It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Why to Atheists & Darwinism

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I always have wondered why is it so we human being seem to be the best in every aspect if not perfect. In simple words, Just imagine you have ability to create something that is physically and mentally able to achieve what humans today seem to have achieved and at the same time look pretty decent too.

What kind of creation comes to your mind? Can you suggest some creature that looks and does and thinks better than human being... even in visualization...!!!

I also wonder if we human beings had the physical appearance like of an elephant, had we achieved today what we have today????

While biologically Apes are very close to Human beings physically, Why is it so they have not even produced a single microchip yet?

I mean i don't hold our thinking ability or wisdom alone for what today we have achieved, if we had the physical appearance like of an elephant we would have never achieved all this .. Could we have produced computers if were like Elephants despite being wise and having the same mental ability as we have now?


Is it all coincidence that we have best physical features that can help produce what we have produced today and at the same time wiser than all other species ..... is it all coincidence?




[edit on 5-5-2008 by LOYAL]




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
And here we have a great example of why some folks think creationism makes sense. You're looking at the end result, and for the life of yourself you can't figure out how a few simple natural processes created it. So (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you leap to the "God did it!" explanation.

Humans, if it wasn't for our brain, are pathetic animals. Our one saving grace is the fact that we can walk far longer than most quadrapedal animals we'd care to eat. We don't fare well in cold weather, we need a lot of water when we're in hot weather, we can't climb as well as our relatives, and our swimming is rubbish.

But yes, if you want to imagine a creature that can live in our world well, it'd be a humanoid of moderate intelligence. Because humanoids of moderate intelligence built this world we live in. Correlation != causation.

It's not coincidence (the fact you think it is speaks volumes about your understanding of the discussion). But that doesn't mean it's God, either.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Humans, if it wasn't for our brain, are pathetic animals.


Not quite - biologically speaking we're really quite powerful creatures, it's just that due to modern life we've all become lazy and our muscles ain't as big.

A single fit human could quite easily take down a decent sized dog so long as it wasn't able to apply it's jaws.

We're also Bipeds, which means we can quite easily put our entire body behind a blow, and in comparision to other animals, like dogs - this means that we have a distinct advantage over the critters because of the simple fact that if a dog were to leap at a human he could break it's neck just by kicking it.

We also have the advantage of longer reach than many creatures, which is vital for keeping out of range of them snappers.

Even without weapons, anything of a size smaller than a lion (bar baboons) would be putting it's life on the line if it would try to attack a human for food.

Combat between different animals is an imprecise science, and all one can do is look at how one creature would take advantage over the short-comings of the other.

Even then, a single mistake or an accident can quite easily result in one or the other's survival.

Just because we don't have razor-sharp canines or claws the size of small knives doesn't mean we're biologically inferior.

Our main advantage lies in our versatility - the ability to push an animal's head to the side for example.

p.s; Yeah, God couldn't ever create something as dangerous as a human.



[edit on 5-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
It always startles me that no one ever thinks for a moment that God didn't just make the bible as some sort of big joke, just to see what would happen.

And before you say "God can see the future" or something like that - you got that from the bible, didn't you?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Completely wrong. We are horribly weak physiologically.

Our strength lies in our mental abilities.

A large dog could easily maul an unarmed human to death. However when a human gains the mental ability to realise that using a sharp stick extends his reach, he has a fighting chance of beating the dog.

And that essentially, is why we are clever. We developed our brains in order to produce tools and weapons for defence from predators. While the evolutionary adaptation of the lion was to develop a powerful physique and for the elephant was to become so large as to be unassailable, humans survived by developing armour and weapons.

A bunch of bushmen could take down a lion using bows and arrows. It has nothing to do with the biomechanics of the human body, which are really quite poor.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Okay, come on - we'll do this by statistics.

How much would you say an average dog weighs?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
You're looking at the end result, and for the life of yourself you can't figure out how a few simple natural processes created it.

Not just the end result, but also the probability of the end result. If you were in front of a firing squad of 1,000 men and they all missed you would you simply say "I'm still alive so obviously it's the result of a natural process" or just shrug because the near impossible happened? No, of course you would want to inquire as to how 1,000 chances to eliminate you were missed. There's nothing wrong with asking if the whole scenario was rigged to begin with by an outsider giving orders to the soldiers.

Obviously it's likely that one animal would be dominate, but you could make a valid argeument that it's not likely for one to be dominate to such an extreme as humans are. Compare nuclear fission and landing on the Moon to the great achievements of apes who's greatest achievement appears to be getting termites with sticks. See the difference? Science has no explination as to why this vast gulf of difference occurs.

I don't see how we can rule out one possibility just because we don't see the designer. Isn't the design itself evidence to some degree? We make conclusions based on evidence all the time. For instance if you saw a broken chain and a bolt cutter lying beside an empty bike rack you can presume someone stole a bike without ever seeing a bicycle or a theif.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


I'm not ruling out the possibility, I'm just waiting for any evidence before elevating it to the same level as anything that does have evidence supporting it. As it is, ID has no evidence supporting it at all, compared to the mountains of evidence backing evolution.

And your firing squad analogy is fatally flawed, as it is not comparable to the mechanisms at play here in the slightest



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   


Average rottweiller - 95-130 pounds

Average Human male (UK average) - 176 lb

Already, the average human is over 40 pounds heavier than a rottweiller, a dog that is respected by many as a single-minded killing machine.


What can a human do?

A human can punch, kick, throw, grapple and break.

What can a dog do?

Uhm... Bite and Jump - and humans can do that too.


Granted, fighting an animal such as a Rottweiller is a deadly task, but not suicidal.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Weight is unimportant. Its all about lethality.

Would you care to fight a piranha which weighs... oh about 1lb at most?

We are not suited to fight with our bodies... we fight with our minds.

Without our weapons we are nothing. With them we are the supreme fighting species on this planet. Unarmed, one man going up an elephant would undoutedbly be suicide. Armed with a hunting calibre rifle, a man is unassailable.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Without our weapons we are nothing.


Do you really believe that?

p.s; your comparision of fighting a piranha is amusing, i can't help but wonder how you would do it.

Something tells me you'd probably use a grenade if you had one.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Really, i find your lack of faith in the human anatomy quite disturbing.

Granted, our intelligence has provided us a wealth of combat potential, but that doesn't mean a human cannot fight without a weapon.

Simply by using the thumb, one human can blind a much larger creature if he's agile enough.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Without our weapons we are nothing.


Do you really believe that?

p.s; your comparision of fighting a piranha is amusing, i can't help but wonder how you would do it.

Something tells me you'd probably use a grenade if you had one.


100%.

Be honest- do you really think that a human could fight a dog without dying?!

All a dog has to do is take a chomp and the human would eventually bleed to death.

Of course the human vs dog is moot because humans bred dogs from wolves, and so wouldnt have created an animal which is capable of killing us!



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Really, i find your lack of faith in the human anatomy quite disturbing.

Granted, our intelligence has provided us a wealth of combat potential, but that doesn't mean a human cannot fight without a weapon.

Simply by using the thumb, one human can blind a much larger creature if he's agile enough.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]


Haha if you study the human body you realise quite how delicate and weak it is.

I can safely say that an unarmed human would not last long in a fight. Our ancestors survived by hiding, running and fighting back with weapons at most.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Infact yes - i began with strength, i'll move onto agility.

Humans evolved from an animal known for it's agility - i mean, the little guys swing through the trees easier than you or i would ride a bike, and i'm pretty certain a fair number of people have seen the footage of that monkey playing with a lion that was made in one of the far-eastern countries.

That Agility, although somewhat lessened due to our current evolutionary state, still resides within our natural capabilities.

A dog leaps at you - what do you do?

Duck?

Side-step?

Do a barrel roll?

We are far more agile than a great many other creatures on this planet, it's just that what we lack in sheer, nerve-splitting speed (like that of a dog's pounce) we make up for with versatility.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   




Precisely. We can evade and run away.

That isnt the same as fighting.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
You might be getting the idea that i'm saying a human would be able to walk away from this kind of combat unscathed.

I'm not.

I'm just saying that a human stands an easy chance of winning if he's prepared to take a hit or two in a place that isn't filled with critical mass, after all - once the dog bites, it's head is well within range for a neck-breaker.

p.s; of course we survived by running, we wouldv'e been running from packs of animals.

Once a human gets going, and is willing to fight to the death, a single animal has a hell of a fight on it's hands just to survive, nevermind win.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer


if you study the human body you realise quite how delicate and weak it is.



If you sincerely think i would even enter this type of discussion without studying the human body, then this discussion is pointless.

You've made your judgement, sir.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I don't mean to labour a point, but I can't see how someone could conclude that humans are capable of fighting with other animals unarmed and survive if they have studied the human body in enough detail. I reach this conclusion from my studies in this field at university level... Im not making things up arbitrarily.

You do realise that a single dog bite to the femoral vein will result in assured death? Or a single scratch from a dog's paw could become infected and result in death. Or the dog could attack the jugular and cause instant death.

Sure we may be able to defeat the animal, but we would almost certainly die of the ensuing blood loss.

Im just wondering why you think we would be able to win this hypothetical fight. Perhaps you are much more confident of your strength than I am?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
The fight versus the dog is simple, the human wins, and here is why:

The human, using his mental ability and intelligence, realizes that the dog's blood and oxygen supply travel to its' head through its' neck, and proceed to get a grasp on it and choke it to death, while momentarily "overpowering it" so as not to get bit while the choking process occurs.

On the same note, I would never wish to face a Pit Bull unarmed, because their jaws are like crocodile or sharks jaws! They can hang themselves 6 feet in the air off of a rope by their jaw alone.. for like 5 seconds!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join