# Intelligence



## stringmusic (Jun 16, 2017)

Everything in this world that is intelligent was created by something intelligent. If one assumes humans are intelligent, why would that same individual not assume they were created by intelligence?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Everything in this world that is intelligent was created by something intelligent. If one assumes humans are intelligent, why would that same individual not assume they were created by intelligence?




What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 16, 2017)

ky55 said:


> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.



Are you saying that humans are not intelligent? Or that things that are intelligent are not created by intelligence? 

Do you think intelligence exists?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Are you saying that humans are not intelligent? Or that things that are intelligent are not created by intelligence?
> 
> Do you think intelligence exists?



Your unproven assumption in your first statement-"created", is no proof of your second statement. 
At least not to me. 

I can't see using an assumption to try and prove what you believe is a fact.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 16, 2017)

ky55 said:


> Your unproven assumption in your first statement-"created", is no proof of your second statement.
> At least not to me.
> 
> I can't see using an assumption to try and prove what you believe is a fact.



Humans weren't created? Surely you believe we were created, be it by supernatural reasons or evolutionary means.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 16, 2017)

ky55 said:


> Your unproven assumption in your first statement-"created", is no proof of your second statement.
> At least not to me.
> 
> I can't see using an assumption to try and prove what you believe is a fact.



Also the "created" in the OP was referencing something intelligent creating something intelligent, not in the sense of humans being created.

Do you have any examples of something intelligent being created by something non intelligent?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Everything in this world that is intelligent was created by something intelligent.



Your conversation went downhill after that statement.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Everything in this world that is intelligent was created by something intelligent. If one assumes humans are intelligent, why would that same individual not assume they were created by intelligence?



String, what is your stance on the bible?
Is everything in there the word of god and exactly how things happened, as in how we were created?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 16, 2017)

ky55 said:


> Your conversation went downhill after that statement.



See post #6


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 16, 2017)

bullethead said:


> String, what is your stance on the bible?
> Is everything in there the word of god and exactly how things happened, as in how we were created?



I think you probably know the answer to that question.

What are your thoughts on the OP?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 16, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Humans weren't created? Surely you believe we were created, be it by supernatural reasons or evolutionary means.



One might say life and intelligence 'emerged' or 'arose', which are patently true, whereas the word 'created' implies a creator, which is unconfirmed and unnecessary.  (As long as you keep trying to sneak in the idea of a creator we will head straight into Willardville.  It's still turtles all the way down).


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> I think you probably know the answer to that question.
> 
> What are your thoughts on the OP?



I want to know your answer. Id like to see it here in text so that I can address the OP.
Did god whip up Adam up from dust?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

Ok-Post #6...



stringmusic said:


> Also the "created" in the OP was referencing something intelligent creating something intelligent, not in the sense of humans being created.
> 
> Do you have any examples of something intelligent being created by something non intelligent?




Are you asking for information, or are you trying to phrase a question in a specific manner to get an answer you are looking for?

Reminds me of:

"Do you still beat your wife?"

Yes or no answer please.
I'll wait.....

*


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 16, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> One might say life and intelligence 'emerged' or 'arose', which are patently true, whereas the word 'created' implies a creator, which is unconfirmed and unnecessary.  (As long as you keep trying to sneak in the idea of a creator we will head straight into Willardville.  It's still turtles all the way down).



Word games. 

At the end of the day humans are intelligent and as far as I know, you cannot get intelligent humans from something non intelligent.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 16, 2017)

bullethead said:


> I want to know your answer. Id like to see it here in text so that I can address the OP.
> Did god whip up Adam up from dust?



Yes, God whipped up Adam from the dust. Space dust? dust from dirt? dust from mars? I don't have the particulars.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 16, 2017)

ky55 said:


> Ok-Post #6...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm asking for information. Do you have any examples? If I am incorrect in my assumption, there shouldn't be any issues coming up with a few quick examples.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 16, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> One might say life and intelligence 'emerged' or 'arose', which are patently true, whereas the word 'created' implies a creator, which is unconfirmed and unnecessary.  (As long as you keep trying to sneak in the idea of a creator we will head straight into Willardville.  It's still turtles all the way down).



This thread is basically Willards second argument now that you mention it.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Jun 16, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Everything in this world that is intelligent was created by something intelligent. If one assumes humans are intelligent, why would that same individual not assume they were created by intelligence?



Can you give an example of one thing that is intelligent that was created by something intelligent?  I cant think of any


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> If I am incorrect in my assumption,



Well,
your first post was looking for confirmation of an assumption that depended on the way you phrased the question. 

So I'll try this...

Intelligent life, and all other life, originated from chemical reactions and biological processes. 
All of that life reproduces itself through chemical reactions and biological processes. 

I think you already knew that.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, God whipped up Adam from the dust. Space dust? dust from dirt? dust from mars? I don't have the particulars.



We have evidence that the Biblical Adam, if true,  would have come to live millions of years after the earliest humans and tens and hundreds of millions of years after his pre human ancestors. 

Now how do you define intelligence when you are incapable of acknowledging and admitting that the guide book you use is flawed, inaccurate and written by men that lived during a time where they did not and could not possibly have the knowledge of what we have now? 
You state that their intelligence and knowledge to assemble this book had to come from an even more intelligent creator and yet the evidence does not match the claims. Unless, that creator is not as intelligent as many humans that currently live.

Now you go on to say that as far as you know....
You cannot get intelligent humans from non intelligence.

Please explain how you know this.

Are you able to provide the varying levels of intelligence that the average or most intelligent human had 2000, 5000, 10000, 100000, 100000000 + years ago? And if so can you show me where this intelligence came from before that and which preceded that until you get back to a singular source?

I am intelligent enough to know that you are guessing. 
I know that you are capable of deducing back only  so far until you have to quit and assume.
I know that because you have shown us that you accept words from a book that do not coincide with modern scientific findings.


Now I am not saying that some higher power somewhere beyond our reality and beyond our intelligence capability couldnt be responsible.  I am saying that the one you specify that is known to us through the bible certainly isn't,  or isnt in the ways described in that bible by the people who wrote the stories that make up that bible.

It is turtles all the way down String if you want to use your argument. Something as intelligent as the god you believe in HAD to be created by something even more intelligent than it.
Unless, like we witness, intelligence may not start at the top and work its way down. It could start at the bottom and work work its way up. Single cell to where we are now.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 16, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Everything in this world that is intelligent was created by something intelligent. If one assumes humans are intelligent, why would that same individual not assume they were created by intelligence?





> Everything in this world that is intelligent was created by something intelligent.


That's a guess not a fact.


> If one assumes humans are intelligent, why would that same individual not assume they were created by intelligence?


Some individuals might assume that.
Other individuals might assume it wouldn't be intelligent to assume we were created by "something intelligent" when there are no facts to support that assumption.

I think the key here would be to define how you are defining "intelligence".


----------



## red neck richie (Jun 16, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> That's a guess not a fact.
> 
> Some individuals might assume that.
> Other individuals might assume it wouldn't be intelligent to assume we were created by "something intelligent" when there are no facts to support that assumption.
> ...



Would you not consider mathematical equations as fact. Surely you science guys would consider mathematical equations as part of science. Look up the odds of the big bang. A human could not write the mathematical equation in their lifetime. While your at it look up the probability of evolution or the improbability I should say.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Would you not consider mathematical equations as fact. Surely you science guys would consider mathematical equations as part of science. Look up the odds of the big bang. A human could not write the mathematical equation in their lifetime. While your at it look up the probability of evolution or the improbability I should say.


Richie, we have discussed those Big Bang odds.
It is not the odds of a Big Bang happening, it is the odds of life happening from a Big Bang.
You do know that those odds are calculated using a One Time try dont you?
It does not account for the Billions of years worth of  Trillions of chemicals and matter acting and reacting with each other every single second over that time.
It is not impossible. It is inevitable.
Life is an expression of the available chemistry set.
We are here because the current conditions allow for it. When those conditions didnt, youll notice that we were not here. And when these conditions cease, so will we.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Would you not consider mathematical equations as fact. Surely you science guys would consider mathematical equations as part of science. Look up the odds of the big bang. A human could not write the mathematical equation in their lifetime. While your at it look up the probability of evolution or the improbability I should say.


I'm having trouble following your logic.
So if the odds are against something that makes it false or impossible?
And just curious -
What exactly are the odds that the Christian God actually exists and that he created everything? And please respond with the mathematical odds not what you believe.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

Yes, what are the mathematical odds that 
1. A god of any sort exists
2. It is the god as described exactly in the bible
And
3. You picked the right one


----------



## red neck richie (Jun 16, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Richie, we have discussed those Big Bang odds.
> It is not the odds of a Big Bang happening, it is the odds of life happening from a Big Bang.
> You do know that those odds are calculated using a One Time try dont you?
> It does not account for the Billions of years worth of  Trillions of chemicals and matter acting and reacting with each other every single second over that time.
> ...



Are there not scientists that would tell you with an explosion of that magnitude there is no way any living matter would survive or could be created for that matter? In addition to the theory of evolution where no one has ever witnessed a mutation under natural conditions.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Yes, what are the mathematical odds that
> 1. A god of any sort exists
> 2. It is the god as described exactly in the bible
> And
> 3. You picked the right one




And in addition to the odds, where is any tangible evidence?


----------



## red neck richie (Jun 16, 2017)

ky55 said:


> And in addition to the odds, where is any tangible evidence?



Ky why does that same argument work for your theory but not mine? Have you ever witnessed or have factual proof of an animal human or not mutating into another form?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Are there not scientists that would tell you with an explosion of that magnitude there is no way any living matter would survive or could be created for that matter? In addition to the theory of evolution where no one has ever witnessed a mutation under natural conditions.


Nothing living was created when the explosion happened. The Universe was a molten mess for millions of years. It was during the time over the next BILLIONS of years that all that matter and chemicals had chances to mingle and create conditions that created conditions.

If i were you I would research evolution more. Changes do not happen in 10 years, or 100 years or within the time humans have been on this planet and are able to understand and recognize evolution in action.
We are able to observe micro and macro evolutionary changes within species.

Imagine trying to hit the jackpot on one slot machine using one quarter one time.
Odds are virtually impossible.

Now imagine the highest number of slot machines that fit inside the state of Georgia all with infinite amounts of quarters and all the handles being pulled at the same time every second of every minute of every day of every week of every month of every year for the next 3 billion years.
Ya think ya might hit the jackpot?

Times that by all the elements and chemicals in the Universe over 13.5 billions years.
Stuff gonna happen Richie.
It is inevitable.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Ky why does that same argument work for your theory but not mine?



I don't need to prove that something doesn't exist.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Are there not scientists that would tell you with an explosion of that magnitude there is no way any living matter would survive or could be created for that matter? In addition to the theory of evolution where no one has ever witnessed a mutation under natural conditions.


No one has ever witnessed one thing "turn" into something different. It takes too long. But you are wrong if you think that science has not observed a mutation under natural conditions.


----------



## red neck richie (Jun 16, 2017)

bullethead said:


> No one has ever witnessed one thing "turn" into something different. It takes too long. But you are wrong if you think that science has not observed a mutation under natural conditions.



Please give an example of a mutation where dna has changed or mutated naturally.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Ky why does that same argument work for your theory but not mine? Have you ever witnessed or have factual proof of an animal human or not mutating into another form?


Aw geez Richie please don't use the "a cat doesn't turn into an alligator" argument.
Do some research on mutation. It will only take a minute.
If you are going to use these words in your argument, it will help if you know what they actually mean.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Ky why does that same argument work for your theory but not mine? Have you ever witnessed or have factual proof of an animal human or not mutating into another form?



You added to your post after my first reply, so I'll add...

If your use of the word "theory" is referring to evolution you need to look up the difference in "theory" and "scientific theory".


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Please give an example of a mutation where dna has changed or mutated naturally.



http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16834-five-classic-examples-of-gene-evolution/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

And more examples Richie, 
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/


I do not understand why you make statements against certain things while never even trying to research it yourself.


----------



## red neck richie (Jun 16, 2017)

bullethead said:


> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16834-five-classic-examples-of-gene-evolution/



There must be some confusion I am talking about the biological definition of mutation.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> There must be some confusion I am talking about the biological definition of mutation.



Oh sorry yes, you are talking about Biological Mutation and you do not know the definition.
Keep reading the links


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> There must be some confusion I am talking about the biological definition of mutation.


http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Mutation
Mutation
Home » Mutation
Definition 
noun, plural: mutations 
(general) 
A change in or the process of changing, e.g. nature, form or quality. 
(genetics) 
(1) A permanent, heritable change in the nucleotide sequence in a gene or a chromosome; the process in which such a change occurs in a gene or in a chromosome. 
(2) A mutant, or an individual exhibiting such a change.


----------



## red neck richie (Jun 16, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Oh sorry yes, you are talking about Biological Mutation and you do not know the definition.
> Keep reading the links



I found this scientific article to be most interesting. 

https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/btg/btg-179.pdf


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> I found this scientific article to be most interesting.
> 
> https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/btg/btg-179.pdf



The Institute for Creation.

Richie, they do not exactly match up with mainstream science.
They tend to be like most believers, their claims do not match the evidence and facts.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> I found this scientific article to be most interesting.
> 
> https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/btg/btg-179.pdf




I found the last paragraph most interesting:

"The existence of complexity of any kind is evidence of God and creation. “Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: He calleth them all by names by the greatness of His might, for that He is strong in power; not one faileth” (Isaiah 40:26)."


Interesting stuff on geology on down the page:


The next time you notice these inter- esting vertical columns, just think of the great Flood of Noah’s day. Think of cata- strophic events, on a large scale and at a rapid pace. And put it all in its “Back to Genesis” perspective.


----------



## red neck richie (Jun 16, 2017)

bullethead said:


> The Institute for Creation.
> 
> Richie, they do not exactly match up with mainstream science.
> They tend to be like most believers, their claims do not match the evidence and facts.



Then what is the probable possibility of that many positive mutations taking place?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

bullethead said:


> The Institute for Creation.
> 
> Richie, they do not exactly match up with mainstream science.
> They tend to be like most believers, their claims do not match the evidence and facts.



Ken Ham's stuff on the Answers in Genesis website and his YouTube videos are very interesting too. 

He can give you the fast track on how the relatively small number of animals on the ark managed to evolve into all of the animals that populate the Earth today-in the few thousand years since the great flood. 

Not to even mention his Ark Project and Creation Museum.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 16, 2017)

ky55 said:


> Ken Ham's stuff on the Answers in Genesis website and his YouTube videos are very interesting too.
> 
> He can give you the fast track on how the relatively small number of animals on the ark managed to evolve into all of the animals that populate the Earth today-in the few thousand years since the great flood.
> 
> Not to even mention his Ark Project and Creation Museum.



Are you trolling??


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 16, 2017)

Richie - a few reviews on the author of the "scientific article" you posted -


> T.E. Fenton, Professor of Agronomy at Iowa State University, wrote "scientific value of the book is nil; the author selectively chooses the areas of science that he accepts and rejects other areas of accepted science".[20] David Vogel, Professor of Biology at Creighton University, reviewed the book explaining "his theology is shallow; his exegesis is maddening; his science is wrong; and he tops it off by offending millions of Bible-believing Christians who also accept evolution".





> Morris' book Scientific Creationism (1974 and 1984), according to Herman Kirkpatrick, "is not very convincing evidence to support the recent creation of the earth".[22] Thomas Wheeler, Professor of biochemistry at University of Louisville, reviewed the second edition and concluded, "Scientific Creationism cannot be recommended for use in public school classes, or indeed anyone interested in learning science".[23] Wheeler cited what he claimed was Morris' misunderstanding of science, appeals to religious prejudice, misrepresentation of scientific knowledge, omission of opposing science, double standards in evidence, "absurd conclusions," inappropriate and misidentified sources, attacks on scientists, using discredited arguments, and "silly calculations".





> Morris' work with John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, has been criticized for taking quotes out of context and misquoting sources.[24] For example, in one instance, a source which read "the sea which vanished so many million years ago" was quoted as "the sea which vanished so many years ago."[24] Geologist John G. Solum has criticized the work for being inaccurate.[25] Solum said "Whitcomb and Morris are mistaken about the nature of the rocks associated with thrust faults. Their claim about fossils is based on a Young Earth creationist misunderstanding of how rocks are dated relative to each other, and how the geologic column was constructed."[25] Additionally, Solum said "Morris' explanation of relative dating is not merely 'somewhat oversimplified' - it is entirely incorrect.





> In The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict (1989) Morris wrote that "the denial of God – rejecting the reality of supernatural creation and the creator's sovereign rule of the world – has always been the root cause of every human problem."[26] Morris was criticized by Randy Moore, of University of Minnesota, for writing in the book that "evolutionism" is satanic and responsible for racism, abortion, and a decline in morality.





> Morris' position had also been the subject of debate among Evangelical scholars of the Old Testament and among Evangelicals working in various fields of science.





> Morris was the primary source for much of the argumentation used by young Earth creationists when rejecting primary ideas in mainstream science, from the expanding universe to plate tectonics to biological evolution to genetics.


On a positive note (if you are a Young Earther or an Engineer) -


> During his lifetime, Morris published eleven articles on hydraulics in technical journals as well as hundreds of other articles and booklets on Biblical or creationist topics.[1] From 1985 to 2002, he published Days of Praise,[1] a monthly devotional booklet that contained a devotional Bible commentary for each day, which illustrated his spiritual focus


.

If your intent was to "fight science with science" in this discussion, I'm not real sure you picked the right "scientific article".


----------



## bullethead (Jun 16, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Then what is the probable possibility of that many positive mutations taking place?



Brother man, you ask me and dont accept the answers that I give you. I encourage you to research it. Not just one source. Use many and then try to decide which is more likely than not based off of the evidence. Not the evidence that you want to hear but the majority of the evidence.
It is hard to hear the truth.
It is even harder to accept it.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 16, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Are you trolling??



Are you serious?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jun 16, 2017)

ky55 said:


> Are you serious?



Ken Hamm is a joke.


----------



## Israel (Jun 17, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Mutation
> Mutation
> Home » Mutation
> Definition
> ...


 Eureka.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 17, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> Ken Hamm is a joke.



Sorry, I misunderstood your post. 

Yes, he certainly is.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> Word games.
> 
> At the end of the day humans are intelligent and as far as I know, you cannot get intelligent humans from something non intelligent.



Lets be honest about what you know.

Everyone, EVERYONE will agree that the words I used are true.   The word you used is an opinion.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 17, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> This thread is basically Willards second argument now that you mention it.




And you still can't prove the need for an uncaused cause.  You just prefer it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 17, 2017)

Israel said:


> Eureka.


....


> eu·re·ka
> [yoÍžoËˆrÄ“kÉ™, yÉ™ËˆrÄ“kÉ™]
> EXCLAMATION
> a cry of joy or satisfaction when one finds or discovers something.
> synonyms: bingo · I've got it · that's it


----------



## 660griz (Jun 19, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> If one assumes humans are intelligent, why would that same individual not assume they were created by intelligence?



Because most every living thing can reproduce.
Intelligence has nothing to do with creation.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 22, 2017)

The whole point of this thread.....

If you found yourself on a far distant planet with rocks everywhere, you might come to the conclusion that these rocks are just here, the result of random cosmology.

But if you walk around a bit, and came across rocks that spelled out "hello (insert name here), welcome, I'm glad you could make it here and I hope you enjoy your time". One would have to assume those rocks where placed by something with intelligence.

Human beings have intellegence, why would you not assume humans where created by something intelligent?

Does intelligence come from non intelligence?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 22, 2017)

660griz said:


> Because most every living thing can reproduce.
> Intelligence has nothing to do with creation.



The intellegence had to start somewhere.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 22, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> And you still can't prove the need for an uncaused cause.  You just prefer it.



It's the a only logical conclusion.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> The whole point of this thread.....
> 
> If you found yourself on a far distant planet with rocks everywhere, you might come to the conclusion that these rocks are just here, the result of random cosmology.
> 
> ...


How long did it take for the first human to be intelligent enough to be able to spell out your welcome sentence above?
Was he/she given that intelligence millions of years prior or did that intelligence need millions of years to evolve from trial and error/survival of the fittest?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> The whole point of this thread.....
> 
> If you found yourself on a far distant planet with rocks everywhere, you might come to the conclusion that these rocks are just here, the result of random cosmology.
> 
> ...





> If you found yourself on a far distant planet with rocks everywhere, you might come to the conclusion that these rocks are just here, the result of random cosmology.


The rocks are "just here" wouldn't be my first conclusion. We have some knowledge of how rocks are formed/found on earth so I would probably apply that first to this far distant planet I find myself on.


> But if you walk around a bit, and came across rocks that spelled out "hello (insert name here), welcome, I'm glad you could make it here and I hope you enjoy your time". One would have to assume those rocks where placed by something with intelligence.


Sure the message leaver possessed the intelligence to recognize communication, use language, the alphabet etc. Not to mention the message was left for me specifically and was written in my language.


> Human beings have intellegence, why would you not assume humans where created by something intelligent?


It probably is a safe assumption. I'm sure everyone's parents posses/posessed some sort of intelligence.


> Does intelligence come from non intelligence?


What is non intelligence?
Lacks the physical capability to be intelligent?
Crosses the road without looking both ways?
Cant do algebra?


----------



## 660griz (Jun 23, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> The intellegence had to start somewhere.



Yea. Where intelligence always starts. Ignorance.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 23, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> The rocks are "just here" wouldn't be my first conclusion. We have some knowledge of how rocks are formed/found on earth so I would probably apply that first to this far distant planet I find myself on.
> 
> Sure the message leaver possessed the intelligence to recognize communication, use language, the alphabet etc. Not to mention the message was left for me specifically and was written in my language.
> 
> ...



non intelligence would be something that has no intelligence nor the capability to become intelligent. A rock, for example, or, space goo from which we supposedly evolved from.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 23, 2017)

660griz said:


> Yea. Where intelligence always starts. Ignorance.



Ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge. I'm speaking more along the lines of the beginning of intelligence.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 23, 2017)

bullethead said:


> How long did it take for the first human to be intelligent enough to be able to spell out your welcome sentence above?
> Was he/she given that intelligence millions of years prior or did that intelligence need millions of years to evolve from trial and error/survival of the fittest?



I'm not sure what your getting at.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not sure what your getting at.



When did humans get their intelligence?
5000 years ago?
10,000?
100,000?
Longer?

Were we always capable of the level of intelligence that we have now?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 23, 2017)

bullethead said:


> When did humans get their intelligence?
> 5000 years ago?
> 10,000?
> 100,000?
> Longer?


When we were created.



> Were we always capable of the level of intelligence that we have now?


I would say so. Although I'm sure there have been some evolutionary advancements of the brain but how much I don't know.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2017)

stringmusic said:


> When we were created.
> 
> 
> I would say so. Although I'm sure there have been some evolutionary advancements of the brain but how much I don't know.



When were we created? How many years ago roughly...ballpark it.

So, is it your opinion that the earliest humans were capable of understanding and creating most everything that current humans can?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 18, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> There must be some confusion I am talking about the biological definition of mutation.



Walt provided the definition. Do you now acknowledge that mutations have been observed?


----------

