We as humans were created!

reply to post by Xcalibur254

If humans were created, why were we not created with language?

No one could possibly put to words what I am thinking. Nor, can I.Another words knowledge has nothing to do with language. How does a dog ask to go out? how does he ask for food. Clearly there is a distinction between food and going out.The dog thus knows this however, only WOOF is expressed.

The medium through which we think is language,

correction, the medium in which we express our thought is language. Surly there are other methods, purely a distinction of that which is thought and that which is spoken.

so theoretically thought could not exist without language

yo kay....Tell Steven Hawking that

reply to post by oliveoil


What??? Steven Hawkins understands language and at one point could speak language, because like the rest of us, he learned as a child. Now he can't speak he still retains the knowledge of language, but has to express it through a voice synthesizer, what exactly are you trying to point out here? Your making no sense.

In the beggining a man looked at a tree and went "ug", and then another cottoned on and also said "ug", and therefore a tree was recognised as ug, over 10's of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years of language evolution, ug finally became tree (or whatever each countrys language means tree).

reply to post by oliveoil

Speech is separate from language. Steven Hawking still has language even if he cannot physically verbalize. At one time he could speak, and he can still read. He has language. As for dogs, that brings up the big question as to whether or not animals are conscious. Seeing as how you presented the premise that humans were created special, the logical conclusion must be that animals are not conscious.

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

If humans were created, why were we not created with language?

No one could possibly put to words what I am thinking. Nor, can I.Another words knowledge has nothing to do with language. How does a dog ask to go out? how does he ask for food. Clearly there is a distinction between food and going out.The dog thus knows this however, only WOOF is expressed.

My dogs indeed do say "woof". However, they don't just have one woof and I can tell by the timbre what they want; whether it is to be let outside, to be let inside, to say hello, to let us know someone is nearby, to ask for food, to chase a cat....they have a wide vocabulary. seeing as all we hear is "woof" and have consigned them to the 'dumb animal' bin then of course they are going to be misunderstood.

PAY ATTENTION to all the animals around you and pretty soon, if you have any sort of decent observation skills, you will find that they respond widely and varied and have a language. Just because we think we're the 'top dog' doesn't mean we are. Sure, we like to think we are, but if you consider our actions (collectively and individually) then we really, really aren't.

There's a whole pile of trouble that has been caused by that attitude of superiority, globally and it has been propagated by religion as well.

In my opinion, as soon as we absolve any responsibility by claiming we were created, we have gone down the wrong track.

Edit for wordspacing

[edit on 9-8-2010 by aorAki]

reply to post by aorAki

However, they don't just have one woof and I can tell by the timbre what they want

exactly my point. Your intellect can tell what your sweet little puppies need is. If it could not, than you sweet little puppy would not be able to survive.
your intellect is greater than his. not that he could take care of himself in the wilderness,thus not being a baby. All babies need taken care of. creation has nothing to do with language. Language is learned.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by oliveoil]

Originally posted by oliveoil
Only material things can change, That of which is not material can not. Our question as to what we evolved from can not be answered because our intellect did not evolve.(how could it?) Which leads us to the statement we as humans were created.Matter is just that, matter. If you pause and think about it, Matter can not produce matter. A rock can not create a rock. A car can not produce a car.An atom, cannot split itself. It takes intellect to create,produce,split an atom.Which leads us to the Big Bang theory.Science tells us that the universe came to be as an effect of a big bang.If we use are intellect we most certainly know that if the Big bang theory is accurate, what was the effect? Science tells us its matter. (planets, stars, ect.) This seems plausible However, science cannot tell us the cause. Since we know as humans, that matter does not produce matter, Intellect could only be the cause.Thus, us as humans being composed of matter may have evolved,but our intellect was indeed created,the same way the universe was.

No offense, but it sounds to me like you have barely a rudimentary understanding (if any at all) of a variety of scientific theories and might even smoke a bit of pot. Because whatever this screed is that you've come up with is a knot with so many tangles that even the most patient poster could not undo it. You may wish to brush up on evolutionary theory and the big bang theory for starters.

The idea of another life form creating humans on the planet is intriguing. We are more closely related to the chimpanzee than any other animal on earth including the great ape.
Chimpanzees, though highly intelligent are also prone to tantrums, exhibit violent behavior and are sometimes even found to be cannibalistic.

Most of this undesirable childishness is absent in the great apes.
It is supposed that if we were more closely related to the ape instead of the chimp we might be less violent... as a hybrid species.

So my question for anyone who imagines we were especially created...

Why...would you start with this?


instead of this?


Can we get a do-over?

Originally posted by rusethorcain

It is supposed that if we were more closely related to the ape instead of the chimp we might be less violent... as a hybrid species.

Ummmm.... chimps are apes.

Also, bonobos are very closely related to chimpanzees but are not nearly as violent.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by oliveoil
Only material things can change, That of which is not material can not. Our question as to what we evolved from can not be answered because our intellect did not evolve.(how could it?) Which leads us to the statement we as humans were created.Matter is just that, matter. If you pause and think about it, Matter can not produce matter. A rock can not create a rock. A car can not produce a car.An atom, cannot split itself. It takes intellect to create,produce,split an atom.Which leads us to the Big Bang theory.Science tells us that the universe came to be as an effect of a big bang.If we use are intellect we most certainly know that if the Big bang theory is accurate, what was the effect? Science tells us its matter. (planets, stars, ect.) This seems plausible However, science cannot tell us the cause. Since we know as humans, that matter does not produce matter, Intellect could only be the cause.Thus, us as humans being composed of matter may have evolved,but our intellect was indeed created,the same way the universe was.

No offense, but it sounds to me like you have barely a rudimentary understanding (if any at all) of a variety of scientific theories and might even smoke a bit of pot. Because whatever this screed is that you've come up with is a knot with so many tangles that even the most patient poster could not undo it. You may wish to brush up on evolutionary theory and the big bang theory for starters.

Okay Ill put it a little less complicated for ya. Most non-musicians in this case non- Drummers have any idea what a paradiddle is. However, paradiddles do exist. In fact paradiddles existed for millions of years.There was never a time when they did not. Knowledge does not evolve.It is learned. When your a baby your knowledge is very limited. With out someone, teaching you ( most likely other Humans) you could never advance. If our knowledge (intellect) evolved from anything less than human knowledge we would most likely not be here typing with each other.Our human race would not survive. Knowledge does not evolve period! It can only be learned. It already exists, Just like your paradiddle. Oh and actually pot was shown to stimulate brain cell growth, among other things.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by oliveoil]

Originally posted by oliveoil
Okay Ill put it a little less complicated for ya. Most non-musicians in this case non- Drummers have any idea what a paradiddle is. However, paradiddles do exist. In fact paradiddles existed for millions of years.There was never a time when they did not. Knowledge does not evolve.It is learned. When your a baby your knowledge is very limited. With out someone, teaching you ( most likely other Humans) you could never advance. If our knowledge (intellect) evolved from anything less than human knowledge we would most likely not be here typing with each other.Our human race would not survive. Knowledge does not evolve period! It can only be learned. It already exists, Just like your paradiddle. Oh and actually pot was shown to stimulate brain cell growth, among other things.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by oliveoil]

Well, here's more of the same stuff: which is you making stuff up on a bunch of assumptive arguments, flawed premises and dubious axioms. Instead of just making stuff up you should probably get a grasp on the concepts you're arguing as well as some basic understanding of the fallacies your arguments fall prey to. Again, no offense intended here, it's simply that your argument presented in the thread title is wildly unconvincing by the arguments you've presented so far.

Also, I have nothing against pot at all. It should be legal and available for free consumption for any purpose. I do, however, have a thing against arguments based on flawed premises.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by rusethorcain

It is supposed that if we were more closely related to the ape instead of the chimp we might be less violent... as a hybrid species.

Ummmm.... chimps are apes.

Also, bonobos are very closely related to chimpanzees but are not nearly as violent.

CHIMP

Chimps are not Apes.

This is almost the only thing I know for certain.
One thing I do know is that the more evenly distributed the weight of the male compared to the female, the more peaceful and harmonious the life of the tribe.
A species of baboon whose female and males are about the same height are the most harmonious and peaceful. The best pairing. In the monkey-ape kingdom this pairing comes most in the baboon, orangutan.
Orangutan.

Originally posted by rusethorcain

Chimps are not Apes.

Sigh.

From Wikipedia

Chimpanzee, sometimes colloquially chimp, is the common name for the two extant species of ape in the genus Pan.

If you're trying to say chimps are not gorillas then use the proper terminology. Chimps are apes

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Ones intellect can not evolve. How could something you can not see,touch,smell,hear,something that has no material attributes at all, evolve?
How much more of an elementary explanation do you need?

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Ones intellect can not evolve. How could something you can not see,touch,smell,hear,something that has no material attributes at all, evolve?
How much more of an elementary explanation do you need?

Why can't an intellect evolve? It's a dynamic system constantly acquiring new input and changes (evolves) in response to it. And, for the sake of argument, even if it couldn't then how does this indicate in any way that humans were created?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Ones intellect can not evolve. How could something you can not see,touch,smell,hear,something that has no material attributes at all, evolve?
How much more of an elementary explanation do you need?

Why can't an intellect evolve? It's a dynamic system constantly acquiring new input and changes (evolves) in response to it. And, for the sake of argument, even if it couldn't then how does this indicate in any way that humans were created?

How can something that has no material attributes evolve? What would it evolve into?How can nothing evolve into something? Dynamic system? How can nothing,which the intellect is, be a dynamic system? A dynamic system would have physical attributes.Ones intellect does not.
Think really hard at what I am saying.This makes perfect sense



[edit on 13-8-2010 by oliveoil]

Originally posted by oliveoil

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Ones intellect can not evolve. How could something you can not see,touch,smell,hear,something that has no material attributes at all, evolve?
How much more of an elementary explanation do you need?

Why can't an intellect evolve? It's a dynamic system constantly acquiring new input and changes (evolves) in response to it. And, for the sake of argument, even if it couldn't then how does this indicate in any way that humans were created?

How can something that has no material attributes evolve? What would it evolve into?How can nothing evolve into something? Dynamic system? How can nothing,which the intellect is, be a dynamic system? A dynamic system would have physical attributes.Ones intellect does not.
Think really hard at what I am saying.This makes perfect sense
x

I answered quite concisely how the intellect can evolve. Again, you start from the faulty premise that immaterial things cannot evolve. Things such as social darwinism and memetics demonstrate quite clearly that things with no material attributes evolve.

And even for the sake of argument if I were to say intellects couldn't evolve, this still doesn't indicate anything about humans being created. , indeed

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Clearly you must be confused as to what an intellect is.Apparently you are not using yours or you would see the difference between material and non-material.

And even for the sake of argument if I were to say intellects couldn't evolve, this still doesn't indicate anything about humans being created. , indeed

Humans are composed of material, (flesh and blood) we also have a spirit, which is our mind,our intellect. Our bodies over millions of years may have evolved or changed however,our intellect has not.Proof would be that if our intellect indeed evolved, from what would it have evolved from?
certainly not from something less. If this was the case our intellect would be less than human and unable to evolve to human. We would not know how to survive and or take care of our own. Human babies with limited knowledge could not take care of themselves.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by oliveoil]

[edit on 13-8-2010 by oliveoil]

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Clearly you must be confused as to what an intellect is.Apparently you are not using yours or you would see the difference between material and non-material.

I have clearly identified the difference and given you examples.

Humans are composed of material, (flesh and blood) we also have a spirit, which is our mind,our intellect. Our bodies over millions of years may have evolved or changed however,our intellect has not.Proof would be that if our intellect indeed evolved, from what would it have evolved from?
certainly not from something less. If this was the case our intellect would be less than human and unable to evolve to human. We would not know how to survive and or take care of our own. Human babies with limited knowledge could not take care of themselves.

Honestly, you're making little sense about any of this. I'd highly recommend brushing up on evolutionary theory. In the end, it still demonstrates nothing in the way of humans being created.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Clearly you must be confused as to what an intellect is.Apparently you are not using yours or you would see the difference between material and non-material.

I have clearly identified the difference and given you examples.

Humans are composed of material, (flesh and blood) we also have a spirit, which is our mind,our intellect. Our bodies over millions of years may have evolved or changed however,our intellect has not.Proof would be that if our intellect indeed evolved, from what would it have evolved from?
certainly not from something less. If this was the case our intellect would be less than human and unable to evolve to human. We would not know how to survive and or take care of our own. Human babies with limited knowledge could not take care of themselves.

Honestly, you're making little sense about any of this. I'd highly recommend brushing up on evolutionary theory. In the end, it still demonstrates nothing in the way of humans being created.

That's all you've got ? jeeshh, I thought I was speaking to someone who can at least hold there own. My apologies.

Originally posted by oliveoil

That's all you've got ? jeeshh, I thought I was speaking to someone who can at least hold there own. My apologies.

I've consistently held my own. It is extremely difficult to have a discussion with someone who won't address flawed premises and most importantly, keeps avoiding questions. I'll ask one more time: how does any of this prove that humans were created?