Religion II

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"Brains"? But their brains also had to evolve from one cycle to the next to the next, etc.! The earliest hominids might have had an IQ that rivaled Forrest Gump. And that would not have been sufficient to outwit well experienced predators who by that time would have had finely honed predatory skills that had been developed over many ages -- skills strongly supported by strength and/or speed and natural hunting and killing skills -- all of which the earliest hominids would have lacked.

Here we go again. You don't believe in evolution but are citing the evolution of the brain. Then you will say evolutionists and Hcap believe that but you don't. Dude, what do YOU believe? That's what I mean about you talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Just because an animal was around longer than man does not mean it is smarter. To answer your point, man's brain back then, although smaller than today was still capable of warding off predatory animals, most if not all of whom had smaller brains.

Also animals do not hunt a species to extinction. Animals only take from God (Nature) what they need. They do not operate in an "ethnic cleansing" mode of a species. Just like today there are animals that are at the mercy of larger, quicker and more powerful enemies, but they do not go extinct.

Your premise that man would have been hunted to extinction is uneducated because you do not understand evolution or the balance that nature creates because you refuse to recognize its validity.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"Brains"? But their brains also had to evolve from one cycle to the next to the next, etc.! The earliest hominids might have had an IQ that rivaled Forrest Gump. And that would not have been sufficient to outwit well experienced predators who by that time would have had finely honed predatory skills that had been developed over many ages -- skills strongly supported by strength and/or speed and natural hunting and killing skills -- all of which the earliest hominids would have lacked.

Now...here's a hard topic for you: You do know that your "best friend" is the creator of the universe all that is in it, right? And you do know that he wasn't a fan of evolution, right?

Early man survived for many reasons. Mostly because he adapted to his environment

Just before he became early man he was a late hominid. And that hominid survived for many but slightly different reasons. And so on and so on back to when they were micro organisms. Each "cycle " evolved what was needed to survive and had what it took to evade predators at least enough of their population to reproduce and pass on their DNA.

There were no sudden evolutionary changes of all their predators escalating beyond all these hominids cycles ability to survive.

Like a balance of weapons and defenses in modern day warfare
The balance of an ecosystem slowly changes and evolves and is constantly changing as the species in that ecosystem. Of course sudden cataclysms like abrupt climate change throws a wrench into the works

Btw how did cats survive? or beetles or birds? They had predators as well. All of this involves you thinking beyond either /or, and black/white. Your absolutes are not as absolute as you think.

Learn the details bunky

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Here we go again. You don't believe in evolution but are citing the evolution of the brain. Then you will say evolutionists and Hcap believe that but you don't. Dude, what do YOU believe? That's what I mean about you talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Just because an animal was around longer than man does not mean it is smarter. To answer your point, man's brain back then, although smaller than today was still capable of warding off predatory animals, most if not all of whom had smaller brains.

Also animals do not hunt a species to extinction. Animals only take from God (Nature) what they need. They do not operate in an "ethnic cleansing" mode of a species. Just like today there are animals that are at the mercy of larger, quicker and more powerful enemies, but they do not go extinct.

Your premise that man would have been hunted to extinction is uneducated because you do not understand evolution or the balance that nature creates because you refuse to recognize its validity.

If you and Hcap had both your brains tied together, Forrest Gump would have more IQ power than our newest tag team Dumb and Dumber. I have explained to you why I'm citing evolution theory but I can't make you understand it.

And animals, especially, predators who have been around a lot longer than hominids would have a distinct advantage over them; for they would have had gazillion of years to fine tune their hunting skills -- and for that matter social skills, such as those wolf packs have, etc.

And just because you say that man's brain was capable of warding off predatory beasts doesn't make it so. You need to prove that assertion.

And size of brain doesn't necessarily equate to higher IQ or mental acuity. Plenty of animals today have larger brains than we do, but we're still at the top of the food chain TODAY -- but not so much during the infancy stage of homo sapiens' evolutionary cycle. Predators were still faster, stronger and naturally equipped to kill -- but the earliest humans were not. Humans had to constantly play defense to stay alive. And they had to rely upon markedly inferior physical strength and speed and at best marginal brain power in the infancy stages of evolution. In short, Mr. Light, humans were very ill-equipped to compete with other life forms in the jungle.

And you're all wet, regarding extinction. There are numerous reasons why a species can become extinct.

So why is extinction so common? Bluntly, species are replaced. They are outcompeted by new arrivals: squashed out by new species built by an unthinking agent we call natural selection. Individual by individual, we imagine, species may have been starved out by competitors, or roughed up by storms, droughts, floods, novel diseases, parasites or, perhaps most often, a combination of all of these things. Many species will last 5m or 6m years, however, so they are hardly a flash in the pan, but their inevitable decline will nearly always arrive. Everything alive is in the grip of extinction. It is just a matter of degree.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...extinct-google

As I stated earlier, predators instinctively know that the easiest and best fast food route to fill an empty stomach is to hunt young, injured or sick prey. In other words, to hunt the weakest and most vulnerable prey.. Hominids in their infancy stage of evolutionary development should have been very high up on the menu list of most predators, since they had no weapons, no survival skills and no natural defenses to ward off attacks. This is precisely why my analogy of a infant being tossed into a lion's den is appropriate here. Evolution "tossed" very weak hominids into the den of many predators. Common sense should tell us that neither the physical infant or man in the infancy stage of his development would be able to survive.

And "nature" is impersonal and irrational and can create nothing, for your info.

[hcap]

And animals, especially, predators who have been around a lot longer than hominids would have a distinct advantage over them; for they would have had gazillion of years to fine tune their hunting skills -- and for that matter social skills, such as those wolf packs have, etc.

Total bullshit.
I'll let the other posters deal with you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Early man survived for many reasons. Mostly because he adapted to his environment

Just before he became early man he was a late hominid. And that hominid survived for many but slightly different reasons. And so on and so on back to when they were micro organisms. Each "cycle " evolved what was needed to survive and had what it took to evade predators at least enough of their population to reproduce and pass on their DNA.

There were no sudden evolutionary changes of all their predators escalating beyond all these hominids cycles ability to survive.

Like a balance of weapons and defenses in modern day warfare
The balance of an ecosystem slowly changes and evolves and is constantly changing as the species in that ecosystem. Of course sudden cataclysms like abrupt climate change throws a wrench into the works

Btw how did cats survive? or beetles or birds? They had predators as well. All of this involves you thinking beyond either /or, and black/white. Your absolutes are not as absolute as you think.

Learn the details bunky

Animals have natural defenses. But in that stage -- in that cycle when "late hominids" were becoming an "early man", that entity had no natural defenses. Nor would his brain have developed sufficiently to figure out protection and survival strategies against all his natural enemies. He would have been like an infant tossed into the lion's den. Like an infant, man would have been physically weak and slow and without any natural defenses -- and at best marginal critical thinking skills -- at the very, very best.

So...how would such a creature have survived?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Total bullshit.
I'll let the other posters deal with you.

How could it possibly be BS? You do believe in evolution, right? Or are YOU walking that back?

Are you saying that evolution doesn't teach anything to a species as time moves forward? A species acquires all its "knowledge" and life skills in one sitting -- perhaps while sitting one morning at Starbucks sipping overpriced mud?

[hcap]

Buh bye bunky. You are totally, absolutely wrong and I can not explain it any more or better for you.

Other than recommend read up on the subject.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you and Hcap had both your brains tied together, Forrest Gump would have more IQ power than our newest tag team Dumb and Dumber. I have explained to you why I'm citing evolution theory but I can't make you understand it.

And animals, especially, predators who have been around a lot longer than hominids would have a distinct advantage over them; for they would have had gazillion of years to fine tune their hunting skills -- and for that matter social skills, such as those wolf packs have, etc.

And just because you say that man's brain was capable of warding off predatory beasts doesn't make it so. You need to prove that assertion.

And size of brain doesn't necessarily equate to higher IQ or mental acuity. Plenty of animals today have larger brains than we do, but we're still at the top of the food chain TODAY -- but not so much during the infancy stage of homo sapiens' evolutionary cycle. Predators were still faster, stronger and naturally equipped to kill -- but the earliest humans were not. Humans had to constantly play defense to stay alive. And they had to rely upon markedly inferior physical strength and speed and at best marginal brain power in the infancy stages of evolution. In short, Mr. Light, humans were very ill-equipped to compete with other life forms in the jungle.

And you're all wet, regarding extinction. There are numerous reasons why a species can become extinct.

So why is extinction so common? Bluntly, species are replaced. They are outcompeted by new arrivals: squashed out by new species built by an unthinking agent we call natural selection. Individual by individual, we imagine, species may have been starved out by competitors, or roughed up by storms, droughts, floods, novel diseases, parasites or, perhaps most often, a combination of all of these things. Many species will last 5m or 6m years, however, so they are hardly a flash in the pan, but their inevitable decline will nearly always arrive. Everything alive is in the grip of extinction. It is just a matter of degree.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...extinct-google

As I stated earlier, predators instinctively know that the easiest and best fast food route to fill an empty stomach is to hunt young, injured or sick prey. In other words, to hunt the weakest and most vulnerable prey.. Hominids in their infancy stage of evolutionary development should have been very high up on the menu list of most predators, since they had no weapons, no survival skills and no natural defenses to ward off attacks. This is precisely why my analogy of a infant being tossed into a lion's den is appropriate here. Evolution "tossed" very weak hominids into the den of many predators. Common sense should tell us that neither the physical infant or man in the infancy stage of his development would be able to survive.

And "nature" is impersonal and irrational and can create nothing, for your info.

According to you, early man could not survive as a species vs normal predators but you have no problem with man surviving as a species living along side dinosaurs since you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

If man was ever going to be eaten into extinction, don't you think Dinosaurs would do a much better job? And they can eat several of us at a time whereas a Sabertooth could only eat one at a time and then have to rest for digestion. We would be McNuggets to Dinosaurs.

Like a line from a movie said, "I know guys on crack that make more sense than you"

[thaskalos]

Boxcar doesn't believe that the dinosaurs existed...RIGHT? I mean...Noah would have NEVER been able to get them aboard the ark.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Light

According to you, early man could not survive as a species vs normal predators but you have no problem with man surviving as a species living along side dinosaurs since you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

If man was ever going to be eaten into extinction, don't you think Dinosaurs would do a much better job? And they can eat several of us at a time whereas a Sabertooth could only eat one at a time and then have to rest for digestion. We would be McNuggets to Dinosaurs.

Like a line from a movie said, "I know guys on crack that make more sense than you"

Boxcar is somehow confusing "infancy" of an individual with the early stages of a species.

Humans defended against dangers and hunted as well, with more than their teeth or claws as boxcar's big scary evil "predators" did

1-Early man lived in social groups as many primates do.
2-Had simple tools, clubs to strike, stones to throw. Etc.
3-Early man had an enormous advantage in out-thinking his foes.
4-Shared and passed down successful hunting and defensive techniques through culture and language. Man learned. His
predators did not.

Much to do about nothing as usual. He really should go back to school. Not Sunday school.

Notice how he deflected the discussion about how Noah and the Ark LITERALLY served boxcar's hateful and cruel biblically challenged god? And I might add, an imperfect, not all knowing and not all loving absurd deity?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Boxcar doesn't believe that the dinosaurs existed...RIGHT? I mean...Noah would have NEVER been able to get them aboard the ark.

Maybe the "New Covenant" changed all that?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Boxcar is somehow confusing "infancy" of an individual with the early stages of a species.

Humans defended against dangers and hunted as well, with more than their teeth or claws as boxcar's big scary evil "predators" did

1-Early man lived in social groups as many primates do.
2-Had simple tools, clubs to strike, stones to throw. Etc.
3-Early man had an enormous advantage in out-thinking his foes.
4-Shared and passed down successful hunting and defensive techniques through culture and language. Man learned. His
predators did not.

Much to do about nothing as usual. He really should go back to school. Not Sunday school.

Notice how he deflected the discussion about how Noah and the Ark LITERALLY served boxcar's hateful and cruel biblically challenged god? And I might add, an imperfect, not all knowing and not all loving absurd deity?

Blah, blah, blah....and all the above had to SLOWLY EVOLVE. The earliest hominids weren't born with a hammer up his butt. And it took a long time for them to learn to use the "simple tools" around them. And the brain of the earliest hominids SLOWLY EVOLVED. So, all this begs the question.

How did the earliest hominids manage to survive in an extremely hostile environment surrounded by much stronger and faster predatorS that were naturally equipped to kill AND GREATLY OUTNUMBERED BY THEIR ENEMIES.

As asked earlier, how did hominids pass from cycle 1 to cycle 2 of their evolution and then pass on to cycle 3, then to 4, etc. How were they ever able to make it out of their INFANCY cycle 1 stage?

All you're doing is back-fitting your evolution crap so it can fit with the model of evolution.

As I pointed out earlier, God told the Israelites, who were few in number compared to all the nations they were to evict from the land, that they must not go into the Promised Land and try to occupy it all at once, lest the wild beasts become too numerous for them to handle! Since this was the case with the ancient Jews who had weapons and horses and social structure, etc., then how much worse for "cycle 1" hominids -- entities leaving the "great ape" stage and entering into the human stage?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Boxcar doesn't believe that the dinosaurs existed...RIGHT? I mean...Noah would have NEVER been able to get them aboard the ark.

So..are you suggesting that dinos never had kids? They just came into the world as fully grown, 6-ton animals or whatever?

[hcap]

Blah, blah, blah....and all the above had to SLOWLY EVOLVE. The earliest hominids weren't born with a hammer up his butt. And it took a long time for them to learn to use the "simple tools" around them. And the brain of the earliest hominids SLOWLY EVOLVED. So, all this begs the question.

The earliest hominids were very close to primates, but smarter. Are you telling us , monkeys and gorillas are an illusion.? Or maybe god helped them out with their evil predators too?

Many animals are hunted by other animals. They have evolved various defense mechanisms, other than teeth and claws, or biblical souls

Only one with a hammer born up his butt around here, thinks with those hammers and those environs.

[hcap]

About two million years ago there was an archaic human called Homo ergaster who lived in Africa. She used fairly sophisticated methods to create stone tools, and taught those methods to her children. At some point, probably about 1.8 million years ago, H. ergaster split into many different bands. Some wound up crossing out of Africa and into the Middle East, Asia and Europe. Others stayed behind.

So early humans go back around two million years. As I said close to primates but smarter. Before they slowly transformed further they still had many of the defense mechanisms that allowed primates to survive. Maybe their teeth were not as sharp, or their tree climbing skills not quite as good, but soon their newer CLUB-swinging, arm-THROWING, and BRAIN-REASONING abilities slowly replaced and supplemented their earlier primate skills.

I repeat, there was NO INFANCY clearly demarcated and indicated in man's evolution. Man changed gradually and all along the way evolved new survival abilities as older ones were replaced. Your argument relies on the analogy of how human babies transform into human adults today. Not at all applicable.

Human babies have NO INDEPENDENT survival skills except caring parents and society.

Early man had many independent abilities to survive. And those ability grew in many ways beyond your absurd "teeth and claws" only example.

Got it bunky?