Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Frank Apisa,

IQ is so overrated AND it is very culture bound.
So, doesn't say much.

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

IQ is so overrated AND it is very culture bound.
So, doesn't say much.

I understand, Q...and I agree that IQ is way, way over-rated.

But there is a formula used to determine IQ...and I am not sure if the formula would allow for an IQ of 2000. I also wonder what the maximum IQ could be using the formula.

My question stands.

Do you know?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

no, but I don't care, to be honest.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do you know?

I know. The formula is: IQ = MA/CA x 100
If your MA (mental age) is 20 times the CA (calendar age), which actually is the average mental development of your coevels, you will have IQ = 20.CA/CA x 100 = 2000,
but there are no standard tests to measure such huge 'deviation' in the mental development for MA > 3.CA is considered impossible.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Ok, simply put religion is a human construct and was inventeed to control other humans.

1. Where are the evidences that 'religion is a human construct', exclusively creation of the humans ... and nothing else.
2. Has religion really been 'invented' with some purpose, or it is simply a result of natural processes and superstitious utility value?
3. 'Invented to control' means intelligent design, and the next question is: Is the ID itself our personal development & invention ... or we have seen it somewhere, in the so called designs of nature, for example?
4. Can you use stochastics to design (draw without having drawing skills) to perfection the wings of a butterfly, for example ... and why did the patterns of the wings not cover the probabilistic laws of distribution in math?
O.K., 'Religion is a human construct, invented to control other humans' is really plausible statement, notwithstanding that it is irresponsible (and whether it is true or not ... and on the grounds of what, is another issue), but I might state some other statement that is not less plausible: 'The interpretation of some religions is a construct, invented to misuse with religious beliefs for the purposes of control and manipulation (to infinity) of other people'.
Plausibility is only one of the preconditions for a given statement to be true. There are some other criteria to be met as well.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

1. Where are the evidences that 'religion is a human construct', exclusively creation of the humans ... and nothing else.
2. Has religion really been 'invented' with some purpose, or it is simply a result of natural processes and superstitious utility value?
3. 'Invented to control' means intelligent design, and the next question is: Is the ID itself our personal development & invention ... or we have seen it somewhere, in the so called designs of nature, for example?
4. Can you use stochastics to design (draw without having drawing skills) to perfection the wings of a butterfly, for example ... and why did the patterns of the wings not cover the probabilistic laws of distribution in math?
O.K., 'Religion is a human construct, invented to control other humans' is really plausible statement, notwithstanding that it is irresponsible (and whether it is true or not ... and on the grounds of what, is another issue), but I might state some other statement that is not less plausible: 'The interpretation of some religions is a construct, invented to misuse with religious beliefs for the purposes of control and manipulation (to infinity) of other people'.
Plausibility is only one of the preconditions for a given statement to be true. There are some other criteria to be met as well.

Yes, religions are a construct. However,, not made or designed by man!
No, I am not saying 'god' here!
People were involved in it, that is true.
When the control by the religions didn't as good for control anymore, something new was invented ....;'science' Hence, a I have always stated, 'science' is really a disguised religion. Nothing else, and the last thing 'science' is used for, is finding any truht! 'Science' , as are religions, are here to hide the truth!

In a nutshell:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxfygiwShD1qzvkuyo1_400.jpg

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

1. Where are the evidences that 'religion is a human construct', exclusively creation of the humans

If you merely look at the archeological record from the first inklings of tribal and village life to the appearance and growth of OTHERWISE advancing civilizations. We see that one of the first and biggest accomplishments of folks living together was to wonder about the unknown and to develop a communal "response" to all this wonder. From animism through polytheism and worship of transcendental "gods" who lived on a nearby mountain , all the way to "priest driven" pomp loaDED MONOTHEISM, humans have never kept thir development of religions quiet. Its actually way more difficult to speculate how man first harnessed fire, than it is to understand his growing bunch of myths and religious superstitions

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

We see that one of the first and biggest accomplishments of folks living together was to wonder about the unknown and to develop a communal "response" to all this wonder.

Some are inventing God, others are inventing the Big Bang - what is the difference? I was asking about any evidences, not about fables for idiots.
As a scientist, what you pretend to be, you should restrict to present as evidences only the phenomenology and to distinguish where the phenomenology ends up and where your personal interpretations (that are only some of the many possible ones) start.
Yes, people are superstitious, but it is not because they are striving to invent some religion all the time. This is very naivistic view and parody of explanation of the things.
If this statement is true (that people cannot find peace unless they invent some religion) it might also mean that religion is set up in advance at a subconscious level and is trying to emerge on the surface, in other words the religion is somehow pre-designed.
There might be also another, even more different interpretation. Religion is neither consequence of superstitions, nor preset in the subconsciousness, but is imputed at some stage of the human development by some psychotronic communication or supernatural suggestion ... or something of the kind.
I wished I had your self-confidence and conceit - the very first random whim and superficially plausible interpretation of some observed phenomenology to be presented as top design science of seventh star magnitude.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Some are inventing God, others are inventing the Big Bang - what is the difference?

Exactly! Nice put! And.. we know there never was a Biggie Bangie!!!

But well, 'scientist' BELIEVE their saints, and then they say it is no religion!

How weird it all is!

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Some are inventing God, others are inventing the Big Bang

Youre as interesting as usual.
Religion was a development of culture. It had only be a response to the fear of the dark to spur it.
The Big Bang was a construction from a monk in the 20th century that was used to explain phenomena objectively measurable in the cosmos. If you cant fathom the difference , perhaps my education is not what you should be questioning.

Are you denying the cosmological measurements or the Nobel Prizes conferred as their results?
I recall you once questioned radiometric dating and fossils "of the right age". So he big bang is one more component of modern phyics that you deny. Are you.,like Quahog, merely a denier without bases? or do you have something that gives you some evidence that youre right?
So your credibility doesn't see to be based upon having an open mind.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

I wished I had your self-confidence and conceit - the very first random whim and superficially plausible interpretation of some observed phenomenology to be presented as top design science of seventh star magnitude

I started out pretty much as any Catholic kid, full of belief in Jesus nd his ole man. I quickly earned that religion or even faith, seems to be incompatible with objectivity.
Conceit?
Maybe, but its a conceit built on many years of individual research and study. Being critical of universities makes me wonder where you got your IT training? out of a cereal box?

0 Replies

@Herald,

The first story ever told and later the first to be written down was the story of Gilagmesh...the creation story in the bible was taken from that. (have you read it?) And it was told ONLY as a story not as fact.
The purpose of religion is 2 fold: first to recocile mans fear and realization that he would eventually die and provide a comforting reason that life would continue after death and that it was in the hands of an all powerful being ,or it was out of our control, and later as a way for other men to control the masses.
The wing of a butter fly developed over eons of RANOM mutation and natural selection.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Religion was a development of culture.

This is a statement just thrown up into the air ... without any serious (if any at all) justification.

farmerman wrote:

It had only be a response to the fear of the dark to spur it.

... and that one as well.

farmerman wrote:

The Big Bang was a construction ... that was used to explain phenomena objectively measurable in the cosmos.

Exactly. It is a construct, it is not a scientific explanation ... it is not even an explanation, and has nothing to do with any justification or evidences.

RE: 'to explain phenomena'
Where is the mathematical prove that the Big Bang is the only & exclusive explanation of the red shift in the light spectrum, and that no other plausible explanation of the phenomenon can possibly exist.

farmerman wrote:

If you cant fathom the difference ...

I have to confess that I really can't. The only possible explanation for the creation of the construct of the Big Bang is for the Science to convince the population that it is the only omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent presence in the Universe that can possibly exist. Everything else is without any significance, for it doesn't matter that the fake construct of the Big Bang, based on even more fake assumptions, all of them presented as top design scientific theory, is in absolute contradiction with any and all the laws of physics, and mathematics, and math logic, etc.
This is nothing. This is not so important. It doesn't matter – for the only thing that matters is that 'the Big Bang' must go on.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

I have to confess that I really can't. The only possible explanation for the creation of the construct of the Big Bang is for the Science to convince the population that it is the only omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent presence in the Universe that can possibly exist. Everything else is without any significance, for it doesn't matter that the fake construct of the Big Bang, based on even more fake assumptions, all of them presented as top design scientific theory, is in absolute contradiction with any and all the laws of physics, and mathematics, and math logic, etc.
This is nothing. This is not so important. It doesn't matter – for the only thing that matters is that 'the Big Bang' must go on.

Spot on!
It is the same with a whole lot of other things in 'science'
All flawed from the beginning, but they build just on that nonsense, and ignore the fundamentals. So it is sure to be fallen one day.

0 Replies

@Herald,

when a construct strongly supports and explains the evidence, it becomes a "theory" eventually. A theory I the construct that I an explanation for related phenomena in which
1ALL data nd evidence supports the theory

2. and NO DATA AND EVIDENCE REFUTES IT>

A theory of science is quite robust, no matter how you and your asshole buddy want to deny it.
You don't help your cases at all by this mindless denial, the evidence is waaaaay too strong and is repeatable no matter who seeks it or does the experiments. What you should be doing is showing everyone how your deities re all behind the concept . Denial makes you just look like a blumpkin.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

The first story ever told and later the first to be written down was the story of Gilagmesh...the creation story in the bible was taken from that. (have you read it?) And it was told ONLY as a story not as fact.
The purpose of religion is 2 fold: first to recocile mans fear and realization that he would eventually die and provide a comforting reason that life would continue after death and that it was in the hands of an all powerful being ,or it was out of our control, and later as a way for other men to control the masses.
The wing of a butter fly developed over eons of RANOM mutation and natural selection.

Religion, for the most part sucks...and it seems pretty obvious it is a device humans use to help explain (for them) the mysteries of REALITY.

But to claim that because religion sucks...it is impossible for gods to exist...is as absurd as the claim that religions explain REALITY.

That is an important element of this discussion to finally grasp, John. One with which you are having serious problems.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

The purpose of religion is 2 fold:

I believe religion originally developed from neolithic man's attempts to understand nature. They lived in a world without most of the knowledge that we today take for granted, and without that knowledge I think it was only natural for them to theorize anthropomorphic causes for the things they observed. Such a behavior is basically the Scientific Process but without the restriction to Naturalism as a baseline.

Over time, the simpler and naturalistic explanations began to prove more functional and accurate than the supernatural explanations until the process was codified into a Scientific Methodology which produced the highest level of functionality and accuracy. But by then the Supernatural structures had already codified into religions which were producing a cultural functionality of group cohesion and hierarchical control for the "priests" in various forms. After that, religion was self-perpetuating and self-refining toward those goals.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

also, the scientific method is self correcting over time. Unlike religious dogma which cannot EVER change.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

when a construct strongly supports and explains the evidence, it becomes a "theory" eventually.
A theory I the construct that I an explanation for related phenomena in which
1.ALL data nd evidence supports the theory
2. and NO DATA AND EVIDENCE REFUTES IT

FM, are you talking just to avoid falling asleep. 'No data' means that if I find a single exception, your theory would fall down like a tower of cards, right?
Now follow this.
The theory of the Big Bang claims that the Big Bang has created the Universe (just don't ask me out of what) 13.8 Bya. The red shift is equal in all directions which means that we (the observatory of the telescope) are right into the center of the Universe (I am not going to ask you what is the probability for us to be into the center of the Universe); at present the Big Bang is creating the Universe along the edges, which means that the edges are at the age of 'just created'. Right?
How did it happen that the center of the Universe is at the age of 13.8 Bya, the edges are at the age of 'just created', and the whole Universe has one and the same age of 13.8. How does that happen?

farmerman wrote:

A theory of science is quite robust, no matter how you and your asshole buddy want to deny it.

I am not denying anything, but you don't have the vaguest idea of what essential contradiction means, do you?
Essential contradiction is 'impossibility to exist in the physical world'. When a given theory is based on essential contradictions (with other renowned sciences for example), the question is not whether it is 'the best explanation', but whether it is valid at all ... as formulation.

There was a song of 'The Foreigner' in the past:

Blinded by science, I'm on the run
Blinded by science, where do I belong?
What's in the future, has it just begun
Blinded by science, I'm on the run

I worry 'bout the world that we live in
I'm worried by all the confusion
I wonder 'bout the lies I've been reading
I wonder where this madness is leading

Is this a road going nowhere?
Or is someone leading us somewhere?
I can't believe we're here for no reason
There must be something we can believe in

farmerman wrote:

Denial makes you just look like a blumpkin.

FM, I am not denying the Science - I am denying the social climbers and the placemen that are presenting themselves as Science ... but this is very different.
Forget about me. You have essential contradictions in the basic statement and this does not make any impression on you.
Just in case you are curious to know this logical fallacy is called: 'bandwagon fallacy' - concluding that an idea has merits simply because many people are making money and career on it.

1 Reply

@Herald,

you are being a real hard head. The theory of evolution is not about origin, its about changes. Try not to miss the entire point.

Whatever point you try to make about cosmology does NOT affect anything re: evolution.

Quote:

at present the Big Bang is creating the Universe along the edges, which means that the edges are at the age of 'just created'. Right

no, youre confusing "c) with the big bang.

Quote:

but you don't have the vaguest idea of what essential contradiction means, do you?

point to me such an "essential contradiction" in evolution. (sounds like youre an Ian Taylor fan also). ALL evidence in evolution is from several different disciplines coalescing on single points.

Ive not discussed cosmology because its not my field. When you try to talk evolution, your in my court. SO bring on your "essential contradictions and lemme set you strait.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know