Scientific studies: Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

Okay mate I was hoping some scientist in that other thread would answer my question but none have stepped up to the plate so I still don't know if my DNA is faulty..
(Incidentally I like Australian white women but only as long as they keep their traps shut so I wouldn't have to endure their hideous whiney butch accents)

Have you seen the ones on Fox News? And Bloomberg.

It's as if there is a competition to see who can imitate a chain saw best.

Whether your DNA, and mine, is faulty is not a question that science can answer. I'm not convinced science knows what DNA actually is outside of the sort of thing one might see in a Dulux colour card.

There is the possibility that the DNA of those men who can be aroused by ladies from exotic locations is faulty. Or, to put it more scientifically, whether endogamy or exogamy is a natural evolutionary outcome.

It is usually the case that inbreeding is said to cause certain problems but it might be that it causes extremes and the problems are emphasised at the expense of any benefits for various reasons. The Pharaohs mated with their sisters. Darwin was in a first cousin breeding hutch as were many in the pre-industrial period.

And there are exclusive blood lines in most aristocracies. As there are in the activity of animal breeders. The Cruft's winner set against the mongrels. The Derby winner and the mule.

There may be an advantage in a certain amount of idiocy if it comes with a certain amount of genius over a situation in which there is a general IQ of 100.

It's an interesting subject to an evolutionist. The trouble is that most evolutionists are evolutionists for the wrong reason. For a subjective reason rather than a scientific one.

So there is no agreed answer to your question and there will likely not be for some considerable period of time.

That post was embarrassing. You should be embarrassed.

Religion can't be "neatly explained"? You think that's why scientists don't believe in it? Religion is the most neat explanation possible. "God did it" would be the answer to everything. That's why so many simpletons follow it.

Scientists prefer to study the world and the universe as it is. There are plenty of REAL wonders out there that don't require a divine explanation, but have real scientific explanations.

My friend, that is quite the absolute statement. Has science finally disproved God?

I'm not saying they've "disproved" God.

In science you typically don't prove a negative. It's not like the justice system where you're innocent until proven guilty. In science if an idea has no evidence it's considered false until reasonable evidence has been provided to the contrary.

Some may say that reasonable evidence is all conjecture.
Are christian scientists not true scientists?

No, reasonable evidence is not conjecture because the words conjecture and evidence are contradictory to each other.

It depends on what you mean by "christian scientist". If you mean a scientist who just happens to be christian, then yes they are true scientists. If you mean christian scientist as in creationist then no, they are not true scientists. A scientist observes something, forms a hypothesis about it, tests it, and objectively views the results. They then publish it and it becomes subject of "peer-review" in which others observe and attempt to replicate their results (this is why Creationist papers can't get published).

In short, scientists look for conclusions to explain the evidence. Creationists look for evidence to support their conclusion. That is not science.

You appear to mistake evidence for empirical proof.

No I haven't...

Scientific study/research is based around evidence.

And you avoided my question about the "christian" scientists. Is that because you don't want to use the word "creationist"? I notice a lot of creationists try to avoid the word "creationist" because it makes them sound like they support junk science (as its become known as in the science community).

Sorry chap, the question appeared rheotoric. I asked about Scientists that are christian.

My friend, we all look at the same evidence, we are merely led to different conclusions. The foolish are merely those that consider those that believe something different than they do to be less intelligent.

To think that evidence points to multiple conclusions is a bit silly. For example, we find banded iron formations in the fossil record and date them to be approximately 2.8 million years old. Banded iron formations only form in an oxidized iron state of Fe 3+. This can only be interpreted as O2 must have been present at that time in increasingly greater amounts.

Evidence can't lead you to a different conclusion unless that's where you WANT to go. That's what separates scientists from creationists.

you hinge your argument on the idea that evidence is empirical. You also speak of evidence as if it is always singular.
A single piece of evidence in a trial provides a very relative amount of persuasion. Individual perception is what measures that sway. However in most trials, evidence will be given both for and indeed against the preconceived conclusion. If evidence was as empirical as you say, every trial would be simple.
Creation theory vs Atheism presents such a case in which evidence is given for and against, and the jury is very much out, even if a large contingent sway one way or another.

That's why we wait until we have a lot of different lines of evidence in support of one hypothesis before it's accepted in the science community, so I don't see your point.

There is no "creation theory" vs "atheism". It's quite literally creation theory vs science. What jury are you referring to? What jury is out exactly on this discussion? The science is settled. It's time for the rest of the world to catch up. If evolution and creation theory were a legitimate course case, the prosecution (evolution) would have the murder weapon, about 3000 eye witnesses, finger prints, video surveillance, blood on the suspects clothes and a smile on their face.

The jury is not real silly, it refers to you or I but you knew that. Science does not refute creation theory at all. That is why a true scientist can also be a true Christian.

You perceive the weight of the evidence you have examined to be verging on empirical, I respectfully hold a different perception, and trust me, I am not ignorant.

Exactly which one of my posts should I be embarrassed about mate?
Anyway the bottom line is that Jesus said "I'm not from this world, let me tell you a few things", so the way i see it is that all open-minded people will say to him "Okay mate shoot, we're listening"..
Hey Spock will you listen?

"Affirmative, it would be illogical not to listen to an offworld being, I'm all ears"

Isn't it the one that contains people (90% surveys show) who reject evolution being applied to human behaviour however much evidence is provided by the study of dirt or non-human life?

Well why does Dawkins say "There's probably no God"? What evidence does he base that conclusion on?
Anyway "probably" is a very unscientific word, for example it could mean he's 51% sure, and 49% unsure..

Dawks and his atheist chums paid 150,000 GB pounds (240,000 US dollars) to have these adverts splashed on a fleet of Brit buses-

What do you mean by creation theory, then?

If you mean creationism, then you are wrong. Science DOES refute it. If you mean just the theory that the world and universe was created I will refer you to my earlier explanation of how we don't attempt to prove negatives in science.

The ignorant jury, you mean?

There was a time when 90% of all people thought that African americans were inferior as well. As far as the people who actually know what they're talking about (scientists), the jury is not out and hasn't been out for about 150 years.

Because there probably isn't, lol.

Dawkins famously says that he's 99% sure that there is no god, not 51%.