More evidence for "Jesus Tomb"

Fair enough... the point I was making, in my usually low-brow and somewhat tactless fashion, was that advanced mental function is not a major factor in human breeding - no girl has ever asked for my Mensa test results before sleeping with me, and I have never asked for hers either . Nor is the human brain readily explicable in terms of natural selection. To suggest that the human brain is so advanced because it developed the capacity for abstract thought is also difficult to accept. Abstract thought requires, I would have thought, the ability to form abstract ideas, which requires abstract things like language - and complex abstract ideas would require complex language.

Women are attracted to men with more resources which are very often a result of being intelligent.

Men are attracted to healthy women, and intelligent men are particularly attracted to intelligent (health in) women who then offer greater chances for intelligent offspring, thus increasing the offspring's chances for success.



You argue against yourself. Abstract language leads to the ability for greater abstract thought, no?

No, I am not arguing against myself. Prior to the abstraction of thought, two things must occur. Firstly, the brain must be developed at a level capable of abstraction, and second, language must evolve to the point to allow for that abstraction. In other words, the ability for abstraction is a product, not a cause, of an advanced brain.

All human cultures have incredibly complex language, and this ability for amazing abstraction. Yet, when human groups split, our language was rudimentary (in fact, it could be argued that language did not even exist in any meaningful sense). If our brains were already capable of complex abstraction at that time, without anything more than basic words to express simple ideas, then, sexual and natural selection both lack any explanatory power. Neither of them can provide an adequate hypothesis.

No. This kind of argument is a logical fallacy.

To say that matter coming into existence requires some kind of logical cause, is perfectly reasonable and legitimate, but it does not follow that because matter requires a natural explanation, so too must a god, if one exists.

erm ok bob ... to be honest ..i'm kinda glad you're promoting your own god and not doing what you used to do on here ... looks like you've seen the light

You've lost me... what was I doing before, and, what am I doing that's different now?

No - language is merely representational, not conceptual thought itself. If language were thoroughly equal to thought in terms of concepts, then there could only be one language.

well ..i'll put it this way .. you seem to be having more fun in general ... and you sound positive ... rather than the negative erm .. subject you used to post about

You are being too obtuse for me Is this a reference to my dealings with animal libbers, Jehovah's Witnesses or Islam... I'm assuming the latter...

For the record, I always had fun with them too, it was just a different kind of fun

I didn't say language was equal to conceptual thought, only that it is a tool that enables abstract thought.

ooh 'obtuse' ... you sound just like a teacher

Obtuse, you know, the opposite of acute.

err.. actually .. no , i don't know