Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?

by **Ivan** 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/

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:09 pm

polyglide wrote:There will never be proof of evolution because it is not a viable alternative to creation, science has been trying to prove evolution for 100,000 years and is no nearer aswering my quesion regarding the life cycle of a butterfly and a little wren, other than saying they evolved in stages, just give me the stages from the pool of volcanic liquid to the actual beings and without any supposition just plain facts stage by stage and I will consider the result with good grace but I am afraid I would be waitiong forever because it makes no sense whatsoever.

We may also add the acorn and the oak tree.

Though some of God's creatures never get beyond the first stage of evolution.

by Guest Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:28 am

Shirina wrote:
The problem that I have seen innumerable times in these discussions is the over-use of the False Dilemma fallacy. Creationists…

My name is not “Creationists.”

Shirina wrote:
… argue that the lack of proof for evolution equates to definitive proof of a Creator.

Have you seen me argues such? Since I cannot remember ever putting forth that argument, could you tell me when and where I did so?

I have stated as fact that, Galapagos finches notwithstanding, Darwinism, a model, a conjectured scenario, cannot be replicated or verified in any way. In contrast, Einstein’s Theories of Relativity have been repeatedly verified, and E=mc2 is being replicated aboard every operational CVN, SSN, SSBN, and SSGN as I type.

I stand on that which I have said. The arguments of someone I do not know, I believe you called her/him “Creationists”, are irrelevant to the position upon which I stand.

by Shirina Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:37 am

My name is not “Creationists.”

So you're saying that you no longer believe the universe was created by The Creator?

by Guest Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:07 am

Shirina wrote:
My name is not “Creationists.”
So you're saying that you no longer believe the universe was created by The Creator?

Nope.

On this thread, I’m saying that:

My name is not “Creator”;
Darwinism, a model or conjectured scenario, has never been replicated or verified in any way;
Einstein’s theories have been verified, and E=mc2 is being replicated by operational CVNs, SSNs, SSBNs, and SSGNs as I type.

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:39 am

Polyglide

To state that there is no 'proof' of the evolutionary dynamic is like saying a Victoria sponge-cake does not evolve in the mixing bowl but is miraculous materialized by God himself. The hand of God makes cakes? I have heard of a Catholic nunnery outside Rome that claims to make little cakes (since the middle ages) in the shape of Mother Mary's tits (I kid you not); being called 'seni della madonna' - the breasts of the Madonna!

No way, Polyglide, the evidence and dynamics of evolution are monumentally apparent, real and irrefutable. Yes, have creationist views if you care to but please do not tell scientists they have got it wrong: you are not a scientist and neither am I!

Point: Genetic science tells us that we possess the same DNA structure, inherent within our own genetic helix, that belonged to the very first worm-like creature that climbed out of the primordial swamp, so to speak; from which we have evolved. Genetic science can provide such proof of evolution. I believe that proof - I have discerned it to be reliable.

If your genetic structure was analysed, Polyglide, you would, like all of us, be amazed at where our ancestors hailed from.

We evolve from something. Evolution is an absolute, not an opinion, God or no god! King Canute thought he could hold back the sea but ended up with wet feet - a triumph of evolution as crowning an end point to his legs with the function of keeping him upright. Just a pity he wasn't using them to retreat while he was ahead!

by Guest Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:31 am

AwfulTruth wrote:
To state that there is no 'proof' of the evolutionary dynamic is like saying a Victoria sponge-cake does not evolve in the mixing bowl but is miraculous materialized by God himself.

Since Darwinism remains unproven, your comparison is moot. Darwinism is merely a model, a conjectured scenario, which is not replicable and has never been verified.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… the evidence and dynamics of evolution are monumentally apparent, real and irrefutable.

No it is not. To the contrary, “evidence” of macro-evolution is in fact not evidence of macro-evolution, and the dynamics of evolution have been verified only in micro-evolution.

We know that dogs have evolved into dogs more suitable to human tastes, an example of observed micro-evolution, but dogs evolving into dogs is not amoeba evolving into dogs.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… please do not tell scientists they have got it wrong:

Why not? Einstein did. In fact, in an indirect fashion, Einstein told Sir Isaac Newton that he had it wrong, that gravity isn’t a pull, it’s a push.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Genetic science can provide such proof of evolution.

No it cannot. Correlational data neither evidences nor proves causative relationships.

AwfulTruth wrote:
I believe that proof - I have discerned it to be reliable.

Your belief regarding DNA data does not cause it to be reliable.

AwfulTruth wrote:
If your genetic structure was analysed, Polyglide, you would, like all of us, be amazed at where our ancestors hailed from.

We evolve from something.

Not necessarily. The only living entities from which I know that I am descended are my known human ancestors; thus the only “something” from which I know I could have evolve, if indeed I have evolved, are my known human ancestors, from one of which, if anything, I have devolved. In either case, any evolution or devolution has been micro-evolution/devolution, human to human.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Evolution is an absolute, not an opinion…

No it is not.

by Papaumau Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:04 am

polyglide wrote:There will never be proof of evolution because it is not a viable alternative to creation, science has been trying to prove evolution for 100,000 years and is no nearer aswering my quesion regarding the life cycle of a butterfly and a little wren, other than saying they evolved in stages, just give me the stages from the pool of volcanic liquid to the actual beings and without any supposition just plain facts stage by stage and I will consider the result with good grace but I am afraid I would be waitiong forever because it makes no sense whatsoever.

We may also add the acorn and the oak tree.

Polyglide.....

There is actually tons of empirical truth backing up the "theory" of evolution if the denier wants to look for it.

That is why I cleave to science and not to fairy-tales in seriously-flawed books written by seriously-flawed men.

At least science searches every second of every minute of every day for answers to the problems associated with evolution but the religions make no headway at all as they are happy to accept that what they "know" has to be true because their holy books say so, and for no other reason.

Maybe it might be a good thing if the people of blind faith were brave enough to try to examine their faith by looking at the tons of science that is out there so than at least then they would be fully informed.

They might start by looking HERE and afterwards wonder how the brilliant Charles Darwin knew about how nature works even before DNA had been discovered.

Regards....

Papaumau.

by AwfulTruth Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:16 pm

Rock

I am duly dumbfounded by, sorry, your formalized yet scatological approach to arguing against my view; that creationism is hogwash laced with mythology, delusion (not you personally!), misinformation, and blind faith in the literal meaning of biblical didactics that preclude any rational or logical conclusion. That the bible was written by ignorant story tellers is a view I take which explains why the bible is such wondrous work of imaginative fiction. That is all it is.

I would no more consult the bible for historical accuracy than consult a 1922 edition of the railway timetable for tomorrows train times.

I have not seen God today so I cannot get his current viewpoint on this issue. Exclamation

by Shirina Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:07 pm

Nope.

Then you're a Creationist. It's really that simple. Belief in a Creator = Creationist.

And Creationists are very fond of using the False Dilemma fallacy as I've previously indicated.

It is an effective argument against those unaware of the fallacy. It is why evolution is always required to throw down their proof while Creationists can simply hide behind "faith" when asked to throw down theirs. In every discussion and debate over evolution vs. creation that I've ever seen, Creationists offer up nothing to prove the existence of a creator while they simultaneously demand that non-scientists and laymen write massive dissertations on genetics, molecular biology, and the like. I have repeatedly warned evolutionists not to fall for this trap, to not allow themselves to be put on the defensive, but they are so eager to prove their points that they almost invariably fail to heed my advice.

Religion is simple. It is designed for the uneducated - even the illiterate - to easily understand. Science is difficult and requires years of education and specialized knowledge. Based on that reality alone, creationists have always held the upper hand in these discussions. Genesis 1:1, a single line in the Bible in order to understand creationism versus entire libraries of books that must be read to understand evolution. This is a weakness of the evolution position, a weakness that creationists exploit with predictable regularity. Yet it is also a flaw built into the creationist position, as well, for more often than not the only material on evolution that a creationist has read comes from a creationist source.

by Guest Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:04 pm

Shirina wrote:

Nope.
Then you're a Creationist.

My name I not “a Creationist”, either. Hopefully, we’ve no need to touch again upon what my name is not.

Back to Darwinism, my chosen topic. That which Darwinism falsely claims as proven has not been proven. Darwinism is a conjectured scenario, a model, touted as proven fact when in fact it is not.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:30 am

Good posts!

Creationism is a direct manifestation of the compulsion of man to dominate, control and indoctrinate the masses as a form of big brother control. The underlying ethos, I would expound here, is that the underbelly of all religions is the compulsive dynamic of power politics.

The idea is that an omnipotent God, and omnipotent minor gods as in the Catholic church, can spy on us and is a profoundly ancient assertion and was devised to condition people into believing the fallacy that God can see and hear everything including every single human being's thoughts and actions.

This is not an inch away from the complicit idea that great kings had a similar power via their police, spies and informers: both concepts of control are designed to do the very same function and often ran alongside each other (the Queen is DoF?). To strike real fear within the followers/subjects and so elicit a compliant flock, via didactic discipline and intellectual capitulation (even if that means feigning belief or respect). Playing the game to please the power bases - religious or not - is an imperative not lost on those who know or suspect that they are being fed baloney.

Creationism is a man-made concept and is also a manifestation of the supreme arrogance of mankind. The idea that the world was created for 'his' benefit, so that God's chosen people could inherit the earth and live alongside the stupid animal also-rans, is an idea of monumental arrogance and egocentric mumbo jumbo. It bears no burden of proof, either, which abrogates the responsibility of anyone to provide proof of concept - even if it be God him/herself showing up just to clarify their existence and confirming the reality of the situation.

In the past proof of evolution was explained away as the devil's work (another artificial construct designed to control people), or as a wilful misinterpretation promulgated by wicked heretics or worse.

Creationism is the pure and most ancient form of mind control. A thought fxck that lays the foundation for the mythological ideology that presents a god that sees, hears and knows everything, a god of almighty power; a god of wrath; a god of miracles; a god of revenge and ultimately, a god of diverse punishment.

This creationist trope is not just wrong, it is also a dangerous psychological form of enslavement designed to elicit awe. wonder and above all, compliance through a visceral fear of hell and damnation. If you refused to comply, then the devil was inside you, etc.

Creationism equals power. Creation represents power. Creationism is the religious bedrock that represents the disempowering of the masses, and therefore the blunt subjugation of human thinking so to halt any heretical questioning of this primaeval assertion, and fulfil the quest for a human imperative for supreme monotheistic-based supremacy.

Creationism is the primal mechanism that galvanises the religious machinery of control.

It is not a case of 'deus ex machina'; God is actually NOT in the machine. It is mankind who is the machinery of control.

by **Ivan** Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:17 am

Awful Truth. That's one of the best postings I've ever read on a forum.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:33 am

Thanks Ivan - many thanks! Very Happy

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:45 pm

Supported with pictures ....

http://www.4thought.tv/themes/should-creationism-be-taught-in-schools/randall-hardy

by Papaumau Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:27 pm

Yes AwfulTruth I will go with Ivan on this one !

That was a very readable, accurate and to-the-point view.

The thing is that the people of faith will not only not listen to those wise words, they will dismiss them out of hand as they are already enslaved in the unsupported and unsupportable teachings of their holy books. In their desire to have and to hold both forgiveness for their "sins" and somewhere for their souls to go after death they will blindly fight for their unproven theisms.

Even as an atheist I would also fight and die for their right to hold those mistaken views.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:46 pm

No defense of the indefensible Darwinism seems imminent, so perhaps it’s time to move on.

The probability of all variables required for human existence to occur by chance is 10¹⁰¹²³ to 1 (from a reliable source); in other words, the probability of human existence occurring by chance is so statistically unlikely that it approaches a statistical impossibility.

by Shirina Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:09 pm

No defense of the indefensible Darwinism seems imminent, so perhaps it’s time to move on.

It's not "indefensible" Rock. It's just that no one here is truly qualified to defend it ... except for Snowyflake. And, to be totally honest, even if a qualified scientist actually came onto this board and DID defend it, I doubt very much you'd understand it. Not because you're dumb, but because you don't have the background. There once was a scientist on the old MSN boards who went by the name Brentosaurus; he would get into evolution discussions and write posts that were far more technical than I was capable of understanding. Oddly enough, none of the Creationists ever had any kind of refutation.

the probability of human existence occurring by chance

But I do know enough to know that it wasn't "by chance." There are all sorts of variables: abundance of food on the planet, the absence of higher predators such as T-Rex, the gravity of the planet, the amount of water, tidal forces, on and on, that factored into humans evolving here.

The other problem with your probability is the assumption that human beings are the only possible sentient outcome. If one of those variables was different or absent altogether, we very well could be a different species yet still sentient. Even assuming your probability is correct, it doesn't mean anything if there are 10¹⁰¹²³ possible permutations for intelligent life. At that point, it becomes a mathematical certainty that some form of sentient life will develop. If the dinosaurs, for instance, developed sentience, then they would be here instead - probably claiming that the probability of dinosaurs evolving by chance is 10¹⁰¹²³.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:22 pm

Thanks you guys!

ROCK WROTE:

"The probability of all variables required for human existence to occur by chance is 1010123 to 1 (from a reliable source); in other words, the probability of human existence occurring by chance is so statistically unlikely that it approaches a statistical impossibility."

Actually, now we know that the cosmos is much, much bigger, with billions of galaxies stretching into infinity, we can say that your calculation is wrong.

The likelihood of life is absolute, and that there will always be somewhere where life has progressed to the equivalent level of, say, a whale, elephant or even a monkey culture like us lot. :cherry:

Truth is that life will take all forms and maybe on one planet there is a strange vegetable with a degree, or a messy pile of slime with the IQ of Einstein. Who knows!

It's cool to be pragmatic about probability.

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:01 pm

Rock On Brother wrote:
No defense of the indefensible Darwinism seems imminent, so perhaps it’s time to move on.

Shirina wrote:
It's not "indefensible" Rock.

If it’s not “indefensible”, please defend it. In the entire time in which I’ve been aware of Darwinism, a time period encompassing my initial belief in Darwinism and my subsequent doubt as to the logicality of Darwinism (“logicity” ought to be a word), I’ve never seen or heard a defense of Darwinism that doesn’t depend upon presentation of multiple speculative scenarios.

Shirina wrote:
It's just that no one here is truly qualified to defend it…

There have certainly been people eminently qualified to defend it in various “venues” in which I’ve found myself from time to time. So far, no defenses save those which rely on speculative scenarios.

Shirina wrote:
And, to be totally honest, even if a qualified scientist actually came onto this board and DID defend it, I doubt very much you'd understand it.

I don’t. If I can understand that which I’ve studied and mastered so far, understanding Darwinism would be as difficult as a walk in the park. In fact, I do understand Darwinism, which I why I understand that Darwinism is indefensible.

Shirina wrote:
… because you don't have the background.

I’ve sufficient background; I’ve sufficient inherent capacity. Conversely, Darwinism has insufficient logicality (dang it, “logicity” ought to be made into a word).

RockOnBrother wrote:
… the probability of human existence occurring by chance…

Shirina wrote:
But I do know enough to know that it wasn't "by chance."

And you know this in spite of the fact that “by chance” approaches a statistical impossibility?

Shirina wrote:
There are all sorts of variables: abundance of food on the planet, the absence of higher predators such as T-Rex, the gravity of the planet, the amount of water, tidal forces, on and on, that factored into humans evolving here.

The probability calculation takes variables into account.

Shirina wrote:
The other problem with your probability

It’s not “[my] probability.” I did not calculate it; I have reported it.

Shirina wrote:
… is the assumption that human beings are the only possible sentient outcome.

There is no such assumption; 10¹⁰¹²³ to 1 is the probability of human existence occurring by chance.

Shirina wrote:
Even assuming your probability…

Once again, not “[my] probability.”

Shirina wrote:
… is correct, it doesn't mean anything if there are 10¹⁰¹²³ possible permutations for intelligent life.

Yes it does; it means that the probability of human existence occurring by chance approaches a statistical impossibility.

Shirina wrote:
At that point, it becomes a mathematical certainty that some form of sentient life will develop.

No it doesn’t; at odds of 10¹⁰¹²³ to 1, it approaches statistical impossibility.

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:17 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:
ROCK WROTE:

"The probability of all variables required for human existence to occur by chance is 10¹⁰¹²³ to 1 (from a reliable source); in other words, the probability of human existence occurring by chance is so statistically unlikely that it approaches a statistical impossibility."

… your calculation…

It’s not “[my] calculation.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
Actually, now we know that the cosmos is much, much bigger, with billions of galaxies stretching into infinity, we can say that [the quoted] calculation is wrong.

No, we do not know that “[the quoted] calculation is wrong.” In fact, I know that the quoted calculation is as accurate as is humanly possible.

AwfulTruth wrote:
The likelihood of life is absolute…

The probability of human existence occurring by chance approaches a statistical impossibility.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… and that there will always be somewhere where life has progressed to the equivalent level of, say, a whale, elephant or even a monkey culture like us lot.

Absolute terms such as “always” tend to be challengeable in certain scientific circles.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:21 pm

Unless you are omnipotent I cannot see where you pull in any gravitas for your presumption that intelligent life is not possible elsewhere. The dogma is screaming out, sorry.

Of course it will not be human life - it will be some other manifestation of universal DNA. Let us think laterally, out of the human test tube...

Have you seen the film 'Alien'? Wink

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:23 pm

Sorry - the system went haywire! I've deleted the duplicate posting. Must have been an alien invasion...

by Shirina Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:25 pm

If it’s not “indefensible”, please defend it.

What did I just say about not being qualified?

In the entire time in which I’ve been aware of Darwinism

Are we talking about Darwinism or evolution?

which I why I understand that Darwinism is indefensible.

Then so is the idea of an all-powerful creator with supernatural powers.

And you know this in spite of the fact that “by chance” approaches a statistical impossibility?

Okay, let's say you put a number of colored balls into a bag. The number of colored balls equals 10¹⁰¹²³. If each ball is a different color, the odds of picking one specific color is one in 10¹⁰¹²³.

However, the odds of picking a colored ball of any color is a mathematical certainty since we are given a chance to pick one.

The problem with using a statistic like the one you reported is that it focuses ONLY on the odds of a human being picked from a bag that might just as well contain 10¹⁰¹²³ different permutations of intelligent life. Creationists operate under the assumption that human life is the only possible outcome of intelligent life. In other words, putting 10¹⁰¹²³ number of balls into a bag and claiming the only pick that counts is the single white ball mixed in there somewhere. None of the other colored balls count. This fails to account for the existence of all the other possibilities.

We operate under the assumption that only human life is intelligent because we are the only species we know of that is, in fact, sentient. This gives us the illusion that intelligent life is rare. It may not be. It's the equivalent of standing in the middle of a desert and claiming that water is rare, giving astronomical odds for a rainstorm - despite the earth's surface being 70% water and rain being quite common elsewhere.

The long and short of it is: We don't have enough information about our universe - and other lifeforms that may reside within it - to make such a lofty claim about our random chance for existence. The only way the statistic works is if we discover we are truly alone ... and THAT, my friend, is unsubstantiated speculation, precisely the same kind that you accuse Darwinism of espousing.

The probability calculation takes variables into account.

Except the most important variable of them all: How many chances the universe had in getting humans "right." If I buy enough lottery tickets to play every possible number combination, the odds of winning becomes a statistical certainty instead of a statistical impossibility.

There is no such assumption; 10¹⁰¹²³ to 1 is the probability of human existence occurring by chance.

Which only emphasizes my point.

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:32 pm

There can be few sights more pathetic than that of someone intent upon explaining the inexplicable.

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:40 pm

AwfulTruth wrote:
Unless you are omnipotent…

That’s not me. You’re speaking of YHVH Elohim.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… I cannot see where you pull in any gravitas for your presumption…

These are neither “[my] presumptions.” I have not calculated this probability; I’ve reported this probability, statistically and verbally. You flatter me far too much by presuming that I could have calculated this probability, but thank you anyway.

AwfulTruth wrote:
… that intelligent life is not possible elsewhere.

I’ve not reported “that intelligent life is not possible elsewhere”; I’ve reported that “[the] probability of all variables required for human existence to occur by chance is 10¹⁰¹²³ to 1”, or, stated verbally sans numbers, that “the probability of human existence occurring by chance is so statistically unlikely that it approaches a statistical impossibility.”

Nothing whatsoever in that report about “intelligent life.”

AwfulTruth wrote:
The dogma is screaming out, sorry.

I’ve mentioned no “dogma”; conversely, you’ve mentioned it directly above this comment. Perhaps, since you’ve mentioned it, you’ve brought it in for some purpose. I have no use for it.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Of course it will not be human life - it will be some other manifestation of universal DNA. Let us think laterally, out of the human test tube...

You’ve made two absolute statements (“it will not”, “it will). When speaking of things that haven’t happened, absolute statements can paint the one making absolute statements into a corner.

I suspect that the sun will rise tomorrow at dawn. Lacking omniscience, when speaking precisely, I customarily refrain from stating that it will rise tomorrow.

That being said, speculation is fun, and speculation about what life may be “out there” and what forms it may take are personally fascinating. In fact, I have a germinating hypothesis that if we eve discover life out there, it might take a similar form to that which we find on Earth (notice the two disclaimers).

Perhaps there’s a template that works and is thus replicated wherever life exists. The five most successful larger animal types, fish (including sharks and rays), amphibians, reptiles (including dinosaurs), birds, and mammals, share (1) a backbone, (2) an endoskeleton, even if of cartilage rather than of bone (3) a brain, and (4) a spinal chord connecting the brain to the body’s extremities. Additionally, most land versions of these five types have four limbs. Also, most have the same five senses, although with great range of acuity.

AwfulTruth wrote:
Have you seen the film 'Alien'?

Yes. Didn’t like it.

by Guest Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:38 pm

Shirina wrote:
If it’s not “indefensible”, please defend it.
What did I just say about not being qualified?

I’ve no problem with you doing so “by proxy.”

Shirina wrote:

In the entire time in which I’ve been aware of Darwinism
Are we talking about Darwinism or evolution?

Darwinism. I’ve no logical problem believing that which I’ve seen and of which I;ve seen convincing evidence. Collies and pit bulls have evolved in my lifetime, both to the detriment of the breeds, which is perhaps the number one reason of several that I despise dog shows and pedigrees.

I’m venting, but what the hell, I must be butter, ‘cause I’m on a roll. Got a sheltie when I was a teenager. The stupid dog breeder insisted on selling us his pedigree along with the dog himself. When we got the papers in the mail, his “name” was something like “Galahad of Nottingham.” What he hell kind of name is that for a dog? Or even a human? If that had been my name, I’d either be tough or dead toady, like the boy named “Sue!” I might’ve even been the little-ist son of a something to make the NFL as a DE!

My dog was not “Galahad,” He had a dog’s name, a dog’s life, and he had a ball living it. Smart as all get out, an used his smarts to mercilessly tease my little brother by grabbing his favorite sandbox toy out from under my brother’s nose and running throughout the yard with the toy in his mouth, avoiding capture, putting moves down like the “Kansas Comet”, Gale “Give Me Eighteen Inches of Daylight” Sayers.

And he was “natural”, un-tampered with, “un-fixed”, and yes, he went on escapades the destinations of which I knew not. I suspect that he had a ball during those non-breeder controlled journeys. No pedigrees for his offspring.

Shirina wrote:

… which I why I understand that Darwinism is indefensible.
Then so is the idea of an all-powerful creator with supernatural powers.

We can go into that on another thread, but right here I’m speaking of Darwinism and its indefensibility.

Shirina wrote:

And you know this in spite of the fact that “by chance” approaches a statistical impossibility?
Okay, let's say you put a number of colored balls into a bag. The number of colored balls equals 10¹⁰¹²³. If each ball is a different color, the odds of picking one specific color is one in 10¹⁰¹²³.

However, the odds of picking a colored ball of any color is a mathematical certainty since we are given a chance to pick one.

Doesn’t play in Peoria. We’re not talking about colored balls; we’re talking about the probability of human existence occurring by chance.

Shirina wrote:
The problem with using a statistic like the one you reported is that it focuses ONLY on the odds of a human being picked from a bag that might just as well contain 10¹⁰¹²³ different permutations of intelligent life.

No problem whatsoever. We’re speaking solely of human existence.

Shirina wrote:
Creationists…

Not my name; not my game. I’, speaking of the improbability of human existence occurring by chance.

Shirina wrote:
We operate under the assumption that only human life is intelligent…

I don’t operate under that assumption. Ever see orcas use complex hydrodynamics sans pencil, paper, slide rule, or calculator to get what they want?

Shirina wrote:
… because we are the only species we know of that is, in fact, sentient.

Uh uh!

Shirina wrote:
The long and short of it is: We don't have enough information about our universe - and other lifeforms that may reside within it - to make such a lofty claim about our random chance for existence.

The reported probability was calculated with more knowledge thereof than either you or I know. And as knowledge increases, the odds get longer. Back when I first heard “the number”, it was 6 X 10⁶⁵, or some exponent close to 65. Compare that to the recent reported exponent, calculated with as additional three or more decades of accrued knowledge of the universe available.

Shirina wrote:
THAT, my friend, is unsubstantiated speculation, precisely the same kind that you accuse Darwinism of espousing.

Not an accusation; an assertion of fact, easily refutable by provision of fact. Up till now, I’ve neither seen nor heard any factual refutation of this assertion of fact.

Shirina wrote:

The probability calculation takes variables into account.
Except the most important variable of them all: How many chances the universe had in getting humans "right."

That number has also been calculated. It’s kind of awesomely huge, as I heard it back when the exponent was a bit smaller (somewhere around 65) than it is today.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:22 pm

As I was coming down the stairs I saw a man who was not there, he was not there again today, I wonder if he'll go away?

Oh its OK - turned out to be a figment of some religious guys imagination!

Very Happy

:affraid:

by **astradt1** Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:31 pm

Roc stated,
I know that the quoted calculation is as accurate as is humanly possible.

The problem there is that Humans are fallible so this calculation could be very wrong....

Just think Roc with each new planet which is found the odd's, you so strongly support from, as you put it 'a reliable source' but have not given a link so that others may view that source!!!, get lower......

As god is supposed to have only 'created' Adam and Eve and they went on to have just two sons, one of whom killed the other and the killer son was then banished to the land of Nod where he met his wife.....Who 'created' her?

Were the first generations full of incestuous relationships?

When 'god' created all living things did he create all breeds of dogs or just one breed which then evolved into the many breeds now seen?

Now pick the bones out of that Roc.......

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:37 pm

Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent? - Page 6 Empty

Re: Are atheists and left-wingers more intelligent?
by AwfulTruth Today at 9:22 pm

As I was coming down the stairs I saw a man who was not there, he was not there again today, I wonder if he'll go away?

Oh its OK - turned out to be a figment of some religious guys imagination

Er. Are there poppy fields in Cambridgeshire. Smile

by astra Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:38 pm

One fine day in the middle of the night,

Two dead men got up to fight,

Back to back they faced each other,

Drew their swords and shot each other.

The guy who wrote that had spent a day on the best altar water!

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:03 pm

My theologian's explanation of Religion is more credible than your theologian's.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:34 pm

oftenwrong wrote:My theologian's explanation of Religion is more credible than your theologian's.

Remember, God was once a woman then changed her mind: which is a sure sign that religion is sexist! sunny

Just a ray of light relief:

by Guest Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:01 am

astra wrote:
One fine day in the middle of the night,

Two dead men got up to fight,

Back to back they faced each other,

Drew their swords and shot each other.

The guy who wrote that had spent a day on the best altar water!

Five elementary school friends once recited this version to each other:

One bright morning in the middle of the night,
Two dead boys got up to fight,
Back to back they faced each other,
They drew their swords and shot each other,
A deaf policeman who heard the noise,
Drew out his gun and stabbed those boys.

It’s amazing that this jewel of wisdom survives cross-pond transport from Texas to our brother in Scotland!

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:16 am

I remember that rhyme from years ago!

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:06 am

AwfulTruth. quote

Remember, God was once a woman then changed her mind: which is a sure sign that religion is sexist! sunny

A very wise decision:silent:

by polyglide Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:55 pm

The odds that an eye could come about by chance are such that make the possibility, impossible.

The whole problem with the Darwin theory and do not forget Darwin himself at times doubted it, is that no one actually considers all the odds involved and in fact are more prone to faith than any religious person.

There was a little girl sat on her mothers knee holding a rag doll, mummy where did my doll come from said the little girl /.

Well it is like this.

There was a sheep in the field and it lost some of its wool, in turn this got wrapped round some barbed wire and turned into knitting wool, along came a weavel who weaved the wool together to form your dolls skin then along came a scarecrow with some straw and stuffed the straw into your dollies skin making the body firm, then along came an owl with a spare pair of eyes and fixed them on to your dolly etc; etc;

Mummy this sounds a little far fetched to me, yes love, y6u should just read the Darwin theory for something even more far fetched.

by Papaumau Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:45 pm

The possibility of there being life, ( not necessarily human life based around carbon - as we are ), is - as was said above - infinite in it's possibility of existence, as just about any planet, ( and there must be more than many trillions of them out in space that are sitting in the goldilocks area of their sun ), must be capable of producing living organisms that will almost certainly progress into intelligent beings of some sort. ( The reference to "Alien" being under consideration ).

For a very long while in astronomy and before cosmology there were known to be unlimited numbers of stars out there, ( each being a sun in it's own right ), but now we know that there are just as many galaxies out there as there was once known or guessed to be stars.

We sit at the edge of only one arm of the milky-way galaxy and within our own galaxy there are many trillions of stars, ( suns ), and without even leaving this galaxy there are enough stars, ( suns ), with the possibility of planets revolving around them that suggests that there might be a very good chance that life, ( not necessarily like ours ), is existing here.

Trying to image the total number of suns, ( stars ), out there in the cosmos - in all of those galaxies - that might have solar systems around them makes my head hurt if I think about those vast possibilities for too long.

Safe to say that there also has to be another old hairy-faced guy just like me - or even not like me - sitting at a computer discussing the exact same paradox on another internet that is made out of vegetables.

Regards....

Papaumau.

by polyglide Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:54 am

Yep, when you try to consider the extent of the universe you are in deep trouble, has it got an extent as we think of an extent?.

It is beyond our understanding, how on earth [pardon the pun] can something not have an end as we understand things? and if it has no end it must be travelling through something and if so what and where does that which it is travelling through end etc; etc;

So we must conclude that there is much that is beyond our limited means to understand and therefore anything is a possibility.

The obvious vastness of the universe opens up the possibility that there are far more superior beings than ourselves with powers far beyond our imagination

If you take the giant strides made in nearly every field in which we humans indulge, during the last less than a hundred years and think of the possibility of other beings having far superior abilities then creation becomes far less of a debate than a firm probability.

But it does take a little less arrogance and self importance on behalf of the human race to realise ttis.

by Papaumau Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:51 pm

Yeah, the idea that comes from the ones with faith states that we were made in "his" image and that HAS TO BE the most arrogant statement that any theist might make.

The science of evolution and the rules that nature makes us follow states that at any point in any branch of any arm of evolution ANY direction is possible, and if this is true there has to be the possibility that on any one of the possible unknown numbers of solar systems with "goldliocks" zones there has to be life of some sort.

For the theists to think that we - and the rest of them - were made in "his/her or it's" image has got to be arrogance of the highest magnitude.

Regards....

Papaumau.

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:31 pm

polyglide wrote:The odds that an eye could come about by chance are such that make the possibility, impossible.

The whole problem with the Darwin theory and do not forget Darwin himself at times doubted it, is that no one actually considers all the odds involved and in fact are more prone to faith than any religious person.

There was a little girl sat on her mothers knee holding a rag doll, mummy where did my doll come from said the little girl /.

Well it is like this.

There was a sheep in the field and it lost some of its wool, in turn this got wrapped round some barbed wire and turned into knitting wool, along came a weavel who weaved the wool together to form your dolls skin then along came a scarecrow with some straw and stuffed the straw into your dollies skin making the body firm, then along came an owl with a spare pair of eyes and fixed them on to your dolly etc; etc;

Mummy this sounds a little far fetched to me, yes love, y6u should just read the Darwin theory for something even more far fetched.

Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad. ( Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius )

by polyglide Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:12 pm

I could not agree more, I too think the evolutionists are mad.

by Sponsored content