Jump to content


Photo

Effects Of Continued Belief Of "evolution" On The Brain

INSANITY FAIRY TALE ABIODARWINISM MENTAL ILLNESS FANTASY DELUSION

  • Please log in to reply
237 replies to this topic

#121 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 June 2016 - 09:18 PM

 
I can support them until I am blue in the face, It would matter little to you though.
You always have the Abiodarwinistic trump card to back you up when it is shown that you believe in an impossible fairy tale..
It involves something along the lines of sticking out one's tongue defiantly with their fingers in their ears while shouting "Prove it didn't or cant happen" Nah nah na nah nah..
 
What Were the Odds For Evolution?
Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated thatthe probability of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organismknown is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. One out of ten to the 340 millionth power isunimaginable odds. This large figure is a "1" followed by 340,000,000 zeroes. As you cansee, Morowitz' odds against even the simplest life evolving were infinitely more than1*10^50, making them impossible.The very popular evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, figured even steeper odds against the simplest life beginning naturally on a planet such as earth. According toSagan, the probability would be about 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Try to imagine ten tothe 2 billionth power. Pretty astounding odds. Interestingly, these impossible odds againstevolution came from one of the most prominent evolutionists of our time.According to evolutionists, we just got lucky. However, the odds against this luck have been shown above. Borel's law of probability should have been enough to refuteevolution completely, but I know that the evolutionary "intellectuals" need moreconvincing data.
 
Mod edit: Blitzking, the giant font was really unnecessary. Use italics or bold if you want to emphasize a point.
Bonedigger

 

Yes You are right. It was not done intentionally however.. For some reason it pasted that way..I couldn't take it back..

Sorry for the mistake,, I will make sure to read very carefully what Font size is going into the post to avoid it in the future!

Thanks for the Admonishment,, All the best Blitz



#122 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,648 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 28 June 2016 - 01:54 PM

Darwinism is a dead dog's carcass that is only being propped up by militant atheists, God haters. Low IQ / indifferent people and Brainwashed / Indoctrinated "Oval Earthers"

 

I'd like you to ponder this chart:

iq_vs_religiosity_indiviual.png

 

For those who don't understand it, it shows the average iq of people, depending on their religiosity. Those of you who are very religious belong to a group who have on average an iq of 6 points lower then those who are atheist.

source: http://www.asanet.or...0SPQFeature.pdf

 

 

Darwinism is a dead dog's carcass that is only being propped up by militant atheists, God haters. Low IQ / indifferent people and Brainwashed / Indoctrinated "Oval Earthers"

Honest curiosity: Are you a flat earther?



#123 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,197 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 June 2016 - 02:41 PM

 

 

Fjuri: For those who don't understand it, it shows the average iq of people, depending on their religiosity. Those of you who are very religious belong to a group who have on average an iq of 6 points lower then those who are atheist.

 

Even if that is true, to apply that to an individual of that group is called a Sweeping generalisation fallacy

 

The following example is an example of the fallacy;

 

"Humans have been shown to make human-errors, such as memory bias and they can hallucinate, etc..

Bill has just claimed to see something fascinating, and he is human therefore he was hallucinating."

 

It's also the same fallacy to infer that because you are part of the "atheist" group, that it follows you have a higher IQ.

 

Despite this, I am certainly NOT claiming that because you are an atheist Fjuri, you are stupid, nor do I believe you are stupid. I just wanted to show you that statistics are not tickets to a freedom from logical scrutiny. I also wanted to show that this statistic doesn't allow you to infer that if you are atheist you are brainy and if you are Christian you are stupid.

 

I don't agree with Blitzking's comment that atheists are stupid. Generally my own experience tells me that that statistic probably does have some credence, though like I say, what statistics really mean, is quite a debate in itself. They can be misleading, because sometimes they omit important factors or only are based on correlations with limited factors.

 

For example, if I was not a born again Christian what would I be? Would I likely be religious? My answer is no, so is the group, "religious" really a valid group? Einstein said he had, "religiosity", would he then be regarded as religious? How do we define religious since it is such a broad group? If for example, we isolated Christians, and changed "religiosity" to, "Christian", would the statistic be the same? Is the smartness causing less religiosity, or there a third factor? For example, the more smart people might be taught evolution at that age, and so the real cause of their, "less religious" nature might simply be that they have been taught that evolution is a fact and have figured out the true parts of the theory and so accepted the rest. But if history had been different and ID was taught to them, would the statistic be the same? I actually doubt it, I think those smarter guys, a fair amount of them would be more religious in all likelihood, and we are only talking about teens.



#124 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 28 June 2016 - 08:46 PM

I'd like you to ponder this chart:

iq_vs_religiosity_indiviual.png

 

For those who don't understand it, it shows the average iq of people, depending on their religiosity. Those of you who are very religious belong to a group who have on average an iq of 6 points lower then those who are atheist.

source: http://www.asanet.or...0SPQFeature.pdf

 

 

Honest curiosity: Are you a flat earther?

 

I remember my father saying something very wise to me once when I was a little boy..

It went something like this...

 

Son, I just want you to know that in this life people will try to sell you with...

 

1 LIES

2 DAMNED LIES

3 STATISTICS

 

AND, THE BIGGEST WHOPPERS OF ALL......

 

4 GRAPHS AND CHARTS..

 

LOL..

 

Anyway, back to your Graph,, lets just give you the benefit of the doubt and say that it is true...

It would mean that you should avoid RELIGION and Search for TRUTH instead, Wouldn't you think?

 

Who was doing that "Chart"and who got to decide what "Religion" Was?

 

I contend that the Religious Followers of AbioDarwinism have MUCH STRONGER Faith to

believe in their CULT of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth than ANY Christian I know!!

 

Now, back to the OP..

 

Does FORCING  oneself to believe that the Woodpecker was magically able to survive all of those "Millions of Years" without his tongue because it was still "Evolving" through the back of its head and the top of its brain starting in its right nostril ??????   Can that kind of Mental contortions Cause Long Term Neurological Disease?  I think it is a VALID QUESTION!!

 

 

Answers to my Evolutionist Friends  ·   by Thomas F. Heinze

 

woodpecker4.jpg

Answers to my Evolutionist Friends
Who Designed Woodpeckers?
by Thomas F. Heinze

woodpecker3.jpg

 

Dr. Luther Sunderland, a scientist who is an expert in design engineering, was fascinated by the skeleton of a woodpecker that he found which had recently died out in the woods. Its bones had been perfectly cleaned off by insects. As he examined the skeleton, he noticed a very strange thing: Small flexible bones exited from the woodpecker's right nostril, circled around behind its head and neck, and went into its beak on the other side of its head. What were these strange bones? Quite a number of animals have bones that that stiffen the base of the tongue, and this is essentially the purpose of these bones in the woodpecker's tongue (called hyoid bones). In the woodpecker, however, the fact that the tongue starts out backward and circles around behind the head is exceptional!

    The Woodpecker's Tongue

The woodpecker catches its food with its tongue which has barbs and a bit of glue on the end, so it can pick up grubs hiding in their little tunnels inside a tree. Circling around behind the head and neck under the loose skin gives the tongue enough extra length so it can shoot out about six inches into Mr. grub's burrow inside a tree trunk!

Something or somebody gave the woodpecker's tongue a unique design. It is long, but instead of dangling down and getting tangled around branches when it flies, the slack is kept under the loose skin behind its neck. Back there, the tiny bones divide into essentially two tongues, coming back together before entering the beak. This design detail no doubt gives greater accuracy as the woodpecker guides its tongue toward a target grub.


A woodpecker's skull (to the right)
showing the bones of the tongue

There are five bones, thin and flexible with tiny joints.1What made them exit through the right nostril and attach their sheath there, 2 circle behind the head and neck 3, and come back into the hollow between the two halves of the beak? 4

Woodpecker1.gif

    Evolution?

According to the theory of evolution, every step up from a single cell has been caused by gradually accumulating small changes which have come about through errors in copying the information that directs the construction of living things. These errors, called mutations, are claimed by evolutionists to have come about by accident, that is, with no intelligent direction by God. Errors in copying information don't make better instructions for making more complex beings. That is why technicians who work with X-rays protect themselves with lead shields or aprons.

Evolutionists, however, have faith that mutations have gradually made biologists out of bacteria, or Adam from an amoeba. They believe that over millions of years, natural selection has selected the organisms with mutations that add a little to the creature's ability to survive and leave offspring, while those with harmful mutations die. The reason they believe these changes take lots of time is that most mutations represent chance changes in the commands to make proteins which are the main ingredients of cells. The tiny proteins are long strings of even smaller amino acids. Almost all mutations are harmful, so the organisms which survive are generally those with mutations that just change one amino acid in one protein.

Since even a simple organ like a tongue is made up of many many proteins, nerve cells, blood vessels, etc. which must be quite perfectly coordinated, it is very difficult to imagine changes of one amino acid in one protein bringing any organ into existence. Why not claim that a big cluster of mutations affected the bone, muscle, nerves, etc. all at once? Because almost all mutations are harmful. If you got a cluster of a thousand mutations, and one of them was helpful, hundreds of them would cause genetic diseases, that would wipe out the organism. In insisting that God did nothing, and that accidental mutations have produced everything, evolutionists have painted themselves into a corner, with no decent way to account for the origin of any complex organ.

Evolutionists surmise that the woodpecker must have evolved from some other bird with a normal tongue that went straight out of the beak. The mutation scenario, however, could never have evolved a normal bird's tongue into woodpecker's tongue. Why? After a normal bird's tongue had turned around and started growing under the skin toward the back of its head, the tongue would have been completely useless until it had completed the entire circle. Only the last step in the evolution of the woodpecker's tongue, when it came back out of the front of the beak again would have had survival value.

After a tongue came out through the nostril and headed backwards behind the head it would have given the bird a great survival disadvantage until the moment the tongue and its bones had grown long enough to go all the way around the neck, back into the base of its beak, and extend far enough out the end to reach food. Since this involved bone, joints, blood vessels, and nerves as well as flesh, it would have required many mutations, presumably spread out over millions of years. Its tongue could not help it catch any food at all for the millions of years that it would take to complete the circle around the back of the head, by changing one amino acid in one protein at a time. Loosing the tongue's contribution to gathering food would have put the woodpecker at a great disadvantage compared to normal birds in the struggle to survive. Adding two joints and an inch in length, for example, would have added no survival advantage at all as long as it was growing in the wrong direction. Therefore, this kind of mutations would never have been preserved.

The woodpecker's tongue must have come all at once, a product of complex design. This would have required an intelligent creator. If the woodpecker's tongue were not designed, but had formed by chance mutations, only the first mutations which moved its tongue into its right nostril and pointed it backward could have happened. After that it would have starved to death.

Evolutionists tell us that an organ which goes unused for generation after generation will be eliminated, even if the animals continue to live. If, by some miracle, the woodpeckers themselves had not been eliminated, a tongue which had been useless for many generations, would itself have been eliminated. The woodpecker's tongue gives strong evidence of being the product of intelligent design and creation, rather than of evolution. Some evolutionists have realized this, and have thought up another story of how it might have evolved. When I was first told about it in an email, it seemed such an impossible suggestion that I was sure that I had not understood, so I kept on asking until it was absolutely clear that it really was what he was saying.

This evolutionary speculation claims that the woodpecker's tongue evolved from that of a normal bird: rooted back in its throat and extending straight out through the beak like that of other birds. Then, not the point end of the tongue, but the root end little by little uprooted itself from its normal attachment in the back of the throat, gradually rerooting itself step by tiny step out through the back of the opening of the bill, and taking root ever farther around the back of the head. In this way, according to the story, each little movement was favored by natural selection because the tongues length increased, and the longer the tongue was, the farther it could stretch out into the passageways the grubs had dug in the tree trunks. This would, of course requited two completely different types of mutations which were more or less perfectly coordinated: The mutations which moved the root around the head, would have to have been coordinated with those which increased the length of the tongue. Otherwise, as the tongue moved farther back, less and less of the tongue would have even reached the end of the beak, much less extended out of it. This would have given a survival disadvantage. The fact that more or less coordinated mutations would have been necessary makes this whole story much less likely.

However, when I had gotten used to this strange scenario, I could see how it might sound possible to an evolutionist who had so much faith in the theory of evolution that he had to believe that everything had come into being by natural selection acting on accidental mutations. After all, if a tongue did extend farther and farther out of the beak, it really could reach farther into the grub's burrow, and the more grubs it could catch, the more offspring it could bring to maturity.

Then it hit me! This theory neglects to mention that for the first inch or so the tongues root had to move in the wrong direction! Evolutionists state that the woodpecker's tongue started out rooted back in the throat, just like other birds because they claim that it evolved from some ordinary bird. The only way the tongue's root could get to where it could exit from the side of the beak was to move foreword from its spot in the back of the throat. Its first inch or so was moving foreword, not backward! Since, in the scenario they have made up, moving the tongues root backward increases its probability of being chosen by natural selection, then moving forward from back in the throat up to the point at which it could exit through the opening of the back part of the beak would decrease its chance of being chosen.

If, on the other hand, moving forward put more of the tongue out of the beak and increased its chance of survival, then moving backward would have decreased its chance of survival. The evidence free argument that the woodpecker's tongue became what it is today by migrating root first around the head is self contradictory and logically unsound.

It gets worse. After working its way around the neck according to this theory the root jammed itself back into the bill through the nostril. Why would it do that? If lengthening the tongue increased the bird's chance of survival, the birds with tongues which continued to lengthen by moving under the skin down to the bird's tummy, tail, or foot, would have been chosen by natural selection. The birds whose tongue evolution stopped half way and jammed the root back into the bill through the nostril would have been eliminated.

Both the forward and the backward evolutionary scenario lead to absurdities and to elimination by natural selection. The woodpecker's tongue gives strong evidence of design.

    Other Systems

The woodpecker's bill works like a specialized chisel, capable of slicing right into a tree. By hammering on a steel chisel, men can cut into trees like the woodpecker does with his bill. However, as we chisel, our steel blade becomes dull. After we chisel a certain number of holes, we must sharpen our chisels. Otherwise they get more and more dull until they are unusable. God made woodpecker beaks self sharpening. If it were a simple thing that could happen by small accidental changes, some blacksmith, or metallurgical scientist would have figured out how to make self sharpening steel chisels.

If a man were trying to catch grubs like a woodpecker, no matter how sharp he kept his chisel, he would not know which direction to go to connect with the tunnels which have grubs in them. Until the woodpecker had obtained the complex mechanism for locating and hitting a tiny grub inside a tiny tunnel inside a great big tree, its specialized tongue would have been of no value. Neither would the bug location mechanism been of any value without a tongue long enough to reach the grub. In fact, neither the long tongue nor the location mechanism would have been of any use if the tongue were not equipped to stick to or into the grub to bring it back out of the hole. If any of the three had evolved much before the others it would have been of no use, and would not have been selected.

If all of the above systems came into place in an ordinary bird, the impact with the tree would kill it; something like taking driving a steel chisel into a tree with the end of your nose. Had it survived the first blow, it would probably have quit trying. The woodpecker, however, not only comes equipped with a strong self sharpening beak and a grub detector, but also a marvelous shock absorbing system that protects its head from damage. The first woodpecker to evolve the equipment for drilling holes in trees would have quit pounding or died young if the shock absorbers were not already in place.

In addition, compared to other birds: "The tail feathers (especially the central one or two pairs) are stronger in woodpeckers, resisting the wear caused by their use in propping up the bird's body as it hammers with the bill. The toe structure and associated arrangement of tendons and leg muscles form a functional complex of features enabling the woodpecker to climb tree trunks and to maintain its position while pecking the tree." (Encyclopedia Britannica CD 98, "Birds: Major Bird Orders: Piciformes, Form and Function"). What good would the stiff tail feathers, the specialized toe structure, the grub detector and the grub puller have been even with the wrap around tongue and the shock absorber if after drilling a few holes the beak had gotten dull and wouldn't cut any more? When a number of systems must be in place all at once before a thing will work, it is called irreducible complexity and it is an evidence of intelligent design.

    Conclusion

According to evolutionary theory, any system without a function will be eliminated by natural selection. If one of the woodpecker's systems evolved much before the other systems that had to be there for it to function, it would have been eliminated. The evidence is strongly against the woodpecker's special systems having been developed by chance mutations because a number of different systems had to work together. The fact that they are all present and functioning indicates that these various systems were designed and created to work together.

Since the evidence indicates that woodpeckers could not have been developed by random mutations, why should mutations be considered the universal builders of every part of every living being as most evolutionists insist? It is OK to believe that things were caused by mutations when there is good evidence leads to this conclusion. Most genetic diseases are examples. A slight change in the order of the amino acids in a protein will often change a functioning protein into a disease. But let the evidence be a guide also in cases such as that of the woodpecker where the evidence so strongly indicates intelligent design. Why jump to the conclusion that if mutations cause diabetes, they must also have formed the pancreas, the liver, the fish, the monkey and us? If you see someone knocking down a building with a crane equipped with a wrecking ball, you don't assume that all of the world's buildings were constructed by cranes with wrecking balls.

Unfortunately, for many the evolutionary faith is a part of a total religious structure into which everything must be jammed whether it fits or not.

Dr. Sunderland, the owner of the skull in the picture, writes, "The woodpecker's skull has been more effective in convincing scientists of the inadequacies of the evolution theory than perhaps any book in the author's library. Other birds have hyoid bones also, but it would seem obvious that some sort of miracle would be needed to get them rooted in the right nostril. One prominent evolutionist on the staff of a prestigious scientific magazine confided after examining it 'There are certain anatomical features which just cannot be explained by gradual mutations over millions of years. Just between you and me, I have to get God into the act too sometimes.'"

Another scientist, while examining the woodpecker's tongue bones under a microscope commented, "It is very easy to tell the difference between man-made and God-made objects. The more you magnify man-made objects, the cruder they look, but the more you magnify God-made objects, the more precise and intricate they appear."



#125 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 28 June 2016 - 11:43 PM

I'd like you to ponder this chart:

iq_vs_religiosity_indiviual.png

 

For those who don't understand it, it shows the average iq of people, depending on their religiosity. Those of you who are very religious belong to a group who have on average an iq of 6 points lower then those who are atheist.

source: http://www.asanet.or...0SPQFeature.pdf

 

The only thing the researcher use for intelligence measurement in Fjuri's paper is the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). That is what is used to measure the 'intelligence' part in the paper. But there could be other correlations (that is not mentioned in the paper) that explains the numbers better, who knows? And the paper is biased to show that the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis is correct. So how do we know that the scientist is not cherry picking the results so his beloved theory looks more plausible?
 
One can't really draw any conclusion from one study like this. And normally one would should be skeptical to measurements of intelligence, because it's not really easy to say what it is. Because a high score in an IQ test (for example) really only shows that you are good at IQ tests.


#126 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,648 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:40 AM

Even if that is true, to apply that to an individual of that group is called a Sweeping generalisation fallacy

 

The following example is an example of the fallacy;

 

"Humans have been shown to make human-errors, such as memory bias and they can hallucinate, etc..

Bill has just claimed to see something fascinating, and he is human therefore he was hallucinating."

 

It's also the same fallacy to infer that because you are part of the "atheist" group, that it follows you have a higher IQ.

Luckily I didn't make that claim, did I? 

 

The only thing the researcher use for intelligence measurement in Fjuri's paper is the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). That is what is used to measure the 'intelligence' part in the paper. But there could be other correlations (that is not mentioned in the paper) that explains the numbers better, who knows? And the paper is biased to show that the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis is correct. So how do we know that the scientist is not cherry picking the results so his beloved theory looks more plausible?

I agree that the PPVT is only a part of what makes up the IQ. Can you agree with the conclusion that atheists on average score better on the PPVT test? Would the peer reviewers not make the same remark as you just did?

 

Also, what I posted is more related to the Original Post then any research Blitzking referenced.



#127 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,648 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:43 AM

I remember my father saying something very wise to me once when I was a little boy..

It went something like this...

 

Son, I just want you to know that in this life people will try to sell you with...

 

1 LIES

2 DAMNED LIES

3 STATISTICS

 

AND, THE BIGGEST WHOPPERS OF ALL......

 

4 GRAPHS AND CHARTS..

These are the 5 stages of grief:

1. DENIAL

2. Anger

3. Bargaining

4. Depression

5. Acceptance

 

Guess where you're at. ;)



#128 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,220 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 29 June 2016 - 01:58 AM

Thank you for the much improved tone of your comments.

It says in your handle that you consider yourself to be a "Christian" 

Correct.   I'm Catholic, and attended Catholic schools thru the first 3 years of university.

 

Why don't you trust the very God that you supposedly believe in who told us Exactly how and how long it took him to create the universe and ultimately Man?

Because YEC would make over 99.9999999% of God's creation a deception.

 

For example, the supernova event by which the star Sanduleak 69-202 became redesignated as supernova SN1987a never took place and the star itself never existed.

 

Listen, Trusting Man Made "Psuedo Science" can be Deadly (Ask George Washington)

Yeah.... we've learned a lot in the last 200+ years..... and we're still learning at an accelerating pace.  Science makes no claim to be all knowing.

 

....  and cost you your soul for calling God a Liar just to try to please Darwin, WHY?

My rejection of a literal Genesis has very little to do with Darwin and much more to do with Newton (and St. Augustine).  In a YEC universe we should be able to see nothing beyond 6,000 light years.  Virtually the entire universe, including the center of our own galaxy is much more distant than that.  To me, the choice was that God's creation is a deception or we are misunderstanding the messages of the creation account.  More on that later.....

 

Darwinism is a dead dog's carcass that is only being propped up by militant atheists, God haters. Low IQ / indifferent people and Brainwashed / Indoctrinated "Oval Earthers"

OOPS ! ! !   Slipped back to the old Blitz.....  with a series of factually inaccurate statements.

 

1)  Multiple Gallup polls over the last 30+ years show consistently that about 80% of those who accept evolution believe it to be a process of creation used by God.  (IIRC, the most recent poll was only 67%, but it's still a substantial majority.)

2)  With the understanding that when we are talking about people, there are lots of exceptions.... in general, those with higher IQ's tend to have more education and those with more education are more likely to accept evolution.

3)  I'm not sure what is meant by "indifferent."

4)  What's an "Oval Earther?"  As opposed to ????  Flat Earth?  We just had that discussion....

 

BTW the "Compromise" ID is gaining traction in the scientific community..

The only documentation I can think of to use for comparison is Discovery Institutes "Dissent from Darwinism" and NCSE's "Project Steve" and that is more an indicator than a measurement.... I'm not going to count signatures, but the last time I checked, it worked out that "Steve" had about 99 times the support of "Dissent."  Every single scientific organization I can think of has a formal statement opposing ID.  In other words, even if ID is "gaining traction," it has a long way to go before it becomes accepted science.

 

They are willing to go against their A Priori position of Metaphysical Methodical Naturalism because they are getting CRUSHED under the weight of the preponderance of evidence against them..

You are aware we call them "physical" and "natural" sciences for a reason, aren't you?  What do you think that reason would be?  Is it possible that the metaphysical and supernatural are outside the limitations of scientific methodologies available?  I can list the total number of metaphysical and supernatural tests available to science on the left thumbs of my right foot.

 

Come on back to the Truth and the light and Escape the chains of the Dark Side while you still have breath in your lungs...

IIRC, when you began posting, you commented this isn't your "first rodeo."  Well, it isn't mine either.

 

Newtonian physics clearly establishes the universe is billions of years old based on direct trigonometry (parallax) and standard candles (inverse square law). 

 

Basically, St. Augustine said that even a pagan knows about how many things work with certainty based on study and experience.  He points out it is very dangerous to the faith for a believer to declare false that which a non-believer knows to be true based on their own observation and experience then use scripture to justify the claim.

 

When I was 19-20, and an engineering student at the Jesuit operated University of San Francisco.  All students were automatic philosophy minors and all Catholics were required to take theology classes.  As I had attended Catholic schools from first grade, I was well aware of the Genesis genealogy and the 6,000 year calculation by Bishop Ussher.  This was about the time the discovery of the CMB was announced.  I began to realize that, regardless of it's origin, the universe is truly ancient .... billions of years old, not thousands.... based on the travel time of light from distant objects.  This led to a crisis of faith.

 

Time = distance / velocity isn't "indoctrination" or "brainwashing" ... it's simple math.  The light travel time problem, not Darwin, nearly caused me to abandon my faith.  For that reason, I'm sure you can understand it's the one that would need to be addressed for me to reconsider my position on Genesis literalism. 

 

Fortunately, my religious mentors, who were philosophers and theologians, suggested I review Genesis with a view toward finding the deeper spiritual messages, rather looking at it as a literal account.  Had they told me what the YEC ministries say: (paraphrasing) "anything that contradicts a literal Genesis is invalid by definition,"

 

In the 50 years since then, the attempts by creation scientists to deal with the light travel time of YEC have become increasingly bizarre.  It's gone from challenging the distance measurement; to questioning the speed of light; to claiming a "gravitational well" making time stop on Earth; to the speed of light being direction dependent.

 

I tell you this in love.. I am NOT your enemy, Darwin / Satan is..

Thank you.  I will accept it in that spirit.

 

Be assured, when my time comes, rejection of Genesis literalism won't even be in the list of the top 100 things I'll have to answer for.....

 

Some other (related) points....

1)  My position is that, from a scientific perspective, all proposed explanations for the origin of life are speculative.

2)  Rejection of a global flood came decades after Genesis literalism was rejected by me.

 

This particular part of the discussion seems a bit off topic.  There have been a couple threads on theistic evolution since I've been here, you might want to look into them..... but you are the author of the OP, so you make the call.....



#129 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,197 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2016 - 02:24 AM

Fjuri, one factor I would ask is how many people on the PPVT, were brought up in a religious household?

 

For example if in a room of 100 people, 10 people were atheist, and we took an IQ test and 37 people had high IQs but only one of them was atheist, can you see how such a statistic might be coloured by the population?

 

You see the problem is, now we live in a very secularised west. If for example, many of the people that were none-religious had been brought up in a religious household and had the chance to learn the more obscure information, would the statistic be the same?

 

I don't know about you, but critical-thinking was not taught to me during teenage years. I can tell you that on that statistic at the age of 16 I would have had a very low IQ score and would have been classed as "slightly" religious. At about 25 years old was about the time that I consciously chosen to start exercising my brain. It would be interesting to see how adults of above 25 years would score since we know the brain develops to maturity by about the age of 25.

 

Did the test consider immaturity which can equate to a lower IQ? Quite a few teenagers suffer from retarded maturation. Some people, because they are more immature, will have a higher IQ in their twenties.



#130 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,197 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2016 - 02:38 AM

 

 

Piasan: Correct.   I'm Catholic, and attended Catholic schools thru the first 3 years of university.

 

So did Al Capone and Ted bundy. ;)

 

If you think attending catholic school makes you a Christian then this comment definitely disturbs me. I was raised catholic and did not become genuinely born-again as Christ describes, until I was a number of years away from any catholic influence. I can tell you that my catholic upbringing had very, very little to do with being Christian. When I was classed as a catholic, I was not born again. I suggest to you think you have a head-theism you call, "Christianity".

 

I don't say that in a mean-spirited way Piasan, I just find it very hard to believe you really know the Lord, because of the type of indicators you give that strongly suggest you don't.

 

But I will also say, I would be very happy to be wrong on this. So I am not judging you, I am simply believe that there are many, many, "theistic evolutionists" that display very strong evidence that they are not really Christian. They will usually sound like atheists, and it can be very hard for them to support anything biblical or agree with genuine Christians. Also had you not known they named themselves as, "theistic evolutionist" it would be very difficult to see any actual difference in their arguments, from that of atheist arguments. They tend to concentrate on arguing points with Christians, even in topics that have nothing to do with evolution, and will very seldom argue with an atheist.

 

:gotcha: 

 


  • Blitzking likes this

#131 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,648 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2016 - 04:05 AM

Fjuri, one factor I would ask is how many people on the PPVT, were brought up in a religious household?

 

For example if in a room of 100 people, 10 people were atheist, and we took an IQ test and 37 people had high IQs but only one of them was atheist, can you see how such a statistic might be coloured by the population?

 

You see the problem is, now we live in a very secularised west. If for example, many of the people that were none-religious had been brought up in a religious household and had the chance to learn the more obscure information, would the statistic be the same?

 

I don't know about you, but critical-thinking was not taught to me during teenage years. I can tell you that on that statistic at the age of 16 I would have had a very low IQ score and would have been classed as "slightly" religious. At about 25 years old was about the time that I consciously chosen to start exercising my brain. It would be interesting to see how adults of above 25 years would score since we know the brain develops to maturity by about the age of 25.

 

Did the test consider immaturity which can equate to a lower IQ? Quite a few teenagers suffer from retarded maturation. Some people, because they are more immature, will have a higher IQ in their twenties.

That's why there are error bars on the graph. These show on estimate of the accuracy of the mean prediction. This is based on sample size. Since they are all relatively small, the number of observations is should be reasonably high. In total there were 10k+ cases studied.



#132 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,197 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2016 - 04:38 AM

Fjuri, if you want to know more about being cautious about statistics here is a thread that I written a while back, I hope you will also enjoy my, "Fozzil family record" post. :D

 

http://evolutionfair...-evolutionists/

 

 I wouldn't treat your statistic as having great relevance pertaining to adults. Your statistic pertains to adolescents.

 

I also think that militant-atheists are more rare, and would likely be of lower IQ. (anti-theists) I say that because my experience of extremely fundamental religious people and militant atheists tells me they have very similar characteristics. (Bigoted, prejudiced, obtuse, dogmatic, see things in black and white terms.)



#133 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,648 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2016 - 05:24 AM

Fjuri, if you want to know more about being cautious about statistics here is a thread that I written a while back, I hope you will also enjoy my, "Fozzil family record" post. 

You have a very naive understanding of statistics. That is not intended as an insult.

 

 I wouldn't treat your statistic as having great relevance pertaining to adults. Your statistic pertains to adolescents.

IQ doesn't drop or raise significantly...



#134 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,197 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2016 - 05:45 AM

 

 

Fjuri: You have a very naive understanding of statistics. That is not intended as an insult.

 

Using the ad-hominem argument is a tactic I usually would associate with the militant atheists, Fjuri.

 

"Mike's understanding of statistics is naive therefore I/we can dismiss the link and everything he explained in it!"

 

A bare statement about mike the person, with nothing to back up the statement. Note the question-begging-epithet, "naive", which is unqualified by any reasons for why you use the term.

 

I notice you tend to lash-out when you're cornered. In another thread I was, "naive" about peoples' tendency to manipulate others, again in that thread it was a bare-assertion about mike's person. (personal attack)

 

A personal attack is intended as a distraction usually, and counts as one of the fallacies of diversion.

 

 

LINK: When you ignore your opponent’s argument altogether and instead launch an irrelevant attack on their person, you commit ad hominem.

 

Example:

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."

Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."

Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" 
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

http://users.start.c...z/Diversion.htm

 

"Khan I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect" - Captain Kirk 

 

 

 

Fjuri: IQ doesn't drop or raise significantly...

 

Ironically that is a naive statement. :D

 

Can't you think of any reasons as to why an IQ might be higher in a mature mind than in an immature mind? I specifically remember when I was 16 years old, my mind could not figure out pretty much ANYTHING that I can now figure out. 

 

So far you've evidenced that atheists as a group may have higher IQs when teenagers. Nevertheless, how much is that because of being raised in a secularist society? If the same atheists had been raised and taught ID and were also given a theistic account of history, can you be sure the statistic would be the same?

 

I believe the statistic would be much more even, meaning the statistic is of little logical relevance because it simply doesn't prove much. We know that the west is secularised and has been for decades, we live in a post-Christian era where evolution is taught and any other view of history is banned.



#135 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,648 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2016 - 06:06 AM

Here's a fragment from Mike the Wiz's link:

This shows the problem with probability-statistics. The relevance of the study is highly questionable, especially if the statistics seem tautological, such as, "being born in a religious country will make it likely you are religious". If you do not have 100% of the data, then it is 100% guaranteed that you will affirm-the-consequent INTUITIVELY. 

The naive understanding is that statistics claim certitude about anything. Statistics describe the data. Statistics is factual. You claiming it to state anything else than it does is naive.

 

Using the ad-hominem argument is a tactic I usually would associate with the militant atheists, Fjuri.

 

"Mike's understanding of statistics is naive therefore I/we can dismiss the link and everything he explained in it!"

 

A bare statement about mike the person, with nothing to back up the statement. Note the question-begging-epithet, "naive", which is unqualified by any reasons for why you use the term.

 

I notice you tend to lash-out when you're cornered. In another thread I was, "naive" about peoples' tendency to manipulate others, again in that thread it was a bare-assertion about mike's person. (personal attack)

 

A personal attack is intended as a distraction usually, and counts as one of the fallacies of diversion.

You're the one attempting to divert the conversation here. You linked another topic, I checked it out and the statement above was all it said about statistics. Unless you expect me to check links after links as well in order to see the relevance of your comment. Since I was not involved in that topic, and that topic has been dead for almost a year, linking it isn't sufficient. Support your claim if you're up to it.

 

Ironically that is a naive statement. :D

 

Can't you think of any reasons as to why an IQ might be higher in a mature mind than in an immature mind? I specifically remember when I was 16 years old, my mind could not figure out pretty much ANYTHING that I can now figure out. 

 

So far you've evidenced that atheists as a group may have higher IQs when teenagers. Nevertheless, how much is that because of being raised in a secularist society? If the same atheists had been raised and taught ID and were also given a theistic account of history, can you be sure the statistic would be the same?

 

I believe the statistic would be much more even, meaning the statistic is of little logical relevance because it simply doesn't prove much. We know that the west is secularised and has been for decades, we live in a post-Christian era.

 

In general the IQ of immature minds is higher than those of mature minds. 

"High IQ" is not the same thing as "smart". 

IQ over a lifetime is highly correlated, meaning that people of low IQ at a young age are expected to have a low IQ at a higher age and people with a high IQ at a younger age are expected to have a higher IQ at a higher age. 



#136 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,197 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2016 - 06:26 AM

 

Fjuri: The naive understanding is that statistics claim certitude about anything. Statistics describe the data. Statistics is factual. You claiming it to state anything else than it does is naive.

 

 

But I know statistics are factual, they are just not necessarily consequential. If you are using a statistic to support an argument that atheists as a group are smarter then it is being used as a rhetorical device. Politicians do it a lot, don't you know?

 

I have noticed this style of debate before, it is like me saying this to you, "Fjuri you are mathematically naive"

Then you will say, "that is a ad-hominem"

Then I would say, "but you are naive because you don't know that adding two to two gets you four and not five, five is an odd number".

 

Can you notice the tactic here? The tactic is that YOU WILL EXPLAIN WHAT STATISTICS ARE, as though explaining what they are proves I did not know what they are.

 

It is the same with the maths example. If I explain that two add two is four, will that mean I have proved that you thought it was five?

 

 

 

Fjuri: ou're the one attempting to divert the conversation here. You linked another topic, I checked it out and the statement above was all it said about statistics. Unless you expect me to check links after links as well in order to see the relevance of your comment. Since I was not involved in that topic, and that topic has been dead for almost a year, linking it isn't sufficient. Support your claim if you're up to it.

 

I just thought you might like reading the topic. That's all. 

 

 

Fjuri: In general the IQ of immature minds are lower than those of mature minds. 

"High IQ" is not the same thing as "smart". 

IQ over a lifetime is highly correlated, meaning that people of low IQ at a young age are expected to have a low IQ at a higher age and people with a high IQ at a younger age are expected to have a higher IQ at a higher age.

 

Largely IQ tests are ambiguous. They differ. I for one was never required to take one in the 1990s meaning there isn't necessarily some magic lifetime-correlation. 

 

One guy done a test of internet IQ tests. Obviously that is only internet IQ tests, but it was interesting that he scored an IQ of over 130 on many, many tests he took. Then he told everyone that he did not take the test, in fact he randomly answered the question indiscriminately, and answered them all lightning-fast.

 

It turned out that those tests gave you an IQ that was high, based on how fast you answered, since he did not even read the questions but just chose ANY random answer.

 

"What IQ tests mean" is quite a topic in itself. Is there a universal IQ test that all people have taken when adolescent and adult, for example? If not, why are you dogmatic if there is no comparison? Is it not at least reasonable that a fully mature brain may have a higher IQ than a developing one?



#137 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 29 June 2016 - 07:54 AM

I agree that the PPVT is only a part of what makes up the IQ. Can you agree with the conclusion that atheists on average score better on the PPVT test? Would the peer reviewers not make the same remark as you just did?

 

I can agree to the fact that atheists score higher on the PPVT test according to the paper you linked to. But the correlation doesn't have to be due to the variable atheist versus theists at all, which the paper totally fails to mention. The most common reason for better vocabulary is due to parents having higher academic background. So does the parents to the high scoring PPVT persons have higher academic background than those who gets lower scores? If you took that correlation into account it would probably show a higher correlation with the PPVT test results than if you are theist or atheist. What does that tell us? Correlations are hard things, because you might miss what the main correlation is if you're not careful. And the aim with the paper is to find support for the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, which he (not to surprisingly) does. But in his eager to prove his theorem to be correct, have he forgotten to take certain main variables into considerations or has he left them out by purpose? 
 
I really don't think the paper is good (from a scientific point of view) and it really doesn't say that much. You really have to take much more variables into consideration to be able to draw any conclusion, or else you might just make hasty and unjustified conclusions.  
 
Mike does some interesting observations as well. If there are few atheist in comparison to theists that might skew the results. And how do you actually measure intelligence in any objective way? If you (for example) study and practice IQ tests you might raise your IQ scores quite a bit. In what way does IQ tests tell us anything else than how good you are at solving IQ tests? If IQ really is something that is mainly related to our genetic setup, as suggested in the paper, is IQ tests really that useful to measure 'intelligence' anyway. And are there any good reasons to believe that PPVT scores has much to do with IQ or intelligence. Just because the paper claim that there are a correlation doesn't mean that the paper is correct. 
 
Is the paper not a better example on how biased research might be?
 
I won't go into critique of peer reviewing, because then I might sound negative :-)


#138 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,648 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2016 - 08:15 AM

Can you notice the tactic here? The tactic is that YOU WILL EXPLAIN WHAT STATISTICS ARE, as though explaining what they are proves I did not know what they are.

You mean, like the tactic you use in about half your posts when you explain what a specific fallacy is? :D

 

 

Largely IQ tests are ambiguous. They differ. I for one was never required to take one in the 1990s meaning there isn't necessarily some magic lifetime-correlation. 

 

One guy done a test of internet IQ tests. Obviously that is only internet IQ tests, but it was interesting that he scored an IQ of over 130 on many, many tests he took. Then he told everyone that he did not take the test, in fact he randomly answered the question indiscriminately, and answered them all lightning-fast.

 

It turned out that those tests gave you an IQ that was high, based on how fast you answered, since he did not even read the questions but just chose ANY random answer.

 

"What IQ tests mean" is quite a topic in itself. Is there a universal IQ test that all people have taken when adolescent and adult, for example? If not, why are you dogmatic if there is no comparison? Is it not at least reasonable that a fully mature brain may have a higher IQ than a developing one?

I'm curious have you ever taken a standardized test, not just an internet test. Standardized tests are taken under controlled conditions and some of them (like the full WAIS) take up to 3 hours.



#139 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,648 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2016 - 08:30 AM

 

I can agree to the fact that atheists score higher on the PPVT test according to the paper you linked to. But the correlation doesn't have to be due to the variable atheist versus theists at all, which the paper totally fails to mention. The most common reason for better vocabulary is due to parents having higher academic background. So does the parents to the high scoring PPVT persons have higher academic background than those who gets lower scores? If you took that correlation into account it would probably show a higher correlation with the PPVT test results than if you are theist or atheist. What does that tell us? Correlations are hard things, because you might miss what the main correlation is if you're not careful. And the aim with the paper is to find support for the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, which he (not to surprisingly) does. But in his eager to prove his theorem to be correct, have he forgotten to take certain main variables into considerations or has he left them out by purpose? 

Please remember that this was a reply to the original post that questions the effect on intelligence of abioatheoevolutionists. I took a 5 minute search via google to find this paper. I actually ended up here:

http://www.randalols...marter-atheist/

showing this picture:

iq_vs_religiosity_ind.png

 

I have a lot of problems with this picture (less then with the orignal I posted). Anyone care to guess the 3 main issues I have with this picture? I'll give a hint, the picture I posted only solves 1 of them (although almost solves another as well).



#140 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,197 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2016 - 08:59 AM

 

 

Tirian: The most common reason for better vocabulary is due to parents having higher academic background

 

A flushbunkingly accurate statement, Fjuri, the fugacious  angiosperm, is attempting to rambunctiously discombobulate my unrefuted anthropopathisms via rhetorical ipse dixit, argumentum ad verecundiams!

 

"I win....I always win...is there no-one on this planet to even challenge me!!!?!" - General Zod, Superman 2.

 

;) see - 405 on the PPVT! :D A flushbunking baba-miracle, if ever there was one! The Lord broke the mould, when He designed His irrefutable wiz-of-a-wizard!!!

 

 

Attached File  mike.jpg   3.57KB   0 downloads

 

 

 

Fjuri: I have a lot of problems with this picture (less then with the orignal I posted). Anyone care to guess the 3 main issues I have with this picture?

 

Is it that there is no "fudge-factor", and the numbers are integers?

 

Your link makes a good point Fjuri:

 

 

 

Fjuri's link: This is where we have to think about effect size vs. statistical significance. The most religious adults had an average IQ of 97.14, whereas the atheist adults had an average IQ of 103.09. That may seem like a wide gap — 6 whole IQ points — until we remember that anyone in the IQ range of 90-109 is classified as having “average intelligence.” Thinking about this in practical terms: Would you be able to tell the difference between someone with a 97 IQ and someone with a 103 IQ? It’s highly unlikely.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: INSANITY, FAIRY TALE, ABIODARWINISM, MENTAL ILLNESS, FANTASY, DELUSION

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users