To disprove evolution...

[Tiberius]

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.

You asked, "can chimps build mechanical transportation, study science, or build cities that have technological advances, etc.?" It sure seems like you did this in an effort to show that since they can't do those things, they must not be as intelligent as humans, who can do those things.

I am asking, why is a species that can do those things more intelligent than a species that can not?

 

[rational experiences]

Intelligence is based on natural behaviour and instinctive.

Versus dominion expressed by men of science as only a humans appraisal.

Why mother's mutuality secondary partner and mother as human conscious teachings were found to be better accepted and advice rational.

So they said earth was like our mother and respect all bodies upon it. Our holy brother not any theist thoughts.

One is not to assert your human superiority about any other thing.

Which most cult group sciences don't do. As life or substance first does not exist because you asserted human man's dominion belief upon it. Men's words.

A conscious teaching.

Self destructive science behaviour is proven least intelligent of any species.

Equals your answer exact as you thesis intent is when anything natural hadn't existed when it does.

You hence theory about its removal involving your thesis to get energy by a machines reactive destruction.

So some men think chemical ground to biology existing. Then new thoughts chemical ground machine built then biology or the destroyer.....a line from a man losing life by water oxygen and mineral microbe whilst he reacts with nuclear theme to a little amount of sciences energy sludge left. By machine.

Does and used his life mind experience as any type of all comparison. Says his biological reduction causes also equals just a little amount of energy.

Is cosmic man's dominion earth themes as and is compared to a star first. Remove nuclear mass. Open earth gas to increased space burn out. Huge pressure changes around earth. Equals earth becomes his invented Satan star.

The various places our human brothers mind travels in theorising.

Why he keeps asking himself is he really conscious and intelligent as a science reaction machine theist. Human man.

His answer is no you're not.

 

[gnostic]

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

Evolution proven fake.

Wow. Shorter post. Shorter sentences.

But your conclusion is false, because it is based on faulty understanding of Evolution, and on how you arrived at this conclusion..

 

[rational experiences]

Wow. Shorter post. Shorter sentences.

But your conclusion is false, because it is based on faulty understanding of Evolution, and on how you arrived at this conclusion..

Any state existing to day was ended.

To be exact of its owned form. As it doesn't move beyond its body type.

To exist today living by procreation owns presence.

Science wants humans to be aliens from another place.

As having used earths resources their human greedy want causes lying.

As we own bones like a planets Rock. Humans saying as I am a human said to a cosmic theist I belong as a spirit life on earth. Human.

Said by humans living as humans being human. No one else is making human claims.

Proof inside my biology are bones and without earths Rock I could not own bones.

As I did not begin as rock I said I owned a spirit body first. Not of earth from eternal. To own bones inside of my body human.

Thinking hence says human type biology with bones not of the earth first as rock is the first type planet.

So humans as humans observing all the topic subjects stated. I give each type a category. In water sea or fresh. Grounded. Airborne. Animal or human.

As each body type is an end to be quantified as a type by subject. Human only chosen subject.

Your science advice human is hence subjective to own a theory. Only as quantified as close as my human answer can be to the topic subject of my human choosing.

Notified it's a human doing all the conclusions as a human.

Science owns millions of used human discussions. I have used a very small amount of advice compared to a theist scientist.

 

[David Davidovich]

You asked, "can chimps build mechanical transportation, study science, or build cities that have technological advances, etc.?" It sure seems like you did this in an effort to show that since they can't do those things, they must not be as intelligent as humans, who can do those things.

I am asking, why is a species that can do those things more intelligent than a species that can not?

Because the species that can't, doesn't know how to figure out in their brains how to do those things?

 

[David Davidovich]

Wow. Shorter post. Shorter sentences.

But your conclusion is false, because it is based on faulty understanding of Evolution, and on how you arrived at this conclusion..

You not talking to me are you?

 

[rational experiences]

A woman a human and not a scientist.

Suddenly by body attack I gained unnatural visions past without asking....of man's science causes. Says today by learning as teaching I've been blamed for a state I never owned nor caused.

Yet have lived blamed and abused by human men inventor of the status maths to calculate...symbols science with thousands of human only thought description words. By baby man.

Who said as my human mother's bio cell changed so did his. Biology blame.

Not the blame at all in reality about why it who changed earths nature... and he lied by machine status.

Machines is the status men of science use to claim science by practice is correct.

Digs up earths mass. Alchemises it. Gains metals that is naturally held in seams of deep pressure of earth. Then digs up new mass.

Every moment of every choice by a human mind. Every action physical human body used.

He personally as man adult came from a baby birth and two small bodies substances sperm ovary.

Every status just about you a man. A human man. A theist man. The scientist.

And today you want to argue about what you claim you know.

I know you lied. Abused life by science and still lie for one purpose. What just a human man wants and then human brothers agree.

Does not make you correct.

You preached as earth owned it's heavens gases first. The sun by mass ejected cooler in space had attacked earth and changed it.

Destruction of natural history occurred exact in that moment. You knew it was destruction.

So you said I must stop my ego lying self. Theist scientists. About the sun history.

You taught O earth is our God. Without rock being a bone like function entity within our body of spirit...biology. We would own no human life.

You said God was within as bones. And one body bones is nothing like bio cell conditions. Hence keep our life body cell blood holy. Never ever change earth heavens mass by machines.

Machines said man the liar first position is non reàctive. Are like me. I'm non reactive too. Only position a machine owns compared to a humans life by a liar designer man as a status like. By word terms a human only uses.

Theme as I don't use natural living words position correctly. Consciousness to live. I began lying by displacing thinking in a status taught first by natural mutual lived by states.

Which I taught as a man human is lying.

So I taught every life presence was ended. Is exact to exist it was ended already and each type was given an end.

To exist beyond itself was then sexual procreation.

Why when garden life bio sacrificed evicted. I said to myself don't have sex. Otherwise babies will Inherit the sins of my science choice a sacrificed suffering biology. Of human.

Therefore my teaching about my consciousness is exact. I lie using the terms human science.

My human proof said I had attacked mutated human biology to an ape like life mutant monkey human. I dig up any type of evidence against myself.

DNA genesis a living humans topic. I attacked biology and it's life type left.

It became sick and mutated. However it could still live and procreate. Even though evicted. I thought it shouldn't as now ugly unnatural animals now existed.

Whereas the origin of life was balanced perfect and beautiful.

I made it become ugly said the human scientist as his life on earth rock confession.

As we did not come to earth as cooled sun mass to attack earths body or gases we never came from out of space by evolution.

Owning two living very different types of human bodies is our proof. As one body term the human. Two in one body.

 

[Tiberius]

Because the species that can't, doesn't know how to figure out in their brains how to do those things?

So what? Why is the ability to do that the mark by which we should measure intelligence?

 

[gnostic]

You not talking to me are you?

Not to you

 

[David Davidovich]

So what? Why is the ability to do that the mark by which we should measure intelligence?

I don't mean this disparagingly, but no wonder I have been having trouble understanding what you are saying. Your explanations are nonsensical.

 

[David Davidovich]

Not to you

Thanks, gnostic. No problem.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't mean this disparagingly, but no wonder I have been having trouble understanding what you are saying. Your explanations are nonsensical.

You keep saying things that are basically, "Humans can do X, and animals can't, therefore Humans are intelligent because we can do X and animals can't do X."

I'm asking you why you think that X should be how we determine if something is intelligent.

 

[David Davidovich]

You keep saying things that are basically, "Humans can do X, and animals can't, therefore Humans are intelligent because we can do X and animals can't do X."

I'm asking you why you think that X should be how we determine if something is intelligent.

And you keep twisting what I said and what you have said. You said to me: why do I think that X should be how we determine if something is intelligent. However, I keep contending that X shows the level of intelligence. And then you twist things into saying something like how since non-human intelligence is different than human intelligence, then you can't determine that human intelligence is at a greater level than non-human intelligence... Gobbledygook!

 

[Tiberius]

And you keep twisting what I said and what you have said. You said to me: why do I think that X should be how we determine if something is intelligent. However, I keep contending that X shows the level of intelligence. And then you twist things into saying something like how since non-human intelligence is different than human intelligence, then you can't determine that human intelligence is at a greater level than non-human intelligence... Gobbledygook!

I am not twisting anything you say.

Like you said, you keep contending that X shows the level of intelligence.

I am simply asking you to support your contention that X is a suitable metric for determining the level of intelligence.

 

[David Davidovich]

I am not twisting anything you say.

Like you said, you keep contending that X shows the level of intelligence.

I am simply asking you to support your contention that X is a suitable metric for determining the level of intelligence.

Well, let's just put it this way, I personally don't think that a chimp would understand what we are talking about... Therefore, that should be enough support. And if not, why?

 

[Tiberius]

Well, let's just put it this way, I personally don't think that a chimp would understand what we are talking about... Therefore, that should be enough support. And if not, why?

And here I will ask you again the same question I have been asking all along.

Why should a chimp's intelligence be based on whether it can understand what we are talking about?

I mean, chimps can make some pretty complex strategies when they hunt monkeys, so why shouldn't that be considered evidence for their intelligence?

 

[rational experiences]

Earth owned gigantic dinosaurs thick skinned cold blood as all water mass volume in the heavens wasn't ice.

They had giant eggs that gained giant babies.

Not any of their living status with earths nature garden exists today.

Water mass to hold up their gigantic frames. Cold blood in a hotter temperature constant.

We live as red celled tiny boned bio life in an iced four season climate.

All of the comparing advice says no evolution.

So everyone now needs to turn their human attention onto the human theist. To review compare their human life and thinking to just a human want.

As if everyone thought like them they wouldn't be trying to force their just a human theory upon life. Natural.

It's all about human egotism. Acceptance in human group cult behaviour. Rewarding bad behaviours as it was based on rich men becoming richer.

Using other humans and human behaviour to achieve maintain just a rich man's lifestyle.

As a human spiritual theist. My thought said that if I believed bio life came from a spirit eternal place. It is unknown and not identified by a human.

So no theory by a human exists.

It's human theists who claim that they do own a theory about that place. The eternal unconditional loving being.

So my human argument says....
Unconditional love no condition.

To be that type of being you only communicate exact as the advice. We don't live as an unconditional life so we cannot talk to it by pleading. Pray to alter its reason that remains the same or demand from it.

As it's place is exact by term.

If you placate it did evil..it hadn't. But caused change. Change as a body then became evil. Defining a changing body moved away from it.

So humans said it became eternal hell. Which is position the sun only.

As eternal hell also froze over into form.

Where we claim our parents came from was the unconditional loving being they had left. Not any type of human theory. It's just a story.

As when a human says when no nature existed on earth they are still a human living on earth.

Why spirit never owned a humans thesis. Isn't an evolution thesis.

 

[rational experiences]

And you keep twisting what I said and what you have said. You said to me: why do I think that X should be how we determine if something is intelligent. However, I keep contending that X shows the level of intelligence. And then you twist things into saying something like how since non-human intelligence is different than human intelligence, then you can't determine that human intelligence is at a greater level than non-human intelligence... Gobbledygook!

If I said as one human to a human why can't you mind your own business..one self a human?

Your answer cannot own an intelligent retort.

So the same goes about the monkey. You're a human doing all commentaries about a monkey. The topic the monkey you a human are observing.

It's just egotism. Human behaviour. And we said to ourselves it's very destructive by what choices humans make inferring status.

 

[gnostic]

Because the species that can't, doesn't know how to figure out in their brains how to do those things?

Evolution occurred in all organisms, not just those of humans.

There are other organisms that don't have brains, so brains are not the only factor to consider for evolutionary changes, and in some cases, speciation occurred due to such change.

Beside that.

What intelligence are you talking about?

I am asking because intelligence among humans varied widely.

So are there a particular form of intelligence that you are referring to?

To give you an example.

Let's supposed that there are two humans. One of them is intelligent because he is a rocket scientist, while the other is a cook.

Does that mean a cook who cannot design rocket, as being "less than human" or "not human"?

And when each have children, grandchildren and so on, do they inherit their knowledge and skills through DNA?

Or are such skills and knowledge taught to them?

As Tiberius have tried to explain to you, intelligence is not good indicator of evolutionary changes, because no knowledge and no skills inherited through their genes, hence being able to built rockets or to cook chow mien or grill steak are not heritable biologically, hence such skills and knowledge have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.

Intelligence are not good indicator of changes to biology, especially of non-human organisms.

To give another example, brown bears and polar bears are closely related to one another, are considered sister-species. Biologists, specialists in bear biology would investigate HOW, WHERE & WHEN such changes occur - the divergence of these two species.

You could resort to what many creationists resort to, and say -

1. they are not different species,
   
2. or the silly "bear will always remain bear"
   
3. or say even more stupid thing like "Can a bear give birth to a dog"?

1 and 2 aren't explanation, just assertion without understanding the biology of two different types of bears.

And 3, is what only idiots say, because they don't understand Evolution, so they "make up" insane and impossible scenario that no biologists would consider them to be serious question.

Number 3 comes up a lot among creationists, especially like "Can cat give birth to dog?" or "Can dog give birth to cat?" Or the frequent "Can chimp give birth to a human?"

No biologists would ask this sort of question, because it is just plain ignorance and intellectually dishonest to repeat such lame and unscientific scenarios.

None of these are probable, because they don't understand Evolution. especially the "common ancestor"?

Neither humans or chimpanzees exist 7 million years ago, but some extinct species that exhibit some common physical traits of either before the divergence. So no, chimpanzees didn't and cannot give birth to human species, nor humans to chimpanzees.

This extinct species was possibly Sahelanthropus tchadensis (also known as the Toumai), which flourished during the Miocene epoch, the specimen were found in Chad. The science community haven't yet reached a decision if the Sahelanthropus is a direct common ancestor of both humans and chimpanzees, or not.

 

[David Davidovich]

And here I will ask you again the same question I have been asking all along.

Why should a chimp's intelligence be based on whether it can understand what we are talking about?

Well, if you're even asking that question, then that is the problem that we're having in this conversation.

I mean, chimps can make some pretty complex strategies when they hunt monkeys, so why shouldn't that be considered evidence for their intelligence?

There you go again, twisting things. Because once again, I never made any claim that chimps don't have any kind of intelligence... But any who, I am through with this conversation with you.