vooks:
[size=1pt][/size]
These topics are quite wide. Pick any topic of your choice, invite me and I will make mince meat of the few neurons that make up your brain

Before we do that there are two questions I'll like to ask:

1. Are you a young or old earth creationist?

2. If anything, what can change your mind about evolution?

CoolUsername:


Before we do that there are two questions I'll like to ask:

1. Are you a young or old earth creationist?

Young

2. If anything, what can change your mind about evolution?

A single shred of evidence for the same

CoolUsername:

Dating is a sham? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I dunno what to say to you, but for the sake of others.
[url=study.com/academy/lesson/radioactive-dating-methods-uses-and-limits-of-radioactive-decay-as-a-dating-tool.html]HOW RADIOMETRIC DATING WORKS[/url]

Your version of radiometric dating is circular because it is based on the assumption that the fossils were laid down in a slow and uniform manner over millions of years. How can you make a close-minded assumption and conduct a procedure based on the assumption and make the interpretation based on the assumption that you originally based all the other assumptions on?

Close-mindedness

Do you see the circle? or should i draw it for you?

vooks:
Young

A single shred of evidence for the same

Good answers! Let's hope that you practice what you preach.

CoolUsername:


Good answers! Let's hope that you practice what you preach.

A single topic, a single thread, no trolling, no deviation. Make specific claims, support them. Make my day Negro

Joshthefirst:
Your version of radiometric dating is circular because it is based on the assumption that the fossils were laid down in a slow and uniform manner over millions of years. How can you make a close-minded assumption and conduct a procedure based on the assumption and make the interpretation based on the assumption that you originally based all the other assumptions on?

Close-mindedness

Do you see the circle? or should i draw it for you?

Fossils are dated using surrounding igneous rocks, if the alleged 'assumption' was a false one, then the readings should be anomalous to each other, but rather all the fossils that lie within a given sedimentary layer happen to fall within a given range. Furthermore, this assumption has no effect on the age equation that is used, still we get similar results with only a small margin of error.

vooks:

A single topic, a single thread, no trolling, no deviation. Make specific claims, support them. Make my day Negro

I will find a good time to begin, take your time to type replies because proper citation is highly recommended.

CoolUsername:


I will find a good time to begin, take your time to type replies because proper citation is highly recommended.

Wednesday or Thursday....you have an entire Easter to google. I'm busy with family

asalimpo:

This is your philosophy of life.
Again, this is a question religion answers.
But that doesnt in any address the question at hand.
Which is, random chance and chaos could not have predetermined one specie to be far ahead of the rest.
mathematically, it is impossible(soft talk for highly improbable).
After you are born, you can enact whatever philosophy you want. In modern societies,
you are entitled to pursue you own happiness.
Want to make music all day? - that's for loafers (but its your wish)
want to drive cars for a living ? - they'll call you a never do well (but race drivers emerged from these set)
want to eat all day ? - tasters do that
want to lay around all day ? - no problem.
Dont trivialise the accomplishment of man- they're truly great. Amazing.
stop calling a car a box - that's an insult on over a century of knowledge and experiments in making more efficient transport devices.
We may scoff at religion and religious views, but people gave their lives to make this world
as comfortable and conducive for others- lets recognize and praise their acheivements instead of belittling them.

That is what most theists and even some scientists fail to understand. Random chance determines and predetermines everything in the universe. Even Einstein got it wrong when he dismissed quantum mechanism with the famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe". Your being formed from a single sperm cell out of tens of millions was pure chance, you being a child of your parents is pure chance, the genes you inherited from your parents is by pure chance, the mutations ( mistakes) in your genes is pure chance, even the positions of electrons in a atom is pure chance. When there are one in a millionmillion chances (probabilities) of something happening, given enough time, that one in a million chance actually happens.

wirinet:


That is what most theists and even some scientists fail to understand. Random chance determines and predetermines everything in the universe. Even Einstein got it wrong when he dismissed quantum mechanism with the famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe". Your being formed from a single sperm cell out of tens of millions was pure chance, you being a child of your parents is pure chance, the genes you inherited from your parents is by pure chance, the mutations ( mistakes) in your genes is pure chance, even the positions of electrons in a atom is pure chance. When there are one in a millionmillion chances (probabilities) of something happening, given enough time, that one in a million chance actually happens.

First of all, i'm not the result of chance. That a great mind like einstein or isaac newton were born isnt chance. God created them and gave them their wits and made them have opportunity to develop them.
They played a part though. They're many like them who died unnoticed, many whose destinies got aborted because they had no help , but that too wasnt chance.
So, your take on chance, is just your philosophy. My bible says, "Before i was born , He (God) knew me..." - is that chance?
But , if given than an event will occur one in 1million tries or 1 billion tries , then it will happen,
it would mean that the attempts would be made so many times before it occurs.
But in the case of evolution and the bigi bang, it didnt. It happened once.
Two, we are also talking of randomness- if i go to a crowded park and throw a cup of water in the air,
the chance that it will hit somebody is high. Random people will get wet, male,female, boy , girl, woman,
man, children.
The chance that all the droplets will hit only one person, is a mathematical improbability in other words,
impossible .
That's what happened when , randomness, occured and only one specie out of millions ascended into
intelligent form that ruled the world.
Was that chance? No.
Never.
It was pre selection. God created man and told him to DOMINATE the earth.
That's why Man, rules the air,water and land - the planet.


The evolution equivalent is that 97% of all droplets hit one person!- you call that chance?

The Evolutionary vs Creationism debate has more or less led to irrelevant insults especially from Black Africans. I am NOT a CRAZEtian, MUMUslim nor belong to any (organized) religion, but I also don't quite accept Darwinism due to some inconsistencies and "subtle" racist trend in it. Darwin did not explain HOW these organisms came about - how they ORIGINATED. He only explained how these species/organisms evolved from one stage to the other through natural selection, but never gave us a detailed analysis of how LIFE began. For me, I just live life the way I see it; Nature's origin cannot be accurately explained by anyone as no human being was there when it came into existence. My mum and dad had sex and "created" me, not a god! The Adam and Eve creation MYTH remains a myth to me too, it is meant for kids.

asalimpo:

First of all, i'm not the result of chance. That a great mind like einstein or isaac newton were born isnt chance. God created them and gave them their wits and made them have opportunity to develop them.
They played a part though. They're many like them who died unnoticed, many whose destinies got aborted because they had no help , but that too wasnt chance.
So, your take on chance, is just your philosophy. My bible says, "Before i was born , He (God) knew me..." - is that chance?
But , if given than an event will occur one in 1million tries or 1 billion tries , then it will happen,
it would mean that the attempts would be made so many times before it occurs.
But in the case of evolution and the bigi bang, it didnt. It happened once.
Two, we are also talking of randomness- if i go to a crowded park and throw a cup of water in the air,
the chance that it will hit somebody is high. Random people will get wet, male,female, boy , girl, woman,
man, children.
The chance that all the droplets will hit only one person, is a mathematical improbability in other words,
impossible .
That's what happened when , randomness, occured and only one specie out of millions ascended into
intelligent form that ruled the world.
Was that chance? No.
Never.
It was pre selection. God created man and told him to DOMINATE the earth.
That's why Man, rules the air,water and land - the planet.

Your analogy


The evolution equivalent is that 97% of all droplets hit one person!- you call that chance?

I stopped science vs God arguments long ago. Both of them are incompatible and cannot achieve a common ground. If you want to discuss your faith, please do,but do not delve into the sciences of which you have little idea.

Great minds like Newton and Einstein were simply agents of the evolution of Knowledge or should i say intelligence. Like Newton said in his famous quote "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants", he acknowledged that he simply improved on existing works of others - evolution.

The fact that the micro world is ruled by randomness is not subject to argument, it is a universally accepted fact.

Your cup of water analogy is very faulty. Are you implying that only man received all the droplets of intelligence thrown up by evolution? Are you implying that only man has intelligence and all other animals operated by only instinct? I am sure you realize how ridiculous it sound. Man (probably being in the best position to the cup of intelligence) got showered the most, but all other animals also got some droplets of this rain of intelligence.

lilliesboy:
The Evolutionary vs Creationism debate has more or less led to irrelevant insults especially from Black Africans. I am NOT a CRAZEtian, MUMUslim nor belong to any (organized) religion, but I also don't quite accept Darwinism due to some inconsistencies and "subtle" racist trend in it. Darwin did not explain HOW these organisms came about - how they ORIGINATED. He only explained how these species/organisms evolved from one stage to the other through natural selection, but never gave us a detailed analysis of how LIFE began. For me, I just live life the way I see it; Nature's origin cannot be accurately explained by anyone as no human being was there when it came into existence. My mum and dad had sex and "created" me, not a god! The Adam and Eve creation MYTH remains a myth to me too, it is meant for kids.

You are not qualified to find inconsistencies in Charles Darwin's theory, you lack the technical depth. What is the racist trend in Darwin's theories? Are you sure you have read the Origin of species by Charles Darwin?

Charles Darwin ( or anybody else) cannot explain how organisms or life originated. He is a scientist, so he can only make inferences from study, observation and data. He had only data to explain differentiation and spaciation of living things (plant and animals)

wirinet:


Your cup of water analogy is very faulty. Are you implying that only man received all the droplets of intelligence thrown up by evolution? Are you implying that only man has intelligence and all other animals operated by only instinct? I am sure you realize how ridiculous it sound. Man (probably being in the best position to the cup of intelligence) got showered the most, but all other animals also got some droplets of this rain of intelligence.

Your explanation is also faulty . Its a cup poured unto something . Everyone should get a relatively equal share . The disparity between the intelligence of man and animals is there for all to see .

Creating a hypothetical picture of man being in the best position brings up more questions than answers . Why is man in the best position and why is he so favored in every aspect - intellectually , habitually , socially , morally etc .

Please dont say luck ... dont say it

asalimpo:
why did man emerge the brightest student in the class?

I think its because of his(mans) weak physical attributes. He can't run as fast as most animals its size, can't fly or jump from tree to tree, can't see very long distance or at night, does not have paws or nails or sharp teeth to devour, does not have thick skins or fur to withstand very harsh weather conditions and so on. So his best gift (his brains) develops fast to enable him to adapt and stay on top of the food chain.

stonemasonn:
I think its because of his(mans) weak physical attributes. He can't run as fast as most animals its size, can't fly or jump from tree to tree, can't see very long distance or at night, does not have paws or nails or sharp teeth to devour, does not have thick skins or fur to withstand very harsh weather conditions and so on. So his best gift (his brains) develops fast to enable him to adapt and stay on top of the food chain.

preposterous. What about the other billions of organisms man is physically superior to? How come they aren't smarter?

CoolUsername:


Fossils are dated using surrounding igneous rocks, if the alleged 'assumption' was a false one, then the readings should be anomalous to each other, but rather all the fossils that lie within a given sedimentary layer happen to fall within a given range. Furthermore, this assumption has no effect on the age equation that is used, still we get similar results with only a small margin of error.

What about the imbalance of the two isotopes in carbon dating? And the flux of the magnetic field?

Joshthefirst:
preposterous. What about the other billions of organisms man is physically superior to? How come they aren't smarter?

probably because man came into existence with a larger brain size.

stonemasonn:
probably because man came into existence with a larger brain size.

Joshthefirst:

the human ancestors also had large brains which developed further as the human evolved. Or what is your take on why man is smarter?

wirinet:


I stopped science vs God arguments long ago. Both of them are incompatible and cannot achieve a common ground. If you want to discuss your faith, please do,but do not delve into the sciences of which you have little idea.

Great minds like Newton and Einstein were simply agents of the evolution of Knowledge or should i say intelligence. Like Newton said in his famous quote "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants", he acknowledged that he simply improved on existing works of others - evolution.

The fact that the micro world is ruled by randomness is not subject to argument, it is a universally accepted fact.

Your cup of water analogy is very faulty. Are you implying that only man received all the droplets of intelligence thrown up by evolution? Are you implying that only man has intelligence and all other animals operated by only instinct? I am sure you realize how ridiculous it sound. Man (probably being in the best position to the cup of intelligence) got showered the most, but all other animals also got some droplets of this rain of intelligence.

Thank God you stopped, because its arguments like this that shw the ridiculousness of this doctrine called evolution.
"Am i implying that man intelligence and all other animals operate by instinct?"
- I said, by percentage, man has about 97% of all the intelligence there is. That's leaves all other species to scramble for the remaining 3%. Of course this figure is arbitrary. And i'm assuming intelligence is a finite, whole quantity. Going by that, Man has the lion share of whatever choas and randomness could distribute among the species, going by what man has demonstrably proved.

How much intelligence would it require to come up with a subject as complex as calculus?
How much intelligence would it take to understand how to put a vehicle on the moon?
Where has the pool of intelligence been centered , which species comes even a close second to
rivalling the dumbest man in intellect? What makes 97% an absurd figure?

Can you train the nearest primate or cattle to even speak your lingua franca!? - how much intelligence do they have?
Why the biase? Why the pre selection in a supposedly chaotic and random process?

stonemasonn:
I think its because of his(mans) weak physical attributes. He can't run as fast as most animals its size, can't fly or jump from tree to tree, can't see very long distance or at night, does not have paws or nails or sharp teeth to devour, does not have thick skins or fur to withstand very harsh weather conditions and so on. So his best gift (his brains) develops fast to enable him to adapt and stay on top of the food chain.

Yet the brains of species now extinct failed to evolve to save them?
if evolution is to be considered, the species adapted by evolving physical features to overcome their limitation, if man had physical limitations, why didnt evolution equip him with physical adaption,
like make his limbs longer to swing from tree to tree- presto problem solved.
Or his fingers , developing into claws, or his teeth developing into fangs.
Or his skin develping scales?
All evolution did for other animals was provide physical counter measures.
The snail, supposedly got an armour , a shell .
The turtle, got a shell.
etc.
Nothing intellectual.
If evolution decided to get intellectual with man, then why did it get only intellectual with man?
Think what would happen if rats could think,
Or tigers/lions/hyenas could think,- they'd catch more prey.

Again, we see pre-determination, selection biase and non-randomness in the process.

wirinet:


You are not qualified to find inconsistencies in Charles Darwin's theory, you lack the technical depth. What is the racist trend in Darwin's theories? Are you sure you have read the Origin of species by Charles Darwin?

Charles Darwin ( or anybody else) cannot explain how organisms or life originated. He is a scientist, so he can only make inferences from study, observation and data. He had only data to explain differentiation and spaciation of living things (plant and animals)

I see you are the ONLY most "qualified" atheist/scientist to find (in)consistencies in Darwin's bloody theory, and also in OTHER people's religious thoughts/dogma. Asking me to go read Darwin's works: when did you even start reading about evolutionary/monogenism or polygenism materials? I bet you can tell us how many times Charles Darwin himself (and his followers) EDITED and RE-edited his published works just to try and hide/justify many errors like the CRAZEtians do? Funny how some bLACK African "internet" atheists misbehave. Guy, go rest for backyard!

asalimpo:


Thank God you stopped, because its arguments like this that shw the ridiculousness of this doctrine called evolution.
"Am i implying that man intelligence and all other animals operate by instinct?"
- I said, by percentage, man has about 97% of all the intelligence there is. That's leaves all other species to scramble for the remaining 3%. Of course this figure is arbitrary. And i'm assuming intelligence is a finite, whole quantity. Going by that, Man has the lion share of whatever choas and randomness could distribute among the species, going by what man has demonstrably proved.

How much intelligence would it require to come up with a subject as complex as calculus?
How much intelligence would it take to understand how to put a vehicle on the moon?
Where has the pool of intelligence been centered , which species comes even a close second to
rivalling the dumbest man in intellect? What makes 97% an absurd figure?

Can you train the nearest primate or cattle to even speak your lingua franca!? - how much intelligence do they have?
Why the biase? Why the pre selection in a supposedly chaotic and random process?

You post betrays so much ignorance that i am perplexed. I do not even know where to begin to educate you.
Your 97% figure is so absurd it borders on fairly tale like fantasy. What is your measurement of intelligence based on? Is it cognitive ability? It it memory? Is it social organization? Is it communication? In all these man would not win first price in all these abilities.
Yes man possesses the highest brain size to mass ratio in the history of the planet and thus has higher general intelligence, but that does not mean other animals do not have some superior "intelligence" capacity to us? For example elephants are known to have far better memory capacity than humans, bees are able to build highly complex and efficient structures to store their honey, even octopuses are highly intelligent, they have some advanced spatial learning capacity, navigational abilities and use creative predatory techniques. They are even reputed to be able to predict outcomes of football matches .
The great edge Homo Sapiens has is the evolution of the opposing thumb. This allows us to turn our ideas into reality by allowing us to make and use tools. Without the opposing thumb, we would not be better off than a dolphin or an gorilla. We would be confined to gathering of fruits and leaves.

Other animals cannot come up with calculus because it is useless to them, they do not have the ability to use the equation to make tools.
The cannot understand how to put vehicles on the moon because they lack the ability to make vehicles at all.

You cannot train primate to speak my language because the structure of their larynx is different from ours and so cannot produce the wide range of sounds we produce. It is not necessarily due to lack of intelligence.
Read this reports;
- http://news.wisc.edu/apes-may-be-closer-to-speaking-than-many-scientists-think/
- http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dolphins/dolphins-smarter-brain-function.htm

wirinet:

You post betrays so much ignorance that i am perplexed. I do not even know where to begin to educate you.
Your 97% figure is so absurd it borders on fairly tale like fantasy. What is your measurement of intelligence based on? Is it cognitive ability? It it memory? Is it social organization? Is it communication? In all these man would not win first price in all these abilities.
Yes man possesses the highest brain size to mass ratio in the history of the planet and thus has higher general intelligence, but that does not mean other animals do not have some superior "intelligence" capacity to us? For example elephants are known to have far better memory capacity than humans, bees are able to build highly complex and efficient structures to store their honey, even octopuses are highly intelligent, they have some advanced spatial learning capacity, navigational abilities and use creative predatory techniques. They are even reputed to be able to predict outcomes of football matches .
The great edge Homo Sapiens has is the evolution of the opposing thumb. This allows us to turn our ideas into reality by allowing us to make and use tools. Without the opposing thumb, we would not be better off than a dolphin or an gorilla. We would be confined to gathering of fruits and leaves.

Other animals cannot come up with calculus because it is useless to them, they do not have the ability to use the equation to make tools.
The cannot understand how to put vehicles on the moon because they lack the ability to make vehicles at all.

You cannot train primate to speak my language because the structure of their larynx is different from ours and so cannot produce the wide range of sounds we produce. It is not necessarily due to lack of intelligence.
Read this reports;
- http://news.wisc.edu/apes-may-be-closer-to-speaking-than-many-scientists-think/
- http://news.discovery.com/animals/whales-dolphins/dolphins-smarter-brain-function.htm

You'd be living in great denial if you are trying to say that man is not infinitely more intelligent than any other specie on the planet. fyi, the 97% is a conservative figure. I'd put it at 99% and i'm only being kind.
The rest of your argument goes into saying why man is so - not necessary.
Evolution, showed bias when distributing intelligence- pouring everthing it had on one specie while leaving
the others to lick the pot.
Brain size/brain ration - dont matter. Evo showed biase.
Again, i said it clearly , evolution equipped other animals to adapt by making them able to adjust physically, why did it not do only that to man?! -
the giraffe grew a long neck.
birds learnt to fly, etc
but man, ddint adapt physically, evo gave him intellectual acumen- why didnt evo just hone his body
and fix his problems - loophole!

why other animals couldnt come up with calculus is simply because, they licked the platter on intelligence and all their wits are for is mating and hunting, and sometimes dodging death. dumb beasts.

"You cannot train any primate to speak any language because ... " - intelligence can make a way
. Any animal half or one third as smart as man would have demonstrable , even formidable works to show.

For now all other creatures are dumb beasts. They dont even know their n.aked!
or that crapping about is indecent. That's how dumb they are- so much for debating how much more intelligent they are.

Joshthefirst:
What about the imbalance of the two isotopes in carbon dating? And the flux of the magnetic field?

Error margin is reduced by using several rock samples for the dating.

UyiIredia:
All your questions fail in light of 3 facts:

Fact 1) Random mutations, a principal evolutionary mechanism spoils the genome and is incapable of adding functional genetic information.

these your 'facts', na wa.... 2 and 3 are not even worthy of consideration

Anyways, what do you mean by the bolded? I see you guys make this claim all the time and I wonder what you're on about...

wiegraf:


these your 'facts', na wa.... 2 and 3 are not even worthy of consideration

Anyways, what do you mean by the bolded? I see you guys make this claim all the time and I wonder what you're on about...

You are being your usual foolish self. Of course you can't say why 2 and 3 aren't worthy of consideration. Maybe it's because you are too dumb to know what they mean. Seeing as you are asking what Fact 1 means when the meaning is clear to any sensible person, a class you don't belong in.

asalimpo:

........
Nothing intellectual.
If evolution decided to get intellectual with man, then why did it get only intellectual with man?
Think what would happen if rats could think,
Or tigers/lions/hyenas could think,- they'd catch more prey.

......

I disagree; every living thing has an intellectual capacity which complements it physical attributes. A chimpanzee will also require a degree of intelligence to accurately swing from tree to tree not just because of his specialized limbs, likewise a rat's ability to smell food faraway is just not because of the shape of its nose alone. A chameleon's ability to change color requires intelligence to decide the suitable color to change at a particular environment, animals with specialized eyes also require a degree of intelligence to navigate using their eye sights. I still believe man has a limited physical capability despite his large size hence a much higher intelligence to compensate.

asalimpo:


You'd be living in great denial if you are trying to say that man is not infinitely more intelligent than any other specie on the planet. fyi, the 97% is a conservative figure. I'd put it at 99% and i'm only being kind.
The rest of your argument goes into saying why man is so - not necessary.
Evolution, showed bias when distributing intelligence- pouring everthing it had on one specie while leaving
the others to lick the pot.
Brain size/brain ration - dont matter. Evo showed biase.
Again, i said it clearly , evolution equipped other animals to adapt by making them able to adjust physically, why did it not do only that to man?! -
the giraffe grew a long neck.
birds learnt to fly, etc
but man, ddint adapt physically, evo gave him intellectual acumen- why didnt evo just hone his body
and fix his problems - loophole!

why other animals couldnt come up with calculus is simply because, they licked the platter on intelligence and all their wits are for is mating and hunting, and sometimes dodging death. dumb beasts.

"You cannot train any primate to speak any language because ... " - intelligence can make a way
. Any animal half or one third as smart as man would have demonstrable , even formidable works to show.

For now all other creatures are dumb beasts. They dont even know their n.aked!
or that crapping about is indecent. That's how dumb they are- so much for debating how much more intelligent they are.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recorder on automatic playback. He just repeats the same thing over and over again without listening to the arguments.
I ask you to define this your nebulous intelligence which you hypothised that only humans possess, you are talking of calculus and language. I provided examples of highly intelligent animals but you completely ignored them because they do not fit your definition of intelligence, so i asked again, how do you define intelligence?

If we are to measure various aspect of this intelligence, you will find humans would not be the best in any of them.
For example;
- Elephants have far memory ability than humans.
Bats have far higher audio and vocal range than humans. See below for range of frequencies perceived by various animals;

Human............................8 to 20,000 Hz
Elephant.........................1 to 20,000 Hz
Mice...........................1000 to 100,000 Hz
Pigeon........................low .01 Hz
Cat..............................100 to 60,000 Hz
Grasshopper.............high 50,000 Hz
Bat..........................radar 100,000 Hz
Noctural Moth............1000 to 240,000 Hz

- Bloodhounds have far higher olfactory range than human
- Owls have far higher visual range than humans.
- Dolphins have highly developed cognitive abilities.
As i have said, the edge we humans have is the possession of opposed thumbs on our fingers, without it we cannot materialize our thoughts. It is what gives us the ability to make and use tools. It is these tools that propel us to be the very top of the food chain and gives us dominance on earth. It is with these tools that we can extend our perception beyond what any other animal can perceive, it is with these tools we can extend our vision beyond this planet, and it is with these tools we can destroy the world.

No matter what a highly intelligent dolphin conceives in its mind, it cannot materialize it because it does not possess fingers with opposing thumb.

wirinet:


Arguing with you is like arguing with a tape recorder on automatic playback. He just repeats the same thing over and over again without listening to the arguments.
I ask you to define this your nebulous intelligence which you hypothised that only humans possess, you are talking of calculus and language. I provided examples of highly intelligent animals but you completely ignored them because they do not fit your definition of intelligence, so i asked again, how do you define intelligence?

If we are to measure various aspect of this intelligence, you will find humans would not be the best in any of them.
For example;
- Elephants have far memory ability than humans.
Bats have far higher audio and vocal range than humans. See below for range of frequencies perceived by various animals;


- Bloodhounds have far higher olfactory range than human
- Owls have far higher visual range than humans.
- Dolphins have highly developed cognitive abilities.
As i have said, the edge we humans have is the possession of opposed thumbs on our fingers, without it we cannot materialize our thoughts. It is what gives us the ability to make and use tools. It is these tools that propel us to be the very top of the food chain and gives us dominance on earth. It is with these tools that we can extend our perception beyond what any other animal can perceive, it is with these tools we can extend our vision beyond this planet, and it is with these tools we can destroy the world.

No matter what a highly intelligent dolphin conceives in its mind, it cannot materialize it because it does not possess fingers with opposing thumb.

You are still echoing your previous thoughts. And saying the same thing in a roundabout way.
I deliberately refused to get down to the base level of defining man's intelligence. That would be
excessive. Any thinking man , religion or not , wouldnt get into arguing that man exceeds all other species in the area of intelligence.
Like i said previously, the yard stick is DEMONSTRABLE output.
What man has done - eclipses what other species have done.
And what they will ever do.
Again, your explaining why man is so , is besides the point - The fact is man is so.
And man is the only species so . which raises questions.

UyiIredia:


You are being your usual foolish self. Of course you can't say why 2 and 3 aren't worthy of consideration. Maybe it's because you are too dumb to know what they mean. Seeing as you are asking what Fact 1 means when the meaning is clear to any sensible person, a class you don't belong in.

Break it down for me please, as I'm a m0ron