To disprove evolution...

[David Davidovich]

My point stands.

If you are saying that lots of animals have intelligence, but human intelligence is higher, then you must have some objective way of measuring the level of intelligence that an animal/human has. Can you show this method?

I'll have to come back at another time to answer your question in more detail, however, right now I just wanted to post this video, which makes what I think is a pretty good case involving how even within the animal kingdom, there are different levels of intelligence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My initial statement that first started all this was:

But other animals have consciousness, but they just aren't as intelligent as humans are.

And I still stand by that too. And there are millions of really gross examples that I could use (but I'm not), which would demonstsrate that your quasi-cerebal mumbo jumbo really doesn't hold water.

But other animals have consciousness, but they just aren't as intelligent as humans are.
Correct and what follows from that?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

But other animals have consciousness, but they just aren't as intelligent as humans are.
Correct and what follows from that?

That intelligence cannot evolve. All animals have instinct and humans have both instinct and intelligence, thus, humans are not animals. Which means, Linnaean Classification System is wrong. Which means, Evolution is wrong since Evolution relies too much on incorrect classification from Linnaean's.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That intelligence cannot evolve. All animals have instinct and humans have both instinct and intelligence, thus, humans are not animals. Which means, Linnaean Classification System is wrong. Which means, Evolution is wrong since Evolution relies too much on incorrect classification from Linnaean's.

Yeah, you and I think differently. And as long as you take your own thinking as an objective fact, we won't get anywhere.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Yeah, you and I think differently. And as long as you take your own thinking as an objective fact, we won't get anywhere.

You need to test every claims in science..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You need to test every claims in science..

Too simple. You first have to understand different versions of claims to knowledge and compare them and then figure out how science claims knowledge and understand that in regards to other claims of knowledge.

 

[Tiberius]

It is only a play of words but the context and message is the same. Evolution is not part of reality, thus, Evolution is not fact and not science..

Evolution can be described and studied and falsified. It can be used to make testable predictions about the future. In what way is it not science?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evolution can be described and studied and falsified. It can be used to make testable predictions about the future. In what way is it not science?

Sometimes I wonder if some of the participants on both side confuse science and in the end the meaning of life. But that is just me.

 

[Tiberius]

I'll have to come back at another time to answer your question in more detail, however, right now I just wanted to post this video, which makes what I think is a pretty good case involving how even within the animal kingdom, there are different levels of intelligence.

Interesting.

However, those are not different levels for intelligence, he presents them as ingredients that are required for intelligence.

Specifically, opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, and passing on knowledge to the next generation.

I would argue that there are exceptions for each of those. Chimps can coordinate hunts and attacks in silence, with different members playing different roles that are planned ahead of time. SOURCE This clearly demonstrates some pretty advanced planning skills, which I think most people here would accept is a sign of intelligence.

There are also some predators that do not have stereoscopic vision, such as sharks and some predatory dinosaurs. And some animals that lack stereoscopic vision do quite well in intelligence tests, pigeons for example. SOURCE

And there are many examples of young animals learning how to perform complex tasks from older animals.

In short, the points he makes work as a general guideline, but are nowhere near sufficient to serve as a rule by which to judge the intelligence of a particular animal.

 

[Tiberius]

Sometimes I wonder if some of the participants on both side confuse science and in the end the meaning of life. But that is just me.

Are you suggesting I am confusing science? If so, in what way?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you suggesting I am confusing science? If so, in what way?

No, not you. But there is always how someone views science in regards to methodological naturalism or other variants and how that someone do an evaluation of how we ought to integrate science as such into being a human.
These debate are never just about science in isolation.

 

[gnostic]

You need to test every claims in science..

Which you haven’t done.

If you have “tested every claims” you have made, you would have EVIDENCE & DATA for other people to verify.

Tests in Natural Sciences means verifiable data and observations of evidence that people (eg scientists) can independently review, test and verify.

Instead, you have evade and dodge every time members asked that you show these evidence and data to everyone.

Every claims you have made, are just deception and every explanation you have presented were misinformed or just false or incorrect.

You are every bit worse than evasive politician when it comes to demonstrate your claims with observable and testable evidence & data.

 

[gnostic]

That intelligence cannot evolve. All animals have instinct and humans have both instinct and intelligence, thus, humans are not animals. Which means, Linnaean Classification System is wrong. Which means, Evolution is wrong since Evolution relies too much on incorrect classification from Linnaean's.

Seriously?

This is another strawman argument, because no biologists TODAY are using Carl Linnaeus’ 18th century taxonomy system.

You are arguing over outdated classification system that no one use any more, certainly not in the last 2 centuries (the 2nd half of the 20th century and this 21st century).

The present systems are combination of modern phylogenetic taxonomic system and more so in cladistic taxonomy.

Minerals are not part of modern biological classification systems. Mineral classification falls under mineralogy in geology. Yes, Linnaean classification is wrong, but no modern biologists are using Linnaeus’ outdated system.

How about if you were to read up and researching modern biology textbooks instead of looking at the old Linnaeus’ classification?

Why are you bringing this up?

Your argument is weak because no one are using Linnaean taxonomy, today. Even I, being no biologist, know this. You need to do your own research on modern biology of the last 40 to 50 years that are relevant to our current knowledge and understanding.

 

[David Davidovich]

But other animals have consciousness, but they just aren't as intelligent as humans are.
Correct and what follows from that?

Post#29?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is only a play of words but the context and message is the same. Evolution is not part of reality, thus, Evolution is not fact and not science..

But living things do change over time, so it is part of reality. Studying that change and the evidence of past change is science.

 

[David Davidovich]

]Interesting.

However, those are not different levels for intelligence, he presents them as ingredients that are required for intelligence.

Specifically, opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, and passing on knowledge to the next generation.

I would argue that there are exceptions for each of those. Chimps can coordinate hunts and attacks in silence, with different members playing different roles that are planned ahead of time. SOURCE This clearly demonstrates some pretty advanced planning skills, which I think most people here would accept is a sign of intelligence.

I don't recall exactly everything that you've said in this conversation, however, from what you said above, I think that one of the differences that we have in our POVs is whether or not some earth creatures have higher levels of intelligence than others. And in your example above about the chimps, can chimps build mechanical transportation, study science, or build cities that have technological advances, etc.? And to answer that question myself, I would say that probably not.

There are also some predators that do not have stereoscopic vision, such as sharks and some predatory dinosaurs. And some animals that lack stereoscopic vision do quite well in intelligence tests, pigeons for example. SOURCE

And there are many examples of young animals learning how to perform complex tasks from older animals.

Okay. I'll concede on those points.

In short, the points he makes work as a general guideline, but are nowhere near sufficient to serve as a rule by which to judge the intelligence of a particular animal.

But once again, I don't remember what you said earlier in the conversation (I'd have to go back and look), however, the point that I'm making isn't whether or not animals are intelligent, but that human beings function at a higher level of intelligence than animals do.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't recall exactly everything that you've said in this conversation, however, from what you said above, I think that one of the differences that we have in our POVs is whether or not some earth creatures have higher levels of intelligence than others. And in your example above about the chimps, can chimps build mechanical transportation, study science, or build cities that have technological advances, etc.? And to answer that question myself, I would say that probably not.

And on what basis do you present building mechanical transportation, studying science, or building cities that have technological advances, etc as evidence for intelligence? Do you believe that these are required for an organism to be called Intelligent?

Okay. I'll concede on those points.

Thanks. In my experience, most people just ignore them instead of actually saying they concede, so thanks for having the integrity to do so.

But once again, I don't remember what you said earlier in the conversation (I'd have to go back and look), however, the point that I'm making isn't whether or not animals are intelligent, but that human beings function at a higher level of intelligence than animals do.

But this requires us to have some objective way to measure how intelligent something is. And, closely tied to this, we must also have some definition of what counts as higher intelligence. I think if you're going to make a definitive point, you'll need to address both of these things. Otherwise, the phrase "higher intelligence" could mean anything.

 

[David Davidovich]

And on what basis do you present building mechanical transportation, studying science, or building cities that have technological advances, etc as evidence for intelligence?

Just for right now, I don't understand your question. Also, I'll have to come back some other time to address the rest of your post.

 

[rational experiences]

We live in water that ground evaporates by heavenly causes. Law of water mass shifting saved life.

Said men as observation. Living as a human.

Not using machines. Hence not using maths data which isn't representative of natural substances presence in mass as viewed or seen by human biology first.

Consciousness.

Naming or inferring data isn't natural substances. Position first.

Teaching of earth God said by humans stated substances are present first and observed only. By observer a human.

Technical advice man human the thinker.

A man says to another man water is holy as when it ground lifts it owns minerals within the water.

It also has microscopic food. In the water.

Life's subsistence.

Water is the exact same biologies support as any type of life you see observe as a human.

What I see as a human when you brother die. Everything natural still exact living plus your dead human body. Exactly human observed and advised.

Topic by thought human conscious...body human present. Subject of choice ....body human present.

Topic evolution isn't conscious reality. It's an indoctrination to a human by use coercion of another human.

Behaviour of humans asserting human intelligence.

Hence as a human woman. When you don't exist personally the science argument invented by human men goes with you.

Proves you wrong.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic teaching. No physical sex or physical procreation. All bodies die.

Evolution proven fake.