Religious People Are Less Intelligent | Page 32 | Vital Football

Religious People Are Less Intelligent

CDX_EIRE - 11/9/2013 21:43

It would be funny if GT was just trolling us...
Click to expand...

If he is, then he is a World Champion Troller. If it was in the Olympics, he would win Gold. However, I think he is for real.

I'm getting a bit bored (again), because as usual he can't hack the Science and isn't offering enough of a fight. When I read some new study, my first thought is to investigate further, whether I agree with or not. I want to know if it is right or wrong, not taking it at face value. Green Tea tends to take it at face value if he agrees with it, or look something up on Answer in Genesis or Journals of Creation to help him dismiss it if he doesn't.

Not understanding what you are reading is one thing, but to then post it as evidence is just foolhardy.

To help GT out I'll offer a clue - non-coding DNA. There, that should make it easier for you.
 
Obviously if you know I have read some of Tomkins work - you wouldnt have bothered with posting that clue.

Why is it that I get the impression that you are stuck on old science. Or that you only follow work from old science?

New research in genetics favours ID - which is growing amongst many scientists in that field of work worldwide.

Who are the leading geneticists in world at present who's work you follow? - time for you to move with the times and open up your mind and brain - I think humanism has you closed up. - The reason I read up on stuff is because it comes as natural to question all existence. - I think it is you that takes certain knowledge at face value.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/one_of_britains073641.html
 
thefacehead - 11/9/2013 10:04

kefkat - 11/9/2013 00:26


Where I see your point, I just can't subscribe to all of this came from nowhere, means nothing and is endlessly racing nowhere.
Click to expand...

Surely you see that even if God existed he will have to have been, at some point, created! You are alive now reading this, but at some point you weren't. The same as the computer in front of you didn't once exist but now does and one day will not.
Click to expand...

Exactly face. Which takes me to the point that whether creation or evolution or both entwined that whether the smallest dot, we came from something and you can take that back to the dot of a particle we still don't know what/where we came from, bringing me back to the there is much we won't understand in this life, and who knows in the next.

I have seen and experienced too much in my life to know that their is more to life than this. Coincidences. No! There is a design we will never know what in this life.

There is too much unseen that can't be explained
 
Im just astounded that people in this day and age can just dismiss science so easily considering where it has taken us...
But then there are sides to human nature and the world around us nobody wants to accept... We're savages and a look at our history confirms it but that doesnt mean we're not capable of heart stopping moments of kindness...
It seems the truth is far harder to accept than the romantic idea but for me both can exist in the same world to a certain extent... Only thing is your mind has to be open and allow for some speculation... You have to toss out much of the traditional ideas and embrace scientific theories for it to be plausible...
 
Green Tea - 11/9/2013 23:03

Obviously if you know I have read some of Tomkins work - you wouldnt have bothered with posting that clue.

Why is it that I get the impression that you are stuck on old science. Or that you only follow work from old science?

New research in genetics favours ID - which is growing amongst many scientists in that field of work worldwide.

Who are the leading geneticists in world at present who's work you follow? - time for you to move with the times and open up your mind and brain - I think humanism has you closed up. - The reason I read up on stuff is because it comes as natural to question all existence. - I think it is you that takes certain knowledge at face value.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/one_of_britains073641.html
Click to expand...


I need to know you have understood Tomkin work, not just read it. What is so different about his analysis and why is it important?

As for your "proof", Nevin is a hard line Creationist, so lets just say his opinion isn't exactly unbiased.
 
:3:

You couldn't make this up, thread of the year by far.

A creationist who dismisses science, who then uses(or attempts to use) science to disprove....science.


 
The irony is lost on him, Rosie. He doesn't see it, but everyone else is getting a good laugh.

On a side note, I find it extremely worrying that a website called Evolution News is actually a front for Intelligent Design fanatics. It just shows the underhand, dishonest tactics these fundamentalist nutjobs will use.
 
This is just a joke. Look at this assessment of Norman Nevin:-

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/ProfessorNormanNevinOBEPresidentCentreForIntelligentDesign

"It also suggests that he has some severe shortcomings in his knowledge of the science he seems to use to back up his creationist position."





This is the man that Evolution News describes as "one of Britain's top geneticists". You should laugh, but I'm afraid I can't. this is how they are trying to infiltrate the Scientific Community, and people like Green Tea are buying it, hook, line and sinker.
 
RosettaStoned - 12/9/2013 10:15

:3:

You couldn't make this up, thread of the year by far.

A creationist who dismisses science, who then uses(or attempts to use) science to disprove....science.
Click to expand...


I dont dismiss all science at all...

If the Birmingham Mail writes that Bannan is having talks with Crystal Palace - chances are you may think there is substance to the story.

If the Guardian writes that Iraq contains weapons of mass destruction - chances are you may be sceptical.

Its about weighing it up my dear! You obviously believe that science hasnt improved in 150 years and still think the science behind Darwin is untouchable - I think we have come on since then and read modern science that cant get through because all the text books and the education in certain fields wont budge from Darwin!
 
As for your "proof", Nevin is a hard line Creationist, so lets just say his opinion isn't exactly unbiased.
---
Here we go again - I didnt even know he was a Creationist until yesterday...I just Googled "Britain's leading Geneticists" - so I could find some modern research to read and then guess what? his work and name popped up. And he just so happens to support ID...Surprise, surprise!

Nevin, Tompkins, Meyer = all leading Geneticists "of today" and they all lean towards ID - that aint my fault....show me some work (recent) from a non ID/Creation geneticist then..That is not ancient!

These guys are the young leading geneticists of today - almost like the computer geeks that bring about facebook and co' - facebook and modern computer programming isnt coming from your old dogs that worked with spectrum and commodore - they are ancient, like most of the geneticists that support Darwin...

Read the following books;

Who Made God.
More than a monkey
Darwin's Doubt
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 12/9/2013 11:11

This is the man that Evolution News describes as "one of Britain's top geneticists". You should laugh, but I'm afraid I can't. this is how they are trying to infiltrate the Scientific Community, and people like Green Tea are buying it, hook, line and sinker.
Click to expand...

Heath any religious man from Northern Ireland is not to be trusted... Surprise surprise his church is part of the protestant group of religions and he throws out a shot that any Christian who believes in evolution has no integrity... I wonder did he come up with this because the Catholic church says evolution is compatible with the bible...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
 
Green Tea - 12/9/2013 11:19

RosettaStoned - 12/9/2013 10:15

:3:

You couldn't make this up, thread of the year by far.

A creationist who dismisses science, who then uses(or attempts to use) science to disprove....science.
Click to expand...


I dont dismiss all science at all...

If the Birmingham Mail writes that Bannan is having talks with Crystal Palace - chances are you may think there is substance to the story.

If the Guardian writes that Iraq contains weapons of mass destruction - chances are you may be sceptical.

Its about weighing it up my dear! You obviously believe that science hasnt improved in 150 years and still think the science behind Darwin is untouchable - I think we have come on since then and read modern science that cant get through because all the text books and the education in certain fields wont budge from Darwin!
Click to expand...

So you're saying that things that are written in a book from a long time ago, should be updated to relevant and modern views.

Interesting.

:69:
 
What does the pope know? Im not interested in what the head of the Catholic church think..

As for Nevin, well if evolution was soooooooo clear cut...You would think it was enough to convince a leading geneticist wouldnt you? What about Sanford too(leading plant geneticist)? Another ex-evolutionist and atheist that turned to ID....What is going on in modern genetics that makes these guys turn to ID/Creation? Surely it would be the other way around and modern genetics would be turning around those that are leaning towards creation instead?
 
Rosie the book dosnt need updating, its ahead of us already. The marvel that it is, is that it dosnt need changing or altering at all.
 
Anomalies is what these dummies are there hardly the picture of youth they are easily manipulated by a charismatic leader... They might be academically smart but its questionable that they have any cop on...

The great thing about science is its true whether you believe it or not - NdGT
 
RosettaStoned - 12/9/2013 11:54

Green Tea - 12/9/2013 11:19

RosettaStoned - 12/9/2013 10:15

:3:

You couldn't make this up, thread of the year by far.

A creationist who dismisses science, who then uses(or attempts to use) science to disprove....science.
Click to expand...


I dont dismiss all science at all...

If the Birmingham Mail writes that Bannan is having talks with Crystal Palace - chances are you may think there is substance to the story.

If the Guardian writes that Iraq contains weapons of mass destruction - chances are you may be sceptical.

Its about weighing it up my dear! You obviously believe that science hasnt improved in 150 years and still think the science behind Darwin is untouchable - I think we have come on since then and read modern science that cant get through because all the text books and the education in certain fields wont budge from Darwin!
Click to expand...

So you're saying that things that are written in a book from a long time ago, should be updated to relevant and modern views.

Interesting.

:69:
Click to expand...

Rosie in many ways, depending on perception that has already happened with The Bible. Alot of Bible books have versions such as the message/recovery etc in.

For instance The Bible I use has daily meditations to read which link to the passage. It also has life connections readings, meaning linking the passage up to things that happen today.

So in a sense that has been happening for a long time has these versions aren't a new concept. The word of The Bible isn't changed. It just expands the thinking to relate to today.

Many famous in their field Christian speakers and writers who have done this
 
Yes well we see wont we CDX? Germans, Swiss, Singapore, China etc - the science all over the world is throwing out questions over Darwin, fossils(especially dinosaurs). The whole picture in your head from your education(and the education I - all of us had) is being brought into question.

Dinosaurs = warm blooded and had feathers. Some are now questioning if birds and flight was here "before" the dinosaurs.
 
Green Tea - 12/9/2013 12:00

What does the pope know? Im not interested in what the head of the Catholic church think..

As for Nevin, well if evolution was soooooooo clear cut...You would think it was enough to convince a leading geneticist wouldnt you? What about Sanford too(leading plant geneticist)? Another ex-evolutionist and atheist that turned to ID....What is going on in modern genetics that makes these guys turn to ID/Creation? Surely it would be the other way around and modern genetics would be turning around those that are leaning towards creation instead?
Click to expand...

It's not whether Evolution is clear cut or not, it's the fact that Nevin makes mistakes that even a non specialist like me can see them. he makes jumps of reasoning that defy logic.

The fact is that he has lied for the most part of his career, to gain the letters after his name. How does that ft in with the Christian faith?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.