Izzywizzy wrote:arising speak for yourself i am not an animal i am a human being with what sicentifc men term as animal instincts..i call my instincts natural not animal btw ie we all know how to survive there is no proof the first human came from apes or the fancy title cro magnan the scientist today has lost touch with nature he prescribes unnatural synthetic foods and drugs.
if only man as human could learn why nature not abuse nature..for the most highest quality any human can have is an appreciation of nature after all its what we are given to survive on and WITH..man is natural as are animals and wild volcanoes and plants..this does not mean they are the same..or from the same source..it means consciousness nis natural and alive..and i correct myself..dead men don`t talk..but their words live on through narrow minded men i might add in our institutions. History is only written and allowed to live on by the victors..be sure..whilst humans like to think they evolve..many a teacher puts them back in time and dumbs them down and not forward in time to progress them.
Consciousness isn`t brainwASHED THINKING EITHER BUT THE MASSES LIKE SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER FOLLOW THEIR DOCTRINES CALLED REASON LOL LOL LOL
I don't know whether to LMAO, ROFL or
You appear in danger of becoming one of the teachers you decry. So allow me to help you with a couple of things.
Your ideas about evolutionary biology appear to be stuck in the 1920's as the theory does not say we come from apes, we are 'apes' in a sense as we are of the primate family. Think of the other apes, chimps and monkeys as our cousins not our ancestors. Evolution says that its that we share common ancestors with them, not that we have evolved from them.
Biology does not say that we are all descended from the Cro-Magnon, just some of us have them as ancestors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon ... non_people
So you are saying your not one of these?
"Animal" -
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Animal
I have no idea what you mean by "instincts" natural or animal. Do you mean that you get hungry, thirsty, horny, scared, angry, etc?
You confidently state that "we all know how to survive" so I assume you mean survival is an instinct? If so then I'll take a bet that you haven't got this instinct, as I think that if I dropped you in the wild with no help you'd be dead in a matter of months, if not weeks.
I had no idea that scientists prescribed any food other than fresh fuit, veg, fish and meat now and then? Are you talking about agriculture, animal husbandry and the overuse of chemicals, is this what you mean by "synthetic foods and drugs"? If so then I think these things have helped us get to the point where only a tiny percentage die from lack of food and many live longer than they ever would have. In fact it looks like the thing we call civilization occurred exactly because man started mucking about with nature, i.e. wheat cultivation and medicine.
I think the highest quality of man as human is to appreciate ones fellow man. Nature for the longest part of human history has been inimicable towards us as it doesn't give a toss about our survival and in general has tried to eat or kill us. Its only recently that this idea of 'appreciation' has come into existence, although I'd agree that something like it exists within those societies that still fundamentally live within it.
What the hell is a "wild volcano"? Although I agree that man is natural, as is consciousness, I find myself baffled that you think we do not come from the same 'source' as all the other living things. You think the sidhe or fairies made us? 'God'? The FSM(this one is the correct answer).
You have a serious chip upon your shoulder about the masculine sex.
Whilst its true that history is written by the victor, the victor can also become the vanquished and as such history has had many revisionist phases. So truth generally outs in the long history run, unfortunately due to the nature of the subject its way to late for many.
What do you mean by "humans like to think they evolve"? We pretty much know that we've not evolved since we split from the ancestor that produced us and the ancestor of the chimp. Do we think that we could not evolve again? No, but at present we see no major mutation that, given a change in enviroment(or not), would confer a greater reproduction survival rate upon its inheritors. In my opinion any evolution going on now is cultural and it'll be Lamarkian as its down to education and wealth, both of which can be acquired in the present and passed on to ones progeny to assist their survival and chances of reproduction. Of course these might, in the future, allow one to actually 'evolve' ones children by tailoring their genes for specific purposes.
Chaz has already pointed out your error with respect to doctrine and reason. I just wonder why you suddENLY START TALKING IN CAPITALS AT TIMES? It reads odd to these ears as it sounds like you've starTED SHOUTING.
