Man vs. Elephant
Side Score: 22
Side Score: 20
The only real way to escape is not to. Stand STILL. Even though this giant beast of mass proportions may be running at a full pace of 25 mph, he will come to a complete halt if you don't move. I saw it on documentary, the people ran and left the camera tripod behind, the Elephant put the brakes on when the tripod didn't run away.
the man can beat an elephant, but that is if the elephant is alone or if the human is prepared. i don't think that the person wanting to fight the elephant will win every time but it counts on how exercised the person is and if they know the right moves. so i wouldn't say that the man will win all the time.
It all comes done to one thing: SUM! If the man has the skill or skills, whether it is speed, creativity,technique, pure genius or a combination of all. If the man facing the animal has the sum that in theory MAN is capable of possessing he can escape. The arguments about speed,size etc. are valid, but in the end Man just need the right "Blend" to escape, whatever this might be.
Average man vs. Average elephant - Odds are favoring the elephant. Elephant can outrun man and has more weight. Man can only escape if he runs in a 90 degree angle from the elephant to or finds a steep high ground to take advantage of the elephant's poor maneuverability.
Average man with vehicle vs. Average elephant - Odds favor man's escape. Most vehicles can outrun elephants.
Average man with gun vs. Average elephant - Man with decent firearms skill wins hands down!
Okay, well first off I think there are a couple of important parameters here.
Firstly, is this encounter by chance, with one stumbling on the other, and having to rely on their natural physical and mental attributes?
Or is it a case that they have time to prepare themselves for conflict?
In the first occasion, as has been mentioned, the elephant has all the strength, bravery and sheer size to destroy a man, even a group of men. Elephants that go on a rampage create chaos, killing and injuring many people, and destroying anything in their way. So if it's just a case of a random encounter, man vs elephant, the man would need to be incredibly agile and swift of thought and body to counter an elephant, and as someone mentioned hiding in its anus is probably your best option. That's what Chuck Norris would do, climb in and roundhouse kick it from the inside.
On the other hand, if man has a chance to prepare, even WITHOUT a gun, most people would be able to create a trap or killing device to take out an elephant. Personally I'd stalk the elephants for a couple days, pick out the weakest ones, then locate their regular feeding and grazing/munching spots. I'd then dig massive holes at these points, while the elephants are busy elsewhere and in my line of sight. I'd take branches and sharpen them to a fashion by breaking the bark and/or using stones, and then place these in the hole, both deep at the bottom, and up the sides. I'd also put all sorts of debris around the pits, encouraging the elephant towards my trap. I'd take sticks, bracken and leaves and cover the pit. Then the real work would begin.
I'd sharpen a branch, carry as many rocks as possible, then get in place. I'd need to chase the elephant towards the pit, or failing that I'd need it to chase me and cause it to fall through my cover. This could easily be achieved by creating a cover that I can run over but the elephant cannot (I'd just dig another shallow hole and test it there). Of course it's always going to be difficult to achieve a victory against an elephant, but I firmly believe it's possible to isolate and trap or incapacitate one of the beasts, they're too clumsy and heavy, and any sort of pit trap would be sufficient to completely ruin their day.
All that being said, the fact remains that elephants dont cause major problems for us, there are tamed elephants, and even in the wild we are able to assess and understand their behaviour such that we can both survive and in some cases thrive alongside them. We dont need to fight, we've already won
Frequently we see the statement that man is an advanced animal, implying he is higher on the evolutionary tree than the others. Let's examine this claim.
Remember that evolution holds that simple forms of life spontaneously arose from non-life. Through mutation and natural selection they increased in complexity to multi-cellular animals to invertebrates to vertebrate fish. Next, some evolved into amphibians, then reptiles, then birds, and mammals. The standard view of evolution considers each stage more "advanced," or more complex than its predecessors until finally man arrives. In reality, however, all animals, living or fossil, are unthinkably complex. Each shows interdependence of functioning parts, each with a marvelous purpose to achieve. Even a single cell is more complex than a super computer. There is no such thing as simple life. If it's alive—it's complex.
Consider the "lowly" insect—pick one. As you study it, you'll discover an undreamed of complexity. Or the extinct arthropod, the trilobite sporting a powerful eye with a complex lens, equally as advanced as any today.
Or consider various mammals—from the whale with an intricate language, to the appreciation of beauty among some birds, to the use of "tools" among some primates—animals exhibit amazing abilities.
Similar traits or organs or abilities are also found in man, although our sight is not as good as the hawk's, our hearing is not as good as a dog's, etc. Each has its own nitch to fill.
Yet man is different. His "higher" characteristics have more to do with his
intelligence, his ability to plan and consider the future, and ability to express emotions. Animal instincts and habits are remarkable, but something sets man apart.
We find this difference explained in the record provided by the Creator of man and the animals. In Genesis One we see that the fish, the birds, the creeping things, the cattle, the beasts of the field, and the beasts of the earth were all created "after their kinds." But when God created man, He created him "after His own image." We often have similar DNA to the animals, similar body parts, similar functions, similar consciousness, similar blood, but the comparison disappears when man's eternal spirit is considered. The animals have nothing like this. Something about man adequately reflects God's nature in a way that the animals don't share.
God created man with the wonderful ability to reason and comprehend abstract thoughts. He alone can speak in a language which communicates his inner yearnings. Most importantly, man can truly love and respond to love, most particularly the love of God. He can recognize his own sinfulness, repent of it, and appreciate God's gracious solution to his sin problem. He can respond to God's love by choosing a life pleasing to Him. Animals, regardless of their cranial capacity, know nothing of this.
Man is qualitatively superior to the animals in many important ways. But he is also quantitatively distinct from all animals.
No, man is not a higher animal. Man is not an animal at all. He is the very image of God, and nothing less.
Cite this article: John D. Morris, Ph.D. 2003. Is Man a "Higher" Animal?. Acts & Facts. 32 (7).
Recognizes Man's Authority over Animals and Earth
Adam and the Animals
Is Man a "Higher" Animal?
Language, Creation and the Inner Man
Creation and the Environment
The article is sprinkled with bad logic, untestable claims and misunderstandings of science.
For instance the 3rd sentence;
Remember that evolution holds that simple forms of life spontaneously arose from non-life.
No. Evolution is about the diversity of species, abiogenis is a totally separate theory. The inability of creationist sources to address the actual claims of science is telling of the weakness of creationisms stance.
The author has an interesting take on 'design' which seems odd for creationists. He notes that all life seems to be complex which undermines some of the creationist ID movement as he seems to imply everything is designed. Claiming mans position over other animals would be hindered if everything is designed, it would be like claiming the Mona Lisa is the best painting because it is painted. He gets around this by just making unproveable claims of man being made in gods image.
No suprise this idea persists really, we are naturally subjective. This has been a contention of many a skeptic throughout history, Xanophase said "if horses had gods they would look like horses". Paraphrased him a bit but its the same idea we continue to find fault in.
To support his untestable claim that man is made in gods image the author uses circular logic and his own bias. He finds qualities he feels sets man apart from other animals then uses them to justify his conclusion.
God created man with the wonderful ability to reason and comprehend abstract thoughts. He alone can speak in a language which communicates his inner yearnings.
This extremely biased method can be compared to asserting mans position over women by selecting traits that favor the outcome, man is naturally stronger than woman etc. Also the claim of language and abstract thought seems to be ignorant of behavioral studies on all sorts of animals that have been shown to have the skills he claims animals don't have. He is treating these ideas like an on/off switch rather than a continuum.
Indeed creationism is rife with "looking the other way" when evidence suggests something other than the creationists predetermined conclusions.
Elephants charge at up to 25mph. Way faster than you can run. If the elephant wanted blood, you're dead. Playing dead is only going to get you trampled, and climbing a tree seems fine until the elephant knocks the tree down. Elephant win.
More authoritative link on how fast elephants run:
how fast elephant charges (wiki.answers.com)
It's true that you couldn't outrun an elephant one-dimensionally, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can't get away from it.
With four tons of mass to carry around, elephants aren't going to be maneuverable at high speeds. As snatch pointed out, you could run at a 90 degree angle or zigzag, and the elephant would likely be unable to catch you.
Also, you could use geological obstacles to your advantage; an elephant may be able to knock down a tree, but it's not going to be able to knock down a mountain, and the creatures aren't exactly natural rock climbers. A dense forest could provide similar cover. Granted, these a rare in the African savanna, but the question didn't specify the location of the attack.
It is obvious that in a battle between Man vs. Elephant, Elephant is the favored combatant, and I will now detail why in a precise, analytical, and impressive manner.
The most important advantage of the elephant: the tusks. An elephant could easily impale two grown men on each tusk, or up to five children. Now, compare that to what human teeth could do to an elephant: Barely nothing.
The teeth of humans are merely jokes to elephants. No matter how sharp your teeth are, your chances of hurting or killing an elephant with them are very, very small indeed.
And an elephant is big. An elephant could step on you and kill you with no problem, and not even break a sweat. He could even step on you by accident and kill you, and not even know it until he has to scrape you off his foot before walking into his elephant house or whatever.
Elephants are not just big. Elephants are very big. Elephants are big even when down on all four legs. When an elephant is reared up on its hind legs, it's even bigger than before, which was already pretty big to begin with.
Now, you, as a human, are already reared up on your hind legs pretty much all the time, and even then you're still not nearly as big as an elephant that is down on all fours. So, comparing you, up on your hind legs, to an elephant up on it's hind legs, there's just no contest.
What are you gonna do, Mr. Human? Stand on your toes? If you do, the elephant is just going to put its trunk up into the air, dwarfing you even further and making you look like even more of a fool before your ultimate defeat.
Some elephants are also reported to shoot peanuts out of their trunks with such velocity as to resemble machine gun fire. If these reports are true, the odds for human survival vs an elephant onslaught become slimmer with each passing minute.
The most important evidence of the superiority of elephants vs. man is demonstrated clearly on this very debate. What do the humans here consider the most successful outcome vs. an elephant? Why, getting away, of course!
The best that man can hope for is to run away and escape with his life, while the elephant is almost guaranteed to win by killing the human. The lopsided difference between the two ultimate outcomes clearly indicate which force is superior.
Elephants also have excellent memories. When you've forgotten all about your fight with the elephant and your triumphant escape, say, ten or twenty years down the line, and you're somewhere walking along the mall parking lot, sipping your Orange Julius and thinking about the game you watched on 3D holocable last night... BAM! The elephant jumps you from behind.
When the evidence is assembled and the case presented, the result is clear: In the never ending battle between man and elephant, always bet on gray!
The best way to kill an elephant is to cut down all the trees in Africa and India, and then build houses on all the land. If we can pull that off, then all of the elephants will starve to death and they won't have a chance.
Otherwise, a .458 caliber Lott rifle, or even a .416 Rigby, is sufficient for the frontal brain shot on any elephant that walks. Very clean.
An AK47 can certainly kill an elephant, but it's going to make a hell of a mess, and may take thirty minutes or so. Given that the elephant is not likely to stand around waiting to die during that time... I'm all for zig-zagging.
Well, elephants are equipped with laser-guided rockets and jetpacks standard. And humans, well, tourists usually just have disposable cameras.(Which as everyone knows, can disorient elephant-made electronics. However, it's a stretch.) So unless it's a really smart tourist, they're going to be taken back to the elephant home-city of Ilphlettee in the skies over Antarctica and forced to work under the oppressive rule of Ol' Palnuk, the seventh Elephant King.