Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,420,712 members, 5,429,407 topics. Date: Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 02:18 PM

The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' - Religion (6) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' (9785 Views)

Akudaya:myth Or Reality? / Is The God Of Israel God Of ALL? / Mammy Water: Myth Or Reality? (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by wirinet(m): 5:59pm On Jun 17, 2010
Deep Sight:


Why do men go to the moon?

Why is there a mission to Mars planned?

American went to the moon because of egocentric reasons, there was a space race and the Russians were ahead, so America going to the moon would give Americans great pride. And besides the moon is just in our backyard 1 light second or three days (by present propulsion technology)away.

The mission to mars is to study the possibility of exploiting the planet for material gains and to help answer some scientific questions, like is/was there life on mars. Also mars is about our closest planetary neighbour, about 30 light mins away or 6 months by present propulsion system.

Having said that, the possibility of sending a manned mission to mars is still decades away, because of so many problems that are yet to be resolved concerning prolonged space flight (by man). You should also not that even unmanned space mission to mars have very low success rate.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 6:04pm On Jun 17, 2010
I don't think any biological alien beings are visiting this place. Whatever is happening, if anything is, it's taking place in their heads. It might be real or not, since the workings of the brain isn't fully understood and I know there are non-physical beings and dimensions. But it doesn't seem physical, and some suggestion/ auto-suggestion is involved. Some Americans, with no prior alien abduction experience whatsoever are hypnotized by a psychologist or pyschiatrist and have the idea of alien abduction merely hinted to them. These people start spinning a detailed account of being abducted by aliens, and are sometimes so terrified their doctors bring them out of hypnosis. The terror and the emotions are real, but the incident never happened. Their brains cooked it up under a tiny suggestion from a psychiatrist. Imagine the suggestion possibilities from exposure to hundreds of abduction stories from the media and the whole UFO culture.

It's interesting that most of the abductions happen when they're in a sleep state or driving along a road at night (driving lulls one to sleep), the perfect brain scenario for autosuggestion. And in not ONE abduction has there ever been an independent witness to testify that, yes I looked out my window and saw Imogen floating in the air towards a spaceship. Not one single witness. Some claimed devices were inserted in their nostrils to track their lives or something. A few finally allowed theirs to be examined. They proved be made of everyday metals from this place, not a single metal or isotope alien to earth, as would be the case if it were technology from another planet. For every one story you get elsewhere (always exposed to American alien stories), you'll get countless thousands in America. 'Within reach of its media' means places where they receive American TV channels and other news media, and so are exposed to the alien abduction stories from America. The Americans know its their phenomenon, even if you don't.

As for your Elijah bible claims and the rest, I've confessed I'm not up to the challenge. You need braver souls for that.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight(m): 6:24pm On Jun 17, 2010
Wirinet: I am not sure that I am inclined towards starting that debate now: but I would urge you to also have a look at your supposition that time is a fabric which can be folded. That is the particular supposition that i stated i doubt: and contrary to what you say IT HAS NOT EVER BEEN PROVEN THAT TIME CAN BE FOLDED, so please before advising me to "read up" can you please show me when it was ever proved that time can be folded?

Can you show me which piece of the fabric called time was ever folded in any scientific experiment, and exactly when such a folding occurred? ? ?

If you cannot do this, please quit the chit chat.

I am rather bemused that you are not aware that the supposed folding of time to create a wormhole is and remains a hypothesis which has not ever been done ANYWHERE. So please!

You you are supposed to be a scientist? In which lab did you fold time?
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight(m): 6:32pm On Jun 17, 2010
Mad_Max:

I don't think any biological alien beings are visiting this place. Whatever is happening, if anything is, it's taking place in their heads. It might be real or not, since the workings of the brain isn't fully understood and I know there are non-physical beings and dimensions. But it doesn't seem physical, and some suggestion/ auto-suggestion is involved. Some Americans, with no prior alien abduction experience whatsoever are hypnotized by a psychologist or pyschiatrist and have the idea of alien abduction merely hinted to them. These people start spinning a detailed account of being abducted by aliens, and are sometimes so terrified their doctors bring them out of hypnosis. The terror and the emotions are real, but the incident never happened. Their brains cooked it up under a tiny suggestion from a psychiatrist. Imagine the suggestion possibilities from exposure to hundreds of abduction stories from the media and the whole UFO culture.

It's interesting that most of the abductions happen when they're in a sleep state or driving along a road at night (driving lulls one to sleep), the perfect brain scenario for autosuggestion. And in not ONE abduction has there ever been an independent witness to testify that, yes I looked out my window and saw Imogen floating in the air towards a spaceship. Not one single witness. Some claimed devices were inserted in their nostrils to track their lives or something. A few finally allowed theirs to be examined. They proved be made of everyday metals from this place, not a single metal or isotope alien to earth, as would be the case if it were technology from another planet. For every one story you get elsewhere (always exposed to American alien stories), you'll get countless thousands in America. 'Within reach of its media' means places where they receive American TV channels and other news media, and so are exposed to the alien abduction stories from America. The Americans know its their phenomenon, even if you don't.

As for your Elijah bible claims and the rest, I've confessed I'm not up to the challenge. You need braver souls for that.





Date
Name
City, State
Country
Description
Kind of Close Encounter
Sources

1886-08-12 José Bonilla Observation
Zacatecas Observatory
Mexico While observing sun spots, Bonilla, director of Zacatecas Observatory saw at least 283 objects crossing the disc of the sun. He was not able to count them as so many of them appeared simultaneously. However he took some photographs, which still exist and are said to be the oldest photographs of UFOs in the world. 0 [1]

1886-10-24 Maracaibo Incidence Maracaibo
Venezuela
In a letter, which was printed in Scientific American in the issue from December 18, 1886 on page 389, the US consul of Venezuela in Maracaibo reported that a bright object, accompanied with a humming noise, appeared during a rainy and tempestuous night over a hut near Maracaibo. The people in the hut showed afterward symptoms of a sickness, which one would today interpret as radiation disease. The trees surrounding the hut withered after nine days. 2 [2][3][4]

1897-04-19 Aurora Texas UFO Incident
Aurora, Texas
United States Alleged crash of a UFO and burial of the pilot, purported to be an alien, in the local cemetery. 3 [5][6]

1908-06-30 Tunguska event
Podkamennaya Tunguska River
Russian Empire
A massive explosion, most likely to be from a comet or meteoroid, but is also believed by UFO conspiracy theorists to have been from an explosion of a UFO.
2 [7][8]

1917-08-13, 09-13, 10-13 The Miracle of the Sun
Fatima Portugal Thousands of people saw what they thought was the sun gyrate and descend. This was later reinterpreted by Jacques Vallee, Joaquim Fernandes and Fina d'Armada as a possible UFO sighting that was not originally recognized as such due to cultural differences. 1 [9][10][11]

1926 Sightings by Nicholas Roerich Unknown, possibly Nepal (the Himalayas)
Nicholas Roerich's travel diary mentions that he and his companions encountered a silver metallic disc hovering above the Himalayas. They observed the disc through binoculars for some time until it disappeared beyond mountain peaks. 1 [12]

1940s Foo fighter
Small metallic spheres and colorful balls of light repeatedly spotted, and on occasion photographed, by military air crews around the world during World War II.
1 [13][14]

1942 Hopeh Incident
Hopeh
China A UFO was spotted and photographed. 1 [15]

1942-02-24 Battle of Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
United States Unidentified aerial objects trigger the military to fire thousands of anti-aircraft rounds into the sky and raise the wartime alert status. 1 [16][17]

1946 Ghost rockets
Scandinavia Objects were sighted repeatedly over Scandinavia; Swedish Defense Staff expressed concern. 1 [18]

1946-05-18 UFO-Memorial Ängelholm
Ängelholm Municipality
Sweden Gösta Karlsson reports seeing a UFO landing and alien beings. A model of a flying saucer is now erected at the site. 3 [19]

1947-06-21 Maury Island incident
Washington
United States Harold A. Dahl reported an incident in which he claimed that his dog was killed and his son was injured by UFOs, and that a witness was threatened by Men in Black.
2 [20]

1947-06-24 Kenneth Arnold Unidentified Flying Object Sighting
Washington
United States The UFO sighting that sparked the name flying saucers. 2 [21]

1947-07-08 Roswell UFO incident
Roswell, New Mexico
United States United States Army Air Forces allegedly captures a flying saucer. 3 [22]

1948 Green fireballs
United States Objects reported over several United States military bases; an official investigation followed. 1 [23]

1948-01-07 Mantell UFO Incident
Kentucky
United States US Air Force sent a fighter pilot to investigate a UFO sighting over Fort Knox, Kentucky; the pilot was killed while pursuing the UFO. 2 [24]

1948-10-01 Gorman Dogfight
North Dakota
United States A US Air Force pilot sighted and pursued a UFO for 27 minutes over Fargo, North Dakota.
1 [25][26]

1950 Mariana UFO Incident
Great Falls, Montana
United States The manager of Great Falls' pro baseball team took color film of two UFOs flying over Great Falls. The film was extensively analyzed by the US Air Force and independent investigators. 1 [27]

1951-08-25 Lubbock Lights
Lubbock, Texas
United States Lights were repeatedly spotted flying over the city. They were witnessed by science professors from Texas Tech University and photographed by a Texas Tech student. 1 [28]

1952-07-13 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incident
Washington, D.C.
United States A series of sightings in July 1952 accompanied radar/visual contacts at three separate airports in the Washington area. The sightings made front-page headlines around the nation, and ultimately lead to the formation of the Robertson Panel by the CIA.
1 [29]

1952-07-24 Carson Sink UFO incident
Nevada
United States Two pilots saw three unusual aircraft, flying in a V-formation and with a Delta-wing airfoil, over Carson Sink. 1 [30]

1952-09-12 Flatwoods monster
Flatwoods, West Virginia
United States 6 local boys and a local woman report seeing a UFO landing and a bizarre-looking creature near the landing site. 3 [31][32][33]

June, 1953 Otis AFB
Falmouth, Massachusetts
United States A man claims that a U.S Air Force radar operator and pilot bailed out over Otis Air Force Base because of engine failure. They were chasing a UFO. Plane and operator never seen again. Pilot lives and the canopy is the only thing recovered. 1 [34]

1953-08-12 Ellsworth UFO Case
Bismarck, North Dakota
United States A UFO appearing as a red glowing light is witnessed by forty-five people. The sighting takes place over a two night period. 1 [35]

1953-11-23 Felix Moncla
Lake Superior
United States - Canada U.S Air Force Pilot disappears while pursuing a UFO. 1 [36]

1955-08-21 Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter
Kentucky
United States A group of strange, goblin-like creatures are reported to have attacked a family, while the family shot at them. 3 [37]

1957 Antonio Villas Boas
São Francisco de Sales
Brazil
Antonio Villas Boas claimed to have been abducted and examined by aliens. He also claimed to have had sex with an alien woman during his time aboard a UFO. 4 [38]

1957-05-20 Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter
East Anglia
United Kingdom US Air Force fighter pilot Milton Torres reports that he was ordered to interecept and fire on a UFO displaying "very unusual flight patterns" over East Anglia. Ground radar operators had tracked the object for some time before Torres' plane was scrambled to intercept. 1 [39]

1957-11-02 Levelland UFO Case
Levelland, Texas
United States Numerous motorists reported seeing a strange, glowing, egg-shaped object which caused their vehicle's engines to shut off. When the object flew away, their vehicles restarted and worked normally. 2 [40]

1959 Dyatlov Pass incident
Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Mysterious deaths of experienced skiers in the Urals is believed to have been caused by "unidentified orange spheres" and an "unknown compelling force". 2 [41]

1959 Alor Incident
Alor Archipelago
Indonesia
This incident occurred on July 1959, in the Alor Islands area. 3 [42]

1961-09-19 Betty and Barney Hill abduction
New Hampshire
United States A widely publicized alien abduction experience. 4 [43]

1964-04-24 Lonnie Zamora
Socorro, New Mexico
United States Zamora, a police officer, reports a close encounter. 3 [44]

1965 Exeter incident
Exeter, New Hampshire
United States A UFO was observed by a teenager and two police officers. 1 [45]

1965 Project Serpo
United States A reported secret exchange program between the U.S government and an extraterrestrial race from Planet Serpo. 5 [46]

1965-12-01 Adhara Observatory UFO Lunar Transit San Miguel
Argentina
At 8.30 pm the Adhara Observatory got several calls from people who saw that there seems to be something unusual was happening on the moon. The staff of the observatory took photographs of the moon in fixed intervals, which showed the development disk shaped objects in front of the moon. A few minutes after these photographs were made, three strange luminous objects flew over La Plata. 0 [47]

1965-12-09 Kecksburg UFO incident
Kecksburg, Pennsylvania
United States Mass sighting of a falling UFO, followed by a cordoning-off of the crash site. 1 [48]

1966 The Mothman Prophecies
Point Pleasant, West Virginia
United States A wave of sightings of a winged humanoid is reported to be connected to other mysterious events including sightings of UFOs. 1 [49]

1966-01-11 Wanaque Reservoir UFO Wanaque Reservoir, Wanaque, New Jersey
United States UFO in the form of a bright light seen in the vicinity of Wanaque Reservoir, leading to traffic jams and overloaded police communications networks. UFO changed color on a continuing basis, although white was apparently one of the major colors; it shot a beam of light down towards the ice near the dam, stayed around there for about a half hour, and flew off to the southeast, where it was sighted by others. Another UFO sighting of a similar nature, flying in a back and forth motion, occurred the next night in Wanaque. The mayor at the time, Warren Hagstrom,as well as the chief of police Floyd Elston,and captain Joe Sisco watched the craft for quite sometime.Two reservoir police,Sgt.Ben Thompson and patolman Edward Wester, also witnessed the craft along with many Wanaque residents. Some saw the craft as early as 7:45 pm 1 [50]

1966-04-06 Westall UFO
Clayton South, Victoria
Australia A sighting by hundreds of people. Witnesses of "The Clayton Incident" still gather for reunions. 1 [51]

1966-04-17 Portage County UFO chase
Ohio
United States Several police officers pursue a UFO for 30 minutes. 1 [52]

1966-10-11 The Grinning Man
Elizabeth, New Jersey
United States Strange tall man with no nose or ears is sighted in a neighborhood shortly after UFO sighting. 2
1967-03-05 Minot Air Force Base UFO Incidents Minot/Minot A.F.B., North Dakota
United States UFO appears to hovers over area, strike teams are called in to confront the UFO. 1 [53]

1967-03-?? Malmstrom AFB Incident Malmstrom A.F.B.
United States 1 [53]

1967-05-20 Falcon Lake Incident
Falcon Lake, Manitoba
Canada A UFO's exhaust allegedly burns a man. 2 [54]

1967-08-29 Close encounter of Cussac
Cussac, Cantal
France A young brother and sister claim to have witnessed a UFO and its occupants. 3 [55]

1967-10-04 Shag Harbour incident
Shag Harbour, Nova Scotia
Canada A UFO was seen crashing into Shag Harbor. A Canadian naval search followed, and is officially referred to as a UFO crash. 2 [56][57]

1967-12-03 Schirmer Abduction
Ashland, Nebraska
United States Sergeant Herbert Schirmer claimed he was abducted. 4 [58]

1967 Minot Air Force Base UFO Incidents Minot/Minot A.F.B., North Dakota
United States Air Force claims unidentifiable craft "attacks" air base, specifically the missile silos. (the "attack" was two strange, beams of light, one of which seemed to be an offensive weapon. One of numerous cases involving the base, which is home to a nuclear weapons stockpile, and the missile silos are home to nuclear warhead missiles.) 1 [53]

1968-6-6 Minot Air Force Base UFO Incidents Minot/Minot A.F.B., North Dakota
United States UFO hovers over a silo, then leaves. After the UFO leaving, personnel discovered that the missile was armed and unlocked in launch mode, and the nuclear warhead was armed. 2 [53]

1968-10-25 Minot Air Force Base UFO Incidents Minot/Minot A.F.B., North Dakota
United States 1 [53][59][60]

1969-01-01 Prince George sightings Prince George, British Columbia
Canada Three unrelated witnesses reported a strange, round object in the late afternoon sky. The sphere radiated a yellow-orange light and appeared to ascend from 2,000 feet (610 m) to 10,000 feet (3,000 m). 1 [61]

1969 Jimmy Carter UFO incident
Leary, Georgia
United States Jimmy Carter's sighting.
1 [62]

1970s Barry DeLong UFO incident Somerset County, Maine
United States Sheriff Barry A. DeLong witnessed a UFO: "They were hovering about 15 feet (4.6 m) from my cruiser, late at night. It had fixed lights that were spinning. It was huge, and oval-shaped. I knew it wasn't a jet fighter. It slowly started backing off toward Sugarloaf, and then at a terrific speed." 1 [63]

1970-04 Border incidence between Russia and China 1000 kilometres north of Ulan Bator Mongolia
In the border area between Russia and China as well Chinese and Russian air traffic controllers observed multiple unidentified flying objects. The Russian believed they were Chinese and the Chinese believed they were Russian spionage planes. On April 24, 1970 a Russian bomber disappeared from its flight from Moscow to Vladivostok without a trace. On the same day a lot of these objects were observed. Each trial to shoot them down failed. By triangulation one found out that the UFOs came from an area in Mongolia, 1000 kilometres north of Ulan Bator. The area was bombed by hundred of Russian planes whereby a secret tunnel system was alledgly destroyed. Some rumours claim that even nuclear weapon were used. Officially these actions were named as spring maneuver and a small border conflict. [64],[65],[66]

1971-09-04 Lake Cote UFO Arenal, Alajuela Costa Rica
Considered the best UFO picture of all times. An UFO was photographed during an official mapping mission from an airborne camera, over Lake Cote, Costa Rica. No crew member saw the object at the time, but an image appeared on the developed film. [67][68]

1973-10-11 Pascagoula Abduction
Mississippi
United States Alien abduction occurs while the victims were fishing on the Pascagoula River.
4 [69]

1974-01-23 Berwyn Mountain UFO incident
Llandrillo, Merionethshire, North Wales
United Kingdom An alleged UFO crash involving lights in the sky being reported and a large impact shock being felt. The cause of the incident was soon revealed as a 3.5 Magnitude earthquake. 1 [70][71]

1975-01-12 North Hudson Park UFO sightings North Bergen, NJ
United States Considered a close encounter of the second and third kind, the case introduced Budd Hopkins to UFO research, a later key figure in alien abduction research. Researcher Jerome Clark cites it as one of the best-documented, the core story being corroborated by numerous independent witnesses. 2 [72]

1975-11-05 Travis Walton
Arizona
United States Logger Travis Walton reports being abducted by aliens following his five-day disappearance. Walton's six workmates claimed to have witnessed the UFO at the start of his abduction. Walton described the event and its aftermath in The Walton Experience, which was dramatized in the film Fire in the Sky.
4 [69]

1976-06-22 1976 Canary Isles sightings
Canary Islands
Spain Several lights and a spherical, transparent blue craft, piloted by two beings was reported. 1 [73]

1976-08-20 Allagash Abductions
Maine
United States Four campers claimed an abduction by alien beings in the Allagash wilderness. 4 [74]

1976-09-19 1976 Tehran UFO incident
Tehran
Iran
A UFO disabled the electronic equipment of two F-4 interceptor aircraft, and ground control equipment as well. The event is well-documented in the U.S. DIA report and other documents. The Iranian generals involved in the incident said on public record that object was extraterrestrial.
2 [75]

1977 Colares UFO flap
Colares
Brazil
A bewildering account of an island which was flooded by harmful UFOs. 2 [76]

1978-05-10 Emilcin Abduction
Emilcin
Poland A man at Emilcin, Poland is said to be abducted by "grays." There is now a memorial at the site. 4 [77]

1978-10-21 Valentich Disappearance
Victoria
Australia An Australian pilot reported a UFO sighting to air traffic control before he and his aircraft vanished without a trace. 1 [78][79]

1978-12-21 Kaikoura lights
South Island
New Zealand A series of sightings by a Safe Air freight plane; the airplane was escorted by strange lights that changed color and size. 1 [80]

1979-08-27 Val Johnson Incident
Marshall County, Minnesota
United States A deputy sheriff spotted a strange bright light which appeared to have collided with his patrol car and damaged it. The deputy also suffered temporary eye damage from the "light". 2 [81][82]

1979-11-09 Robert Taylor incident
Livingston
United Kingdom A forester, Bob Taylor, was pulled by two spiked globes towards a UFO, which stood on a clearing. He lost consciousness and afterwards had trouble walking and speaking and felt thirsty for days. At the clearing several traces were found. 4 [83]

1979-11-11 Manises UFO Incident
Valencia
Spain Three large UFOs forced a commercial flight to make an emergency landing at Manises airport. 1 [84]

1980s Hudson Valley UFO sightings Hudson Valley
United States A UFO flap during the eighties and early nineties, involving thousands of reports of similarly-shaped UFOs. They were first observed by a retired policeman in Kent, New York, late on New Year's Eve, 1981. The 1984 "Incident at Indian Point" was one of these sightings. 1 [85]

1980-6-28 Disappearance of N3808H Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
Flight N3808H disappears without a trace during a flight from Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic to San Jose, Puerto Rico 2 [86]

1980-12-28 Rendlesham Forest Incident
Suffolk, England
United Kingdom A sighting which was first thought to be a downed aircraft. 2 [87]

1980-12-29 Cash-Landrum incident
Dayton, Texas
United States A huge diamond-shaped UFO irradiates three witnesses, who were treated for radiation poisoning. The UFO was in the company of military helicopters and the victims have since sued the US Government. 2 [88]

1986 1986 São Paulo UFO sighting

1986-11-17 Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident
Alaska United States A group of UFOs flew alongside Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 for 50 minutes above Northeastern Alaska. One of the objects trailing behind the Boeing 747 was detected by military radar.
1 [89]

1990-03-30 Belgian UFO wave
Ans, Wallonia
Belgium Mass sighting of large, silent, low-flying black triangles, which were tracked by multiple NATO radar and jet interceptors, and investigated by Belgium's military. Photographic evidence exists. 1 [90]
[91]

1990-11-07 1990 Montreal UFO Montreal, Quebec
Canada For more than 3 hours, more than 40 people, including policemen, observe a UFO above Place Bonaventure.
1 [92]

1991-04-21 Achille Zaghetti London, England United Kingdom Alitalia pilot Achille Zaghetti reports a cigar-shaped UFO flying past his plane at high speed during his descent to Heathrow Airport on a flight from Milan to London. Immediately following the near-miss, Zaghetti contacted the area control center radar operator who confirmed an unidentified target was observed 10 nautical miles behind the plane. British defence officials ruled out a missile, but offered no explanation for the sighting. 1 [93][94]

1991 STS-48 incident
Orbit, Space
Discovery, STS-48
A video apparently shot during STS-48 mission, appears to depict objects flying in an artificial fashion. NASA explained the objects as ice particles reacting to engine jets. Philip C. Plait briefly discussed it in Bad Astronomy, and agreed with NASA. A Florida Today article of 2000 quoted Dr. Jack Kasher as saying that found the footage to depict independently operated spacecraft, see "Journal for UFO Studies". 1 [95]

1993 Kelly Cahill Victoria
Australia East of Melbourne's Dandenong foothills Kelly Cahill and five others reported being confronted by a flying saucer that appeared shortly after midnight, and tall, slim, black aliens with glowing red eyes. 5 [96]

1994-06 Meng Zhaoguo Incident
Wuchang
China Meng claimed to have had sexual intercourse with an alien, and to have been subsequently abducted. 4 [97]

1996-01-20 Varginha UFO incident
Varginha, Minas Gerais
Brazil
Multiple sightings and alleged capture of alien entity by the Brazilian military. 3 [98]

1997 Area 51: The Alien Interview
Area 51, Nevada
United States Video footage of an alleged interview with an alien. 5 [99]

1997-03-13 Phoenix Lights
Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico
United States A strange set of lights are seen over Nevada, Arizona and possibly New Mexico.
1 [100]

1997-08-06 Mexico City skyline UFO Mexico City Mexico An amateur cameraman with a digital camera captured footage of a UFO passing behind and above several buildings. Air traffic was restricted that day except for two helicopters. 1 [101]

2000-01-05 Southern Illinois UFO St. Clair County, Illinois
United States Between the hours of 4 and 7 am, six people, four of whom were police officers, observed a large, triangular shaped object in the night skies only a few hundred feet over St. Clair County. The object glided silently and slowly in a south-westerly direction over several towns before vanishing near the town of Dupo just before 7 am. The object which was reported to have several bright lights, was also reported to be as tall as a two-story house and as long as a football field. 1 [102]
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight1: 6:47pm On Jun 17, 2010
Mad_Max:

I don't think any biological alien beings are visiting this place. Whatever is happening, if anything is, it's taking place in their heads. It might be real or not, since the workings of the brain isn't fully understood and I know there are non-physical beings and dimensions. But it doesn't seem physical, and some suggestion/ auto-suggestion is involved. Some Americans, with no prior alien abduction experience whatsoever are hypnotized by a psychologist or pyschiatrist and have the idea of alien abduction merely hinted to them. These people start spinning a detailed account of being abducted by aliens, and are sometimes so terrified their doctors bring them out of hypnosis. The terror and the emotions are real, but the incident never happened. Their brains cooked it up under a tiny suggestion from a psychiatrist. Imagine the suggestion possibilities from exposure to hundreds of abduction stories from the media and the whole UFO culture.

It's interesting that most of the abductions happen when they're in a sleep state or driving along a road at night (driving lulls one to sleep), the perfect brain scenario for autosuggestion. And in not ONE abduction has there ever been an independent witness to testify that, yes I looked out my window and saw Imogen floating in the air towards a spaceship. Not one single witness. Some claimed devices were inserted in their nostrils to track their lives or something. A few finally allowed theirs to be examined. They proved be made of everyday metals from this place, not a single metal or isotope alien to earth, as would be the case if it were technology from another planet. For every one story you get elsewhere (always exposed to American alien stories), you'll get countless thousands in America. 'Within reach of its media' means places where they receive American TV channels and other news media, and so are exposed to the alien abduction stories from America. The Americans know its their phenomenon, even if you don't.

As for your Elijah bible claims and the rest, I've confessed I'm not up to the challenge. You need braver souls for that.





^^^ Your claim that UFO sightings are limited to North America is an ignorant joke and is frankly embarrassing.

Here are the facts -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_sightings
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by wirinet(m): 6:53pm On Jun 17, 2010
justcool:

@wirinet

So when a woman is stripped in the street before the eyes of everybody as a form of humiliation, the shyness(shame) she feels is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected by the opposite gender?
Sorry to say but your examples are at best juvenile, there is no direct connection between evolution and shyness or shame. As i had said shame/shyness are social constructs of societies and vary from society to society. In some societies a stripped woman is a sign of disgrace, in others it is a sign of natural beauty. There are nudist beaches all over europe where the shyness would be in being fully clothed.


justcool:

When a woman is walking down the street and the wind blows open her clothes momentarily, she quickly covers herself feeling ashamed; so this feeling is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected by the opposite gender?

Answer same as above. You seem to live in a very conservative society, but in a lot of societies, women walk around in pants and bra.

justcool:

So when there is no possibility of sex or the rejection of sex, shyness goes away? If so why don't women walk around their homes unclothed? Are they afraid of the possibility of being rejected by their brothers and parents?

There are many reasons for shyness, a little girl/boy is often very shy on meeting strangers and it has nothing to do with se.x. Even lots of grown ups suffer the same shyness when around lots of people or when lots of attention is on them. In a lot of societies girls and boys before the age of puberty walk around naked and bath in open spaces without being shy.
 
justcool:

So you are sure that when consent has been obtained shyness goes away? HHMMM But there are countless couples who still prefer to have the lights off during intercourse.

If shyness is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected, why do so many wives still feel shy being unclothed before their husband. Or better said why do married couples still have their cloths on when they are a lone?

You sound like a really an inexperienced juvenile. People prefer turning off bright light when having se.x because bright light affects the moods negatively. Low orange, red or even blue light enhances the love making moods. how to you expect to be shy of someone you have se.x with week in week out?

Married couples are shy of each other's unclothedness?  now that is very funny? Don't worry when you get married you will find out the truth instead of using your imagination.

justcool:

The above is tons of presumption. Africans did not wear cloths(cover themselves) until it was introduced by temperate dwellers? Talk about brainwashing, and inferiority complex. Majority of the peoples of Africa have always worn cloths(covered their privates at least). Their colthing may not be as thick or as elaborate as those of the temperate dwellers but they have always covered their privates.

Cloths do not only serve as protection from the environment but it serves as a covering of the private areas. This need to cover some parts of the body is peculiar to humans.

Even the most backward tribes in existence today, who never adopted anything from the temperate dwellers, still cover some parts of their body. Whatever they cover it with(some use leaves, sticks and etc) it doesn't matter; the fact remains that this need to cover some areas of the body is peculiar to humans. Evolution cannot explain this peculiar need in humans.

What is brainwashing and inferiority complex have to do with it? Your points are now getting slippery, we were talking about cloths and you are now talking about covering of private parts with leaves and sticks, now how can you define sticks and leaves as clothes. There are still many African societies where ladies leave their breasts exposed as a sign of purity and virility in order to attract men. Even in the ongoing world cup in south Africa, we saw pictures of lots of topless ladies running the streets and they were not shy.

justcool:

Please, in the light of evolution, explain this peculiar need in humans to cover certain areas of their body.
Well my own explanation is that since we do not have natural coverings and protection for some of our sensitive sex.ual organs, we must fine artificial ways of protecting/covering them. First exposing sexu.al organs directly to the elements ie sunlight and cold can be harmful (as they are very sensitive), then the male sexu.al organ will be disruptive to normal activities if not packed or protected properly. Also it would not be a good idea for everybody to notice you whenever the male is sexually aroused. as you you enter trouble with your wife, or the other female's spouse.

Now why we did not evolve a natural covering as is the case with other animals - i do not know.

justcool:

If evolution explains everything, one would expect that those who have dwelled in the temperate regions for thousands of years, should by now evolved into having furs(hairs on the body) like animals. Please tell me why humans evolved into having almost hairless bodies. Since growing hairs(furs) on the body is a very effective way of dealing with temprate regions, why did humans evolve or de-evolve to losing their furs. Remember that the primeveal primates from which humans evolved had furs. Even the present primates have furs.

Why would evolution get rid somthing(furs) so nessecery, leaving humans prone to pneumonia and etc.

All these goes to show that evolution was a process used to achieve the physical replica of models that already exist in the supraearthly planes.
Please return when you are chanced; you have a lot of explaining to do.

Thanks

No one said Evolution explains every thing, we are still trying to piece together a lot of mysteries, but we can make informed guesses based on the amount of evidence available.

We most certainly started out with furs and pink skin, but must have lost the hair due to a very important need. Scientist say that it is mainly to enable us process vitamin D, which other animals are able to synthesis naturally but which we cannot without the use of direct sunlight. So most probably we lost the furs to enable the skin get direct contact with sunlight. Then we then need to evolve protection against the harmful ultraviolet part of sunlight.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight1: 7:07pm On Jun 17, 2010
Please Mod, unban the username "Deep Sight" - it was banned when i tried to post an attachment that was too large. I am now temporarily forced to use "Deep_Sight"
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by wirinet(m): 7:09pm On Jun 17, 2010
Deep Sight:

Wirinet: I am not sure that I am inclined towards starting that debate now: but I would urge you to also have a look at your supposition that time is a fabric which can be folded. That is the particular supposition that i stated i doubt: and contrary to what you say IT HAS NOT EVER BEEN PROVEN THAT TIME CAN BE FOLDED, so please before advising me to "read up" can you please show me when it was ever proved that time can be folded?

Can you show me which piece of the fabric called time was ever folded in any scientific experiment, and exactly when such a folding occurred? ? ?

If you cannot do this, please quit the chit chat.

I am rather bemused that you are not aware that the supposed folding of time to create a wormhole is and remains a hypothesis which has not ever been done ANYWHERE. So please!

You you are supposed to be a scientist? In which lab did you fold time?

Before i explain further, i want to confirm that we are talking of the same thing. Sometime we can use the same terminology to mean different things.

When i talk of folding time-space, i do not mean folding of time as per the worm hole hypothesis, as i had already explained that no body had ever observed a worm hole and that it is only a mathematical construct, when i said folding of time-space i mean relativistic time dilation due to gravity or motion. That had been tested again and again to be true.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight1: 7:14pm On Jun 17, 2010
^^^ That is not the same thing as folding teh spacetime fabric to create a wormhole
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by wirinet(m): 7:21pm On Jun 17, 2010
Deep_Sight:

^^^ That is not the same thing as folding teh spacetime fabric to create a wormhole

Sorry for the error, we are talking about two different concepts
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 7:27pm On Jun 17, 2010
A wikipedia list of supposed 'UFO' sightings by a UFOlogist answers what exactly? I mentioned University students flew a weather ballon over a crowded park and those people flooded the media with reports of seeing UFOs. Anything they can't explain in the sky,from balloons to cloud formations, they report as a UFO. A car coming down hilly road at night was reported from a distance as a UFO. A farmer's silo was reported as a UFO. The sighter called scientists and everyone was excited till the farmer showed up, wondering what was going on. There are over 100 countries in the world. Is there a single country on your list of 22 that is not either North American or exposed to the American media? Of all the countries on the African continent, only South Africa, with a great deal of exposure to American news media, reports one sighting. All stories, no single physical evidence.

And this is a list of so-called 'UFO sightings', not alien abductions. American news media have staff and offices in every country on earth. If countries unexposed to their media and UFO ulture are experiencing alien abductions or seeing UFOs they'd make the connection. Every so-called alien UFO photograph have been scrutinized and found to be fake, usually household items photographed very close. Maybe if you compared the number of UFO sightings and alien abduction stories from North America, which are almost a million, with the reports from other countries, you might actually say something that makes sense for a change. You're tiresome.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 8:29pm On Jun 17, 2010
@ justcool

justcool:

Its funny how in reading the explanation of natural selection one, whose eyes are open, can clearly see that humans are not just products of natural selection. The theory itself testifies that humans are just products of nature, like animals. All animals behaviour can be explained through the theory of evolution and natural selection. But in the case of humans, we find behaviours that did not originate from the natural laws of selection and evolution. There is something in humans that to some extent, even goes contrary to what one would expect from nature. Behaviorally humans have some qualities that could not have been products of biological evolution.

The fact that humans are more culturally advanced than other animals does not mean that the theory is wrong. What you're doing here is trying to separate humans from other animals. But, how do you wish to explain the diversity of these other animals? Do you think evolution applies only to them but not to humans?

justcool:

Let just give one example--shame.

Shame is peculiar with humans; and actually, to some extent it goes contrary to evolution because the feeling of shame curtails mating, which is necessary for the reproduction. Since one of the goals of adaptation is to produce offspring, why would humans evolve the feeling of shame which interferes with their mating.

I think it's for better social cohesion.

justcool:

Two healthy animals at the mating period, once they come in contact and once all the prerequisites are met, they mate. This not feeling guilty about mating allows them to mate often and this ensures more offspring. Also, this not being ashamed to show their privates and not being ashamed of who is watching them makes it very easy for them to mate.

You do know that there are human populations that do not cover their privates. Do you wish to consider them non-human?

justcool:

But when two healthy humans, of the right age met, they don’t just take of their cloths and mate. Shame comes in to prevent them from doing this. The woman never feels very comfortable walking around unclothed, neither does the man. Why would they evolve this hindrance to mating which is necessary for the survival of their specie.

You should understand that these behaviours arose slowly over a long period of time. And of course since the global population is still increasing, I doubt that it is a hindrance to the survival of the specie. I for one think that it arose as a mechanism of social cohesion. The survival of the group being more important than that of an individual member.

justcool:

And actually why wear cloths at all; their bodies could have adapted to regional temperatures like animal bodies.

Do you know how hairless humans are relative to other land mammals? After considering the degree of their exposure to the elements while standing upright?

justcool:

The answer is that humans wear cloths because they are ashamed of being unclothed.

What evidence do you have for this conclusion? It seems more likely that in places where the elements can be brutal, the next logical step for an animal with hands and that is hairless would be to make clothes to enable them survive the elements. Remember that all you need is a single individual to try covering its body with the skin of a dead kill for the culture of wearing clothes to spread and aid the survival of the entire group.

justcool:

But why would this feeling of shame exist, if humans are just biological entities. Why did they evolve this feeling of shame; why be ashamed of your unclothedness when you have to be unclothed to perform one of the rituals that ensure the survival of your specie? It doesn’t make sense.

I also wonder if you have considered nudist colonies and beaches in your hypothesis.

justcool:

It is easy to explain, through the theory of evolution, why creatures evolved the urge to mate, mating is necessary for them to reproduce. But how can you, in the light of the theory of evolution, explain the feeling of shame in humans.
Humans, like all animals, feel the urge to mate( physical intimacy), this is natural, and can be explained by natural selection and evolution. But in the case of humans, this urge for intercourse is usually accompanied by or hindered by the feeling of shame.

There's really no need for your repetition. I'd like to hear how you think the feeling of shame came about. Considering its positive effects on the survival of the group.

justcool:

To me, this is one of the evidences that humans are not just biological entities. Granted our bodies are biological vehicles which came about through the process of evolution. But inside us resides something else, something that is alien to the physical.  That’s why you cant explain away the behavior of humans, in the light of the theory of evolution.   

The major difference between us and other animals is the degree of development and interconnections of the frontal lobes in our brains. It has been demonstrated experimentally that loss of function of this frontal lobe causes regression to primitive animal like behaviours. I wonder what you think it is that resides in us that is alien to the physical.

justcool:

Another one is “conscience.”  This is another thing that humans poses that animals do not poses; and “conscience” is not necessary for biological evolution and natural selection. To some extent it actually detrimental to it.

We do not know that animals do not possess a conscience. Animals have been shown to groom one another and to comfort one another or a dying member of the group.
All you're doing is attributing higher mental processes to something you wish to be non-physical, but, for which there is ample evidence as to the most common location in the brain where such processes are carried out.
Conscience detrimental? You really need to consider that humans live in groups much larger than animal groups.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by justcool(m): 10:30pm On Jun 17, 2010
Hi wirinet
Thanks for your answers, I shall treat them accordingly.
wirinet:

Sorry to say but your examples are at best juvenile, there is no direct connection between evolution and shyness or shame. As i had said shame/shyness are social constructs of societies and vary from society to society. In some societies a stripped woman is a sign of disgrace, in others it is a sign of natural beauty. There are nudist beaches all over europe where the shyness would be in being fully clothed.

Sorry for my juvenile examples. You are right that evolution and shyness have no direct connection. This is the crux of my point-- that humans posses some behaviors that could not have arisen from evolution and natural selection. I even said that these behaviors are to some extent detrimental to evolution.
Okay, in order to get to the point, lets just agree that shame/shyness are constructs of the society; the point still remains that they are peculiar to human societies, and such behaviors could not have arisen from evolution and natural selection.

I am yet to see a human society where stripping a woman in front everybody, including children, is seen as a sign of natural beauty, please if you can be so kind enough as to name such societies, I will appreciate it.

I live in Los Angeles, California and I have visited Europe many times; there is no society where people are shy of wearing cloths, generaly speaking. There are many unclothed beaches here in California; this doesn’t help your point because unclothed beaches are usually very secluded. If a kid ventures into a unclothed beach, people will immediately grab their cloths.

The point remains that humans have a desire to cover their unclothedness, a desire which animals don’t have. If this is not true, why have unclothed beaches at all? Why not make nudity acceptable every where? Why only at some designated places --like unclothed beaches. Animals walk around unclothed, why don’t humans do this.

Even in unclothed beaches people still feel very shy; that the fun of going there, the thrill of being shy. There are humans too who enjoy the thrill of danger; does that mean that humans like danger? No?

wirinet:

Answer same as above. You seem to live in a very conservative society, but in a lot of societies, women walk around in pants and bra.

Like I said earlier, I live in one the freest societies of the world. I have lived in Los Angeles, California, USA for more than ten years now. I am yet to see a society where women walk around in pants(panties in American Language) and bra; women can walk around in their bikinis, and not in their panties.
But even this does not help your point; it actually goes contrary to it. Why wear panties and bra at all? If there is no shyness/shame/decency in such societies, why wear anything at all?

wirinet:

There are many reasons for shyness, a little girl/boy is often very shy on meeting strangers and it has nothing to do with se.x. Even lots of grown ups suffer the same shyness when around lots of people or when lots of attention is on them. In a lot of societies girls and boys before the age of puberty walk around unclothed and bath in open spaces without being shy.

I never said shyness has everything to with sex; actually it was you who said that shyness is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected. 
You are right that little children feel less shy of their bodies than adult. This is actually a confirmation of my point that shyness is a result of the spirit in man. The spirit usually breaks through around the age 18 or adulthood.
The shyness we are talking about here is the shyness related to exposing ones whole body especially the private. The shyness of being unclothed, which is peculiar to humans, or better said, peculiar to adult humans. We are not talking about timidity here; what you described above, about feeling shy when given attention, is timidity not the shyness/shame that we are talking about here.

wirinet:

You sound like a really an inexperienced juvenile. People prefer turning off bright light when having se.x because bright light affects the moods negatively. Low orange, red or even blue light enhances the love making moods. how to you expect to be shy of someone you have se.x with week in week out?

I guess before electric lights were invented, people used to have intimacy infront of an audience? The point that I am making about turning of the lights, is that humans prefer to mate in seclusion, or where nobody is watching them. Humans are never very comfortable when they are completely unclothed in front of orders. This is peculiar to humans; animals can mate in front anybody.

wirinet:

Married couples are shy of each other's unclothedness?  now that is very funny? Don't worry when you get married you will find out the truth instead of using your imagination.

Yes! being married dosent stifle or remove your urge to cover yourself. I have been married for over 8 years, and I have two lovely kids. My wife is as beautiful as they come, so don’t say that perhaps she is ashamed of her figure; she is a liberated American woman, so don’t say that perhaps she is timid; she still have her private moments. In every culture, married people do have their private moments. I don’t want to say too much here because underaged people could be reading. All I can say to you is that married couples still wear cloths when they are alone.
Even strippers(remember I live in America) once their time on stage is over, the first they do is grab their cloths and cover their privates. What does this till you? I will answer for you: Even though they have being stripping infront of an audience for years, they are never completely comfortable being unclothed infront of an audience.

wirinet:

What is brainwashing and inferiority complex have to do with it? Your points are now getting slippery, we were talking about cloths and you are now talking about covering of private parts with leaves and sticks, now how can you define sticks and leaves as clothes. There are still many African societies where ladies leave their bosoms exposed as a sign of purity and virility in order to attract men. Even in the ongoing world cup in south Africa, we saw pictures of lots of topless ladies running the streets and they were not shy.

My point is not getting slippery, the point is that humans have a peculiar need to cover their privates, this covering of privates and feeling shy of raveling their bodies interfere with mating, it is a hindrance which could not have arisen if everything depended on natural selection. I mentioned cloths because that's one of the things that humans cover their unclothedness with; it doesn’t matter what it is, it could be fabric, leaves, sticks and etc; the fact remains that figuratively speaking, they are all clothings.
Bosoms are not strictly speaking, sex organs! So you point about some people not covering their bosoms does not help your argument.


wirinet:

Well my own explanation is that since we do not have natural coverings and protection for some of our sensitive sex.ual organs, we must fine artificial ways of protecting/covering them. First exposing sexu.al organs directly to the elements ie sunlight and cold can be harmful (as they are very sensitive), then the male sexu.al organ will be disruptive to normal activities if not packed or protected properly. Also it would not be a good idea for everybody to notice you whenever the male is sexually excited. as you you enter trouble with your wife, or the other female's spouse.

On the contrary; scientifically speaking the male reproductive sex organs for example, should not be covered because it needs an easy flow of air to keep it cool. Actually that is why it is hanging out -- not to get too hot, since heat is bad for gametes.
The fact that humans cover their reproductive organs over layers and layers of clothing, could not be explained in the light of evolution and natural selection. Evolution should urge them to expose it, since the sight of it arouses the desire to mate in the opposite gender; animals do this, they dont cover thier from the opposite gender like humans do. Since mating is important in the survival of species, creature evolve towards easy mating. Evolution propells them to remove any hindrance to the mating of healthy couple.

Only humans developed sentiments or feelings that check and hinder their mating. You mentioned "wife." Very good! why have wives at all. Nature(evolution, natural selection) urges every male to plant his seed as soon as he finds an opportunity; one can easily observe it in animals, even in oneself(humans). Animals obey this natural urge without hindrance--once a healthy male meets a healthy female in mating season, they mate. But humans on the order hand retrain themselves. This feeling of restrainment that humans experience could not have originated through evolution.

Institutions like marriages, or faithfulness to one partner could not have thier origin in evolution, because they are actually detrimental to natural selection.
Example:- A healthy man marries and unhealthy woman(one who could not conceive) yet he stays with her and would rather die childless than mate with another woman. How can this feeling, that made this man faithfull to an unhealthy woman, be explained in the light of evolution and natural selection.
Does this not show that beyound natural(earthly, physical) compulsions, man have another compulsion that is definetly not natural(earthly, physical).

Sunlight is not harmful to reproductive organs, for some reason that I don’t have time to mention, they actually need sunlight. Cloths do not protect from pricks, sharp things can pierce through cloths.
Why should humans be afraid of being noticed when their organs are excited. This goes back to prove my point. This not wanting orders to notice that they want to engage in intimacy is anti-evolutionary and peculiar with humans. Animals don’t care who knows it.

wirinet:

Now why we did not evolve a natural covering as is the case with other animals - i do not know.
Thanks a lot. I appreciate you modesty and honesty in this answer.

wirinet:

No one said Evolution explains every thing, we are still trying to piece together a lot of mysteries, but we can make informed guesses based on the amount of evidence available.
We most certainly started out with furs and pink skin, but must have lost the hair due to a very important need. Scientist say that it is mainly to enable us process vitamin D, which other animals are able to synthesis naturally but which we cannot without the use of direct sunlight. So most probably we lost the furs to enable the skin get direct contact with sunlight. Then we then need to evolve protection against the harmful ultraviolet part of sunlight.

Thanks again, then what is the point of your argument, if you already know that evolution does not explain everything. My major point is that humans posses certain behaviors which cannot be explained in the light of evolution and natural selection, in-fact some of these behaviors are detrimental to evolution and natural selection; these peculiar behaviors of humans interfere with natural selection and thus such behaviors could not have arisen out of evolution and natural selection. It is evidence that humans posses something in them that is did not originate from the earth or the physical realm.

I have head the hypothesis of vitamin D production, but that has been debunked by science. The latest scientific hypothesis on why humans don’t have furs is that pests, ticks, and insects live in furs, so humans lost their furs in-order to avoid infestation. But even this hypothesis, a lot of scientists have a problem with it. It doesn’t really make sense scientifically. I can give you many reason why it doesn’t make sense scientifically; but in-order not to make this post too long, I will not give the reasons here. If you care to know, then I will share them with you.

Thanks for a wonderful and cordial exchange of views.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by justcool(m): 11:38pm On Jun 17, 2010
@thehomer
Thanks a lot for your points; however, I have exceeded the amount of time that I give nairaland everyday. If I stay longer it will interfer with my productivity therefore I cannot reply to your post today.

Please take time and read my reply to wirinet; I think in my reply to wirinet I treated some of the issues that you raised. If you have more issues, raise them and I will treat them tomorrow.

All I can say to you now is this: My perception is that Evolution as the process through which our physical bodies were made. But our physical bodies are only vehicles or cloaks, inside which resides the spirit. The real man is actually the spirit and not the physical body.

Thanks
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by mantraa: 11:50pm On Jun 17, 2010
Nice discussion. If i might just add my 2 cents to the great points being made.

Having a lot of hair and being hairy was a disadvantage when Homo erectus and other species were evolving into modern day homo sapiens because of parasites. Since at this time, human-like species were changing from nomads to living in a permanent place. As such, due to Darwins theory of natural selection, hairy individuals were less likely to survive and reproduce, meaning that over time, in the gene pool, the gene frequence for hairy bodies slowly declined. As such, there are relatively few hairy bodied people, although the hairy gene does crop up again from time to time. As illustrated below:

Yu Zhenhuan 29


Cheng Junjie, 9, a girl from the province of Jilin.







grin
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 6:43am On Jun 18, 2010
Isn't the physical body real too? The brain and its processes are real. RCC and a few other Christian denominations have a concept of 'soul', which is merely what the brain does. I know what you mean though. The spirit (which is not the 'soul') is real, and completely distinct from the physical body. But animals feel and do the things we do (our human emotions are in our brains). Our lust, anger, spatial sense, playfulness, parental investment, war, r.ape, fear, hope, happiness,etc. They have dreams when they sleep, just like we do. We're not the only highly intelligent species. Dolphins and Blue whales are very smart. But humans are the only species that are acutely self-aware and spiritual, and its brain and intelligence is unique among all the biological creatures on the planet.

The number of species that have actually gone extinct is 99.99%. If  a few species of 0.01% have high intelligence, then highly intelligent species,
perhaps smarter than we, may have existed in the billions of years of evolution on this planet, and vanished.  It's a hint that there's nothing inevitable or permanent about our biological presence here.

People tend to think the whole process was leading to us, that we're the high point of evolution but we aren't. The Nearnderthals were thought to be slow, bent, hulking silly hominids. It came as a huge shock to paleo-anthropologists to discover Neanderthals were smarter than us. We're in the same hominid family and come from pre-existing material, but we (homo sapiens) have smaller brains (1.4), than Neanderthals [1. 8.] They were the ones who discovered fire and made tools. We just borrowed their technology. Their line is extinct, but then in those times, 30 years was considered extreme old age. Probably why our hormones kick in in our teens. Reproduce before you die and all that.

They all agree somewhat that while humans and the hominid family originated in Africa and spread everywhere, the first Homo Sapiens (us) came from the Mediterranean, in modern day Israel. grin Biblical literalists might have a field day with that, but homo sapiens aren't the first breed of humans and not the smartest, and they evolved like everything else. New things may emerge and change what they know. It's always changing and they know little for sure. For now, they know we evolved biologically but haven't the faintest clue as to our origins. One hopes they make quick progress on that. They thought our origins were Devonian because one man claimed to have found our ancient fish ancestor, with five phalanges
from which evolved our five fingers. He refused to let anyone examine it for fifty years. The man died in 1998. When they brought out the fish, it had 8 phalanges, not five. It wasn't our ancestor. Everyone was in confusion again. Not only had the guy lied, he'd delayed progress in that line of inquiry for fifty years. They'll sort it out. They'll find it all out. But it all takes so much time and they bicker and disagree on findings so much before reaching consensus.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight1: 7:24am On Jun 18, 2010
@ Max - I am surprised that the significance of the paucity of reported sightings in Africa is lost on you in terms of media coverage and accessibility, etc.

The  FACT remains that your assertion that reported UFO sightings are limited to North America is FALSE BUNKUM. You cannot dispute that. Choose whatever source you like: you can NEVER substantiate that  assertion cos IT IS AN IGNORANT LIE.

Maybe this image below can help you understand the demographic and developmental reasons for the emphasis on ceratin areas in terms of reported sightings - (I wonder if you will get it). Its a snapshot of the planet at night with the lights of urban areas serving as a marker for urban demographics. Wrap your head around that.

Anyhow, i think the discussion on UFOs is derailing this thread. So enough and my apologies to the OP for diverging.

Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight1: 8:03am On Jun 18, 2010
justcool:

My perception is that Evolution as the process through which our physical bodies were made. But our physical bodies are only vehicles or cloaks, inside which resides the spirit. The real man is actually the spirit and not the physical body.

Thanks

Oga sir! GBAM! GBAM! GBOSA! BRILLIANT! ! ! ! ! !
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 10:23am On Jun 18, 2010
Ok going through your post, I've noticed several points I do not agree with.

justcool:

Hi wirinet,
Thanks for your answers, I shall treat them accordingly.
Sorry for my juvenile examples. You are right that evolution and shyness have no direct connection. This is the crux of my point-- that humans posses some behaviors that could not have arisen from evolution and natural selection. I even said that these behaviors are to some extent detrimental to evolution.
Okay, in order to get to the point, lets just agree that shame/shyness are constructs of the society; the point still remains that they are peculiar to human societies, and such behaviors could not have arisen from evolution and natural selection.

But the fact that it is present in most human societies even societies that were once very separate from others and it also seems to serve similar functions in these societies, seems to indicate to me that it has a common origin outside that of human culture but not human biology.

justcool:

I am yet to see a human society where stripping a woman in front everybody, including children, is seen as a sign of natural beauty, please if you can be so kind enough as to name such societies, I will appreciate it.

Stripping someone indicates some sort of violence and most societies would abhor such a behaviour if the stripped party were a member of their society. But if you're speaking of nudity, may I remind you once again that there are nudist colonies.

justcool:

I live in Los Angeles, California and I have visited Europe many times; there is no society where people are shy of wearing cloths, generaly speaking. There are many unclothed beaches here in California; this doesn’t help your point because unclothed beaches are usually very secluded. If a kid ventures into a unclothed beach, people will immediately grab their cloths.

This is not quite true. People will not grab for their clothes because in many cases, their clothes are not by them.

justcool:

The point remains that humans have a desire to cover their unclothedness, a desire which animals don’t have. If this is not true, why have unclothed beaches at all? Why not make nudity acceptable every where? Why only at some designated places --like unclothed beaches. Animals walk around unclothed, why don’t humans do this.


Animal behaviour is not a good method of assessing what humans may or may not do. For one most animals cannot make clothes. But animals have been shown to make and use tools. They simply do this to aid their survival. In general, animals will do what they need to ensure their survival and pass this on to their offspring. So do humans.

justcool:

Even in unclothed beaches people still feel very shy; that the fun of going there, the thrill of being shy. There are humans too who enjoy the thrill of danger; does that mean that humans like danger? No?

Who says they feel shy? They take pictures of themselves in groups.

justcool:

Like I said earlier, I live in one the freest societies of the world. I have lived in Los Angeles, California, USA for more than ten years now. I am yet to see a society where women walk around in pants(panties in American Language) and bra; women can walk around in their bikinis, and not in their panties.
But even this does not help your point; it actually goes contrary to it. Why wear panties and bra at all? If there is no shyness/shame/decency in such societies, why wear anything at all?

There you're now getting closer to the answer. Those feelings are taught to the new members of the society by the older members. If a child was taken from that society to one where nudity was more acceptable, you can be sure that that child when it grows up will have no problems with nudity. At least until set upon by members of the society with problems of nudity.

justcool:

I never said shyness has everything to with sex; actually it was you who said that shyness is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected. 
You are right that little children feel less shy of their bodies than adult. This is actually a confirmation of my point that shyness is a result of the spirit in man. The spirit usually breaks through around the age 18 or adulthood.

Huh? Do you have some evidence for this spirit in man that breaks out?

justcool:

The shyness we are talking about here is the shyness related to exposing ones whole body especially the private. The shyness of being unclothed, which is peculiar to humans, or better said, peculiar to adult humans. We are not talking about timidity here; what you described above, about feeling shy when given attention, is timidity not the shyness/shame that we are talking about here.

There are societies where nudity is acceptable.

justcool:

I guess before electric lights were invented, people used to have intimacy infront of an audience? The point that I am making about turning of the lights, is that humans prefer to mate in seclusion, or where nobody is watching them. Humans are never very comfortable when they are completely unclothed in front of orders. This is peculiar to humans; animals can mate in front anybody.

The fact is that some animals mate in seclusion.

justcool:

Yes! being married dosent stifle or remove your urge to cover yourself. I have been married for over 8 years, and I have two lovely kids. My wife is as beautiful as they come, so don’t say that perhaps she is ashamed of her figure; she is a liberated American woman, so don’t say that perhaps she is timid; she still have her private moments. In every culture, married people do have their private moments. I don’t want to say too much here because underaged people could be reading. All I can say to you is that married couples still wear cloths when they are alone.
Even strippers(remember I live in America) once their time on stage is over, the first they do is grab their cloths and cover their privates. What does this till you? I will answer for you: Even though they have being stripping infront of an audience for years, they are never completely comfortable being unclothed infront of an audience.

All you have pointed out is simply the behaviour of people in the culture you're familiar with. Humans in many other cultures do not necessarily act that way.

justcool:

My point is not getting slippery, the point is that humans have a peculiar need to cover their privates, this covering of privates and feeling shy of raveling their bodies interfere with mating, it is a hindrance which could not have arisen if everything depended on natural selection. I mentioned cloths because that's one of the things that humans cover their unclothedness with; it doesn’t matter what it is, it could be fabric, leaves, sticks and etc; the fact remains that figuratively speaking, they are all clothings.

I really do not see anything peculiar about it. Considering the upright posture, the hostility of the early environment and the help of clothes in aiding survival in early humans, it is simply to me yet another advanced set of tools that humans have made.

justcool:

Bosoms are not strictly speaking, sex organs! So you point about some people not covering their bosoms does not help your argument.

How are they not sex organs? In many cultures, they are. Mind you, they also do undergo changes when excited and during the menstrual cycle.

justcool:

On the contrary; scientifically speaking the male reproductive sex organs for example, should not be covered because it needs an easy flow of air to keep it cool. Actually that is why it is hanging out -- not to get too hot, since heat is bad for gametes.

But at the same time, exposure could easily lead to its damage in the early times from conflicts with other groups, and the environment to which it is exposed while upright. I don't think one would want the closest part of their body facing a threat at the general level of animals to be their privates.

justcool:

The fact that humans cover their reproductive organs over layers and layers of clothing, could not be explained in the light of evolution and natural selection. Evolution should urge them to expose it, since the sight of it arouses the desire to mate in the opposite gender; animals do this, they dont cover thier from the opposite gender like humans do. Since mating is important in the survival of species, creature evolve towards easy mating. Evolution propells them to remove any hindrance to the mating of healthy couple.

Animals are not a good indicator of human behaviour.

justcool:

Only humans devloped sentiments or feelings that check and hinder thier mating. You mentioned "wife." Very good! why have wifes at all. Nature(evolution, natural selection) urges every male to plant his seed as soon as he finds an opputunity; one can easily observe it in animals, even in onself(humans). Animals obey this natural urge without hindrance--once a healthy male meets a healthy female in mating season, they mate. But humans on the order hand restain themselves. This feeling of restrainment that humans experience could have originated through evolution.

Ok.

justcool:

Institutions like marriages, or faithfulness to one partner could not have thier origin in evolution, because they are actually detrimetal to natural selection.
Example:- A healthy man marries and unhealthy woman(one who could not concieve) yet he stays with her and would rather die childless than mate with another woman. How can this feeling, that made this man faithfull to an unhealthy woman, be explained in the light of evolution and natural selection.

This is not true. The concept of a single wife or birth partner and no divorce is more recently a Christian concept. Check out what other cultures practice.

justcool:

Does this not show that beyound natural(earthly, physical) compulsions, man have another compulsion that is definetly not natural(earthly, physical).

It does not show such to me. Your evidence for this is lacking.

justcool:

Sunlight is not harmful to reproductive organs, for some reason that I don’t have time to mention, they actually need sunlight. Cloths do not protect from pricks, sharp things can pierce through cloths.

Those clothes would be better than nothing. And they protect from more than just sharp objects.

justcool:

Why should humans be afraid of being noticed when their organs are excited. This goes back to prove my point. This not wanting orders to notice that they want to engage in intimacy is anti-evolutionary and peculiar with humans. Animals don’t care who knows it.

Human behaviour is more complex than animal behaviour.

justcool:

Thanks a lot. I appreciate you modesty and honesty in this answer.

Thanks again, then what is the point of your argument, if you already know that evolution does not explain everything. My major point is that humans posses certain behaviors which cannot be explained in the light of evolution and natural selection, in-fact some of these behaviors are detrimental to evolution and natural selection; these peculiar behaviors of humans interfere with natural selection and thus such behaviors could not have arisen out of evolution and natural selection. It is evidence that humans posses something in them that is did not originate from the earth or the physical realm.

You've not shown how they are detrimental to evolution neither have you presented evidence for this non-earthly origin of their behaviours. All you're doing is saying "We cannot currently explain this with science, therefore, some supernatural entity must have done it." Separating humans from other animals does not solve this problem it only magnifies it.

justcool:

I have head the hypothesis of vitamin D production, but that has been debunked by science. The latest scientific hypothesis on why humans don’t have furs is that pests, ticks, and insects live in furs, so humans lost their furs in-order to avoid infestation. But even this hypothesis, a lot of scientists have a problem with it. It doesn’t really make sense scientifically. I can give you many reason why it doesn’t make sense scientifically; but in-order not to make this post too long, I will not give the reasons here. If you care to know, then I will share them with you.

At least we're clear on these being hypotheses but also consider their plausibility and the possibility of these reasons combining to present us with what we have today. i.e a multifactorial reason for the currently observed relative hairlessness.

justcool:

Thanks for a wonderful and cordial exchange of views.

Human behaviour is quite complex and some advances are being made in the fields of evolutionary psychology and anthropology. I think it would be a good idea for you to be acquainted with some of its ideas.
Also, try to understand that evolution is a slow process and cultures do evolve.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by OLAADEGBU(m): 6:06pm On Jun 18, 2010
The evolution fairytale indeed.

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20090424.gif[/img]
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by justcool(m): 6:07pm On Jun 18, 2010
@thehomer
Thanks for your replies; however you did not answer or deal with any of the issues that I raised. You kept saying "human behavior is more complex than animal behavior." And may I ask you why this complexity, please in answering consider how far more complex the human behavior is compared to the animal behavior.

Also people don't go to unclothed beaches unclothed. The go fully dressed only when they get to the secluded area or the area designated for nudity do they take off their cloths. In America, if an adult exposes his or herself in a public street, such a person gets arrested immediately. If you expose yourself to a child, that's a very serious crime that will ruin your life-- ie after going to jail you will have to register as a sex offender, making it impossible for you to get a good job or live in a descent neighborhood.


thehomer:

Ok going through your post, I've noticed several points I do not agree with.

But the fact that it is present in most human societies even societies that were once very separate from others and it also seems to serve similar functions in these societies, seems to indicate to me that it has a common origin outside that of human culture but not human biology.

Okay and this is what I have been saying--these behaviours could not have arisen from evolution and natural selection. It could not have its origin in human biology because in a way it goes against or it checks natural human biological urges.

My perception is that these as a result of the non-physical in man-- a result of the inner life.

It is up to you to accept my perception or not; I am not forcing you to do so. You can also come up with you own hypothese on why humans posses these behaviours that restricts or opposes some of their natural urges.



thehomer:

Animal behaviour is not a good method of assessing what humans may or may not do. For one most animals cannot make clothes. But animals have been shown to make and use tools. They simply do this to aid their survival. In general, animals will do what they need to ensure their survival and pass this on to their offspring. So do humans.

Good! Why is animal behaviour not a good method of assessing what humans may or may not do, are you now saying that humans are not animals. If so, then humans have something in them that disqualifies then as animals; and whatever it is that disqualify humans as animals is not their physical bodies. Science has shown that the human body and animal body are basically the same, in that they are both biological and even related.

Do you realise what you have implied!!!!!!!!

thehomer:

Who says they feel shy? They take pictures of themselves in groups.

They don't feel shy! Okay why do actors/ strippers who expose their bodies make more money? The more of her body a stripper reveals, the more she gets paid; why?
Simply because she is doing something the average person is not comfortable doing--this discomfort is not felt by animals. Why?
I know what your answer will be: You'll probably say that she gets paid more because she is doing something the society frowns upon. Still proves my point; which society frowns upon it--human society. But why?

thehomer:

There you're now getting closer to the answer. Those feelings are taught to the new members of the society by the older members. If a child was taken from that society to one where nudity was more acceptable, you can be sure that that child when it grows up will have no problems with nudity. At least until set upon by members of the society with problems of nudity.

Generally speaking, most human societies frown on nudity. Even if this behaviour is taught to children, the question remains; Why? Why would humans teach their offsprings behaviors that hinder their mating. Why teach your offspring to cover their unclothedness? Is this not unique to humans?

You are yet to show me human societies where people walk around unclothed, without any form of covering their privates.

thehomer:

Huh? Do you have some evidence for this spirit in man that breaks out?

It is my perception that the well known changes in behaviour and attitude around the ages when the generative power sets in are as a result of the spirit breaking through. By breaking through, I mean making complete use of the body.

However this is not science. Science only deals with the physical; the spirit is not physical but its effects can be seen on the physical.


thehomer:

The fact is that some animals mate in seclusion.

Animals mate anywhere and they don't care who is watching, as long as the onlooker does not disturb the mating. Humans don't do these, and its peculiar with them, please tell me why? No human woman would mate in front of her offspring, but animals do this unaffectedly. Please tell me why?

thehomer:

All you have pointed out is simply the behaviour of people in the culture you're familiar with. Humans in many other cultures do not necessarily act that way.

Please show me human societies where couples do not have their private moments.


thehomer:

How are they not sex organs? In many cultures, they are. Mind you, they also do undergo changes when excited and during the menstrual cycle.

Cultures do not decide what is a sex organ(reproductive organs) or what is not. Nature does, and cultures cannot change the laws of nature. One can successfully mate without one's bosoms. Bosoms are for nourishing infants not for mating. The fact that some people attach feeling to them does not change what they are. There are also perverted people who attach sexual feelings to the feet; they get excited by seeing or feeling a woman's feet. Does this make the feet a sex organ?
In some women even their facesand their color go through changes during menstrual cycle; does this make their face a sex organ?


thehomer:

But at the same time, exposure could easily lead to its damage in the early times from conflicts with other groups, and the environment to which it is exposed while upright. I don't think one would want the closest part of their body facing a threat at the general level of animals to be their privates.

I still don't see how fabrics protect them from treats of animals and other humans. Perhaps the tigers teeth cannot penetrate fabrics. Also, if they needed such protection, one wonders why evolution did not offer them natural protection. ie- put then inside a case.

Ohh that reminds me. Nature encased the man's organs in a foreskin, which men remove. Why remove the forskin and then cover it with cloths if we are animals? Why does man have this need to interfair with nature.

Is there a model which man is compelled to fit into?

thehomer:

Animals are not a good indicator of human behaviour.

The question remains 'Why?' Ain't men animals? Or are you saying otherwise now!

thehomer:

This is not true. The concept of a single wife or birth partner and no divorce is more recently a Christian concept. Check out what other cultures practice.

I never said that it did not originate from Christianity; how this helps your argument beats me.


thehomer:

Those clothes would be better than nothing. And they protect from more than just sharp objects.

So does the foreskin and hairs, Yet humans removed them and replaced them with clothens.

thehomer:

You've not shown how they are detrimental to evolution neither have you presented evidence for this non-earthly origin of their behaviours. All you're doing is saying "We cannot currently explain this with science, therefore, some supernatural entity must have done it." Separating humans from other animals does not solve this problem it only magnifies it.

I wont waste time showing you evidence. Just goggle it and you will see. Many times have scientists told us that human behaviours have affected our evolution and have checked it. I will give you links later. The fact that we spend so much time making sure that the weak survive, is not in accord with the evolution and natural selection. Natural selection eliminates the weak, man feel an urge and a responsibility to save the weak. Animals don't feel this responsibility; why is this peculiar in humans?
This is why Hitler did the evils he did; looking at the law of natural selection, Hitler justifies his actions(killing the alleged inferior or weak race). But every man knows that this is evil, man does not emulate natural selection when dealing with other living things, man is pricked by conscience he see the need for a higher law, the law of love. Where is the source of this need for a higher order rather than following natural selection?


thehomer:

At least we're clear on these being hypotheses but also consider their plausibility and the possibility of these reasons combining to present us with what we have today. i.e a multifactorial reason for the currently observed relative hairlessness.

The hypotheses that man evolved hairlessnes  to avoid parasites and insects that live in the fur was proposed by a Californian at UC Berkeley, I think.I have heard the guy talk. It is the most recent and accepted hypotheses, but a lot of scientists, including my professor, think that its very unlikely.

Here are reasons:
(1) Why would evolution get rid of something so necessary just to rid man of relatively harmless insects. Absence of furs makes man more susceptible to things like pneumonia and etc.
(2) Furs actually protect from ants and insects. For example-- mosquitoes. If man had furs he will be less likely susceptible to mosquito bites. Mosquitoes will find it more difficult to penetrate furs.
(3) Furs help organism better cope with the changes in the temperature. It helps to keep them warm by trapping warm airs close to the body.
(3) If the removal of furs was a reaction to infestation, then one would expect that the areas of the body where the eyes cannot easily survey will be very hairless, and the areas that are easily surveyed will retain little fur. This is because the areas that can easily be surveyed by the organism is less likely to be infested because te organisim can see them and remove the insects with their hands. On the contrary, it is those ares that are not easily surveyed that retained their hairs--ampit, pubic area; while areas that can be easily surveyed like the hand is relatively hairless.
(4) Ticks and order insects that live on the skin prefer hidden and cozy areas like the arm pits and pubic areas; this is the most infested areas when observing other animals with infestation. Thus it makes sense that if evolution removed furs in humans as a reaction to parasitic infestation, then one would expect the ampits and the pubic areas to be very hairless. But on the contrary, it is those are that retained their hairs.


thehomer:

Human behaviour is quite complex and some advances are being made in the fields of evolutionary psychology and anthropology. I think it would be a good idea for you to be acquainted with some of its ideas.
Also, try to understand that evolution is a slow process and cultures do evolve.

Thanks for your advice but I am not an illiterate. I went to an esteemed American university and I have a degree in Electrical engineering; prior to my bachelors degree, I had an associate in Chemistry.
I know I am not an authority in evolution, but I think I understand the basics about evolution; I am more than acquainted with what the theory actually say. I may be at odds with what enthusiasts add to the theory. I have been in the company of esteemed scientists and I all ways attend public conferences of scientist. I have had professors who are well esteemed and very well decorated, and I still remained friends with then even many years after graduating.
Moreover we live in the age of information. Every information that you need is only a click a way.

Cultural evolution is different from biological evolution. What we are dealing with here is biological evolution.

Thank you.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 10:14pm On Jun 18, 2010
justcool:

@thehomer
Thanks for your replies; however you did not answer or deal with any of the issues that I raised. You kept saying "human behaviour is more complex than animal behavior." And may I ask you why this complexity, please in answering consider how far more complex the human behaviour is compared to the animal behaviour.

Oh? I'm sorry I thought I did. I responded line by line or by paragraph as the case may be. I've answered this in a previous post. I wrote about considering the size of the human brain and the size of the frontal lobe. Check the full post here. I'm not sure you've seen it. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371029.160.html#msg6234543

justcool:

Also people don't go to unclothed beaches unclothed. The go fully dressed only when they get to the secluded area or the area designated for nudity do they take off their cloths. In America, if an adult exposes his or herself in a public street, such a person gets arrested immediately. I you expose yourself to a child, that's a very serious crime that will ruin your life-- ie after going to jail you will have to register as a sex offender, making it impossible for you to get a good job or live in a descent neighborhood.

I was referring to nudist colonies and beaches (whole stretches of beaches). They actually do move around in the nude.

justcool:

Okay and this is what I have been saying--these behaviours could not have arisen from evolution and natural selection. It could not have its origin in human biology because in a way it goes against or it checks natural human biological urges.

And I've pointed out that the complexity of human behaviour involves the brain development, the development of human culture and it has so far not hindered the growth of human population which has been steadily increasing.

justcool:

My perception is that these as a result of the non-physical in man-- a result of the inner life.

It is up to you to accept my perception or not; I am not forcing you to do so. You can also come up with you own hypothese on why humans posses these behaviours that restricts or opposes some of their natural urges.

How did you perceive this? Using which organ or tool? I just need some evidence to consider your opinion further.
When you say "natural" here you really mean that of other animals. And I've pointed out that humans cannot be compared to other animals when it comes to behaviour.

justcool:

Good! Why is animal behaviour not a good method of assessing what humans may or may not do, are you now saying that humans are not animals. If so, then humans have something in them that disqualifies then as animals; and whatever it is that disqualify humans as animals is not their physical bodies. Science has shown that the human body and animal body are basically the same, in that they are both biological and even related.

Do you realise what you have implied!!!!!!!!

I'm not implying humans are not animals. Humans are yet another "bizarre" type of animal. (i.e variant). Different animals have different behaviours some eat their mates after copulation, others eat their offspring in times of starvation, while some others care for sick or dying members of their groups. The only way that you may be able to disqualify humans as animals may simply be due to our culture. Which humans developed after a long time considering how our culture has helped in group cohesion.

justcool:

They don't feel shy! Okay why do actors/ strippers who expose their bodies make more money? The more of her body a stripper reveals, the more she gets paid; why?
Simply because she is doing something the average person is not comfortable doing--this discomfort is not felt by animals. Why?
I know what your answer will be: You'll probably say that she gets paid more because she is doing something the society frowns upon. Still proves my point; which society frowns upon it--human society. But why?

If you wish to go by making money, then remember that there are so many variables to consider that just mentioning the money is not a good enough measurement. e.g consider the location, the attractiveness of the actor, the age, experience, time of day etc. Also, claiming that they make more money is simply not borne out considering that porn actors are not the highest paid in the acting field.

justcool:

Generally speaking, most human societies frown on nudity. Even if this behaviour is taught to children, the question remains; Why? Why would humans teach their offsprings behaviors that hinder their mating. Why teach your offspring to cover their unclothedness? Is this not unique to humans?


Remember human behaviours and animal behaviours. One cannot even compare animal behaviours to that of other animals as a standard of behaviour.

justcool:

You are yet to show me human societies where people walk around unclothed, without any form of covering their privates.

Ok here are a few links that you can check out. (NSFW)
http://www.african-tribes.org/hamer-tribe-bull-jumping.html
http://www.african-tribes.org/naked-african-tribes.html

I could get more but I think this would do for my points. I really don't intend to surf the net looking for naked pictures to post on this forum. A google search would reveal more. Also a search of National Geographic archives.

http://www.primitivism.com/nudity.htm This is a link quite thorough though it's a bit long.

justcool:

It is my perception that the well known changes in behaviour and attitude around the ages when the generative power sets in are as a result of the spirit breaking through. By breaking through, I mean making complete use of the body.

However this is not science. Science only deals with the physical; the spirit is not physical but its effects can be seen on the physical.

I'm glad you've pointed this out but I wonder what it has to do with this thread. This is simply your opinion for which you've presented very little evidence. If you wish to discuss the spirit you could open a new thread and I'll present you with my views on it plus some evidence supporting my views.

justcool:

Animals mate anywhere and they don't care who is watching, as long as the onlooker does not disturb the mating. Humans don't do these, and its peculiar with them, please tell me why? No human woman would mate in front of her offspring, but animals do this unaffectedly. Please tell me why?

There are some examples of animals that do move to secluded areas to mate. But again, this does not add to the discussion in anyway. I've said this several times already.

justcool:

Please show me human societies where couples do not have their private moments.

Well what do you mean by private moments?

justcool:

Cultures do not decide what is a sex organ(reproductive organs) or what is not. Nature does, and cultures cannot change the laws of nature. One can successfully mate without one's bosoms. Bosoms are for nourishing infants not for mating. The fact that some people attach feeling to them does not change what they are. There are also perverted people who attach sexual feelings to the feet; they get excited by seeing or feeling a woman's feet. Does this make the feet a sex organ?
In some women even their facesand their color go through changes during menstrual cycle; does this make their face a sex organ?

Ok.

justcool:

I still don't see how fabrics protect them from treats of animals and other humans. Perhaps the tigers teeth cannot penetrate fabrics. Also, if they needed such protection, one wonders why evolution did not offer them natural protection. ie- put then inside a case.

Perhaps by making them less visible? Plus the protection from the environment where they lived. I've addressed this before. Why be uncomfortable waiting for a long and slow process when good solution has already been discovered?

justcool:

Ohh that reminds me. Nature encased the man's organs in a foreskin, which men remove. Why remove the forskin and then cover it with cloths if we are animals? Why does man have this need to interfair with nature.

Removal of the foreskin is a cultural phenomenon.

justcool:

Is there a model which man is compelled to fit into?
The question remains 'Why?' Ain't men animals? Or are you saying otherwise now!

I never implied that they were not animals. Just a different sort. You on the other hand seem to wish to make them non-animals.

justcool:

I never said that it did not originate from Christianity; how this helps your argument beats me.

It was in response to your example here it is in context.


Quote from: justcool on Yesterday at 10:30:49 PM
Institutions like marriages, or faithfulness to one partner could not have thier origin in evolution, because they are actually detrimetal to natural selection.
Example:- A healthy man marries and unhealthy woman(one who could not concieve) yet he stays with her and would rather die childless than mate with another woman. How can this feeling, that made this man faithfull to an unhealthy woman, be explained in the light of evolution and natural selection.



Quote from: thehomer on Today at 10:23:51 AM
This is not true. The concept of a single wife or birth partner and no divorce is more recently a Christian concept. Check out what other cultures practice.

So the feeling you're writing about says nothing about evolution when you consider other cultures.

justcool:

So does the foreskin and hairs, Yet humans removed them and replaced them with clothens.

I don't think that humans being relatively hairless is due to their removal of their hairs. And the foreskin removal is a cultural occurrence.

justcool:

I wont waste time showing you evidence. Just goggle it and you will see. Many times have scientists told us that human behaviours have affected our evolution and have checked it. I will give you links later. The fact that we spend so much time making sure that the weak survive, is not in accord with the evolution and natural selection. Natural selection eliminates the weak, man feel an urge and a responsibility to save the weak. Animals don't feel this responsibility; why is this peculiar in humans?

You're contrasting human and animal behaviours.

justcool:

This is why Hitler did the evils he did; looking at the law of natural selection, Hitler justifies his actions(killing the alleged inferior or weak race). But every man knows that this is evil, man does not emulate natural selection when dealing with other living things, man is pricked by conscience he see the need for a higher law, the law of love. Where is the source of this need for a higher order rather than following natural selection?

Well humans developed it. It has simply been growing. You might as well ask why humans developed slavery and are also trying to abolish it now. It is simply the currently accepted best approach after considering our development of morals and ethics.

justcool:

The hypotheses that man evolved hairlessnes  to avoid parasites and insects that live in the fur was proposed by a Californian at UC Berkeley, I think.I have heard the guy talk. It is the most recent and accepted hypotheses, but a lot of scientists, including my professor, think that its very unlikely.

Here are reasons:
(1) Why would evolution get rid of something so necessary just to rid man of relatively harmless insects. Absence of furs makes man more susceptible to things like pneumonia and etc.
(2) Furs actually protect from ants and insects. For example-- mosquitoes. If man had furs he will be less likely susceptible to mosquito bites. Mosquitoes will find it more difficult to penetrate furs.
(3) Furs help organism better cope with the changes in the temperature. It helps to keep them warm by trapping warm airs close to the body.
(3) If the removal of furs was a reaction to infestation, then one would expect that the areas of the body where the eyes cannot easily survey will be very hairless, and the areas that are easily surveyed will retain little fur. This is because the areas that can easily be surveyed by the organism is less likely to be infested because te organisim can see them and remove the insects with their hands. On the contrary, it is those ares that are not easily surveyed that retained their hairs--ampit, pubic area; while areas that can be easily surveyed like the hand is relatively hairless.
(4) Ticks and order insects that live on the skin prefer hidden and cozy areas like the arm pits and pubic areas; this is the most infested areas when observing other animals with infestation. Thus it makes sense that if evolution removed furs in humans as a reaction to parasitic infestation, then one would expect the ampits and the pubic areas to be very hairless. But on the contrary, it is those are that retained their hairs.

Ok that's some hypothesis.

justcool:

Thanks for your advice but I am not an illiterate. I went to an esteemed American university and I have a degree in Electrical engineering; prior to my bachelors degree, I had an associate in Chemistry.
I know I am not an authority in evolution, but I think I understand the basics about evolution; I am more than acquainted with what the theory actually say. I may be at odds with what enthusiasts add to the theory. I have been in the company of esteemed scientists and I all ways attend public conferences of scientist. I have had professors who are well esteemed and very well decorated, and I still remained friends with then even many years after graduating.
Moreover we live in the age of information. Every information that you need is only a click a way.

Huh?  Where and how did I imply that you were illiterate? I doubt that anyone who can maintain a conversation on a moderated forum would be unable to read. I really don't care much about your associations. I care more about the ideas you present here and to a lesser degree how you present them.

justcool:

Cultural evolution is different from biological evolution. What we are dealing with here is biological evolution.
Thank you.

Of course but when it comes to humans who have been able to develop such advanced cultures, and the possibilities of these cultures affecting their behaviours in ways that seem detrimental to evolution but actually aren't, it would also be an area to be considered.
When I'm pointing out that a phenomenon is cultural, I simply mean that it is one of those things that humans do to differentiate their group from other groups.

But, you've not stated how you wish to explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth. Plus, you've just been making claims that humans are not animals just their bodies I would like to see the evidence you have for this. Sure evolution may not be able yet to fully explain some human behaviour, but it seems to me that it has shed some lights on it just as evolutionary psychology and anthropology have.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by justcool(m): 11:14pm On Jun 18, 2010
@thehomer
Thanks again.
There is no need going round and round. It looks like we have at least reached a point. Human are not animals. Humans differ from animals, at least in their behaviour. This is all for me.
I have shered my perception of the reason why humans deffer behaviorally from animals. You believe that it is due to their brains which is far more advanced than that of animals, and which up till now have not being fully understood.

This is an unlikely solution to the problem because the human brain itself is one of those things that distinguishes human from animals. And one of those things evolutionsits have a problem explaining; consider that in the light of just natural selection and evolution, the human brain is excessively too complex. Humans had no need to evolve an organ that complex. The question is why evolve such a brain?

The links that provided do not show completely unclothed people. The young man jumping cows is unclothed but this does not help you at all because he is a young man. The adults people in the pictures are clothed, even if there bosoms are showing, I have already explained to you that the bosom is not a sex organ. You posted pictures of people scantly dressed, and decorated with colorful ornaments; this clearly proves my point! Why is this covering of the privates, no matter how scantly they are covered, peculiar with humans?

I am yet to see societies where every body, including adults, walk around completely unclothed without [size=16pt]any form [/size] of covering.

The other site you provided compares nudity(Which in the human sense means being scantly dressed) with 'primitivity.' This all the more proves my point. Why call it 'primitivity'? Why do humans call it 'primitivity'. Why establish laws where public and unrestrained nudity is punishable? This is only peculiar with humans. Why?

Deciding to be faithful to one partner is not unique to Christianity. Even the ancient pagans, so of them decide to live that way. There is a story in my village about an affluent man who lived before Christianity came to Igboland. He loved his barren wife so much that he refused to marry a second wife. Even after his wife died he remained single for the rest of his life.
Even in Muslim countires today, where many wives are allowed, there are Muslims who wouldn't take a second wife; and its not because they cant afford it. This is peculiar with humans; animals never, when in heat, voluntarily refuse to mate with a healthy member of the opposite gender. They never restrain their sexual activity to only one partner.

The question remains, Was it natural selection and biological evolution that gave humans the impetus to these behaviors which differentiates them from other animals? Especially since these behaviours are a hindrance to some natural(earthly) instincts of the body.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 4:35am On Jun 19, 2010
@justcool

justcool:

@thehomer
Thanks again.
There is no need going round and round. It looks like we have at least reached a point. Human are not animals. Humans differ from animals, at least in their behaviour. This is all for me.

And I presented you with a reason. Their brains. Also, that animals also differ from other animals. Humans are yet another variant of animals.

justcool:

I have shered my perception of the reason why humans deffer behaviorally from animals. You believe that it is due to their brains which is far more advanced than that of animals, and which up till now have not being fully understood.

Your perception has very little evidence to support it.

justcool:

This is an unlikely solution to the problem because the human brain itself is one of those things that distinguishes human from animals. And one of those things evolutionsits have a problem explaining; consider that in the light of just natural selection and evolution, the human brain is excessively too complex. Humans had no need to evolve an organ that complex. The question is why evolve such a brain?

Actually, the mammalian brain in general is quite complex. How do you know they had no such need? I've actually responded to a similar question on this thread. Here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371029.128.html#msg6206198
and here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371029.128.html#msg6206615

Plus, the success of humans on earth shows a reason for such a brain. It has greatly helped the survival of humans.
Also, why do you think that they did develop such a complex brain?

justcool:

The links that provided do not show completely unclothed people. The young man jumping cows is unclothed but this does not help you at all because he is a young man. The adults people in the pictures are clothed, even if there bosoms are showing, I have already explained to you that the bosom is not a sex organ. You posted pictures of people scantly dressed, and decorated with colorful ornaments; this clearly proves my point! Why is this covering of the privates, no matter how scantly they are covered, peculiar with humans?

Oh? Do young people usually go about in the nude where you are? Also, as you can see from their clothing which are generally westernized, wearing of such clothes is a recent development due to their contact with other civilizations. The fact that those people in the picture were completely nude shows that they had no problems with their nudity. At least until they started encountering westerners.

justcool:

I am yet to see societies where every body, including adults, walk around completely unclothed without [size=16pt]any form [/size] of covering.

You've not looked hard enough.

justcool:

The other site you provided compares nudity(Which in the human sense means being scantly dressed) with 'primitivity.' This all the more proves my point. Why call it 'primitivity'? Why do humans call it 'primitivity'. Why establish laws where public and unrestrained nudity is punishable? This is only peculiar with humans. Why?

The site presented examples and research. I wonder why you discarded it. There were several examples from ancient Greeks, Egyptians to some aboriginal tribes.
A group calling another group primitive really does not prove anything. Just ingrained bias from their currently accepted culture.

justcool:

Deciding to be faithful to one partner is not unique to Christianity. Even the ancient pagans, so of them decide to live that way. There is a story in my village about an affluent man who lived before Christianity came to Igboland. He loved his barren wife so much that he refused to marry a second wife. Even after his wife died he remained single for the rest of his life.

This anecdote really does not prove a thing.

justcool:

Even in Muslim countires today, where many wives are allowed, there are Muslims who wouldn't take a second wife; and its not because they cant afford it. This is peculiar with humans; animals never, when in heat, voluntarily refuse to mate with a healthy member of the opposite gender. They never restrain their sexual activity to only one partner.

Again human behaviour, animal behaviour though there are animals that restrain their activities to one partner, it really does not prove a thing.
Oh? and how do you explain the Muslims that do take multiple wives? Are they more or less primitive than the others? Remember that due to the increase in brain size and complexity, humans have been able to suppress some of these more primal instincts and modify them.

justcool:

The question remains, Was it natural selection and biological evolution that gave humans the impetus to these behaviors which differentiates them from other animals? Especially since these behaviours are a hindrance to some natural(earthly) instincts of the body.

I for one think that it is due to the way that this helps social cohesion and thus survival of the larger group over the desires of any individual member.
These behaviours in many cases serve a greater purpose of group identification, mating ritual, social cohesion etc.
You're ignoring several things I've pointed out and at the same time not presenting good evidence to support your claims.
You're yet to explain how other animals came about and the links that we can see between all these organisms on earth.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 2:27pm On Jun 19, 2010
I hear what you're saying, Deep Sight. That the possibility of intelligent life is high and aliens may have developed means of inter-stellar travel we haven't, and are here. There's nothing wrong with that view. The problem remains that the evidence is scanty. There's no intelligent life in our solar system. Nothing travels faster than light in the universe. Light is 186000 miles per second. It's just not speed, but a measure of distance.I was reminding you of that, of the incredible distances involved here. Space is wrapped in time, and can't be separated from it. They're one single fabric. Time exists only because space does. If a civilization is I million light years away each trip from their planet to this place will take them a million years. And that, ONLY if they're travelling at the speed of light. They can't. It's not as if physicists sat down and decided that no one may travel at the speed of light. It's simply impossible in our physical universe.

Another thing is, during the cold war the US Military were secretly using weather balloons as spycraft, outfitted with cosmic ray deflectors and other things. They said these balloons were for weather measurements, which gave them an excuse to send them everywhere, but they secretly fitted them with high resolution cameras and signal intelligence devices. Notice in some of the UFOs you listed sighted, they were over the homes or offices of foreign diplomats? Some of the names they gave their 'weather balloon' spycraft was Skyhook, Grandson, Moby dd.ick, Genetrix, etc.  It's what a lot of people were calling alien UFOs, among two dozen other things.

How likely is it that aliens come here, manage to escape the detection of every satellite in space, every telescope in every home and observatory on the planet, and are then 'caught' by ordinary pedestrians looking up?

Here's why I don't think the abduction scenarios are external. Because it's been happening for a VERY VERY long time. Almost since writing began there have been stories of being abducted by strange beings and taken somewhere. The girls sometimes reported being sexually abused. Four hundred years ago a girl named Anne Jeffries reported being abducted by 'six little men' who carried her off to a 'castle in the air'. They had sex with her. It's one of many stories like this going back a long time, so it's hard to dismiss. But the scenarios changes depending on the cultural milieu. In the past it was castles or dungeons, now that we're in the space age, it's UFO aircraft they're taken to. It strongly suggests something internal, perceived by the senses, not physical, but perhaps 'real' in some sense. There's an intriguing passage in Genesis where the 'sons of God' looked down on the daughters of men and saw that they were fair, and came down and slept with them. I think Genesis 5:1. I'm not saying it's an alien abduction scenario, but even as at then they entertained notions of non-human creatures sleeping with women.  I don't think they're being physically abducted by biological creatures. They're either hallucinating, have been prey to suggestion or something else is going on. But it's not physical. If there's solid evidence of biological aliens here it'll blow my mind. But there simply isn't any.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by ausch: 5:17am On Jun 20, 2010
The homer , your replies to justcool are quite lucid yet you need to expand some of your ecxamples.For instance ,you spoke of primitive people wearing western clothes and you semed to imply that this meant they had no clothes before contact with europeans.I fail to see how you arrived at this conclusion which is similar to the assertion some make that africans had no science before the europeans came.Your reply on the human brain did not address the question about the relationship between the complexity of the human brain and human behaviour.You spoke of some animals mating in seclusion but did not give any example of any species of such animals, the point justcool made is that animals mate anywhere,it is us who may describe a place as secluded.Do you realize that you said man supresses those very primal instincts htat play a key role in evolution and natural selection.Why is it that different human beings with the same brain sixe/complexity have different i.q[e,g rocket scientists and people who cant balance an equation], whereas animals are not significatly different
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 9:41am On Jun 20, 2010
ausch:

The homer , your replies to justcool are quite lucid yet you need to expand some of your ecxamples.For instance ,you spoke of primitive people wearing western clothes and you semed to imply that this meant they had no clothes before contact with europeans.I fail to see how you arrived at this conclusion which is similar to the assertion some make that africans had no science before the europeans came.

I did not mean Africans in general just some particular cultures like those whose pictures I put up. The participants in the ritual and some of the observers were not wearing any clothes. This indicates to me that those tribes had no problems with nudity in public.

ausch:

Your reply on the human brain did not address the question about the relationship between the complexity of the human brain and human behaviour.

I think it did. In my last post, I referred to my previous posts on the human brain where I pointed out that the size and the degree in advancement of the frontal lobe does seem to play a large part in human behaviour.

ausch:

You spoke of some animals mating in seclusion but did not give any example of any species of such animals, the point justcool made is that animals mate anywhere,it is us who may describe a place as secluded.

Yes but giving examples of these animals does not add anything to the discussion because animal behaviour is not a good indicatior of human behaviour or vice versa. Animal behaviour is also not a good indicator of how other animals should behave.

Anyway, here are a few about some animals seeking seclusion before mating.

http://books.google.com.ng/books?id=JaJs5YlW-RIC&lpg=PA132&ots=Vj3qYqX4Fq&dq=lion%20mate%20in%20seclusion&pg=PA132#v=onepage&q=lion%20mate%20in%20seclusion&f=false
http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/wildlife/wolves/wolf_about.html

ausch:

Do you realize that you said man supresses those very primal instincts htat play a key role in evolution and natural selection.

Yes humans do suppress some of these primal urges due to the large groups they tend to live in, the social cohesion needed in such a group.

ausch:

Why is it that different human beings with the same brain sixe/complexity have different i.q[e,g rocket scientists and people who cant balance an equation], whereas animals are not significatly different

Like I said in a previous post, the differences in humans are mainly due to the associations made in their brains. animals too are significantly different with different personalities and so on demonstrated.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by justcool(m): 7:03pm On Jun 20, 2010
@thehumer
Thanks again for your replies.
LOL. You links and examples do not help your case. There is no way you can disprove my statement that generally speaking Humans(adult humans) are not comfortable being unclothed in public; and this is peculiar to humans.

You gave links of some people which you called primitive; all these go to prove m point. Questions for you:

(1) Why call these people primitive? If it is due to the fact that they are scantly dressed, then doesn't this prove my point. Humans(including you) consider people scantly dressed primitive. Doesn't this show that humans are not comfortable with nudity? Do animals consider their neighbors primitive because of they(Their neighbors) are not fully dressed?

(2) Why is there any form of dressing in those pictures? I kept saying "any form of dressing," in my post but you seem not to have payed attention to that. At best the people you showed are scantly dressed not unclothed in the way that animals are. In humans terms 'nudity' could mean scantly dressed.

(3) Those people you provided are but mare pockets of humans. In human population they do not even represent 5% How can you use the heavier of a very small percent to justify all humans. Are there not some strange people with strange rituals? There are some primitive people who inflict pains on themselves -- flogging each other, cutting the skin--as rituals of rites of passage. Can one say that humans have no problem with pains, just because a few humans voluntarily inflict pain on themselves?

I do not want to get graphic, otherwise I would explain to you how animals behave; show me any human population that are completely unclothed like animals. Where mothers have no problem revealing themselves to their sons. There is always a form of decency in human societies, no matter how primitive. Decency is peculiar to humans.


Your link about wolfs does not help your case either. It never said that wolves mate in seclusion like humans do. Wolves have no problem mating in-front of  their offsprings. This is not so with humans.
Wolves chose their partners based on survival of the fittest ie-- the stronger Wolf wins the mating rights with a particular female. A stronger Wolf may emerge the next day and take over this right to mate, without feeling any pricks of conscience. This is not so with humans. A human woman can voluntarily decide to marry and unhealthy weakling, this is not so in the animal or Wolf kingdom.

The extremely complex brains of humans is not an ireplacable a necessity for their survival; they could have survived with a lesser brain. Scientists have told us that humans do not even use half of their brains; the brain remains the organ that has not been completely understood by science, it is far too complex.

Every human have the same Brain capacity, yet some humans are intelligent while some are dumb. The range of variety of human intelligence in humans is far greater than the range in any other species. Dogs for example, have a narrow range of intelligence; all dogs fit into this range. So do cats, lions, and etc, but in the case of human's the range is too much. We have humans who can hardly grasp simple things, while other humans can grasp quantum physics. Why?

If all human beings have the same capacity and capability, why do humans very so much in their ability to understand things. This is an intelligent observation that ausch made.

It is an evidence that their is an entity, independent of the body, that uses the body as an instrument.

I will give an analogy: If 10 cars are made with the same speed capacity, and as the cars raced, some go faster than the other. This difference in speed is due to abilities of the driver; the origin of this difference in speed is not the car, since the cars have the same speed capacity.

The same is applicable to human; since humans all have the same brain capacity, the difference in the intelligence of humans lie in their spirits, an entirely independent entity.

Thus the reason why some societies are advanced, with a lot of morality, while some are primitive lies in the spiritual developement of these societies; not in thier brains because the all have the same brain capacity.

This also explains why the primitive societies are more comfortable with being scantly dressed than other societies.

I believe you once asked me which organ does the spirit use to control the body. Now it suffices for me to answer that question. The back brain is designed to receive impression from the soul, the core of which is the spirit. The back brain receives these  impressions, transforms them and sends them to the frontal brain. This is why scientists have a big problem understanding the working of back brain; this is because the back brain works with very subtle impressions. The back brain has been observed to the sit of the subconscious mind; things like ESP and psychic abilities have been linked to the back Brian.

Thanks.

@ausch
Thanks for very intelligent observations.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 9:14pm On Jun 20, 2010
justcool:

@thehumer
Thanks again for your replies.
LOL. You links and examples do not help your case. There is no way you can disprove my statement that generally speaking Humans(adult humans) are not comfortable being unclothed in public; and this is peculiar to humans.

Oh? But I've presented you with several links of nudity both in ancient and modern times like the article yet you seem to have chosen to ignore it.

justcool:

You gave links of some people which you called primitive; all these go to prove m point. Questions for you:

(1) Why call these people primitive? If it is due to the fact that they are scantly dressed, then doesn't this prove my point. Humans(including you) consider people scantly dressed primitive. Doesn't this show that humans are not comfortable with nudity? Do animals consider their neighbors primitive because of they(Their neighbors) are not fully dressed?

No it does not support your point. Calling one culture primitive or a group of people primitive simply shows that one feels that his own way of life is better or more advanced. If a person is raised in a different culture than one of their parents, they will adopt the new culture. It does not indicate anything about their mental capacity.

justcool:

(2) Why is there any form of dressing in those pictures? I kept saying "any form of dressing," in my post but you seem not to have payed attention to that. At best the people you showed are scantly dressed not unclothed in the way that animals are. In humans terms 'nudity' could mean scantly dressed.

I already answered this. It is due to their exposure to Western civilization. The fact that the participant had no problems being nude in carrying out his actions and the clothes worn were Western in origin, indicates to me that in the not too distant past, they would all have been in the nude. But with the advent of modern puritanism and the advantages that wearing clothes brings, it is not surprising that there are clothed people in some of those images.

justcool:

(3) Those people you provided are but mare pockets of humans. In human population they do not even represent 5% How can you use the heavier of a very small percent to justify all humans. Are there not some strange people with strange rituals? There are some primitive people who inflict pains on themselves -- flogging each other, cutting the skin--as rituals of rites of passage. Can one say that humans have no problem with pains, just because a few humans voluntarily inflict pain on themselves?

I am not over generalizing. It's just that the environment in which some populations have lived for thousands of years did not necessitate them wearing any clothes. In some cases they wore clothes in some cases they did not. Whether a group of people wore clothes or not does not make them more or less human. Though some may try to discriminate against such groups culturally but they are still of the same species as other humans.

justcool:

I do not want to get graphic, otherwise I would explain to you how animals behave; show me any human population that are completely unclothed like animals. Where mothers have no problem revealing themselves to their sons. There is always a form of decency in human societies, no matter how primitive. Decency is peculiar to humans.

Again, animal behaviour is not a good indicator of how humans should behave.

justcool:

Your link about wolfs does not help your case either. It never said that wolves mate in seclusion like humans do. Wolves have no problem mating in-front of  their offsprings. This is not so with humans.

Again, animal behaviour is not a good indicator of how humans should behave. I still wonder why you think humans should keep acting like other animals despite the major differences in the various species.

But, it was stated in that article that wolves go into seclusion to mate.
This is the quote from the relevant paragraph.


When breeding season arrives breeding wolves begin to get more affectionate with each other. This occurs in anticipation of the females ovulation cycle. When the female finally goes into a period called 'estrus', the alpha male and alpha female wolves spend a lot of time together usually in seclusion. Pheromones in the females urine and the swelling of her vulva, tell the male she is ready to mate.

justcool:

Wolves chose their partners based on survival of the fittest ie-- the stronger Wolf wins the mating rights with a particular female. A stronger Wolf may emerge the next day and take over this right to mate, without feeling any pricks of conscience. This is not so with humans. A human woman can voluntarily decide to marry and unhealthy weakling, this is not so in the animal or Wolf kingdom.

And I've pointed out to you the degree of advancement of the human species. Also, are you now going to attempt to generalize on a minority?
Fitness in current human society is not necessarily the most physically imposing or most good looking.
You do know that women have certain preferences when selecting a mate.

justcool:

The extremely complex brains of humans is not an ireplacable a necessity for their survival; they could have survived with a lesser brain. Scientists have told us that humans do not even use half of their brains; the brain remains the organ that has not been completely understood by science, it is far too complex.

No we do not know that they could have survived with a less powerful brain. Remember that you do not know the challenges they faced at the various stages of their biological and cultural evolution.
Your claim of some scientists statement that humans do not use half of their brain is a myth. The fact that we do not yet understand the brain does not mean that any one can plug this mystery with whatever they like.

justcool:

Every human have the same Brain capacity, yet some humans are intelligent while some are dumb. The range of variety of human intelligence in humans is far greater than the range in any other species. Dogs for example, have a narrow range of intelligence; all dogs fit into this range. So do cats, lions, and etc, but in the case of human's the range is too much. We have humans who can hardly grasp simple things, while other humans can grasp quantum physics. Why?

This is not quite true. Brains vary in size and mass and on average, male brains are heavier than female brains but this does not manifest as any difference in intelligence. Actually, if we're going by efficiency, we would say that female brains are more efficient in my opinion since it is smaller and thus requires less energy to run while giving equally valid results.  grin
Intelligence is easier to examine in humans due to the ease of communication within the species but, carrying out this test in animals has its own unique set of challenges and the conclusions to be drawn from them are not often quite scientific.
So all I'm saying is that we do not know that these animals have a narrow range of intelligence because we simply cannot test this as well as we can test human intelligence.

justcool:

If all human beings have the same capacity and capability, why do humans very so much in their ability to understand things. This is an intelligent observation that ausch made.

The variance is due to the interconnections that these people's brains have made since the development of their brains. Coupled with their environment and their genes, such variance is to be expected.

justcool:

It is an evidence that their is an entity, independent of the body, that uses the body as an instrument.

So where does this entity reside? If this entity is independent of the body, then why should injuries to some parts of the brain present with some well observed changes in personality, intelligence, behaviour etc.
I think for your evidence to be better, you would need to clearly define this entity and how one can objectively verify it in a random population of people.

justcool:

I will give an analogy: If 10 cars are made with the same speed capacity, and as the cars raced, some go faster than the other. This difference in speed is due to abilities of the driver; the origin of this difference in speed is not the car, since the cars have the same speed capacity.

The same is applicable to human; since humans all have the same brain capacity, the difference in the intelligence of humans lie in their spirits, an entirely independent entity.

But the factors of human development are very very different. We do not all have the same brain capacity or aptitude. How do you define this spirit? How do we detect it? How do we test it?

justcool:

Thus the reason why some societies are advanced, with a lot of morality, while some are primitive lies in the spiritual developement of these societies; not in thier brains because the all have the same brain capacity.
This also explains why the primitive societies are more comfortable with being scantly dressed than other societies.

No. We do not all have the same brain capacity. What do you mean by "spiritual development"? Is it biological?
Other societies being more comfortable with nudity does not make them inferior biologically. I hope you also realize that there are some scantily dressed societies that are springing up in these modern times.

justcool:

I believe you once asked me which organ does the spirit use to control the body. Now it suffices for me to answer that question. The back brain is designed to receive impression from the soul, the core of which is the spirit. The back brain receives these  impressions, transforms them and sends them to the frontal brain. This is why scientists have a big problem understanding the working of back brain; this is because the back brain works with very subtle impressions. The back brain has been observed to the sit of the subconscious mind; things like ESP and psychic abilities have been linked to the back Brian.
Thanks.

@ausch
Thanks for very intelligent observations.

What do you mean by the "back brain"? Why not the "front brain"?
From a little review of brain anatomy, the back brain has the occipital lobe above and the cerebellum below. The occipital lobe helps us understand what we see while the cerebellum helps control movement. This is the same in all humans whatever their culture. Damage to these parts manifests as problems in the functions they perform.

Your hypothesis of the function of the "back brain" is simply not true from observation and experiment.
Also, the subconscious has not been tied down to any particular brain region.

1. Where is the soul and the spirit? What are the similarities and differences between them?

2. How does the "back brain" receive these impressions? Through what organs considering that the brain is the major part of the central nervous system implying that it needs to receive information through nerves.

3. Finally, your hypothesis of the "back brain" being the seat of the subconscious is yet to be demonstrated if at all. Also, ESP and psychic abilities? If your hypothesis were true, this implies it is a biological phenomenon. Then, why is psychic ability and ESP so vague, unreliable and uncommon? Consider also that if it were biological, then if 99.9% of humans had this ability, the world as we know it would be quite different.

I hope you'll be able to better clarify and present your evidence for the discussion to proceed.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by justcool(m): 1:01am On Jun 21, 2010
@thehomer,

Thanks again for your replies. But it seems we are now arguing just for the sake of winning the argument therefore there is no need continuing.

Every human knows that he is not just an animal; he is not just his physical body, he is equipped with a conscience that animals do not posses; a conscience higher than the law of survival of the fittest(natural selection law). To argue about it is a waste of time. If you cannot experience the spirit within you, then there is no way I can prove it to you.

You asked for a physical proof but the spirit is non-physical, you need spiritual abilities to recognize it. One who cannot feel or experience the non-physical will never be able to grasp it. There is no way I can convince you of the existence of something which you do not perceive; I don't have any physical evidence because the spiritual is non-physical, and beyond the realm of science. Thus when I am talking about spirituality, I am not talking about science.

There is no need for me to answer your questions about spiritually which you do not believe in. You will only call my answers myths.

But you seemed to have misunderstood what I meant by saying that everybody has the same brain capability and capacity. By this I don't mean size. What I mean is that everybody has enough brain cells to grasp quantum physics, even a mad person have potential. Since every body has enough brain cells for this capability, the question remains why so many people cannot.

You said that variance of intelligence is expected due to the environment and genes. What about two brothers from the same environment, yet one ends up and intelligent scientist while the other cant pass high school. Why is the cause of this variance of intelligence? What about twins raised in the same environment, are they always of the same intelligence?

I never said the the back brain is the origin of ESP and psychic abilities; I only said that the back brain it the sit. Sit and sour are two different things.

If psychic abilities have not been tied to any part of the brain; then how are so sure that the brain is their source or that they are biological. Isn't this manifestation which science cannot tie down to any part of the human body an evidence that humans are just biological entities.

If other creatures could survive with very little brain power, why couldn't humans? You seem to imply that humans could not have survived with less complicated brains; why did dogs, lions, cats and etc survive?

If only you know the implication of the fact that women have a more refined brain. The significance of this truth is great, for one who knows about the spirit and the laws of creation.

You failed to provide the source of conscience which is peculiar to humans. If you cant tell me the organ of the body responsible for this conscience, then you have no right to attribute it to the body at all. Also you can explain it away be just saying that it is a result of our complex brain; as long as you cannot show which part of the brain produces this conscience and its mechanism, it will be illogical of you to label it a product of the complexity of the human.

You implied that it is easier to examine human intelligence because humans can talk while animals cant. I am sorry but this is an illogical excuse. You don't need animals to talk in-order to know that they are not as intelligent as humans. You can examine their works. When was the last time you saw a dog build a rocket?

And why do you wonder why aliments or damages to the brain affect the behaviour of the person thus afflicted? How does that prove that the person has no spirit. The brain is an instrument which the soul uses; if an instrument is damaged. shouldn't it be expected that work done by the use of that instrument be damaged too? If your tire busts in the freeway, it affects your speed and may affect your plan for the journey. Does this change in speed due to a damaged tire prove that the car does not have a driver?

Anyway thanks for a cordial exchange of ideas.
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by Enigma(m): 8:46am On Jun 21, 2010
Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by KunleOshob(m): 8:48am On Jun 21, 2010
^^^
Likewise the dragonfly has not evolved in over 400 million years.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply)

Did Reinhard Bonnke Actually Help Africans? *MUST READ!!!* / RCCG 64th Annual Convention : Amen; Aug 1-7 / "Jesus Is" By Clayton Jennings. Spoken Word Lyrics.

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2020 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 1187
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.