193 cr points
Send Message:   21 / M / England
 Offline
|
the_glob wrote:
Leo89 wrote:
Wov...okay. I actually posted the wrong link XD!!!
I was in a rush this morning...so my bad!
This is the link, I am suppose to paste (http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm)
Mind you, I dont mean the entire thing has been disproved, so you know.
Did you read your own link? Your link gave nothing, merely misquotes and pretty much rubbish. Nothing, not even any actual data supporting their stand.
A few examples
"Mutations Are Typically Harmful, Sometimes Neutral and Are Rare" section refuted itself by saying mutations were rare then shooting themselves in the own foot by pointing out bacterial adaptations are plenty and backtracking by saying mutations from one form to another have never been shown.
Then there is the "Read quotes from Darwin himself shooting down his own theory here" deliberately taking bits and pieces of different paragraphs and linking them up. Incredible. This would likely have been considered fraud if this was attempted in actual science. The real paragraphs are at http://darwin-online.org.uk/
This is just 2 of them. Before posting more of these stupidity, at least read the rubbish first
Leo89 wrote:
'For the gradual increase in height, it has been hypothesised to be a factor of nutrition rather than evolution.' So its a theory correct?
Hypothesized Definition: consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible.
Theory supported by data. Do you have any data supporting yours? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height
Leo89 wrote:
Also may I ask. On this website you have given is given dates like 20 Million years! I am curies how they got this. Carbon Dating is only works up to 1000 years, or should I say its accurate up to 1000 years. So I am sure you know what I am trying to say.
'Some authorities believe'
'Thought to possibly related'
'Still Others believe'
'Probably appeared'
No offence but....you expect me to be serious with you, when the page is filled with words such as this.
Carbon14 dating is reiable up to 60,000 years not 1,000, Potassium-argon dating is eliable up to 1.3 billion years.
You do know how to double check any claims made on that link right? I am not interested in spoon feeding you.
Leo89 wrote:
I found something interesting though:
In one ancestor of the wolf,Tomarctus, the fifth toe on the hind leg became vestigal and is evidenced today by the dew claw on both wolves and dogs.
Okey here is a picture of this animal and how they think it may of looked like:
(http://home1.gte.net/fossils/art/page31.JPG)
Like I said, dog will always pretty much look like a dog. Lets be honest, when you look at a dog and wolf they look very similar. This is what I mean by Dog will always be a dog. It wont suddenly grow a wing or two. It wont start breathng under water like a fish.
In your link below you again just shot your self in your own foot on not "growing a wing or two". Quoted from the link "Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not "switched on" in humans."
Leo89 wrote:
I may of been wrong about cabbage, but I found this(http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/)
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is one of the reasons, why I laugh at evolution. We are more similar to mouse then chimpanzees. You would think, it be other way around. But some people really do look like mouse XD
Quoted from the link "About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."
99% counterparts total
80% of 1 to 1 counterparts
Number of genes exactly the same? Not shown.
But as quoted "But about 40 percent of the two genomes are directly aligned. "
40% vs 94%. Did basic maths change? Because unless 94% is less than 40% "We are more similar to mouse then chimpanzees" is false.
The funniest thing is that human genome research is supporting evolution (as shown in the cnn link), so unless the genome research is all wrong (and all those medicines being researched based on the genome project are not working), i would like to see someone "disprove" the human genome project as well
I will answer all your questions tonight. You can bet on it x3
|
8798 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M
Offline
|
tweety_cool wrote:
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
Leo89 wrote:
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
Leo89 wrote:
SeraphAlford wrote:
Leo89 wrote:
hmmm.....I would like someone to actually disprove God for me. BUT...big but
come to me with facts and if its a theory, then dont even bother saying it.
From what I know, Science itselfs says that there has to been a creater at the begining.
Someone might say....Big Bang....then I could go on to say, what made that?....and so on...and on.
In todays society, there really isnt many true believers. You just look at the way world is, to notice that easly.
People believe in things like 'if you brake a mirror its bad luck' or 'if you open a umbrella inside a home, its bad luck'. Things like this, tells enough about how intelegent the general public is.
Another thing. How much does most people know about Christianity?
First thing comes to peoples mind, is going to church on sundays. If this is the way you see christianity...then you are pretty much been ignorent.
There are two major scientific theories about the origin of the universe. Either it has always existed or it was spontaneously created. The latter seems more likely but hasn’t been proven. The big bang itself remains a highly likely theory. Read “God and the New Physics, Paul Davies,” for more investigation into this.
The theory of universe has always been existed has been put a side I believe.
Big Bang is something they are focusing on right now. I am aware of things that support this theory. Like how to Universe is expanding out etc... I studied A level Maths and Physics, so I am aware of some things.
Big Bang occured due to gases fusing(etc.), which led to explosion. This is all theoritically of course. But where did these gases come from? if you got another theory for that, then you know, what my next question is gonna be.
This is where science its selfs says that had been a creater to start it off.
My aim is not to say my religion is right. What I am trying to say is that at the moment Science cannot disprove the existance of God.
People at school teach theories, as if they were facts. This is were all the problems come to rise, I think. Just remember this, Scientists used to think world was flat. This is, one of those examples, why you should be carefull, when reading into theories.
The burden of proof is on those that make the claim that its true. No evidence for a god is in its self grounds for dismissal as nothing more than a unproven hypothesis.
"I take it you do not understand what A theory is?"
That what it sounds like to me.
Matter a fact, Evolution is a Fact! The theory of evolution is the explanation of that fact, using the scientific method, a mountain of evidence, and a lot of test in a lab, all pointing to the same conclusion.
As for the big bang we have evidence for it, and the Big Bang theory is the best explanation we have at this time for it, using what knowledge we have for it, and what we know of the big bang.
"No that is what Religion used to say not Science. That was what people believed without researching it or any evidence to back it up, only on faith or hear say, this is why I am thinking you have little understanding if any of science."
Oh now we are going on some dangerous grounds.
Evolution is a fact?
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_disp.htm)
You might find that its have been disproven and evolution is a model, rather then a fact.
Also, there are animals that defies the laws of evolution. If you know your biology, you should understand what this means.
Umm what are you trying to point out with the site with nothing but religiously non-science rambling?
My point still stands and is the truth. Evolution Is in deed a fact!
The "theory of evolution" is the explanation of that fact.
The only people challenging the fact of evolution is people who read the bible take it as 100% fact with no proof or research than attacks anything that may go agents it. Thats not science and thats why they fail.
The truth is Evolution is indeed a fact, with more evidence for it than even Gravity. Just because some uneducated people do not want it to be true does not change a thing.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=s_dD_VepS7U
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nL5GotAVN58
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tCU3bCQ34x8&feature=related
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KX4c2xOqplw&feature=related
And you really need to look at this one as well. It will educate you on the this topic.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=related
Yes, evolution is indeed a fact.
However, what about the origin of life based on the theory of evolution? Like it or not, it is still debatable.
Origin of life has little to nothing to do with Evolution other than that is how it changed into everything else we have. As for the Origin of life, its still to the most part in the testing stages, but Scientist do think they have a good handle on how it happen, and can duplicate it in a lab. They also have a interest in the moon known as Titan, because it has a simler atmitspher as early earth.
|
8798 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M
Offline
|
cardmage wrote:
What the statistics say is that today, more scientists are likely to be atheist than otherwise. You could say its a correlation, but definitely not a causation. It doesn't mean being an atheist will make you smarter, or being smarter will make you an atheist because there is little on it about intelligence. I could say that atheists are simply more interested in science, especially biological science. Interpreting the statistics to say that atheists are smarter is simply off.
'Are you not reading into it a little?'
I only pointed out that Scientist are more likely to be atheist. Nothing more. Then I asked your opinion on that. (maby the title through you off a little?) But if I was to say that Atheist make you smarter I would of used the fact that countries with more atheist than religious people have a higher level of education in there countries, and lower crime rates, + less Teen pregnancy's.
That would a more useful poll to show that religion does have a direct affect on education in countries. 'But No That was not my target. Still if you want the stats for that I can get that for you.
|
8798 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M
Offline
|
IrisChan7 wrote:
^ And just 2.5% of DNA is different between us and mice. Anyway, I agree with what you said completely. Well said, Leo.
Leo knows nothing about what he is talking about, he uses religious sights that have fake infermation, that has been proven 1000 times over to be bullshit. You only be miss led if you listen to anything he post. as you would see if you read any other post about his topic from any other person. As for example “
the_glob
has already put the Leo in his place about the infermation he was using.
|
3926 cr points
Send Message: 21 / M / Germany
Offline
|
yes its true
|
397 cr points
Send Message: 25 / M
Offline
|
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
'Are you not reading into it a little?'
I only pointed out that Scientist are more likely to be atheist. Nothing more. Then I asked your opinion on that. (maby the title through you off a little?) But if I was to say that Atheist make you smarter I would of used the fact that countries with more atheist than religious people have a higher level of education in there countries, and lower crime rates, + less Teen pregnancy's.
That would a more useful poll to show that religion does have a direct affect on education in countries. 'But No That was not my target. Still if you want the stats for that I can get that for you.
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=4EWyD34FxmI&feature=related
Non-Religious people are more likely to be Intelligent than the religious.
Rational minds have little need for Gods.?
Do you think thats true?
Why Or Why Not
National Academy of Sciences
Pull shows that 85% of the Top leading Scientist in there Field are atheist. (that was in 2006. That is a 8% higher than it was no more than 8 years ago.
I don't know how I assumed you asked whether atheists are more intelligent or smarter. I think its because you did in fact ask, not only in the title but also in your OP. You asked for opinions of whether atheists are smarter. I said no. The statistics don't show it either. What am I reading too much?
|
3028 cr points
Send Message: F
Offline
|
Religion is a fuel to many people , alot in which why some people stay alive so in which this is rather offending to say that non-religious people are more likely to be intelligent than the religious ... I mean look at the ancient chinese people of the past , they invented many things but they are also extremely religious;
|
8798 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M
Offline
|
Fantasiarena wrote:
Religion is a fuel to many people , alot in which why some people stay alive so in which this is rather offending to say that non-religious people are more likely to be intelligent than the religious ... I mean look at the ancient chinese people of the past , they invented many things but they are also extremely religious;
Then you got the dark ages where many people who created things or created cures, where hunted down and killed for being Demons of sorcery! Evil Black magic, because he used Science to aid his/her fellow man!
|
31117 cr points
Send Message: F / England
Offline
|
well most scientists are athiest cuz science contradicts with religion duh!!
as for the topic i go to a catholic school and the most intelligent ones here are those who believe in God my mate is really religious and she is the cleverest in the skl
To be honest wiv ya i dont know where u got such a stupid idea lol i mean why would religion affect intelligence
|
8798 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M
Offline
|
Mazza_anifan wrote:
well most scientists are athiest cuz science contradicts with religion duh!!
as for the topic i go to a catholic school and the most intelligent ones here are those who believe in God my mate is really religious and she is the cleverest in the skl
To be honest wiv ya i dont know where u got such a stupid idea lol i mean why would religion affect intelligence
There might be Intelligent Religious people out there but it does mess up there judgment.
As for other stats I could have used to compare intelligent in the grand scale beetween religouse and non-religouse I could have used.
If your to look at the list of the most non-religouse countries in the world you will find the list looking like this.
1. NORWAY
2. NEW ZEALAND
3. DENMARK
4. IRELAND
5. JAPAN
6. FINLAND
7. SWEDEN
8. CANADA
9. PORTUGAL
10. AUSTRIA
Now if your to look at the countries with the Highest Education, and lowest crime rates you find most of them are at the top as well.
At that you could just about track how religouse a country was just by the countries Education levels, and Crime rates. Is that just by chance? Am I looking to deep into this topic? Or don't you believe me?
Don't you fret say the word and I do the research for you, Because the last few people I have spoken to have shown me they don't know how to look up things, and so I be happy to do it for you.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=sGSN7Kj-My0&NR=1
|
8046 cr points
Send Message: 18 / F / never after
Offline
|
opinion based..
not true..
of course scientist are atheist, they think they're god..
don't stereotype..
|
3028 cr points
Send Message: F
Offline
|
Darkphoenix3450 wrote:
Fantasiarena wrote:
Religion is a fuel to many people , alot in which why some people stay alive so in which this is rather offending to say that non-religious people are more likely to be intelligent than the religious ... I mean look at the ancient chinese people of the past , they invented many things but they are also extremely religious;
Then you got the dark ages where many people who created things or created cures, where hunted down and killed for being Demons of sorcery! Evil Black magic, because he used Science to aid his/her fellow man!
Well there are two sides to the coin and I think the argument should stop here ... We can't all agree with each other
|
9801 cr points
Send Message: 17 / bOx
Offline
|
Silly..............
Non religious is much dull compared to religious..
The religious ones is better coz they decided by their self to join that religion compared to a non religious who just do nothing.. They have no faith in someone..
In short, they are brainless.. zzzzzz
|
2693 cr points
Send Message: 18 / F / guess where
Offline
|
to the OP:
no matter how i look at it, and despite all the stats you've given, i'm still not convinced. for you to actually easily accept this theory without deferring judgment, aren't you being too simplistic? can religious beliefs really affect the way you solve a mathematical problem, or any brain twister for that matter?  sounds a little far fetched to me. hmmm....well perhaps religion and intelligence are correlated to some extent. but even if the stats are right, what if you're just wrongly interpreting them? how far can religion affect one's intelligence? if a religious person would set aside his beliefs, wouldn't he be able to think logically too? isn't he still innately intelligent?
my point may not come out that clear so let me illustrate my idea. obviously, if you ask who is more intelligent--a student or a doctor (stereotyping here, just like your theory), you'd most likely answer the doctor. while this may be true, let's not forget that the student is still learning and hasn't reached his/her full potential yet so the student may be more intelligent.
my point is, i think intelligence is relative. you can't really label religious people as generally less intelligent. hmmm...haha...what if, a religious person is influenced by an atheist to abandon his faith, and the ex-religious person then displays even more intelligence than the atheist because he has already detached himself from religiosity. what does that make him? wasn't he originally more intelligent than the atheist, but he just didn't reach his full potential yet before because he was tied to his faith? |
2243 cr points
Send Message: 69 / M
Offline
|
What matters is not who's the smartest, but how dumb is the overall population. You get enough dumb people, the smart ones will be ousted and will appear to be "dumb".
I don't care what your IQ or whatever membership you are in; if you come to me telling me you know the truth to life and God is the answer, I don't give a damn if you have a greater math/chemistry/english skill than I do. That only means that you have a better capability in memorizing things, but not thinking.
scarlet_tears wrote:
of course scientist are atheist, they think they're god..
don't stereotype..
Hypocrisy much? |
Post Reply
Favorite
Non-Religious people are more likely to be Intelligent than the religious. 
