-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution of what?
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That's because there is no distinction in intelligence between humans and animals, other than humans are simply MORE intelligent. And even then, there are sometimes specific forms of intelligence that another animal can be better at. For example, chimps outdo humans every time the following test, where the numbers 1-9 are seen on a screen, and then replaced by squares, and the idea is to press the squares in the order in which they were numbered. I'm not sure why it isn't uploading the YouTube video directly, but if you click on the link to YouTube, you can watch it there.When I talk about "intelligence" I usually refer to the mental analysis capacity of human beings. Apparently evolutionists cannot distinguish human intelligence from animal instinct...
Have evolutionists lost common sense?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
What did you think of the chimp vid?WOWWWWWW
Thanks for confirming.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Why should I waste my time talking to someone who doesn't even recognize that I've made an argument and backed it up with a source?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Good thing that you put those smilies in at the end of your statements or we might think you are serious about the nonsense you spout.When I talk about "intelligence" I usually refer to the mental analysis capacity of human beings. Apparently evolutionists cannot distinguish human intelligence from animal instinct...
Have evolutionists lost common sense?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Because the forum is DESIGNED to facilitate DEBATE about science v. religion, which includes the evolution v creationism debate (although really, such posts are better placed in the Evolution/Creationism forum). If a person really only wants to talk to like minded people, there are better places for that than here.Don't waste your time ... Just ignore my posts.
It's easy, I do it with a lot of people who do not contribute anything to my wealth of knowledge
I wonder why you, evolutionists, don't talk more among yourselves about your own "science", to grow yourselves.
I don't need your permission to post here ...
Be well, and good bye.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I never said you did. LOL lovely strawman.
Of course, true knowledge increases with time. Even the Bible says it:
Dan. 12:4 “As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.”
Also the arrogance of some stupid people increases over time, as the Bible also says.
Dan. 12:10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but those having insight will understand.
Studying the Bible has taught me to realize human reality and where I should place my hope.
No. the rejection of science based on the Bible increases over time as the knowledge of science increases. The Bible reads the same as it was finally compiled about 2000 years ago
It's often a bit pointless talking to your sort, given you don't even have the courage to look at things that might shake your beliefs.Don't waste your time ... Just ignore my posts.
It's easy, I do it with a lot of people who do not contribute anything to my wealth of knowledge
I wonder why you, evolutionists, don't talk more among yourselves about your own "science", to grow yourselves.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Are you sure that it isn't you that is trying to avoid the fact that this isn't true?
Frank Fractal
*banned*
Changes in the environment are the driver of evolution.
Evolution is a *result* of changes in the environment.
Your idea that scientists have ignored changes in the environment is therefore wrong.
Perhaps you need to look more closely at what evolution actually means.
It must be that the defenders of the doctrine who are trying to defend it on internet forums ridicule it, giving the impression that they should not...
Even when I open a thread for it, they don't know how to prove me wrong other than saying I am wrong.
So who are you, guys, going to teach something, and what that would be?
I am going to give a specific example that shows why I believe that evolutionists do not realize that in their theory they are separating the supposed progress of the apes and the real conditions that surrounded them.
The period in which evolutionists say humans settled only dates back to about 10 millennia or so (the neolithic age). However, they often say that shortly before that time there were glaciers that killed many animals while certain apes were still just nomadic.
So, according to them, the apes were learning until that moment, but suddenly they are humans in the middle of the Neolithic, settling in places for the first time and creating cities, after having gone through frosts ... Don't you think there is something in the story that doesn't add up?
It is interesting how evolutionists try to match eras and intellectual development, without taking into account that in the 21st century, there are still human beings who live in an uncivilized way. Obviously, social human development has nothing to do with historical era or brain development, but with acquired and systematized knowledge. Why are these aborigines from the jungles of the world still in stages that evolutionists attribute to backward human species?
The period in which evolutionists say humans settled only dates back to about 10 millennia or so (the neolithic age). However, they often say that shortly before that time there were glaciers that killed many animals while certain apes were still just nomadic.
So, according to them, the apes were learning until that moment, but suddenly they are humans in the middle of the Neolithic, settling in places for the first time and creating cities, after having gone through frosts ... Don't you think there is something in the story that doesn't add up?
It is interesting how evolutionists try to match eras and intellectual development, without taking into account that in the 21st century, there are still human beings who live in an uncivilized way. Obviously, social human development has nothing to do with historical era or brain development, but with acquired and systematized knowledge. Why are these aborigines from the jungles of the world still in stages that evolutionists attribute to backward human species?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You have consistently shown the same problem over and and over, which is basically that you have no understanding of what scientists actually say. You make up stuff that they DON'T say, and then attack it. It's called making a strawman to knock down, and all it does is make you look bad.I am going to give a specific example that shows why I believe that evolutionists do not realize that in their theory they are separating the supposed progress of the apes and the real conditions that surrounded them.
The period in which evolutionists say humans settled only dates back to about 10 millennia or so (the neolithic age). However, they often say that shortly before that time there were glaciers that killed many animals while certain apes were still just nomadic.
So, according to them, the apes were learning until that moment, but suddenly they are humans in the middle of the Neolithic, settling in places for the first time and creating cities, after having gone through frosts ... Don't you think there is something in the story that doesn't add up?
It is interesting how evolutionists try to match eras and intellectual development, without taking into account that in the 21st century, there are still human beings who live in an uncivilized way. Obviously, social human development has nothing to do with historical era or brain development, but with acquired and systematized knowledge. Why are these aborigines from the jungles of the world still in stages that evolutionists attribute to backward human species?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Your strawmen concerning evolution don't require refutation. They only require pointing out.
It's not that you make mistakes regarding evolution theory. It's that you flat out misrepresent it.
You strawman it. And again: strawmen don't need refutation. They only require being pointed out. And that settles it.
When you try to argue against a strawman, your argument is rendered void and meaningles by pointing out the strawman.