Evidence God Exists

[AngelThMan]

I linked you to an article in which biologists and philosophers explain the development or art through evolutionary means. You ignored that example and went on your way.

And I responded to that and made a point which was ignored.

I provided you lots of examples of intelligence in animals. (By the way, there are plenty of animals with ALL of the criteria I listed, humpback whales, dolphins, certain primates come to mind). You ignore them and went on your way.

I never said animals don't have intelligence. And I've explained that the traits you mentioned in all those species pale in comparison to sapient intelligence, and I explained why.

I directly addressed your argument. If you haven't found my arguments convincing, I suggest you re-read the argument and analyze your own text and see where it fails.

This is an arrogant statement, to think that someone is going to look at their own text, and use the information to agree with your points. As I've stated before, just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true.

You're repeatedly told that humans don't have ultimate dominance, using micro-organisms as an example, in addition to being shown that humans cannot survive in many environments that certain animals can.

YES THEY CAN!! Using their intelligence and inventions, humans can survive pretty much anywhere and in any conditions. Even on the moon. Can any animal survive on the moon?

...Because humans seem to be so much more intellectually advanced...

Seem to be more intellectually advanced? Only on an atheists' forum would this statement hold any water. You know very well in the real world it doesn't make sense.

You weigh no other options and ignore the points that are shoved in your face.

Nothing of substance has been discussed. Just very juvenile notions. You're clearly someone who's very young. Either a teenager, or not much older than that.

You said cells and organisms (the same thing, by the way) aren't species, and I illustrated to you that they are. Perhaps you should word yourself a bit better.

Right. I should word myself better because you're a nitpicker, and can't just grasp from our conversation what I mean to say. This is another juvenile characteristic. Let's keep avoiding the real debate by finding little ways to make our opponent's life difficult.

Here's a definition of dominant:

1 a : commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others <the dominant culture> b : very important, powerful, or successful <a dominant theme> <a dominant industry>

And I think this easily defines our relation to other animals.

We have the capability to understand the world around us in a unique way, but in no way to we control or command all others.

Sure, that's why killer whales are in captivity at Sea World. More denial.

We cannot survive in environments in which certain forms of bacteria reside.

I don't think we want to. If we did, we'd find a way with our intelligence.

We cannot survive in considerably hot, cold, or dry climates. We cannot survive deep underwater, where pressures are immense. We cannot survive at high altitudes, where air density is low.

We can survive anywhere with our intelligence.

Other animals, suited for those environments, CAN.

This is not a refutation of my argument. We're still the dominant species.

We are perfectly suited for our environment. It's easy to see how you'd think we have dominion over it, in the same sense that a lion may regard himself to be the the top of the food chain and have no rival.

The lion does have a rival. Man captures him and puts him in zoos.

There, I've answered all you supposed refutations. So don't go around saying I've ignored your points. I've had an answer for everything you've posted. So there's no way my mind could be changed by your arguments.