Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Page 3 of 14 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 8 ... 14  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Ivan on Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:37 pm

First topic message reminder :

Bertrand Russell once said that “the immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion”, and research appears to support that remark. Michael Shermer, in ‘How We Believe: The Search For God In An Age Of Science’, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many results was the discovery that religiosity is negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Paul Bell, writing in ‘Mensa Magazine’ in 2002 told us: “Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold ‘beliefs’ of any kind.”

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science, suggests that more intelligent people are more likely to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values. He said: "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists.”

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (NLSAH) supports Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who identify themselves as 'not at all religious' have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very religious' have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

Shermer says that religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science and strongly with political liberalism. And the NLSAH data suggests that young adults who subjectively identify themselves as 'very liberal' have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as 'very conservative' have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Does this mean that people with left-wing views are more intelligent than those on the right? I’ve long thought that those with the independence of mind to be unaffected by the constant brainwashing attempts of the right-wing media must have a critical faculty which those who succumb to Tory and Republican propaganda clearly lack. It also appears to be the conclusion of experts at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, who studied research comparing childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood in 15,000 people. They found that intelligence, rather than education, wealth or social status, decides whether people are narrow-minded or bigoted in later life. Their report has been published in a journal called ‘Psychological Science’ and states: “Those with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo. That is because it provides a sense of order". The authors found a strong link between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.

Sources used, and for further details:-

Richard Dawkins, ‘The God Delusion’, Bantam Press, 2006, p.102-3

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/48586-intelligent-people-more-likely-to-be-left-wing-atheists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/02/04/labour-supporters-are-cleverer-than-tories-canadian-study-claims-115875-23734718/


avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7162
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down


Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:21 pm

Nobody could reasonably describe the modern Soldier as having evolved, because as time passes he is required to carry an ever-greater weight of body-armour, weaponry and survival gear.

That's accretion, not evolution.

oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11905
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:02 pm

[quote="RockOnBrother"]
RockOnBrother wrote:
The answer, I posit, is that they have not because thy cannot. They’ve gone about a far as possible towards maximizing their effectiveness as hunters within the parameters of being dogs. They can’t evolve cat claws.
Shirina wrote:
No, they would evolve dog claws.

They’ve already evolved dog claws. If they hadn’t already evolved dog claws, I’d posit that that’s exactly what they’d evolve. Why? Because they’re dogs, and no matte how superior partially-retracting cat claws are for hunting, I posit that dogs have not evolved these superior claws because they cannot.

Shirina wrote:
I'm not an expert on zoology by any stretch, but I think dogs are perfectly capable of evolving sheathed claws…

But they have not. Why? I think I’ve posited the answer.

Shirina wrote:
… but for whatever reason, they don't.

I posit that they can’t; otherwise, they’d have done so.

Shirina wrote:
The environmental pressures for such an evolution don't exist.

Yes they do. Cheetahs use them to great advantage to bring down prey.

Shirina wrote:
Cats and dogs also hunt differently as well as dogs relying on numbers rather than brute strength (bears) or stealth (cats).

Partially-retractable claws would help dogs bring down prey just as such claws help cheetah brothers (usually hunting in packs of three) bring down prey as they close. And by the way, African wild dogs are about as stealthy as cheetahs.

Shirina wrote:
I bring up bears only because they have semi-sheathed claws as well.

They do not. Bears’ claws are “out there” (I’ve seen them on a few black bears from far too close), and looking as formidable as they are.

Shirina wrote:
Pack animals don't need claws when you have two dozen sets of fangs tearing at prey.


Then why do lionesses have retractable claws? One pride featured on National Geographic Channel numbered twenty something hunting lionesses. I mean, “stealing” anther Chris Rock line, pride or pack, pack or pride, does it really matter?

Shirina wrote:
Some cats hunt in packs, but much smaller in number.

Twenty-something not exactly small.

Shirina wrote:
Most cats hunt alone.

Most cats can survive hunting alone partially because they have retractable claws and fangs.

Shirina wrote:
The more solitary the animal, the more "equipment" it needs.

Thus, cats can make it alone far better than dogs. So why don’t dogs evolve partially-retractable cat claws? One again, I posit that they do not because they cannot, just as finches cannot evolve the proper beak, wings, and other equipment to dive for fish like gannets.




Surely the answer to the above is simple. Each species has adapted/evolved in a way that is effective for its survival. Dogs hunt in packs and do not need the same armoury as a cheetah who hunts alone and needs a quick kill and the ability often to take its prey where it is safe, such as a tree, from other marauders who would steal it. A pack of dogs has relative safety in numbers. Each is adapted to its habitat and needs.

As most cheetah cubs are killed in infancy it is not very often siblings survive to hunt together, though it does happen. The mortality rate is high, due to other predators.

The ability to evolve can be seen in mammals. Over millions of years land mammals took to the sea. Later some returned to the land.

Many species have died out unable to evolve/adapt, by natural disasters or the disaster called 'mankind'.

Over twenty female lions hunting together is exceptional. And not desirable as far as the pride is concerned. Less food to go round. Incidentally, many people believe that it is the female that does the hunting. Not always. In one part of Africa both sexes do hunt seperately, and hunt different types of prey. (Now that has been dredged up from somewhere at the back of my 'brain'?). Embarassed

Wild dog claws are used in killing their prey by ripping its flesh until it is too weak to run. (Hope no-one is eating while reading this:) ). A lion uses its jaws to choke its prey. It/they (the hunters) mainly uses its/their strength to bring down its/their prey.



Stop rambling Trevorw. silent Its/my ...........er Lunchtime approaches. And then the greenhouse calls.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:06 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Nobody could reasonably describe the modern Soldier as having evolved, because as time passes he is required to carry an ever-greater weight of body-armour, weaponry and survival gear.

That's accretion, not evolution.


That's an interesting Idea Oftenwrong !

I actually think that the modern human - that we make soldiers out of - has evolved in ways that we can just about see over the comparatively short time we have observed this kind of evolution.

I believe that olden-days humans were actually - in general - smaller in stature and weaker than they are nowadays and modern humans are fitter, stronger and can do more than they used to be able to do.

A perfect example of this is how when Roger Bannister first broke the four-minute mile most people thought that this was a superhuman thing to do, and yet now we have many hundreds of men and even some women that can break this limit routinely.

Of course, the great natural evolution that humans are still to do is to move on to the standard of Homo Superior where they will have fully finished brains and bodies and the ability to live in peace with each-other rather than kill each-other for less than a whim.

As said in that link, we may even start to reach that standard in evolution quickly and by ourselves by using genetic engineering. That is a scary thought.

Regards....

Papaumau.
avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by polyglide on Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:29 pm

There is one thing that all the above have not taken into consideration.
Every plant and animal other than man is programmed in it,s bahaviour and despite what anyone may say when you get a deviation from that behaviour [basic] and have mutations etc; the mutations invariably die.

Of course an animal may change it;s food but that does not change the species every one of which remains basically the same and subject to the limitations and actions pre determined.

Man has by selective breeding changed the look and behaviour of some animals and plant life but the fact is if left alone again they would revert to the original.

How anyone can think that an acorn decided it wanted to be an oak tree or did the oak tree decide it would have an acorn ?.these are the pertinant quesions that evolution has no realistic answer to nor ever will.



avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:00 pm

Papaumau wrote:
I believe that olden-days humans were actually - in general - smaller in stature and weaker than they are nowadays and modern humans are fitter, stronger and can do more than they used to be able to do.








Ya think?

Papaumau wrote:
A perfect example of this is how when Roger Bannister first broke the four-minute mile most people thought that this was a superhuman thing to do, and yet now we have many hundreds of men and even some women that can break this limit routinely.

Gotta disagree on my boy Roger. According to what I read lo these many decades ago, Bannister considered the four minute mile “barrier” as a selves-imposed mental “wall” that prevented athletes from breaking it by pre-disposing athletes that they couldn’t break it.

You’re an athlete. If you’ve competed successfully at the Highland Games, I consider you a superb athlete. As such, you’ve willed your body to do things that ought to be impossible, like throwing telephone poles up in the air as if they’re two-by-twos. Had you been unable to envision yourself doing so, you would have never done so.

Roger Bannister decided to envision himself running a three point five something mile. By doing so, he freed himself to train to do so, and he finally did so. If you read his story, you’ll find that relatively quickly, other athletes began doing exactly what Roger taught them to do; envision a sub four minute mile, train for a sub four minute mile, run a sub four minute mile.

The physical capabilities were already there, but it took Bannister’s vision to free first him and then others to do what they were physically capable of doing.

A little less well known is a similar contribution to the four hundred meter sprint by one Lee Evans in the late sixties. He decided that he could sprint all out for a quarter mile/four hundred meters, in spite of “popular wisdom” that said it couldn’t be done. Lee Evans, Gold medalist, 400 meters, 1968 Mexico City Olympics, and Gold medalist, 4 X 400 meters relay, 1968 Mexico City Olympics.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:55 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
Surely the answer to the above is simple. Each species has adapted/evolved in a way that is effective for its survival.

You’ve described intra-species/genus micro evolution, which is verifiable and verified by direct observation of its occurrence and/or its results. What I’ve pointed out is that inter-species/genus evolution is unverifiable and unverified, as observational data documenting its occurrence does not exist.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Dogs hunt in packs and do not need the same armoury as a cheetah who hunts alone and needs a quick kill and the ability often to take its prey where it is safe, such as a tree…

You’re a bit off, my brother. Leopards, not cheetahs, take their prey into trees to prevent lions and hyenas from stealing it. Also, if a lion can kill a leopard, it will do so in a heartbeat.

Cheetahs climb, but not like leopards, which have extremely strong shoulder and front quarter muscles with which they lift prey as heavy as themselves, or perhaps heavier than themselves, sufficient distances into trees as to prevent even lions (who can climb) from reaching it.

Cheetahs share with lions an ability to more successfully kill prey, about 50% rate of kills vs. attempts for cheetahs, 40% for leopards, and less than 20% for lions, according to estimates I’ve heard quoted on various documentaries filmed/videoed (?) by the folks that actually go out and live with the big five southern African predators, lions, hyenas, leopards, cheetahs, and wild dogs. Also, as with leopards, lions will kill cheetahs whenever they can.

It’s not necessarily true that wild dogs hunt in packs because they do not have partially-retractable claws. Wild dogs hunt in packs because that’s what wild dogs do. It is a matter of documented fact that hunting in packs helps wild dogs to be the most successful hunters of the big five, with an 80% kill to attempt ratio according to those folks who go out and get dirty, but one cannot conclude that they somehow decided to do so for any reason. It’s what they do.

Wild dogs also suffer from “lion-itis”, since lions will steal prey anytime they can. Lions will also kill wild dogs whenever they can.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:25 pm

Meanwhile, Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Apart from left-wing Cheetahs, Lions leopards hyenas and wild dogs, that is.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11905
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:45 pm

Mon 5 Mar 2012 - 19:25 oftenwrong wrote:
Meanwhile, Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Apart from left-wing Cheetahs, Lions leopards hyenas and wild dogs, that is.

Oftenwrong,

Twenty-four hours four minutes earlier, you posted:

Sun 4 Mar 2012 - 19:21 oftenwrong wrote:
Nobody could reasonably describe the modern Soldier as having evolved, because as time passes he is required to carry an ever-greater weight of body-armour, weaponry and survival gear.

That's accretion, not evolution.


Last edited by RockOnBrother on Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:26 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : because I can't subtract)
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:59 pm

You’re a bit off, my brother. Leopards, not cheetahs, take their prey into trees to prevent lions and hyenas from stealing it. Also, if a lion can kill a leopard, it will do so in a heartbeat.

Accepted. My apologies. The memory fails from time to time. As the doctor told some time ago. You have a terminal illness. It's called Anno Domini (disamb)Sad

Quote It’s not necessarily true that wild dogs hunt in packs because they do not have partially-retractable claws.

If you read it that way I'm sorry. It wasn't meant like that. The reason for dogs hunting that way is the way they have 'adapted' to their circumstances.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:23 pm


Trevor,

I’ve read your post all the way through more than once, so I know that you said that, and you said it well.

I happen to agree that pack hunting is an adaptation, an example of micro-evolution, in-species evolution, perhaps not visible outside, but perhaps visible inside. I think, although I don’t know, that there is a “pack” gene or something inside southern African wild dogs that has made this adaptation natural. In other words, it’s something dogs do to survive, and they do it all over the world. Two exceptions, jackals and coyotes, hunt as family pairs.

My disbelief is in the area of macro-evolution. I see the evidence, and it doesn’t say “macro-evolution” to me. And don’t get me started on the eye. Even Brother Carl (Sagan) left that one alone, simply saying, “and the eye appeared…”, and then keeping on, no doubt hoping that no one “caught that.” I did, and several friends and I had a ball mimicking Brother Carl’s enunciations of “eye” and “appeared.” But don’t get me wrong, I liked Brother Carl; I just happened to have disagreed with him.

That Scot guy, Professor Cox, is so cool even I might ask him out for a cocktail! I’m not sure where he stands on macro-evolution or cognizant designer of the universe, but his awe of the universe’s design and function is in itself awe-inspiring to me. I’ve got more than a bit of DVR space devoted to his Wonders of the Universe and Wonders of the Solar System series.

No worries, mate about the leopard cheetah thing. Both have to watch out for hyenas and lions.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:38 am

That Scot guy, Professor Cox, is so cool even I might ask him out for a cocktail! I’m not sure where he stands on macro-evolution or cognizant designer of the universe, but his awe of the

universe’s design and function is in itself awe-inspiring to me. I’ve got more than a bit of DVR space devoted to his Wonders of the Universe and Wonders of the Solar System series.


I agree. It seems to me that he would be an inspiring teacher. His enthusiasm comes over and he puts it in simple terms for simple people like me.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:28 pm

polyglide wrote:There is one thing that all the above have not taken into consideration.
Every plant and animal other than man is programmed in it,s bahaviour and despite what anyone may say when you get a deviation from that behaviour [basic] and have mutations etc; the mutations invariably die.

Of course an animal may change it;s food but that does not change the species every one of which remains basically the same and subject to the limitations and actions pre determined.

Man has by selective breeding changed the look and behaviour of some animals and plant life but the fact is if left alone again they would revert to the original.

How anyone can think that an acorn decided it wanted to be an oak tree or did the oak tree decide it would have an acorn ?.these are the pertinant quesions that evolution has no realistic answer to nor ever will.


Then again...true evolution takes thousands of years. All we are seeing is the stage that that evolution has presented to us at this time.

Flora and fauna just change very slowly to suit the environment that they need to change for and that takes a very long time as mother nature works very slowly.

On the other hand, humans have already learned to short-circuit this natural evolution by what is known as EUGENICS and while this is frowned upon when doing it with humans, ( Hitler and his pal Mengele did it for a while ), we have been doing it with animals via "selective breeding" and by producing hybrid plants for many years.

The fact that our ability to do this is even possible either makes us into Gods too or it means that nature is such that it is open for such abuses via the hand of Homo Sapiens.

While it is true that natural mutations do occur and when they do they invariably die off as unviable failures, often a mutation is able to work very well and it goes on to be a part of successful natural selection. I think that that happened while all life was evolving much more often than we know about.

Regards....

Papaumau.


Last edited by Papaumau on Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:51 pm

Quote Papaumau.

The fact that our ability to do this is even possible either makes us into Gods too or it means that nature is such that it is open for such abuses via the hand of Homo Sapiens.



Heavens above, I've enough trouble being a human being without aspiring to be a god. Wink
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by polyglide on Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:39 pm

There is all the evidence that there was never any chance of evolution having billions of years to evolve into the present state of both plant and animal life, there was definately a disaster that whiped out nearly all life on earth and not billions of years ago. That being so evolution takes a bad second place to creation.

All the nonsense about adaptation etc; is just that, if the sea rose and covered all the land would man have enough time to adapt to live in the sea? If a bird etc., can adapt to changes in habitat and food etc; then why are so many species under threat and having to be protected and why have we lost so maany species should they not have adapted to the changed circumstances? and turned into something else.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:22 pm

They just can't bear the thought of being a monkey's cousin, can they? Laughing
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11905
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:06 pm

polyglide wrote:There is all the evidence that there was never any chance of evolution having billions of years to evolve into the present state of both plant and animal life, there was definately a disaster that whiped out nearly all life on earth and not billions of years ago. That being so evolution takes a bad second place to creation.

All the nonsense about adaptation etc; is just that, if the sea rose and covered all the land would man have enough time to adapt to live in the sea? If a bird etc., can adapt to changes in habitat and food etc; then why are so many species under threat and having to be protected and why have we lost so maany species should they not have adapted to the changed circumstances? and turned into something else.



It is impossible for the water to rise and cover the land. Try it. Fill a bath half full of water, stand an item in the middle protruding above the level. The only way to cover that is to put more water in or get in yourself and lift the level of the water. The answer isn't for it to rain hard. The rain comes from the sea. So as the vapour rises, sea level drops. It is possible for the water to cover the whole earth if the land levelled itself out. To a depth of about 2km. We have no evidence a of a simultaneous worldwide flooding, though probably billions of years ago when the Earth was 'young' it was so.

There have been 'Noah's Arks' episodes down through millenia, where areas of land have been covered, people, animals, flora and fauna native to that area have been wiped out. One such was circa 4-6000BC when the Black Sea, originally a fresh water 'lake' was inundated with water from the Mediterranean. It flooded all the low lying coasts of the Black Sea destroying people, villages etc.

The interesting thing to note is that this seems to have happened all round the world. Myths/stories still abound worldwide about a 'great flood'.

As to adaptions. It is happening today. Over the last decades our urban sprawls have seen foxes/squirrels make their habitat. Deer and badgers also. Birds of prey are making cities their home. In the US and Canada bears are seen in built up areas. In South Africa, India and other countries where monkeys are around, they too are changing their lifestyles to cope with man's infiltration of their habitat. Getting their own back.

Changing lifestyles is not evolving as such. It is adapting.

As to evolving and creatures dying out. It is not always possible to adapt or evolve. As our sun gradually dies, and if man is still around, will it be possible to adapt/evolve. Eventually it will become too hostile an environment for any living creature. Nature has it limits. As to what they are we don't really know. At least, I don't.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:08 pm

They just can't bear the thought of being a monkey's cousin, can they? Laughing

I am. At least, my parents used to say 'you little monkey, you'.Wink
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:46 am

trevorw2539 wrote: Quote Papaumau.

The fact that our ability to do this is even possible either makes us into Gods too or it means that nature is such that it is open for such abuses via the hand of Homo Sapiens.

Heavens above, I've enough trouble being a human being without aspiring to be a god. Wink


Trevor....

I don't think we "aspire" to be Gods Trevor, I think that is just the way evolution has taken us.

How many times have you heard the righteous theists hitting humanity when they think that what we - as surgeons and scientists and medicine-makers - seem to be - by their standards, "playing God" with human life.

If we don't blow ourselves up or poison our planet by our excesses in the interim there is no saying what humans will be able to do in another few hundreds of years, never mind thousands of years, as with evolution.

Regards....

Papaumau.
avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:00 am

polyglide wrote:There is all the evidence that there was never any chance of evolution having billions of years to evolve into the present state of both plant and animal life, there was definately a disaster that whiped out nearly all life on earth and not billions of years ago. That being so evolution takes a bad second place to creation.

All the nonsense about adaptation etc; is just that, if the sea rose and covered all the land would man have enough time to adapt to live in the sea? If a bird etc., can adapt to changes in habitat and food etc; then why are so many species under threat and having to be protected and why have we lost so maany species should they not have adapted to the changed circumstances? and turned into something else.


I Don't think that "billions of years" is the right time-frame to discuss possible evolutionary changes to life on earth even if the first signs of life first showed about a billion years after the earth cooled. After that, in astronomical terms, life evolved really quite quickly. Yes the dinosaurs were wiped out by some cataclysmic event at the end of the Cretaceous Period, around 65 million years ago, and it took all this time to start up the advanced species once again. While we did take a while to come down out of the trees and to walk upright, many insects and other lower lifeforms continued on past that period and some of them changed very little. I am thinking about sharks and crocodiles in particular.

Whatever natural or man-made disasters fall on earth including floods and volcanoes or meteors big enough to blot out the sun and cause a global winter, or even nuclear war, the life on this planet will start up again and will go on to evolve into higher creatures every time.

That's just science and it does not need the hand of any creator to bring about.

Regards....

Papaumau.
avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Shirina on Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 pm

All the nonsense about adaptation etc; is just that, if the sea rose and covered all the land would man have enough time to adapt to live in the sea?

Here's the problem I have with it. The only way there could have been a global food, i.e. every inch of land being covered by water, is through the use of divine magic. There's simply not enough water on the entire planet to cover the earth to a depth of at least 25,000 feet (to cover the top of Mt. Everest). That's over 5 miles! Now, perhaps Creationists can get away with the concept of divine magic when talking about the origin of the universe since this subject is still wrapped in murky supposition and mathematics most people don't understand. But the amount of water on earth and how our weather works is pretty well understood, and there simply isn't a natural explanation for a global flood so vast that it wiped everyone and everything out.

The caveat to the idea of divine magic causing the flood is the introduction of religion into the equation. If divine magic caused the flood, i.e. a direct intervention by the Creator, we would then have to launch into speculation as to why this Creator chose to wipe out all life on earth save for a chosen few. That's when the alarm bells of religiosity begin to chime, and concepts like the Fall of Man and sin enter the picture. At that point, I start tuning out, to be totally honest.

There WAS a global rise in sea levels. That much is fact. Our coastlines are riddled with underwater cities; obviously they weren't built underwater so they were once on dry land. Our ancient ancestors no doubt passed on stories about these catastrophic sea level rises as ice from the last Ice Age melted away and poured untold amounts of water into the oceans, but a global flood large enough to wipe out all land-dwelling species simply cannot have happened.

Then there is the issue of where the water went when it receded. Again we would have to resort to the supernatural to explain it. If that much water simply evaporated, our climate would be similar to Venus with 600 degree F surface temperatures and a runaway greenhouse effect due to all the moisture in the atmosphere. If you think it's cloudy now, well ...

Here's a simple video explaining how the math doesn't add up. I say "simple" because I have seen more complex videos that included everything from the equatorial bulge of the earth's surface to tidal forces. This one covers only the basics, but that's all it has to do. Even with the basics, the idea is disproved. Adding more variables only strengthens an already inviolate argument.

Enjoy:

avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:24 pm

Shirina wrote:
All the nonsense about just that, if the sea rose and covered all the land would man have enough time to adapt to live in the sea?

Here's the problem I have with it. The only way there could have been a global food, i.e. every inch of land being covered by water, is through the use of divine magic. There's simply not enough water on the entire planet to cover the earth to a depth of at least 25,000 feet (to cover the top of Mt. Everest). That's over 5 miles! Now, perhaps Creationists can get away with the concept of divine magic when talking about the origin of the universe since this subject is still wrapped in murky supposition and mathematics most people don't understand. But the amount of water on earth and how our weather works is pretty well understood, and there simply isn't a natural explanation for a global flood so vast that it wiped everyone and everything out.

The caveat to the idea of divine magic causing the flood is the introduction of religion into the equation. If divine magic caused the flood, i.e. a direct intervention by the Creator, we would then have to launch into speculation as to why this Creator chose to wipe out all life on earth save for a chosen few. That's when the alarm bells of religiosity begin to chime, and concepts like the Fall of Man and sin enter the picture. At that point, I start tuning out, to be totally honest.

There WAS a global rise in sea levels. That much is fact. Our coastlines are riddled with underwater cities; obviously they weren't built underwater so they were once on dry land. Our ancient ancestors no doubt passed on stories about these catastrophic sea level rises as ice from the last Ice Age melted away and poured untold amounts of water into the oceans, but a global flood large enough to wipe out all land-dwelling species simply cannot have happened.

Then there is the issue of where the water went when it receded. Again we would have to resort to the supernatural to explain it. If that much water simply evaporated, our climate would be similar to Venus with 600 degree F surface temperatures and a runaway greenhouse effect due to all the moisture in the atmosphere. If you think it's cloudy now, well ...

Here's a simple video explaining how the math doesn't add up. I say "simple" because I have seen more complex videos that included everything from the equatorial bulge of the earth's surface to tidal forces. This one covers only the basics, but that's all it has to do. Even with the basics, the idea is disproved. Adding more variables only strengthens an already inviolate argument.

Enjoy:
adaptation etc; is




Saw the video. Interesting. The only things I would add to my comments earlier in the day are :

1. The flood story was not new when it was recorded in the Bible. It comes from earlier religious writings/beliefs.

2. In the case I mentioned, 'Noahs Ark'. If there were local catastrophes, and there were, the animals saved would not be from the world, but from the local species. Incidentally the 'Ark' was made from wood. Where did they keep the woodworm:roll:
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:26 pm

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

More intelligent than whom?
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11905
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Papaumau on Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:58 pm


Thanks for that Shirina, as usual, a very interesting hypothesis.

As I already don't trust ANYTHING that is in the Bible, ( or any of the other religious tomes ), I am not one bit surprised that the great flood was a nonsensical bit of flummery.

What surprises me is that that guy actually went to the trouble of proving - using maths - that the great flood was simply not possible. It takes very little imagination to see that all of the numbers suggested in that story are not possible without actually needing to take them to pure maths.

As one who was forced to study the Bible as a child I already know about many if not all of the "miracles" that were supposed to happen throughout the old and new testaments and again - without taking recourse to hard maths - it is very easy to destroy the perceived truth of such suggestions.

This forces me to harp on again about the basis for "FAITH" and as I already said many times before: "Blind faith, ( of which all faith is made up ), requires no proof as if any of the faithful start to look for proof and find none their beliefs are almost certainly going to fall apart as a result".

Regards....

Papaumau.
avatar
Papaumau
Deactivated

Posts : 219
Join date : 2012-01-24
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by polyglide on Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:51 pm

The fact that foxes now hunt for food in cities etc; has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, a fox is still a fox, a raptor still a raptor and the only reason they do so is because man has ruined their natural hunting grounds.

Using the sea as an example was just that, we are now under threat from nuclear power, if used in the wrong manner, how are we going to evolve ourselves from this threat.

We are spoiling the habitats of many creatures throughout the world they are not evolving into something to suit the new conditions they are dying off.

It is pure nonsense to suggest that all the plant life and animal life which are so interdependant on each other for survival came about by chance, it is more believable that we are all just a figment of someones immagination.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Shirina on Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:25 pm

Hello Papaumau:
What surprises me is that that guy actually went to the trouble of proving - using maths - that the great flood was simply not possible. It takes very little imagination to see that all of the numbers suggested in that story are not possible without actually needing to take them to pure maths.
I'm not surprised at all. From his accent, the narrator of the video is most likely American (possibly Canadian), and America is gripped by religious fundamentalism and Biblical literalists. Atheists in this country have grown more aggressive since the extremely religious have been doing the same.

Greetings, polyglide:
We are spoiling the habitats of many creatures throughout the world they are not evolving into something to suit the new conditions they are dying off.
Evolution takes millions of years, give or take depending on the severity of change. You're not going to see a fox undergo radical changes in the few hundred years Man has been encroaching on natural habitats. Whenever there is sudden change, whether it's climatic or Man-made, the whole reason why they die off is because the change was so sudden that evolution couldn't keep up. A few hundred years is VERY sudden in biological and evolutionary terms, so Man's encroachment on wild habitats will certainly throw evolution into a tizzy. Die-offs will occur as they always have occurred when things change. Remember that 97% of all species that once existed are now extinct.
The fact that foxes now hunt for food in cities etc; has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, a fox is still a fox, a raptor still a raptor and the only reason they do so is because man has ruined their natural hunting grounds.
Nature always follows the path of least resistance. We're no different, really, for we always try to do what is easiest so long as we can obtain the same results. Now, if you're a fox, would you a) spend hours hunting and then chasing down your food with no guarantee you'll catch it, and expending a lot of energy in the process? Or would you b) casually sniff around garbage cans and dumpsters looking for food that doesn't run away when spotted? This is why even a feral cat will still hang around the house of a human who regularly puts food out for it. Why hunt down mice and birds when you can simply wait for a food dish?

I used to live on the edge of the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. There isn't a town of over 1,000 people anywhere near it (my town had a population of ~700). Roads are few, and there are no built-up residential or industrial areas. In other words, no encroachment. Yet bears will STILL come down out of the woods and raid dumpsters in town. If you go out late at night, you can hear the slamming and banging as they try to knock them over. In addition, bears will lumber around people's yards knocking over bird feeders and eating the seeds. My mother, who still lives in the area, has her bird feeders suspended from ropes on a pulley system where the bears can't get to them. The point is that, once a bear - or any animal - discovers a food source that is easier than hunting, it will prefer that source over a more difficult source. This change in diet and hunting practices can, themselves, cause evolutionary changes given enough time.

Humans have done the same thing - instead of going out with a spear (or a gun) to hunt down our food, or to wander around looking for fruits and vegetables that grow wild, we've discovered agriculture and horticulture which is not only easier than hunting, but it allows a far larger population to be fed. Again, the path of least resistance.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:22 pm

Quote by Polyglide

The fact that foxes now hunt for food in cities etc; has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, a fox is still a fox, a raptor still a raptor and the only reason they do so is because man has ruined their natural hunting grounds.


I think you will find that I said foxes etc., ADAPTED their habits. Nothing about evolution.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:43 pm

Papaumau wrote:
Thanks for that Shirina, as usual, a very interesting hypothesis.

As I already don't trust ANYTHING that is in the Bible, ( or any of the other religious tomes ), I am not one bit surprised that the great flood was a nonsensical bit of flummery.

What surprises me is that that guy actually went to the trouble of proving - using maths - that the great flood was simply not possible. It takes very little imagination to see that all of the numbers suggested in that story are not possible without actually needing to take them to pure maths.

As one who was forced to study the Bible as a child I already know about many if not all of the "miracles" that were supposed to happen throughout the old and new testaments and again - without taking recourse to hard maths - it is very easy to destroy the perceived truth of such suggestions.

This forces me to harp on again about the basis for "FAITH" and as I already said many times before: "Blind faith, ( of which all faith is made up ), requires no proof as if any of the faithful start to look for proof and find none their beliefs are almost certainly going to fall apart as a result".

Regards....

Papaumau.



What we need to remember is that the 'great' flood was just that to the people who suffered it, though we might know it aa a local catastrophe. To people who very seldom moved around, the area in which they lived WAS their world. When that was destroyed, their 'world' was'.

In this country in remote villages 200 years ago, before real transport became available, some people never left their village. It was their 'world'.

I used the Black Sea flood recently as an example of flooding, and Shirina also pointed out the 'drowned' villages and areas under the sea. The world is full of stories of a 'great' flood. To each it would be.

We need to be able to think as people circa 2,000BC did to be able to understand them. Our minds are full of 20/21st knowledge.

The Pentateuch is full of stories, many handed down from earlier accounts. BUT it does contain names and actual places known only through the Bible till comparatively recently. Inter-action between the Jews and between other nations are recorded in the Bible, and supported by Archaeological finds. I won't go into lots of facts and figures. Just one example of many.

The Bible tells us, in Daniel, about the Neo-Babylonian King Nabonides and his son, and co-regent, Belshasar. The problem as far as scholars and students were concerned was that the known Neo-Babylonian King (stone tablet) list ended with Nabonides and no mention of Belshasar. Proof, said the Critics, that the Bible wasn't true. Till an Archeaologist found a new list which included Belshasars name. (That's it briefly). Many examples exist.

The New Testament, particularly Acts, includes Herods, named leaders, important people who can be proved to exist.

Excluding the spiritual content, the Bible has many 'redeeming' features - excuse the pun.





The Bible has many facts about Mesopotamia of which, again, we had no actual proof till the last 150 years.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by astra on Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:43 pm

that guy actually went to the trouble of proving - using maths - that the great flood was simply not possible

I would NOT have liked to have been standing on the crack where/when America broke away from Scotland!!

That crack is now the Atlantic Ocean (just a little "Pond"!)
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:51 pm

astra wrote:
I would NOT have liked to have been standing on the crack where/when America broke away from Scotland!!

That crack is now the Atlantic Ocean (just a little "Pond"!)

I also would not have liked to have been standing on the southern shore of Asia when a little chunk of land bumped into it.

That little chunk of land is now India, and the bump is now the Himalayas.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by astra on Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:01 pm

Hello Rock,


Now try applying Maths to BOTH these events!

I won't even try! But then they did not happen did they?
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by betty.noire on Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:33 pm

God is probably more intelligent than most atheists Laughing
avatar
betty.noire

Posts : 77
Join date : 2012-03-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:50 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
The Bible has many facts about Mesopotamia of which, again, we had no actual proof till the last 150 years.

Some archaeologist back in the late 1800s (I believe) found the Hittites by looking for them where the books of history implied they would be. Before that, the Hittites were considered a myth.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:59 pm

astra wrote:
Hello Rock,


Now try applying Maths to BOTH these events!

I won't even try! But then they did not happen did they?

Astra my Celtic brother,

As far as I can tell, they did happen, both events. And every since I came to my senses, gave up physics as my intended vocation, and freed myself to play barefooted football on the lawn with my boys, I haven’t had to worry about the math. I let the lab rats crunch the numbers while I enjoy their results via The History Channel, The Smithsonian Channel, The Science Channel, The Discovery Channel, BBC documentaries, and National Geographic Channel.

My cup runneth over.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by astra on Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:05 pm

Very Happy
My cup runneth over.


And the boys are very happy!
avatar
astra
Deceased

Posts : 1864
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : North East England.

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:09 pm

Some archaeologist back in the late 1800s (I believe) found the Hittites by looking for them where the books of history implied they would be. Before that, the Hittites were considered a myth.




RockOnBrother
Moderator



Posts: 1197
Join date: 2011-10-07





Early 1900's they were identified. There is some dispute as to whether there were 2 'Hittite' nations. One, a tribe in southern Israel who are concerned with Solomon. Another 'Anatolian' Hittite Empire. It's pretty clear that there really was only one. They spread south, particularly at the end of their empire. And they were powerful for the time. There are 'letters' between the Hittite king and the Egyptian Pharoah in existence.

There are 'letters' between kings of various 'nations' and with the Egyptian Pharoah.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Guest on Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:23 pm


Trevor,

Thanks for the “heads up.” Do you know the name of the archaeologist?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:33 pm

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?
by RockOnBrother Today at 10:23 pm





Trevor,

Thanks for the “heads up.” Do you know the name of the archaeologist


Yes and no. All my notes are packed away as I had hoped to be moving. I believe it was something like Texier. He discovered the site (Hattusa) in the 1800's. Excavations were in the early 1900's by a German University? group. Hope that helps.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:48 pm

Off to bed. Wish I had Biblical King David's luck. When he got very old and was cold at night they found a young woman to sleep with him. Strictly to keep him warm, of course. Embarassed
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:03 pm

"The world is full of stories of a 'great' flood."

Unfortunately we have no means of assessing the age of "folk memory".
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11905
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by trevorw2539 on Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:32 pm

quote Oftenwrong
The world is full of stories of a 'great' flood."

Unfortunately we have no means of assessing the age of "folk memory".

Note I have not suggested that this was one great worldwide flood. Each individual flood was 'great' as it affected that particular area.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1369
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 14 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 8 ... 14  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum