religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

[Jollybear]

I see, thanks

Being an atheist myself, I'd like to think I'm rational but I'm sure everyone thinks they're rational.
I appreciate that you gave a good reason and a reason.

Your an atheist!? Oh my gosh!

Well, you should come over to the theist side. Your welcome anytime.

 

[Jollybear]

Dr. K Wise is a paleontologist -which includes being a
geologist-and a yec.

His position is that if all the evidence in the universe is
against against yec, he will still be
yec as that is what the bible seems to say.

This is a notable example of the intellectual dishonesty
required of an educated floodie.

Who knows how many scientists are yecs.

The number who have presented supporting
data, is zero.

IF someone did have data showing there must
have been a flood, or that ToE is false, it
would be a matter of tremendous excitement
and interest, Nobel for sure, for the greatest
discovery ever.

Comparable to finding a real flying saucer,
or the Lost Continent of Atlantis.

Perhaps our cheerful ursine would care to provide
some of the data he must suppose supports yec.

Or at least provide a link to what he presumably thinks
must exist.

Did doc k wise SAY that he would remain a YEC if the evodence went against it?

If he said that, where did he say it?

 

[Audie]

Did doc k wise SAY that he would remain a YEC if the evodence went against it?

If he said that, where did he say it?

"If" he said that? You think I make things
up like a creo?

What difference would it make to you, if you
read the original? Seriously, are you just trying to
figure if I lied about it, or do you think it would
somehow help you understand that there are
no scientsts who can actually support "flood"?

 

[Jollybear]

"If" he said that? You think I make things
up like a creo?

Im not saying your intent on deception, but im saying your bias may cloud your interpretation of his words. What if he TRUELY believes in YEC?

I simply would like to see the context of his words where he said it.

What difference would it make to you, if you
read the original? Seriously, are you just trying to
figure if I lied about it, or do you think it would
somehow help you understand that there are
no scientsts who can actually support "flood"?

I wanna see the context. I dont think your lying.

That innocent looking face could not lie, no way.

 

[Audie]

Im not saying your intent on deception, but im saying your bias may cloud your interpretation of his words. What if he TRUELY believes in YEC?

I simply would like to see the context of his words where he said it.



I wanna see the context. I dont think your lying.

That innocent looking face could not lie, no way.

The more "truely" (sic) he believes, the less actual
evidence can get through. That is "what if".

I did not "interpret" what he said.

I can easily cite the source. You could
have typed in three key words and found
It yourself.

You did not give a reason like, what difference does it make
to you. If you are just checking my integrity, no deal.

Unlike creos, I have no need to dissemble, make
things up, lie or mistepresent.

And unless you can produce an example of me displaying
intellectual dishonedty, cut the crap about bias, I do
not aporeciate it. Dont do it again.

 

[Jollybear]

The more "truely" (sic) he believes, the less actual
evidence can get through. That is "what if".

Ok, if he "knows" the earth is old, but pretends to believe its young, why?

I did not "interpret" what he said.

Well, why dont you let me interprete what he said by giving me the source quote?

I can easily cite the source. You could
have typed in three key words and found
It yourself.

Actually i tried, i cant find it. So, if you know where its at, can you give me it?

You did not give a reason like, what difference does it make
to you. If you are just checking my integrity, no deal.

I want to check the source for myself in order to see if you are misinterpreting him. It has nothing to do with your integrity. You can honestly misunderstand someone. But, thats what i want to find out for myself. But, to do that i got to see the source where he says no evidence will turn him away from the bible.

Unlike creos, I have no need to dissemble, make
things up, lie or mistepresent.

Well, wait, if you have no reason to lie, why would dr k wise have a reason to lie?

And unless you can produce an example of me displaying
intellectual dishonedty, cut the crap about bias, I do
not aporeciate it. Dont do it again.

Bias is not the same as dishonesty. Im not calling you dishonest.

 

[charlie sc]

Well, I'm not going necessarily accept that conclusion without delving pretty deep into the studies you claim say this (and I'm not really inclined to put enough effort in to actually do that).

True, but you can't necessarily not accept it either on the same grounds. Usually, the scientific method is somewhat trusted among the populous. Unless, of course, there's good reason not to trust it. So, saying I don't trust it because I read of something that says intelligence cannot be measured or whatnot is not a good argument without going in-depth.When I was younger, I used to think if I read it then it's correct, however, that certainly isn't the case. What may have been read might have been misquoted, an opinion or fringe material. It's always good to get multiple points of view.
Similarly, it's not a good justification to deny something just because it doesn't sound nice or is unpleasant(I see some people make these kind of posts here). As an example, my next post will be about mushrooms vs health. I biasedly thought that there's no way it can have beneficial effects, but that's not the case after delving into the topic. I have to accept it, at least prima facie, based on the evidence.

However, if a correlation does exist, it's useful to remember that:

- IQ doesn't really measure overall intelligence.
- IQ isn't a single measure. A "120" on one test isn't necessarily a "120" on a different test.
- because of issues with how IQ tests have been formulated, there's a correlation between culture and average IQ.
- there's also a correlation between culture and religion.

Good observations. Yep.

And @Quintessence made an excellent point: "religion" isn't one particular characteristic. For that matter, neither is intelligence. If the effect is real, then we should be able to drill down and identify which characteristic of religion is affecting which aspects of intelligence.

Yes, precision is always preferred.

 

[charlie sc]

I can't believe this trash made it to featured status.

Trash because you just don't like it or because you have a good reason it's trash?

 

[charlie sc]

Your an atheist!? Oh my gosh!

Well, you should come over to the theist side. Your welcome anytime.

Thanks for the invitation

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What I don't get, is why IQ and intelligence, which are strengths (comparable to how stronger muscles allow you to lift more), is so very frequently denounced and down played. No matter how the excuses spun, people of average intellect aren't the ones making breakthrough discoveries that change society. They aren't the scientists fueling technology or medical advances and they aren't the inventors who radically changed society. Of course it doesn't guarantee such things, but it does enhance the ability to perform tasks of logic and reason, it makes learning new information easier,
and it also increases the appreciation of novel ideas.
But yet society wants to treat it as if it's nothing special or important, hardly any better than the colored scribbles produced by a toddler.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True, but you can't necessarily not accept it either on the same grounds.

I don't have grounds to reject what you're saying as false, but I certainly have enough reason not to accept it.

I haven't been convinced that you're wrong, but I haven't been convinced that you're right, either.

Even without the red flags I'm getting from a quick overview of your claims, I would be perfectly justified in not automatically accepting the word of some guy on the internet.

 

[Audie]

Ok, if he "knows" the earth is old, but pretends to believe its young, why?



Well, why dont you let me interprete what he said by giving me the source quote?



Actually i tried, i cant find it. So, if you know where its at, can you give me it?



I want to check the source for myself in order to see if you are misinterpreting him. It has nothing to do with your integrity. You can honestly misunderstand someone. But, thats what i want to find out for myself. But, to do that i got to see the source where he says no evidence will turn him away from the bible.



Well, wait, if you have no reason to lie, why would dr k wise have a reason to lie?



Bias is not the same as dishonesty. Im not calling you dishonest.

K wise evidence. Three words.

You are having interpretation difficulty.

I would never even imply that he "knows" the earth is old.

I in no way implied he lied. You are taking what is said and
interpreting (converting) it to something else.

K Wise is, like any informed yec, forced into intellectual dishonesty.

You are still declining to answer my question btw.

Last psragraph- Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days) - creation.com

And again- unless you can show bias on my part,
claimkng it as a given is phony, and, it is in fact
claiming I am intellectually dishonest. Cease!

 

[ecco]

Did doc k wise SAY that he would remain a YEC if the evodence went against it?

If he said that, where did he say it?

Whoa. Let's back up. You wrote...

Do you read any of the stuff from scientists who believe in the flood? Or from geologists who believe the earth is young?

I asked you to provide the names of geologists who believe the earth is young...

Which scientists, specifically geologists, believe in The Flood and that the earth is young.

You didn't.

Audie stepped in and provided us with...

Dr. K Wise is a paleontologist -which includes being a
geologist-and a yec.

I appreciated her input but was still waiting to hear from you...

Thank you. I wonder if Jollybear will be able to come up with any.

Now you are having a lengthy discussion with Audie on the veracity of Dr. Wise.

Therefore, we can see that your original question about reading the works of "geologists who believe the earth is young" was bogus. You, yourself, don't even know of any "geologists who believe the earth is young".

 

[Audie]

Whoa. Let's back up. You wrote...

​

I asked you to provide the names of geologists who believe the earth is young...

​

You didn't.

Audie stepped in and provided us with...

​

I appreciated her input but was still waiting to hear from you...

​

Now you are having a lengthy discussion with Audie on the veracity of Dr. Wise.

Therefore, we can see that your original question about reading the works of "geologists who believe the earth is young" was bogus. You, yourself, don't even know of any "geologists who believe the earth is young".

Still less that any who do pop up are going to
be in the same position as our dear conflicted
Dr. Wise. No data. No integrity.

Aside to cheerful ursine-

In the biz we refer to "due diligence."

 

[ecco]

Dr. Wise. No data. No integrity.

Wise's comments shown in your link are from a book:
In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

Some of the scientists actually do have degrees in related fields. However, the list also includes:

Optomologists
Mechanical Engineers
Mathematicians
Horticulturists
Botanists
Chemists
Zoologists
Architectural Engineers
Metallurgists
Computer Programmers
Agriculturists​

This is typical of the deceptiveness of Creos.

 

[Audie]

Wise's comments shown in your link are from a book:
In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

Some of the scientists actually do have degrees in related fields. However, the list also includes:

Optomologists
Mechanical Engineers
Mathematicians
Horticulturists
Botanists
Chemists
Zoologists
Architectural Engineers
Metallurgists
Computer Programmers
Agriculturists​

This is typical of the deceptiveness of Creos.

Botanist, zoologist, sure (BA degree? PhD?)
Engineering, no.

Regardless, we need data.
Just saying ya think evolution is false
Is worthless.
May as well say a engineer disproved god.

Where is the data?

 

[Jollybear]

Thanks for the invitation

Absolutely!

 

[Jollybear]

K wise evidence. Three words.

You are having interpretation difficulty.

I would never even imply that he "knows" the earth is old.

I in no way implied he lied. You are taking what is said and
interpreting (converting) it to something else.

K Wise is, like any informed yec, forced into intellectual dishonesty.

You are still declining to answer my question btw.

Last psragraph- Kurt P Wise, geology (In Six Days) - creation.com

And again- unless you can show bias on my part,
claimkng it as a given is phony, and, it is in fact
claiming I am intellectually dishonest. Cease!

If kurt wise is intellectually dishonest, isnt that the same as lying to himself?

Also, why do you think bias is the same as intellectually dishonest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If kurt wise is intellectually dishonest, isnt that the same as lying to himself?

Also, why do you think bias is the same as intellectually dishonest?

Kurt Wise knows better. He is educated and does not have an excuse for the claims that he makes. There is no doubt that he is Lying For Jesus.

 

[Jollybear]

Kurt Wise knows better. He is educated and does not have an excuse for the claims that he makes. There is no doubt that he is Lying For Jesus.

Why would he lie for Jesus though? That dont make much sense. If your that intense on following Jesus in the first place, then lying for him wont make any sense because following Jesus would ultimately mean telling the truth.....for him, because Jesus is all about.....integrity and truth.