|
the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are. (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Right, so it's equally plausible that people only get better because they pray to my penis. Actually it's a matter of fact, that my penis is more powerful than god. And you can't disprove me. |
:stongue: |
|
|
| bananas |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Right, so it's equally plausible that people only get better because they pray to my penis. Actually it's a matter of fact, that my penis is more powerful than god. And you can't disprove me. |
You'll be bashed by GOD!!11562! |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| I think thats just pretty dumb. I would say if you are intelligent, and religious, you are above average.. everything else is just a matter of respect in opinions, and a lot of stuff from Scientific Logic and faith, you are to choose. Studying the bible well, requires intelligence to really know how to understand it, if you are dumb, you wont know a thing, and take things out of context ( like all those NEO cons! ) :-) |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| 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?! |
|
|
| Yoepus |
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. |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| 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 |
|
|
| est |
| 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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
|
|
| Aiwendil |
| 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! |
|
|
| occrider |
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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
