First human
April adorsey@netusa1.net
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:23:27 -0600 (00891343407, 199803310456.XAA23934@gatem02.netusa1.net)
April
> > >> So tell me EXACTLY in VERY, SPECIFIC, DETAIL what constitutes a
> "human"
> > >> and I will tell you when the first one appeared.
> Jones
> >> There is no way a general human can be described in detail,
> >> exactly and specifically (second axiom of semantics). There
> >> is nothing unique about humans.
> April
> >Then you've answered your own assertion - i.e., there WAS no "first"
human.
> > (Gee, guys, this first battle was easily won!)
> Jones> Apparently you're yet another wiseass who can't read plain
> English, and thinks word games are cute. Your request was for
> me to tell you "EXACTLY in VERY, SPECIFIC, DETAIL what
> constitutes *a 'human'*" NOT the *first human* but *a human*.
> The first human existed but *a human* does not exist except as
> a mental abstraction. Eve had specific characteristics but "a
> human" which was your question does not. You need to learn a
> dab of semantics and language.
April
If you can't distinguish or define what specifically makes "a human" then
how do you (or anyone) decide when a being is "not human" vs.. "human"?
> Jones
> Just how in the hell do you imagine there are any humans now,
> if there was no first human? Do you know any logic at all?
April
Nope - don't know a damn thing about logic. But I know a hell of a lot
about biology and I know that the point between "human" and "not-human"
does not exist. The change was so gradual (as someone else already pointed
out) that there was no line between the two.
>
> >(I am still taking your blond comments as a joke. If you mean it
> >seriously, better have some seriously well-accepted statistics to back
it
> >up!)
> Jones
> Statistics prove nothing or anything can be proved by statistics.
> We have one example of a typical blonde already.
>
> Dick Jones
I'm happy to leave the decision of "blond dumbness" up to the audience at
large. I'm confident of their conclusion.
April
>