Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

You mean Romeo fabulist doesn't have verborrhea?

Guys, guys, Christianity is the biggest game on the park, live with it..
Nice slice of pie anybody?..

You're up against some mighty intellects Romeo if the last few posts are anything to go by.

Okay, basic radiometric dating dates the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. The Bible has it dated at no more than several thousand.

The jury IS ignorant (hence the statistic of almost all scientists adhering to evolution and over half of Americans denying it).

Yeah, because all science is predicated on me stating the obvious (that most Americans are ignorant). Give me a break.

Name an atheist book I said. Why did you avoid it?
Actually, basic dating methods date them to be 200 years CE (you claim Jesus died ~2000 years ago).

That's such a horrible excuse it's not even funny. "They destroyed all the books! That's why there's no evidence!"

Name an atheist book please. I can name a few, and none of them have anything to do with what we're talking about. Most of them are philosophically based(ie: anything by Hitchens).

Where in the Bible does it say that they are metaphor and analogy?

That pie chart might look different if you did the same study today. Islam is quickly catching up.

Appeal to the populace won't save you. Neither will quoting the Bible to prove itself lol.

It is merely common misconception that leads you to your statement. Based on your understanding, I don't blame you.

The fact is, the bible makes no indication at all as to the date of the earth. It states categorically that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. By ending that sentence and beginning a new paragraph, it then goes on to state the creative process, which was not building the earth, but forming it and making it capable of life. The six creative days were also not literal days, simple interpretation shows that the word used in hebrew for day merely denotes a significant time period, relative to the user. It is often used to signify a year 1000 years and beyond. It is used in the same way we use the word era.

Thing is with common misconceptions, is that good study and decent reference materials do help to clear them up.

In close, your radiometric dating might be quite accurate, it might be way off, but I have no idea.

There is no reason to provide Smiley with any scientific evidence. People who make claims have to prove their claims--they don't get to establish their claims by default if no one disproves them. There are good historical reasons, though, to say that the bible is full of horsie poop. So, for example, we know when every lustrum (for the vacuous adherents to the bible, that's what the Romans called what you refer to as a census) conducted by Caesar Augustus took place. That information is, literally, carved in stone, on a monument which is in what is now called Turkey. Leaving aside that there never was any reason for the Romans to count clowns like your boy Joseph (not a citizen), and that it would have been madness to require everyone in the Roman empire to return to the place of their respective births--the dates don't add up. Then there's the problem of calling Pontius Pilate a proconsul. The office of proconsul, as a governor of a sub-province, did not exist at the the time that Pilate was the prefect of the province of Iudaea, a sub-province of Syria. The evidence for that is also carved in stone--on the dedicatory inscription of a coliseum Pilate built at Caesarea Maritima and which the Israelis dug up about 1960. Caesarea Maritima was the capital of Iudaea (that's Judea for those who are slow on the uptake), not Jerusalem.

You've got a lot of hilarious bullshit to prove, Smiley. Let's start with that story about the 600 year old geezer, Noah, and the impossible ship he built.

Good reference materials? Like apologia written by other bible thumpers?

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Only intended as a whimsical muse my friend, but that is often the same excuse given for the missing links in evolution

That may be the case (I haven't read the Bible since I was a kid).

So I'll use a more simple example.

The bible teaches us that snakes can talk. Snakes do not talk.

There's a scientific reason for why the fossil record isn't complete (although we have more than enough to prove what we need).

The fact that we have ANY fossils, much less a very good one that almost thoroughly proves evolution, is very fascinating.

What? That all the books the dinosaurs wrote were destroyed? What the hell are you babbling about?

You may add the observation that the seventh day has not been recorded as having ended.

Ha. Set, Im glad to give you some good cheer.

Yeah, but Romeo. You have repeatedly posted that most christians are not Christian at all, but fundies and crackpots. All this makes your bandwagon argument seem pathetic.

Remember, the majority of those present at Jesus' trial by Pilate, demanded the release of Barabbas.

ha ha ha, I do not have any beef with the dinosaurs. My wife makes me do the rounds with the in laws weekly, I wouldn't want to upset them

Getting back to the OP:
The arrogant assertion that atheists are more intelligent than believers.

Ten pages of subsequent posts have demonstrated considerable IQ overlap.

One thing should be noted: The Bible was not written as a scientific treatise. Instead, it is an explanation of why we have human travail, what God has promised for relief, and what God expects of us. A message easily understood by the plow boy might not be so apparent to the physicist.

Jesus pointed this out at Matthew 11:25 "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes."

So why was Newton such a fervent believer? Could it be he was willing to dig for it?