• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Godly Wisdom vs. Human Intelligence[W:319]

Logicman said:
That's the same old horse manure you've been spreading since I've first seen you around here.

You're 100% anti-Christian, you cannot present a decent argument (you just refused to cite the pertinent scriptures to back up your latest rant), and you don't learn when evidence is presented to you.

So go haunt somebody else.
Click to expand...

I cited page 1 of the Bible which says that the universe was created in 6 days.

I then pointed out that just redefining the word day to mean any period of time does not solve the problem of it being utterly wrong as flowering plants cannot exist without the pollinators they need to breed.

You failed to read that. You just jumped to the day means long period of time gibberish.

That you continue to not read almost any post anybody writes just continues to confirm your willful ignorance.

The difficult bit is trying to work out why you do what you do. I don't even detect any of the usual repeated phrases which would be the sign of self hypnosis. I am open to hearing anyone else's ideas.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I cited page 1 of the Bible which says that the universe was created in 6 days.

I then pointed out that just redefining the word day to mean any period of time does not solve the problem of it being utterly wrong as flowering plants cannot exist without the pollinators they need to breed.
Click to expand...


What? God cannot keep flowering plants alive?

By the way, according to various evolutionists, flowers evolved about 200 million years ago and bees evolved only 100 million years ago. So how did all of the evolving plants get pollinated for the first 100 million years without bees (according to the evolutionists)?
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
What? God cannot keep flowering plants alive?
Click to expand...

Not without intervening and artificially fertilizing each one every time it needs to produce seeds.

Seems a lot of effort to go to when he could just let the existing insects and what-not do the job.

But then that would involve thinking about the evidence. All those fossils.... All that coal with animal remains in it and all those extinct species....
 
Tim the plumber said:
Not without intervening and artificially fertilizing each one every time it needs to produce seeds.

Seems a lot of effort to go to when he could just let the existing insects and what-not do the job.

But then that would involve thinking about the evidence. All those fossils.... All that coal with animal remains in it and all those extinct species....
Click to expand...

Yawn...

If God can create plants he can darn well keep them alive.

Next..
 
Logicman said:
Yawn...

If God can create plants he can darn well keep them alive.

Next..
Click to expand...

Why go too all the bother of putting all those fossils of animals into the ground in such a way that they are clearly from a time before almost all modern plants had appeared? Was God just faking it?

Why is the evidence of geology wrong?

Why does the story in a book written by man out weight the evidence of the rocks?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Why go too all the bother of putting all those fossils of animals into the ground in such a way that they are clearly from a time before almost all modern plants had appeared? Was God just faking it?

Why is the evidence of geology wrong?

Why does the story in a book written by man out weight the evidence of the rocks?
Click to expand...

You talking microevolution or macroevolution?

I'm still waiting on a human to give birth to a bird.
 
Logicman said:
You talking microevolution or macroevolution?

I'm still waiting on a human to give birth to a bird.
Click to expand...

Only the most completely, willfully ignorant scientifically illiterate noob would ever suggest that the theory of evolution says a human would give birth to bird. Home schooled?

I would laugh if this wasn't such a disgustingly sad indication of the level education prevalent in the US today.
 
Logicman said:
What? God cannot keep flowering plants alive?

By the way, according to various evolutionists, flowers evolved about 200 million years ago and bees evolved only 100 million years ago. So how did all of the evolving plants get pollinated for the first 100 million years without bees (according to the evolutionists)?
Click to expand...

Bees are not the only pollinators.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Are you trying to make the claim that the composition of the top 10 samples somehow correlates to the average of all the samples? For example: If the top 10 killers in history happened to be religious, does that make the average religious person a killer? The fact that you're using a sample size of 10 to prove a point for 6 billion people shows you already fail in the intelligence department. Saudi Arabia is almost 100% religious, but when is the last time you've heard of them doing anything intelligent?

In reality, of 63 studies concerning the correlation between intelligence and religiousness, 53 showed a negative correlation between the two: [1][2]

800px-LynnHarveyNyborg-Atheism-IQ.svg.png

(If you need help understanding the chart please ask)

The more educated one becomes, the less likely they are to be religious. At some point in most people's education, they ask themselves "Does it really make sense that all human life on earth came from 2 people in the jungle 6,000 years ago?". Or "How could all of the animals in the world have swam to the middle east, boarded a single boat, then returned to their respective locations just 4,000 years ago?"

If you're uneducated and don't know of the massive amount of evidence proving that isn't the case, you're likely to continue believing it. It's easy to believe in fairytales when you actively reject knowledge.
Click to expand...

Your chart shows IQ as a variable and yet you speak of one becoming "more educated". I find it interesting that you make the implication that higher levels of education somehow equate to a higher intelligence quotient. False logic and shameful on your part to misrepresent statistics in such a way.
 
Northern Light said:
It takes honesty, integrity, and intelligence to be willing to consider as many viewpoints as possible when attempting to render a somewhat accurate picture of 'reality' as it is known. It's immature schoolyard egotists that want to try and paint people into camps based on assigned intelligence levels -- something which eugenicists were all keen to do back in the day. "It takes all kinds" applies here. Random convergence means that any number of backgrounds could be part of informed intelligence.

By the way, the IQ is an inadequate measurement of intelligence. It measures aptitude above all else, which is informed by the level of one's privilege in life. 'Intelligence' is the ability to engage in adaptive learning, it's not about what you know, which is all the IQ test measures. A jungle native who has no knowledge of our modern maths and sciences could have intelligence that outstrips us, but be unable to demonstrate it via our testing means.

To compartmentalize the world's most intelligent people into atheists or theists is to completely denigrate and dismiss all their other human attributes which make them unique individuals, a tawdry and myopic habit that especially those in the United States love to engage in because it seemingly justifies their own life choices. Whatever floats your boat, I guess :shrug:
Click to expand...

I can't say I understand the impetus, but it's immature thinking to try to categorize based on "assigned" intelligence levels. Doesn't take a high IQ anyway to recognize that there are "smart" people who are secularists and folks of faith.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Only the most completely, willfully ignorant scientifically illiterate noob would ever suggest that the theory of evolution says a human would give birth to bird. Home schooled?

I would laugh if this wasn't such a disgustingly sad indication of the level education prevalent in the US today.
Click to expand...

Hey - I'm not the one on the way down to the Pit when I die, so wise up.
 
Logicman said:
Hey - I'm not the one on the way down to the Pit when I die, so wise up.
Click to expand...

As usual you ignore what was posted to utter threats of eternal damnation. Hope you realize that this is baiting and you should really stop.

What inquiring minds want to know is do you stand by your comment that implies that the theory of evolution is such that a human could ever give birth to bird?
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
You talking microevolution or macroevolution?

I'm still waiting on a human to give birth to a bird.
Click to expand...

This deliberate not understanding of what you actually do understand is a form of lying.

You dishonestly represent your knowledge. That is not good. It is not good for you. It will never make you happy.
 
Tim the plumber said:
This deliberate not understanding of what you actually do understand is a form of lying.

You dishonestly represent your knowledge. That is not good. It is not good for you. It will never make you happy.
Click to expand...

Tell it to someone who buys into your nonsense.
 
Logicman said:
Tell it to someone who buys into your nonsense.
Click to expand...

It is not OK to act as you don't understand something just because you disagree with it.

You understand that evolution would be disproven if a woman gave birth to a bird naturally. Your use of this example as a representation of the theory of evolution is a form of lying.

Just because you don't "but into" the idea of evolution you are not free to misrepresent it without being a liar. Do you want to be a liar?
 
Tim the plumber said:
It is not OK to act as you don't understand something just because you disagree with it.

You understand that evolution would be disproven if a woman gave birth to a bird naturally. Your use of this example as a representation of the theory of evolution is a form of lying.

Just because you don't "but into" the idea of evolution you are not free to misrepresent it without being a liar. Do you want to be a liar?
Click to expand...

The bird example was in jest.

But tell you what, Tim - if you want to make a big hit then identify for me, via conclusive DNA evidence, the specific hominid that is man's immediate, direct-line ancestor.
 
That would require the use of science, which appears to burn such as yourself when exposed to it.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop talking about each other, and start discussing the topic civilly. Enough of the personal stuff.
 
Logicman said:
The bird example was in jest.

But tell you what, Tim - if you want to make a big hit then identify for me, via conclusive DNA evidence, the specific hominid that is man's immediate, direct-line ancestor.
Click to expand...

How would I know the name of such an ancestor?

Bearing in mind that if you are descended from white European stock your are almost certainly a descendant of Charles the Great, founder of the Holly Roman Empire (not the Roman Empire).

There will be lots and lots of common ancestors we all share, from the most recent; who knows? To the more illustrative; the last creature which has both human and chimp descendants. To the most ancient; the carbon chain molecule which was best at reproducing its self in the oceans of the early earth.
 
Logicman said:
Quote from link below: 'Have you ever heard the claim "all smart people are atheists", or maybe its inverse: "people who believe in God are dumb"? It's quite a pervasive urban legend, and one which I've known is false for a long time, but I didn't realize just how false until the other day. I recently decided to do a quick cataloging of the ten highest IQ's on earth, and discovered that it's nearly the exact opposite of the truth!

Of 10 highest IQ's on earth, at least 8 are Theists, at least 6 are Christians

Andrew Magdy Kamal - apparently the highest IQ ever recorded, at 231.734. This was accomplished last year (2013) just before he turned 17. This includes an adjustment made for his age (which is done routinely for minors), so only time will tell if he maintains his position, but he is listed in Record Holder's Republic for Highest IQ and Highest IQ average, and it looks pretty good. He is a staunch conservative and a member of the Republican Tea Party. He is also the founder of the Coptic Orthodox Messianicans Group. Andrew Magdy Kamal hopes to use his talents and intelligence to spread the news of Messiah Yeshua (Jesus Christ) his hero, and he lives in Michigan."

Of 10 highest IQ's on earth, at least 8 are Theists, at least 6 are Christians - Honolulu Church & State | Examiner.com

Which leads into the debate: Contrast Godly wisdom vs. human intelligence.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I do not consider an IQ test to be an accurate measure of intelligence.
It only shows that some people are better at certain tasks than others - the tasks in this case being the problems/questions in the IQ test.

So as I view things, an IQ test only shows that someone is good at taking that IQ test - if they encounter similar tasks they will likely be good at those to, but there is no guarantee.

As most people could tell you, even the smartest persons make mistakes, have lapses in thinking, and frankly....can be stupid.

I thus see no barrier of smartness preventing people from being smart and religious, or smart and a conspiracy theorist...not that religion is a mistake or stupidity, but the argument would appear to be that it is...illogical, at least in a scientific sense - I'm saying there's no reason you can't be both logical and illogical depending what you're thinking about at the time.
 
Logicman said:
You talking microevolution or macroevolution?

I'm still waiting on a human to give birth to a bird.
Click to expand...

Is this really what you think? I mean, we could be on the cusp of a breakthrough here. You're basing your ideas on a flawed interpretation of evolution. Perhaps if we can describe how evolution really works, you'll reevaluate your ideas.....Maybe?
 
Logicman said:
That's where your "logic" fails. Being prepped for 16-20 years in secular education tends in itself to weed people off religion. It's the bias which does it. While at the same time I don't see people with Ph.D.'s in religious studies, etc., as being any less intelligent than those with secular educations...
Click to expand...

Only 7 pages in and we got to the liberal atheist education conspiracy theory? Is that some kind of a record?
 
csbrown28 said:
Is this really what you think? I mean, we could be on the cusp of a breakthrough here. You're basing your ideas on a flawed interpretation of evolution. Perhaps if we can describe how evolution really works, you'll reevaluate your ideas.....Maybe?
Click to expand...

I'm up for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom