TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are.
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »

Evolutionist thinks:

a) Creationist has huge holes in their logic
b) They can not see those holes, even when I point them out
c) There are no holes in my logic.

The enlightened Envolutionist says to himself:
"What if there are holes in my logic that I can't see?"

The enlightened Evolutionist then enters limbo and begins constructing a hole detector.

The enlightened Evolutionist then uses that hole detector on the theory of evolution and learns...

That would be telling.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: yes we do have the same evidence. the fossil record, space, experimentation, nature. creationist scientist are also looking at the same things the evolutionists are looking at, but with a different preconcieved view/assumption/opinion/pressupposition. out of your second paragraph, all i get from that is your opinion, your preconcieved assumption of how your going to interpret whatever evidence is given to you. this is not objective. you havnt looked at the evidence for creationism, so how do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt what you just said?

Okay, so fossil records CLEARLY shows in which order things happend in. I have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how you could possible interpret that evidence differently. Please tell me?!

i think this question is pointless.

I recall there have been numerous research into this field and there has been no evidence of any coorelation between religious beliefs and IQ.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael19 i am failry sure there are some religious people who have very high i.q's.

Unfortunately, the concept of "IQ" is quack science.

-N

quote:

Originally posted by TheNobleEu Unfortunately, the concept of "IQ" is quack science. -N

Yeah I'd haveto agree. IQ tests were originally designed over 100 years ago to identify those with learning difficulties. It doesn't make sense to use them for any other purpose, and in any case there are much more reliable and specific ways of identifying people that need help with learning these days.

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Evolutionist thinks: a) Creationist has huge holes in their logic b) They can not see those holes, even when I point them out c) There are no holes in my logic. The enlightened Envolutionist says to himself: "What if there are holes in my logic that I can't see?" The enlightened Evolutionist then enters limbo and begins constructing a hole detector. The enlightened Evolutionist then uses that hole detector on the theory of evolution and learns... That would be telling.

Hmmm I missed your participation in the rather thorough evolution threads we had going. Perhaps if you had participated, you would have realized that scientists don�t claim to know everything about evolution. As a matter of fact, there are some clear uncertainties about all the mechanisms of evolution because everything is learned from observable behavior. That�s why the theory is hardly static and has undergone numerous revisions to better model the data. It�s asinine to suggest that because everything about evolution is not understood one should logically conclude that the theory is false. But hey, let�s try to apply such simplistic logic to other areas of science:

Relativity: Lack of quantum theory of gravity prevents general relativity from being applied at microscopic scales.

Quantum Mechanics: Time cannot, as yet, be formulated as a quantum operator and, as a result, temporal intervals cannot be adequately "measured".

Statistic Mechanics: There is no fundamental principle that describes the direction of time as implied by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Cosmology: The expansion of the universe appears to be dominated by some combination of dark matter and dark energy to the extent that the universe appears to be younger than the oldest objects in it.

Well shoot, I�m ready teach �intelligent falling� because because of all the �holes� in the theory of gravity!!

But you tell me, what convincing evidence dismisses the validity of the theory of evolution. And of course what�s your alternative hypothesis.

quote:

Originally posted by bananas You'll be bashed by GOD!!11562!

His penis and Jesus will clash in ultimate battle when they are both resurrected!

Actually I'm sick of the straw man attacks against the vestigial components of the theory of evolution as a means to discredit the entire theory. Why don't you go ahead and explain away the evidence of endogenous retroviruses in the human genome sequence in relation to other hominids and species:

Background: Retroviruses reproduce by entering a cell of a host (like, say, a human), then embedding their own viral DNA into the cell's own DNA, which has the effect of adding a "recipe" for manufacturing more viruses to the cell's "instruction book". The cell then follows those instructions because it has no reason (or way) to "mistrust" the DNA instructions it contains. So the virus has converted the cell into a virus factory, and the new viruses leave the cell, and go find more cells to infect, etc.



However, every once in a while a virus's invasion plans don't function exactly as they should, and the virus's DNA (or portions of it) gets embedded into the cell's DNA in a "broken" manner. It's stuck into there, becoming part of the cell's DNA, but it's unable to produce new viruses. So there it remains, causing no harm. If this happens in a regular body cell, it just remains there for life as a "fossil" of the past infection and goes to the grave with the individual it's stuck in. All of us almost certainly contain countless such relics of the past viral infections we've fought off.

However... By chance this sometimes happens to a special cell in the body, a gametocyte cell that's one of the ones responsible for making sperm in males and egg cells in females, and if so subsequent sperm/eggs produced by that cell will contain copies of the "fossil" virus, since now it's just a portion of the entire DNA package of the cell. And once in a blue moon such a sperm or egg is lucky enough to be one of the few which participate in fertilization and are used to produce a child -- who will now inherit copies of the "fossilized" viral DNA in every cell of his/her body, since all are copied from the DNA of the original modified sperm/egg.

So now the "fossilized" viral DNA sequence will be passed on to *their* children, and their children's children, and so on. Through a process called neutral genetic drift, given enough time (it happens faster in smaller populations than large) the "fossil" viral DNA will either be flushed out of the population eventually, *or* by luck of the draw end up in every member of the population X generations down the road. It all depends on a roll of the genetic dice.

Due to the hurdles, "fossil" retroviral DNA strings (endogenous retroviruses) don't end up ubiquitous in a species very often, but it provably *does* happen. In fact, the Human DNA project has identified literally *thousands* of such fossilized "relics" of long-ago ancestral infections in the human DNA.

And several features of these DNA relics can be used to demonstrate common descent, including their *location*. The reason is that retroviruses aren't picky about where their DNA gets inserted into the host DNA. Even in an infection in a *single* individual, each infected cell has the retroviral DNA inserted into different locations than any other cell. Because the host DNA is so enormous (billions of basepairs in humans, for example), the odds of any retroviral insertion event matching the insertion location of any other insertion event are astronomically low. The only plausible mechanism by which two individuals could have retroviral DNA inserted into exactly the same location in their respective DNAs is if they inherited copies of that DNA from the same source -- a common ancestor.

Thus, shared endogenous retroviruses between, say, ape and man is almost irrefutable evidence that they descended from a common ancestor. *Unless* you want to suggest that they were created separately, and then a virus they were both susceptible to infected both a man and an ape in EXACTLY the same location in their DNAs (the odds of such a match by luck are literally on the order of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1...), *and* that the infections both happened in their gametocyte cells (combined odds on the order of 1,000,000 to 1) *and* that the one particular affected gametocyte is the one which produces the egg or sperm which is destined to produce an offspring (*HUGE* odds against), and *then* the resulting modified genome of the offspring becomes "fixed" in each respective population (1 out of population_size^squared)...

Then repeat that for *each* shared endogenous retrovirus (there are many) you'd like to claim was acquired independently and *not* from a shared ancestor...

Finally, you'd have to explain why, for say species A, B, and C, the pattern of shared same-location retroviruses is always *nested*, never *overlapped*. For example, all three will share some retroviruses, then A and B will both share several more, but if so then B *never* shares one with C that A doesn't also have (or at least remnants of).

In your "shared infection due to genetic similarities" suggestion, even leaving aside the near statistical impossibility of the infections leaving genetic "scars" in *exactly* the same locations in independent infections, one would expect to find cases of three species X, Y, and Z, where the degree of similarity was such that Y was "between" X and Z on some similarity scale, causing the same disease to befall X and Y but not Z, and another disease to affect Y and Z but not X. And yet, we don't find this in genetic markers. The markers are found in nested sequence, which is precisely what we would expect to see in cases of inheritance from common ancestry.

Here, for example, is an ancestry tree showing the pattern of shared same-location endogenous retroviruses of type HERV-K among primates:



This is just a partial list for illustration purposes -- there are many more.

Each labeled arrow on the chart shows an ERV shared in common by all the branches to the right, and *not* the branches that are "left-and-down". This is the pattern that common descent would make. And common descent is the *only* plausible explanation for it. Furthermore, similar findings tie together larger mammal groups into successively larger "superfamilies" of creatures all descended from a common ancestor.

Any presumption of independent acquisition is literally astronomically unlikely. And "God chose to put broken relics of viral infections that never actually happened into our DNA and line them up only in patterns that would provide incredibly strong evidence of common descent which hadn't actually happened" just strains credulity (not to mention would raise troubling questions about God's motives for such a misleading act).

Once again, the evidence for common descent -- as opposed to any other conceivable alternative explanation -- is clear and overwhelming.

Wait, want more? Endogenous retroviruses are just *one* type of genetic "tag" that makes perfect sense evolutionary and *no* sense under any other scenario. In addition to ERV's, there are also similar arguments for the patterns across species of Protein functional redundancies, DNA coding redundancies, shared Processed pseudogenes, shared Transposons (including *several* independent varieties, such as SINEs and LINEs), shared redundant pseudogenes, etc. etc. Here, for example, is a small map of shared SINE events among various mammal groups:



Like ERV's, any scenario which suggests that these shared DNA features were acquired separately strains the laws of probability beyond the breaking point, but they make perfect sense from an evolutionary common-descent scenario. In the above data, it is clear that the only logical conclusion is that, for example, the cetaceans, hippos, and ruminants shared a common ancestor, in which SINE events B and C entered its DNA and then was passed on to its descendants, yet this occurred after the point in time where an earlier common ancestor had given rise both to that species, and to the lineage which later became pigs.

And this pattern (giving the *same* results) is repeated over and over and over again when various kinds of molecular evidence from DNA is examined in detail. The molecular evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming. Of course, God could have set everything up to mislead us into thinking we evolved, but that�s supported by nothing and it�s not science anymore now is it?

Please let me know if you would like source material for the studies behind endogenous retroviruses in the human genome sequence.

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil His penis and Jesus will clash in ultimate battle when they are both resurrected!

People pray to God who then prays to my pensis who then grants prayers. Forget the holy ghost of the trinity ... my member is part of the triumvirate.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: well, we've gotten into arguements before, ive put out evidence from science itself, of which, im guessing because of the pressuppositions most already have in their minds, they have made up their minds, their not going to hear anything, my evidence is totally looked over.

I'm quite willing to hear your arguments, please humour me by repeating them (please consider yours within the context of the documents I already posted).

And feel free to use the bible at length in its original language.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: ive had PM's asking questions, like, "how can this be true?" "i want to know more, give me some resources."

So you're saying you absorbed the close-to-a-dozen documents I referenced last week?

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: this isnt a battle between science and creationism. its a battle between evolutionary interpretation and theistic interpretation. we all have the same evidence, but we both have a different preconcieved notion of how we are going to examine the evidence. science is nuetral.

To some extent, yes indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Goashem you guys wanna tell me you never met a smart person who believe in god? or a complete moron who didnt ??? you should get out more. just because someone has faith in the afterlife doesnt mean hes stupid. grow up.

Of course I have. I have several colleagues that will teach a class in how the bible can't be used for anything resembling an historical source (or as anything other than a religious document) and then right afterward go to the shul.

Faith doesn't = stupidty. But in some cases it raises fundamental questions about someone's competences:

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Because, you know, it doesn�t make much sense for science to be accepting of unscientific principles.

--

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto people didn't make God up, if you know the history behind it and shit, God came to Abraham himself. A person who didn't himself believe in one diety.

Accurate enough, although he wasn't called "god" then.

He was called "Yahweh," and this word describes only the central concept of a god that had multiple manifestations ("avatars" is the Hindu term), and at the time Abraham would have become subject to the idea of "the god Yahweh" that god was only a minor member of the ancient Canaanite pantheon.

So yes, "god" was "made up" by men. Due to the conditions and mindset of a certain collection of people living in the Levantine c.10-11th centuries BCE, "Yahweh" was extracted from the Canaanite pantheon, elevated to the status of surpreme "god" of this certain collection of people, and renamed.

This minor god of war from the ancient Canaanite pantheon figure is what all Christian and Jewish faiths now call their "god."

-N

Re: the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange i think so. do you?

Are you the exception to the rule?

quote:

Originally posted by TheNobleEu Unfortunately, the concept of "IQ" is quack science. -N

The IQ test serves its purpose - testing for left-sided brain power (logic). However, logic and rational thinking only make up 1 aspect of "true" intelligence.

Being emotionally stable, havign social abilities, painting, creating music, etc., can also be considered intelligence.

Re: Re: the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow Are you the exceptioon to the rule?

Is this just another reason to blame as why Americans are so stupid?

quote:

Originally posted by Subey Evolutionist thinks: a) Creationist has huge holes in their logic b) They can not see those holes, even when I point them out c) There are no holes in my logic. The enlightened Envolutionist says to himself: "What if there are holes in my logic that I can't see?" The enlightened Evolutionist then enters limbo and begins constructing a hole detector. The enlightened Evolutionist then uses that hole detector on the theory of evolution and learns... That would be telling.

I have only skimmed the other posts, so I hope I'm not being redundant here, but in general I think your post is great. However, I think you miss the category "rational enlightened Evolutionist"(REE), which I think of myself as belonging to. The REE recognizes that he might be wrong about the validity of the theory, but he does not use this as an excuse to put it on the same epistemic level as creationism or any other theory in which he can see holes. To put it in another way: He does not "enter limbo". He keeps acting as an Evolutionist, except that he is mentally ready for abandoning this explanation the moment evidence tells him that it is wrong. A non-enlightened evolutionist, on the other hand, would cling to evolution in face of new evidence, just as creationists cling to creationism even though evidence show them that they cannot be in the right.

On topic: I distinguish between believing in something supernatural and being religious. If you're religious you take on values, follow habits, and accept explanations from a third party (neither God nor you) without questioning these values, habits, and explanations. A religious person (according to this definition), I would label as stupid. No matter if his beliefs where incidentally true.

occrider: I thought you were going to gradually pull out of these discussions. They've got you!

Reposted from a response I made last week:

--

It's really best not to try to force evolution-deniers to observe scientific reason. When you feel tempted, just cite the first couple links:

God and Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

From usenet:
news:talk.origins @ Google:
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins?lnk=lr&hl=en

Talk Origins newsgroup website:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

For the rest of us:
Arguments against Creationism -- including "What is Creationism?"
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/...eationists.html


Requisite Reading List

Introductions

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Evolution and Philosophy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html


Biology

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...to-biology.html

Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Fossil Hominids FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Re: Re: Re: the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange

you posted after my edit so you lose

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Is this just another reason to blame as why Americans are so stupid?

americans are stupid but thats besides the point what you should be pondering are religious types more stupider

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic

I think you are missing the innovation I am adding; though I can't word it much differently I will try.

Creationism vs Evolution is besides the point.

**
1)
The proponents of the view that opposes my own "Warp and distort the evidence, and are incapable of seeing this".

2)
My view is superior to theirs because I do not "warp and distort the evidence"
**

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic he is mentally ready for abandoning this explanation the moment evidence tells him that it is wrong.

BUT and this is the big butt this assumes your mind does not "warp and distort" when clearly minds do this. You should desire a "warp detector".

Saying that they are warped because of religion is not the basis of a functioning "warp detector" since it emphasizes your established perspective over theirs.

The correct foundation of such a device would be to start with "they are warped because they are human. I too am human".
**
[edit: Reality is closed to a pre-warp species... embrace warp technology ]

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow americans are stupid but thats besides the point what you should be pondering are religious types more stupider

They're the most dumbest.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow americans are stupid but thats besides the point what you should be pondering are religious types more stupider

and fat. dont forget fat.

quote:

Originally posted by djHollen and fat. dont forget fat.

you know something funny, when I drive I often see trucks with the banners "Jesus is my light" and "Live for Jesus."

And conversely, college professors are the most liberal people in the US, as a group.

So, yes, there is truth to that statement.

I don't know about that. Some professors migt be liberal, but that doesnt make them smart. I mean I had this one professor who said China was smaller than the US. Than this same professor tried to convince me that the Afghanistan people looked European and were of European descent. I tried not to lose it, she said so many stupid things I just couldn't believe that she had a Phd.

Also and she was very religious; jew, she was jewish.

I can recall so many times when my teachers have said something really stupid and something not correct, but I don't say anything to them about it. I just sign.

Oh my grandma said that the beethoven's 9th symphony was playing when Jesus was born.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Oh my grandma said that the beethoven's 9th symphony was playing when Jesus was born.

Uhm, MGS, not to bust your grandma's bubble, but considering that Beethoven was born in 1770 (A.D. if you're keeping track), I don't see how his 9th Symphony could've been playing 1800 years earlier!


Edit: Nevermind, I guess you were pointing out how people say stupid things. Guess I'm the stupid one!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.