the intellect belongs exclusively to humans, and therefore, they were originally created with that capacity.
Or, they are the only species to have evolved to the point of possessing intellect. You have yet to provide evidence that man or anything else before the evolution of intelligence was created by a conscious agent, and we already have a good answer for how the universe, life, mind, and man came to be as we find them, one founded in evidence.
show evidence of yours since there's no apes developing intellect at any point of time.
I've already falsified that. Humans, who are apes, developed intellect. If you mean non-human apes, there's no disagreement there.
And I still don't see why you think this point supports creationism. It's consistent with naturalistic evolution, which is a better hypothesis being both more parsimonious and much better evidenced.
For an animal to learn something, it needs a human to teach it.
Nope. We've taught our dogs to do their business outdoors and to use the dog door to get there, but everything else they know that isn't instinctual they learned from observing patterns, inducing relationships, and deducing what will follow when they see or hear certain things.
Knowing that the Sumerian civilization is the first known human civilization and that its existence dates back to after the creation of Adam, it is not difficult to deduce that the evidence shows that the Bible is right about when humans were created.
Your reasoning is fallacious. I've already explained that. Genesis is mythology, not history. Adam is a fictional character. No conclusion that follows from erroneous and unshared premises can be sound.
My topic asks evolutionists for proof that apes have developed intellect. So far they have presented no real evidence that this has happened.
I've given you that evidence myself. Have you forgotten already? I posted on the evolution of numbers and English as well as listing intelligent accomplishments of mankind predating civilization by millennia.
Basically, you're complaining that nobody will give you evidence that you have already ignored and arguing that scripture and biblical genealogies are evidence of divine creation when you have been shown that they are not.
I notice you chose to not answer my question about what motivates you to come to mixed forum and argue creationism with arguments that have no chance of persuading critical thinkers. I have already speculated on why you do that, and you offered no counterargument or denial, so I'm assuming that I'm probably correct that you are trying to please your god by martyring yourself promoting your religion.
That would also explain why you won't answer. You can't tell the truth and you can't lie if you think your god, who you believe is privy to these discussions, would disapprove of both. You think you can't say that you are doing this to be contradicted and rejected to earn favor, which is the likely reason, and you think that you can't lie about what your reason is. You don't know how to answer, so you don't.
And it would also explain why not one creationist out of a dozen or more that I have asked this question will acknowledge seeing it much less answer it. Isn't lying for Jesus OK in Christianity? Go ahead and tell the lie that you are here to teach the skeptics and bring them to Jesus. I say lie because you know that you can't do that, and that all that you accomplish is to further confirm with yet another example that creationism is false and these skeptics are justified in rejecting your beliefs, which would be the opposite of a claim of trying to teach or help others. None of you believe that you are doing that if none of you will say those words.
