Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why, then, do evolutionists use this as Exhibit No. 1?
Here we go again.
Human can not be evolved because its intelligence is off-scaled. That is certainly a VERY scientific statement.
No it isn't.Why do you keep inserting odd terms to try and improve your case?
"for no reason" is a false loading.
Otherwise it would be on purpose."accidental circumstances" too.
Not really. I know some animals that look to do better than some humans at problem-solving intelligence.
My point was that your argument was incoherent.It is quite coherent among animals. That is: LOW.
This is not even remotely scientific.Here we go again.
Human can not be evolved because its intelligence is off-scaled. That is certainly a VERY scientific statement.
But it's not evolution, but they get taught it is.Because it's a well-documented case that even a child could understand? Because it demonstrates the concept of natural selection in such a simple, easy-to-understand manner?
Because ToE is not science, obviously.What is it with creationists and zeroing in on the material we use to teach children about science?
My point was that your argument was incoherent.
We both agree that humans are significantly more intelligent then all other animals. You have not presented anything like an actual or even theoretical barrier for evolution in building this intelligence.
This is not even remotely scientific.
We see variation in intelligence throughout the animal kingdom, in particular the most intelligent non human animals are also the most similar to us genetically and in body plan.
They most certainly do. In fact, they are a major sour e of support for evolution. Fossils are like snap shots set in stone as to what happened way back then. To date, the only explanation that explains the fossils and the way they occur is evolution. That's why evolution is central tenet of modern science.But fossils don't show evolution.
Too inflammatory. There is no "church of naturalism." That's just a term of ridicule you brought up.I have opened a topic to show you naturalism as preached by the church of naturalism is not science but a belief:
http://www.christianforums.com/posts/69512200/
You will see there is no need for a theist to subscribe to popular scientific consensus.
Take a careful look at yourself. You will easily see that you are continually changing, evolving. Moment to moment, you are a different person. No thinker thinks twice. Anti-evolutionary people should look at themselves.Yeah, great analogy...
Have a look at what you're defending, as should all of you evolutionists:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/revealing-quotes-from-revered-scientists.7942332/
No, I don't. There are may other viable models of God other than the judge and Ruthless Moralist one.Both sides do this.
Do you want God above you, judging you?
No it isn't.
If there was a reason, what had the reason?t
It's not on purpose if something emerges via natural selection only because other variants failed, in terms of evolutionary survival.Otherwise it would be on purpose.
What's your problem with the meaning of words?
Where is that animal? Let's try to kill them and see who is more intelligent.
May be I will eat it to increase my intelligence.
But it's not evolution
It is evolution, actually. It may not be speciation, but the peppered moth is a textbook example of evolution in action. A mutation led to a change in phenotypes, natural selection selected for those phenotypes, and the species evolved. If you don't think this is evolution, you do not know what evolution is.
That would be causes.The natural forces:
When itś not on purpose it's... exactly.It's not on purpose if something emerges via natural selection only because other variants failed, in terms of evolutionary survival.
You just repeated yourself and said it was very scientific... I asked for a reason why.The degree of intelligence is expressed by products and achievements.
So you can compare that between animals and human.
That is a very very scientific argument.
I rest my case.
Nope.Too inflammatory. There is no "church of naturalism." That's just a term of ridicule you brought up.
You just repeated yourself and said it was very scientific... I asked for a reason why.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?