformed ape skull they can't explain and so SPECULATE that it HAS to be human... or an unusual or deformed human skull... and SPECULATE that... well... ALL humans of the time must have looked so

  skeletons can be dated...that is one can determine how old the bones are. the skulls that do not look human are much older than the oldest human skulls found. it is extremely unlikely that only such deformed skulls survived if there was a human population back than already.

  And yet, some of these same ones... and their followers... chide people who follow religious science... for putting their belief in a written, illustrated, recorded history... as being followers of myths and tales... while scientists tend to use those very same writings, illustrations and records to support their findings. Can we spell "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s"?)

  scientists interpret findings. it is not an ideology per se ... but rahter the most logical explanation as to how things occured.

  And yet, the new species is STILL of the same GENUS. Heck, we've even cloned sheep! But a sheep... is STILL a sheep. Now, when they start cloning rabbits into, say, deer... THEN you've got an argument. (Why rabbits and deer? Because although a different SPECIES... they originate from the same GENUS. So, of course, it should be NOTHING to have a little rabbit, say, over time, "evolve" into a moose, yes?). I'm waiting...

  how do you define a genus?

  Now, MY 'proof' is in earthling man himself: what you see now held up against what has been written, illustrated and recorded about him... then. No change. You mention timeframes. Okay, MY timeframe is the recorded history of man, whether from the Hebrews, the Sumerians, the Chinese, the Africans, the Aborigines, Native Americans... what have you.

  we have the archeological findings....which date back billions of years. your (that is written human history) history dates back only about 7000 years. way too short to make any conclusive statements about long term geological or biological processes.

  cheers,

  Realist

  PS: sorry again about the woman issue from above...i wasn'T serious in my original post! i knew what you meant.