Evidence God Exists

[tavarish]

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.

It's pretty clear to see that you don't understand how the development of human intelligence works. You reach a conclusion, then rationalize to fit your argument. That's not how reasoned debate work.

I told you that even with our intelligence, we are subject to the collective will of micro-organisms. We have terminal diseases killing millions each day, not to mention opportunistic infections that accompany these ailments. We can combat against some illnesses, but there remain many that are incurable at this point in time. These micro-organisms are living things with a species classification.

What you're claiming is that the intelligence humans possess is not only more advanced than any other being (which I do not contest), but that our intelligence as a trait is greater than ANY traits in the animal kingdom. You're basing this on accomplishment, and failing to realize that accomplishment of the species is only relevant to that species. You're comparing apples to oranges and making a weak case laced with ad hominem attacks against those who call you out on your inconsistencies.

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 pretty good at rebutting your own assertions.

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?

Can humans survive in high radiation areas? Areas of nuclear fallout? Why are you comparing the traits of animals to the accomplishments of human intelligence? Again, you're not understanding how trait development works.

For example, you can't expect a species that has developed to become a perfect hunter, such as the shark, to invent a computer, as it was irrelevant to its development. Its environment did not demand that it develops sapience; it simply was not a favorable trait for its survival. It's the same thing as expecting us to be able to smell blood underwater from a mile away. Our environment did not demand this from us. I don't know how many more times I can drive this point home.

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.

Why would an intellectually honest statement only make sense here on an atheist forum?

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.

I love how you come here, propose some ridiculously inaccurate and wild claims, then resort to ad hominem attacks when you don't get your way.

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.

No, as you learn more about debate, you realize that words have meanings. Don't say a word or make a claim before you actually know what it means and intend to extend that notion. I don't operate on your assumptions, nor should it be required for this discussion.

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

And orcas in the zoo are proof of what? The definition I provided said "control over all", which we do not have.

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

We can survive anywhere with our intelligence.

Try to survive in the middle of the ocean, the desert, arctic tundra or anywhere else we're not suited for without tools for an extended period of time. Intelligence without a viable application is worthless.

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

LOL.

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

Again you're asserting that "dominance" over something involves taking something it out of its environment. It doesn't work this way. If you went to the plains of Africa with nothing, staring down a pack of lions, it isn't likely that you'll survive. It's because you don't have a natural advantage. The only advantage you can have is through application of intelligence via tools, and even then, nothing's guaranteed. This is brought about through evolution and LOTS of trial and error.

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.

This isn't how reasoned discussion works. When one side is horribly biased, it cannot lead to anything productive. When you come here with loaded assertions, prepare to defend yourself. At least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that others make valid points against your assumption.