"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[Nathan Poe]

But, as I said, we raised fire. None of the animal can do the similar. If you like to see the break down processes, it includes at least: find flint > make sparks > ignite small fibers > add fuel. So, tell me an animal which can perform a comparable process.

That is what human has and animals don't have. And it is NOT an evolutional product.

Actually, intelligence is an evolutionary product.

 

[mzungu]

Actually, intelligence is an evolutionary product.

And an ongoing process at that! Some people it seems cannot evolve further and their "Kind" are doomed to extinction!

 

[Doveaman]

Actually, intelligence is an evolutionary product.

Beginning with Adam.

 

[Doveaman]

And an ongoing process at that! Some people it seems cannot evolve further and their "Kind" are doomed to extinction!

Sounds like you are describing atheists.

A well evolved mind recognizes God.

"Since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind." (Rom 1:28).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Beginning with Adam.

Beginning long before "Adam."

 

[AV1611VET]

Beginning with Adam.

ZING! --

 

[Skavau]

Sounds like you are describing atheists.

A well evolved mind recognizes God.

"Since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind." (Rom 1:28).

Veiled and hidden behind humour and poor parody it might be, an insult it is.

What would happen to me on here, pray tell, if I suggested that Christians were unevolved and depraved?

 

[Naraoia]

OK, that is obviously an advantage. If so, why most (?) of them don't? Was there not enough time?

By the way, is the so-called "feather" discovered not a full fledged feather, but only feather-like? It seems there was only ONE such thing found. If that is true, then I won't claim that they have feather. One is not good enough. There has to be at least 100 to make such claim.

Let me quote some more Wikipedia at you. Here is a discussion of feather evolution, with a phylogeny of dinosaurs that indicates the feather types known to be present in each group. You, sir, are wrong again.

Except may be the birds, which animal is evolved from dinosaurs (not classified as a dinosaur)?

Yes, they are classified as dinosaurs. They weren't in the old rank-based system, but the old system is really bad at dealing with evolution.

I have said: none. Whatever single process we can do or we have, at least one animal also has it or can do it too.

Therefore, by definition, we are animals.

(By the way, being an animal is not about sharing "whatever single process" with at least one animal. It's about sharing a particular set of characteristics with most* other animals. Well, more precisely it's about descending from a particular ancestor, but I don't think "animal" has a proper phylogenetic definition yet)

*I can't say "all", because it's possible to lose some defining characteristics of a group and still remain a member of that group. I can't think of an animal example off hand, but several parasitic plants do not photosynthesise at all - nevertheless, we still call them plants, because their ancestors were plants (and they are plants in every other respect than photosynthesis).

But, as I said, we raised fire. None of the animal can do the similar. If you like to see the break down processes, it includes at least: find flint > make sparks > ignite small fibers > add fuel. So, tell me an animal which can perform a comparable process.

Nah. Originally, it means nothing more than: find bushfire > pull out some burning stuff > take it home > feed the fire.

But come on. Why single out fire?

Probably because all sorts of other toolmaking is rampant among apes and birds? And as I said, this is backward logic. If we went hunting for unique properties as grounds for exclusion, we could probably find something in most animals. The only thing that makes fire different is that it was stumbled upon by your favourite species.

That is what human has and animals don't have. And it is NOT an evolutional product.

Where do you think brains capable of figuring it out come from?

 

[Jro]

I have said: none. Whatever single process we can do or we have, at least one animal also has it or can do it too.

But, as I said, we raised fire. None of the animal can do the similar. If you like to see the break down processes, it includes at least: find flint > make sparks > ignite small fibers > add fuel. So, tell me an animal which can perform a comparable process.

That is what human has and animals don't have. And it is NOT an evolutional product.

What do you mean by comparable process? I'd say fisher crows approach that level of intelligence.

Crows surprise researchers with advanced tool use | Education | The Guardian

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sounds like you are describing atheists.

A well evolved mind recognizes God.

"Since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to a depraved mind." (Rom 1:28).

It is so, so ironic that in doing this you committed a No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

 

[mzungu]

Veiled and hidden behind humour and poor parody it might be, an insult it is.

What would happen to me on here, pray tell, if I suggested that Christians were unevolved and depraved?

Ye would surely be hanged, drawn and quartered! Fear not my good man for the colonists across the pond are devouring themselves in their ignorance!

 

[juvenissun]

Let me quote some more Wikipedia at you. Here is a discussion of feather evolution, with a phylogeny of dinosaurs that indicates the feather types known to be present in each group. You, sir, are wrong again.

Yes, they are classified as dinosaurs. They weren't in the old rank-based system, but the old system is really bad at dealing with evolution.

Therefore, by definition, we are animals.

(By the way, being an animal is not about sharing "whatever single process" with at least one animal. It's about sharing a particular set of characteristics with most* other animals. Well, more precisely it's about descending from a particular ancestor, but I don't think "animal" has a proper phylogenetic definition yet)

*I can't say "all", because it's possible to lose some defining characteristics of a group and still remain a member of that group. I can't think of an animal example off hand, but several parasitic plants do not photosynthesise at all - nevertheless, we still call them plants, because their ancestors were plants (and they are plants in every other respect than photosynthesis).

Nah. Originally, it means nothing more than: find bushfire > pull out some burning stuff > take it home > feed the fire.

But come on. Why single out fire?

Probably because all sorts of other toolmaking is rampant among apes and birds? And as I said, this is backward logic. If we went hunting for unique properties as grounds for exclusion, we could probably find something in most animals. The only thing that makes fire different is that it was stumbled upon by your favourite species.

Where do you think brains capable of figuring it out come from?

Monkey can do that too. But how come they failed to raise a new fire? Chimp can use simple tools. But why does it stop right there? All animals can sing, but why do they fail to make a chord?

I really despise anyone who is deliberately blind on the most obvious character of human and is willingly to call himself an animal.

Unless you want to explore on why is human different from animals (admit the fact first), then be yourself an animal. I have no interest to reason with an animal.

 

[mzungu]

Monkey can do that too. But how come they failed to raise a new fire? Chimp can use simple tools. But why does it stop right there? All animals can sing, but why do they fail to make a chord?

I really despise anyone who is deliberately blind on the most obvious character of human and is willingly to call himself an animal.

Unless you want to explore on why is human different from animals (admit the fact first), then be yourself an animal. I have no interest to reason with an animal.

Humans are at a great physical disadvantage compared to other animals. The only thing we excel in is our ability to reason.

Sharks have unlimited supply of teeth.
Eagles have eyesight we can only dream of.
Cheetahs have speed that even our best athletes cannot dare achieve.
Orangutans have climbing abilities even our best gymnasts could never attain.
Bears have strength to overpower 10 men.
The list is just too long to mention here.

And creationists have the Gall to claim we are God's most perfect creation?

The very fact that we can inter-transfuse blood between bonobos, and chimps with humans is testament to our relationship with our closest cousins.

Since you have no idea of biology and science in general then you will be wise to listen and learn.

Have you ever wondered why your God gave you a brain? Surely not to waste it on keeping it stagnant by refusing progress and erudition!

 

[AV1611VET]

Sharks have unlimited supply of teeth.
Eagles have eyesight we can only dream of.
Cheetahs have speed that even our best athletes cannot dare achieve.
Orangutans have climbing abilities even our best gymnasts could never attain.
Bears have strength to overpower 10 men.
The list is just too long to mention here.

And creationists have the Gall to claim we are God's most perfect creation?

Sharks can't see like eagles.
Eagles can't run like cheetahs.
Cheetahs can't climb like orangutans.
Orangutans don't have the strength of bears.
Bears don't have unlimited supplies of teeth like sharks.

Which one of the above do you have the gall to say is God's most perfect creation?

 

[Jro]

Chimp can use simple tools. But why does it stop right there? All animals can sing, but why do they fail to make a chord?

What do you mean stop there? Also many birds do make chords and sing in harmony with themselves. Let's see a human singer sing a duet with themself!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Which one of the above do you have the gall to say is God's most perfect creation?

I'd call it a 5,000,000-way tie. Creationists tend to disagree.

 

[Naraoia]

Monkey can do that too. But how come they failed to raise a new fire? Chimp can use simple tools. But why does it stop right there?

Look, nowhere did I argue that humans can't do some things no one else can. That has never been our point of contention. I just pointed out that other animals are unique in other ways. What makes fire more special than silicate skeletons?

All animals can sing, but why do they fail to make a chord?

Many animals can make sounds, but why do they fail at imitating sounds?

I've just demonstrated that lyrebirds are not animals!!!

Amazing! Bird sounds from the lyre bird - David Attenborough - BBC wildlife - YouTube

Or else, I might have demonstrated simply that your question is irrelevant.

I really despise anyone who is deliberately blind on the most obvious character of human and is willingly to call himself an animal.

Be my guest.

What's so shameful about being an animal?

Unless you want to explore on why is human different from animals (admit the fact first), then be yourself an animal. I have no interest to reason with an animal.

Unless I agree with you, you don't talk to me?

Oh dear.

As I said, be my guest.

 

[Nostromo]

Which one of the above do you have the gall to say is God's most perfect creation?

By golly, AV, you nearly cracked it!

 

[mzungu]

Sharks can't see like eagles.
Eagles can't run like cheetahs.
Cheetahs can't climb like orangutans.
Orangutans don't have the strength of bears.
Bears don't have unlimited supplies of teeth like sharks.

Which one of the above do you have the gall to say is God's most perfect creation?

None! We are all the result of evolution!

 

[Naraoia]

What do you mean stop there? Also many birds do make chords and sing in harmony with themselves. Let's see a human singer sing a duet with themself!

Overtone singing is a fairly primitive version of that, but humans certainly do do it

Huun Huur Tu at Philadelphia Folk Festival, August 2006 - YouTube

*loves HHT*

(I'm having an unusually youtube-y day today )

On that note (no pun intended), can I please have some juicy links on those birds? I had a vague recollection that they can do that, but I didn't want to bring it up without sources.