Evolution vs. Creationism[W:2571, 3239]

[mbig]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I wil not, indeed Cannot, quote the JUVENILE TROLLING FORMAT of tosca1's post at the top of this page , #2521.
It makes a mockery of this message board and makes debate Impossible.
The bigger tosca1's lie/embarrassment, the bigger the format.

"Theistic evolution" as you use it today/this string [only], is Darwinian Evolution, just, and without evidence/Proof, attributed to god.
AGAIN...
as long as you agree with science - even though unwittingly or Dishonestly, now Disagree with Genesis, and it's order as well - (which is not only wrong in time, but the necessary WRONG Order for evolution), you are welcome to try the "goddidit" routine, even tho there is STILL No evidence or proof OF any god.

And, for the record, You do NOT agree with Evolution as science elaborates it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...nt-design-new-evidence-33.html#post1063901163

We're not talking about conflict between evolution and my faith. Just for the record, I don't see there's any conflict with evolution and my faith.
The conflict is with MACRO-EVOLUTION...

So there is absolutely Conflict between "evolution" as Science/NAS uses it, and the way you DISHONESTLY are massaging the meaning for THIS string.
"Evolution" of course Includes 'Macro-Evolution' and you are in DISagreement with the NAS.
You LIE constantly in your Childishly and psychotically formatted posts.

And Again/Still..
There is No evidence or proof of any god, and ergo..
ALL tosca1's posts are a Giant Wastes of space.

 

[Manny]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

1) On what actual empirical evidence to they use that critical thinking of theirs in order to invest belief?

2) What is the quantity of the ambiguous "many scientists" mentioned?

1. First and foremost, do not forget we are in philosophy. We scientific types who believe in God do not see any conflict between what we already know (physical) and what we believe could be (metaphysical). Being able to entertain metaphysical ideas is crucial to the advancement of our understanding of the real world. Even Einstein once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

2. Many sources of data on Google! But as usual, depends on how you want to define the data, etc. Some information shows 50%, some shows 30%. In either case it is not a small number.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I wil not, indeed Cannot, quote the above JUVENILE TROLLING FORMAT of the above post.
It makes a mockery of this message board and makes debate Impoossible.

"Theitic evolution" as you use it today/this string [only], is Darwinian Evolution.. just, and without evidence/Proof, attributed to god.
AGAIN...
as long as you agree with science - even though unwittingly or Dishonestly, now Disagree with Genesis, and it's order as well (which is not only wring in time but the necessary Order for evolution), you are welcome to try the "goddidit" routine, even tho thnere is STILL no evidence ofr proof OF any god.

And, for the record, You do NOT agree with Evolution as science elaborates.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...nt-design-new-evidence-33.html#post1063901163


So there is absolutely Conflict between "evolution" as Science/NAS uses it, and the way you DISHONESTLY are massaging the meaning for THIS string.
"Evolution" of course includes 'Macro-Evolution' and you are in DISagreement with the NAS.
And you LIE constantly in your Childishly and psychotically formatted posts.

And Again/Still..
There is No evidence or proof of any god, and ergo..
ALL tosca1's posts are a Giant Wastes of space.

:roll:

....and you're also taking the term, "lying," out of context!



Theistic Evolution is the belief that God created the universe and the processes that drives evolution blah-blah-blah.....it's not me who gave that definition. It was the NAS!

You're being deliberately dishonest by implying I changed it around to suit myself - I've quoted the NAS, verbatim!

You seem to be projecting - accusing me of quote-mining, taking things out of context, and being dishonest - yet....
.........it's you who do all these things! :mrgreen:




Let me just state this for the record:

I still do not believe in macro-evolution! There's still no solid evidence for it.
I'm simply having an argument using the NAS statement, but that doesn't mean I agree with it wholly!
I agree with the part about evidences for creation by God......that's the part why I'm debating about this.


Of course, there will be evidences for creation! No doubt about that! :lol:

I seriously believe that science is created to let us know what God wants us to know, at His own timeline.
Science is created for the glorification of God! Science will uphold the Word of God.



Btw, one can debate for something even though your personal belief contradicts it!
There's no rule against that! That's done.



Should macro-evolution be proven for a fact, it's still in line with my belief that God created everything.
But my belief is not the issue here. It's the NAS' statement.


:2wave:

 

[Manny]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

The indicating actual empirical evidence for dark matter is that light bends over them. Dark energy is a theory that explains the actual empirical evidence of galaxies coming apart. While string theory is supported mathematically.

The first two are ideas/theories that explain an event. The later is quantum physics and is more math oriented.

Dark energy is a theory, yes. It has not to do with galaxies coming apart, I think that is the influence of dark matter. The images you may have seen in recent times that show something about dark matter are hints, possibilities, not empirical evidence as yet. But, maybe it will come some day. Dark energy, if I recall correctly has something to do with the vacuum energy that exists in space. his influences the rate of expansion of the universe. It is not the only possible theory to explain this.

In any case I find it interesting that we ordinary persons, who can't understand the meaning of the mathematical model like string theory, believe it is true. I see a parallel between that, and people who believe what the preacher says even when preaching in Latin, which the listeners could not understand. Because he has esoteric knowledge they do not, and is worthy of trust in their belief.

 

[calamity]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Hooooooo boy. You're arguing for nothing.



Mbig, you don't understand what THEISTIC EVOLUTION, is.

Read:


Theistic evolution is not trying to negate the Theory of Evolution.


Read the NAS statement again - slowly- and please, try to understand what you're reading:

many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.



See? It's still about the ToE!








I quoted the part that defines CREATION SCIENCE. That's the definition of the NAS regarding creation science. I wanted you to see
the definition of creation science!

Creation Science posits that scientific evidence exists to prove that the universe and living things were specially created in their present form!



CREATED IN THEIR PRESENT FORM!

In other words, with creation science, there is no evolution at all! Macro-evolution, that is.


I was explaining why I said, you quote-mined the term, "creation science," and distorted it out of context.

When the NAS talks about creation, it refers to the belief of the kind of creation narrative, that appears in the Book of Genesis.
It's not the same as Theistic Evolution - the belief that God created the universe as stated by the NAS!


You're getting yourself in a knot over nothing! You're only proving all the more, that you are having a hard time understanding what you're reading.

I never talked about creation science. I talked about THEISTIC EVOLUTION. Those are two different things.
You keep quote-mining "creation science," and taking it out of context. Creation science has nothing to do with what we're talking about!




You don't know squat about theistic evolution, and cannot comprehend that simple FAQ statement that's used layman's terms to explain
to the public. If you can't understand simple statements, that makes me question how can you understand "heavier" stuff?

The NAS is practically saying Creation by God (Theistic Evolution) is not in disagreement with the THEORY of EVOLUTION!
It's not trying to contradict ToE.......it's saying that creation by God and ToE can reconcile with one another since there are evidences that support creation by God as revealed by cosmology, paleontology, etc...,



As for the supernatural, read the last part of post #2510 again, starting with the Conclusion from the NAS!

Let me guess. You got C's in science but A's in art?

 

[Somerville]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Constantine converteed to Christianity around 300 AD. The empire collapsed about 100 years later. What's your point?

My 'point' was an attempt to provide you with information showing that most of the original post (#2514) by you was incorrect.

Your words: "as the power of Rome declined "
Constantine, who was the one who adopted Christianity as THE state religion, ruled at a time when the Roman Empire had become so large, he split it into two halves. He thought Rome was a bit dated and confining so he chose to build a new capitol for the Eastern half - the city now named Istanbul. The power of the Empire was not declining.

Yes, 100 years after Constantine, Rome suffered it's first barbarian invasion since 387 BCE, when the Visigothic army led by Alaric raided the city. Just one small point, Alaric professed to be a Christian.

The Western Roman Empire, the part most people think of as THE Empire was in sad shape by the 5th Century, the Eastern Roman Empire was doing fine and would last until the 15th Century. However, there was a person titled Emperor (Caesar) in Rome until Odoacer was named "King (Rex) of Italy" in 476 CE when he deposed the last guy, Romulus Augustulus. Odoacer was also a Christian, though of Arian persuasion, he did not interfere with the orthodox church during his time on the throne.

Your words: "When chaos ensued with the fall of Rome and the onset of the Dark Ages, the Church became the defacto government" Depends upon when you see the "fall of Rome" happening; during Odoacer's time as king, the Italian peninsula was reasonably peaceful. He was killed in 493 CE by Theodoric, leader of the Ostrogoths, at what was supposed to be a banquet celebrating a peace between the Romans and the Ostrogoths after two years of fighting in northern Italy. The Church was the defacto government of little more than the city of Rome and the farm lands adjacent to the city. It and its prelates were greatly influential but not rulers.


All this history is way off topic, so this is my final post on the matter.

 

[calamity]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

My 'point' was an attempt to provide you with information showing that most of the original post (#2514) by you was incorrect.

Your words: "as the power of Rome declined "
Constantine, who was the one who adopted Christianity as THE state religion, ruled at a time when the Roman Empire had become so large, he split it into two halves. He thought Rome was a bit dated and confining so he chose to build a new capitol for the Eastern half - the city now named Istanbul. The power of the Empire was not declining.

My take is the split was a clear sign that the empire was no longer solid. Obviously. No?

Yes, 100 years after Constantine, Rome suffered it's first barbarian invasion since 387 BCE, when the Visigothic army led by Alaric raided the city. Just one small point, Alaric professed to be a Christian.

The Western Roman Empire, the part most people think of as THE Empire was in sad shape by the 5th Century, the Eastern Roman Empire was doing fine and would last until the 15th Century. However, there was a person titled Emperor (Caesar) in Rome until Odoacer was named "King (Rex) of Italy" in 476 CE when he deposed the last guy, Romulus Augustulus. Odoacer was also a Christian, though of Arian persuasion, he did not interfere with the orthodox church during his time on the throne.

Your words: "When chaos ensued with the fall of Rome and the onset of the Dark Ages, the Church became the defacto government" Depends upon when you see the "fall of Rome" happening; during Odoacer's time as king, the Italian peninsula was reasonably peaceful. He was killed in 493 CE by Theodoric, leader of the Ostrogoths, at what was supposed to be a banquet celebrating a peace between the Romans and the Ostrogoths after two years of fighting in northern Italy. The Church was the defacto government of little more than the city of Rome and the farm lands adjacent to the city. It and its prelates were greatly influential but not rulers.


All this history is way off topic, so this is my final post on the matter.

My point with that original post was focused on the West where Christianity spread into the areas previously occupied by Rome, filling the vacuum left in the empire's wake. In the East, Christianity did not really take hold and remained a minority, especially after 600 AD when Islam slowly but surely became the religion of the Middle East.

 

[DDD]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

1. First and foremost, do not forget we are in philosophy. We scientific types who believe in God do not see any conflict between what we already know (physical) and what we believe could be (metaphysical). Being able to entertain metaphysical ideas is crucial to the advancement of our understanding of the real world. Even Einstein once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

So the reason some scientists invest belief without actual empirical evidence and critical thinking is because we are "in Philosophy?"

2. Many sources of data on Google! But as usual, depends on how you want to define the data, etc. Some information shows 50%, some shows 30%. In either case it is not a small number.

So "many scientists" = "many sources in Google?"

Sounds like the references are available. Care to present them?

Dark energy is a theory, yes. It has not to do with galaxies coming apart, I think that is the influence of dark matter.

No,

Dark matter keeps things inside a galaxy together. Dark energy separates galaxies apart.

The images you may have seen in recent times that show something about dark matter are hints, possibilities, not empirical evidence as yet. But, maybe it will come some day.

Observation = Empirical evidence, and it is available today. There are observations that light bends and this empirical evidence/observation that is available today is used to support the theory of dark matter.

Dark energy, if I recall correctly has something to do with the vacuum energy that exists in space. his influences the rate of expansion of the universe. It is not the only possible theory to explain this.

Who is "he" that influences?

In any case I find it interesting that we ordinary persons, who can't understand the meaning of the mathematical model like string theory, believe it is true. I see a parallel between that, and people who believe what the preacher says even when preaching in Latin, which the listeners could not understand. Because he has esoteric knowledge they do not, and is worthy of trust in their belief.

The question seems to be: How can one at one hand not understand science and believe them, yet they do not understand the preacher and they do not believe them.

The answer is: The religious nonsense preached is available in local language, people that understand it for BS do not believe it no matter how coated the same meaning comes with a mysterious language (e.g., Latin).

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

My take is the split was a clear sign that the empire was no longer solid. Obviously. No?


My point with that original post was focused on the West where Christianity spread into the areas previously occupied by Rome, filling the vacuum left in the empire's wake. In the East, Christianity did not really take hold and remained a minority, especially after 600 AD when Islam slowly but surely became the religion of the Middle East.

Wrong!

It exploded in the region! It was big at one time:

Christianity, which originated in the Middle East in the 1st century AD, had been one of the major religions of the region from 4th-century Byzantine reforms and until the Arab Muslim conquests of the mid-to-late 7th century AD.
Christianity in the Middle East is characterized with its diverse beliefs and traditions, compared to other parts of the old world.


Eusebius[25] credits Mark the Evangelist as the bringer of Christianity to Egypt, and manuscript evidence shows that the faith was firmly established there by the middle of the 2nd century. Although the Greek-speaking community of Alexandria dominated the Egyptian church, speakers of native Coptic and many bilingual Christians were the majority.

The Ghassanid tribe were important Christian foederati of Rome, while the Lakhmids were an Arab Christian tribe that fought for the Persians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Middle_East




Christianity spread very rapidly in the uncertain First Century.

People across the Mediterranean area were especially looking for any "safe lifestyle or belief system" that would give them solace and direction as to why all the "bad events" were happening around them. Christianity offered a civilized, kind, and gentle way of looking at the world. Most appealing was the promise of salvation and forgiveness. Christianity offered a merciful God, not one that had to be appeased or sacrificed to. No other religion or belief system has offered this type of special support for beliefs or personal salvation. As a result, Christianity was readily accepted by many wherever it was taught.

By the end of the 1st century, Christianity had already spread to Rome and to various cities in Greece, Asia Minor and Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_1st_century

 

[Manny]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Sounds like the references are available. Care to present them?

Not really, that is boring and it seems like you have fingers to type on your own.
The main reason is, I've done this here already a few times before. So I remember the numbers from another discussion.
You can find the statistics, it will be in the range I quoted more or less.

Who is "he" that influences?

It should read "This", not "his". Typo

 

[mbig]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

2. Many sources of data on Google! But as usual, depends on how you want to define the data, etc. Some information shows 50%, some shows 30%. In either case it is not a small number.

So "many scientists" = "many sources in Google?"

Sounds like the references are available. Care to present them?

You can find Both numbers here among the illustrations in this Pew poll:
Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center

[.....]

[.....]​

Which Is why I suppose Manny didn't want to post them.
Scientists are far Less Religious than the general public,
10x the amount of Atheists (41% v 4%).. who don't even believe in a non-specific 'higher power.'

and - no surprise - there is a Negative Correlation between Religiosity and IQ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

 

[Manny]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Which Is why I suppose Manny didn't want to post them.
Scientists are far Less Religious than the general public,
and there is a Negative Correlation between Religiosity and IQ.

Incorrect, the numbers shown are the same as I quoted them above, from memory.
I said about 30-50% of scientists believe in a deity etc. This data shows 33% + 18%.

It is in fact the very same graph I have used before here on this forum, friend.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

You can find Both numbers here among the illustrations in this Pew poll:
Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center

[.....]

[.....]​

Which Is why I suppose Manny didn't want to post them.
Scientists are far Less Religious than the general public,
and there is a Negative Correlation between Religiosity and IQ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

'Religious Understandings Of Science' Study Reveals Surprising Statistics

Posted: 02/19/2014



The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently released a large-scale study on the "Religious Understandings of Science," and it's findings might surprise you.

From her findings, Ecklund noted a particularly surprising trend: There are actually quite a few spiritual scientists out there.

Professor Ecklund refers to this as "secret spirituality," or a reluctance to discuss spiritual ideas with colleagues.
Some said they worried that doing so would cause others to question the validity of their scientific work. The same thing can happen for religious scientists, Ecklund said, who find themselves practicing a "secret science" in the pews, hesitant to bring up scientific ideas.

Ecklund's earlier findings, which she outlined in her book "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think," include:

1. Nearly 50% of scientists identify with a religious label.

2. 14% of scientists have some doubts, but believe in God.

3. 9% of scientists have no doubt of God's existence.

4. 14% of elite scientists are Mainline Protestant.

5. 16% of elite scientists are Jewish.

6. Roughly one-fifth of the atheist scientists Ecklund spoke with say they consider themselves "spiritual atheists."



The newer "Religious Understandings of Science" study was presented on February 16 at the annual AAAS conference and revealed insights into what religious Americans think about science. The findings include:

'Religious Understandings Of Science' Study Reveals Surprising Statistics


That's about 70% of scientists - believe in God's existence!

 

[mbig]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Incorrect, the numbers shown are the same as I quoted them above, from memory.
I said about 30-50% of scientists believe in a deity etc. This data shows 33% + 18%.

It is in fact the very same graph I have used before here on this forum, friend.

Link?
I did NOT say your numbers weren't right.
I said they were right and suggested why you didn't post them.
I'll stand by that.
Additionally, I pointed out that Scientists have 10x the amount of Atheists as the general public - 41% v 4% - who don't even believe in a non-specific 'higher power.'

and - no surprise - that there is a Negative Correlation between Religiosity and IQ.
Wiki link above.
Untouched.

Additionally II
When doing a quick google... I didn't find you posting that poll: rather I found ANOTHER poster posting it in RESPONSE/REFUTATION of Your Claim though.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-richard-dawkins-fraud-14.html#post1063937478
Wherein you also said you "used it previously".

 

[Chagos]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

....and you're also taking the term, "lying," out of context!

If that were indeed true, you're putting it right back in again.

Here

I agree with the part about evidences for creation by God.

...................and there is no such part in what you quote mine, let alone containing evidence cited as you falsely proclaim.

You've been offering up this NAS thing as evidence of god creation now for months (at least) in various threads and in tiring repetition, been rebutted every time by a multitude of posters showing that the NAS quote does not say what you claim in dishonest misrepresentation, but nevertheless you continue on this mindless spree.

If that's not simply lying, one shudders at what else it might be.

 

[Manny]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

and - no surprise - there is a Negative Correlation between Religiosity and IQ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

This article was also discussed here recently. I am reminded of my previous reply to the graph shown on Wikipedia. A good thread, suggest you read a few posts on these pages-
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ce-w-319-a-post1063522471.html#post1063522471
See my posts 14, 15.
The comment I made was, if we separate the population at the IQ = 100 mark, something very interesting happens to the data. See the image I posted here-
http://www.debatepolitics.com/attac...lligence-w-319-a-religion-vs-intelligence-jpg

As you see it shows there are very few atheists at the above average or genius IQ level, when the data is properly analyzed.

In fact I see you were in on that. Do you not remember the discussion we had?

 

[Chagos]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

That's about 70% of scientists - believe in God's existence!

What utter rubbish.

That report says nothing of the sort.

 

[mbig]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Incorrect, the numbers shown are the same as I quoted them above, from memory.
I said about 30-50% of scientists believe in a deity etc. This data shows 33% + 18%.

It is in fact the very same graph I have used before here on this forum, friend.

Link?
I did NOT say your numbers weren't right.
I said they were right and suggested why you didn't post them.
I'll stand by that.
Additionally, I pointed out that Scientists have 10x the amount of Atheists as the general public - 41% v 4% - who don't even believe in a non-specific 'higher power.'

and - no surprise - that there is a Negative Correlation between Religiosity and IQ.
Wiki link above.
Untouched.

Additionally II
When doing a quick google... I didn't find you posting that poll: rather I found ANOTHER poster posting it in RESPONSE/REFUTATION of Your Claim though.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...-richard-dawkins-fraud-14.html#post1063937478
Wherein you also said you "used it previously".

This article was also discussed here recently. I am reminded of my previous reply to the graph shown on Wikipedia. A good thread, suggest you read a few posts on these pages-
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ce-w-319-a-post1063522471.html#post1063522471
See my posts 14, 15.
The comment I made was, if we separate the population at the IQ = 100 mark, something very interesting happens to the data. See the image I posted here-
http://www.debatepolitics.com/attac...lligence-w-319-a-religion-vs-intelligence-jpg
As you see it shows there are very few atheists at the above average or genius IQ level, when the data is properly analyzed. In fact I see you were in on that. Do you not remember the discussion we had?

So to be Clear for everyone here, you were NOT able to post a Link to your Use of that "Very Same" Pew Poll/Graph you Claimed (now Twice) YOU posted previously.
Correct?
Instead we have diversions/deflections.

 

[Manny]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

and - no surprise - there is a Negative Correlation between Religiosity and IQ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

Again, I have had these discussions about religiosity vs. intelligence here before. In one thread I listed the names of many world-famous scientists, the best in the world, who believe in a deity of some sort. This list correlates well with the data in your graph.

Then you must consider yourself smarter than people like James Clark Maxwell (electromagnetism), Max Planck (quantum mechanics), Lord Kelvin (physics), Arthur Compton (nuclear physics), Erwin Schrodinger (quantum mechanics), Sylvester Gates (cosmology), Sir Martin Rees (cosmology), Werner Heisenberg (thermodynamics)...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...r-designer-post1064986459.html#post1064986459

I could add many more to this list, but that should be enough for rational folks to understand the point.

 

[Manny]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So to be Clear for everyone here, you were NOT able to post a Link to your Use of that same Pew Poll you Claimed YOU used previously.
Correct?
Instead we have diversions/deflections.

???

What the hell are you saying. I have no need to lie or hide anything I have posted. You will find your PEW poll data shown by me elsewhere. Look at the links by me already provided. I'm happy to discuss it.

 

[mbig]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

???
What the hell are you saying. I have no need to lie or hide anything I have posted. You will find your PEW poll data shown by me elsewhere. Look at the links by me already provided. I'm happy to discuss it.

You only have Only 1100+ posts here in two years.
When someone demands a LINK? for your very specific claim (of posting the "very same" Pew Graph), it's on YOU to provide it.
Especially in light of the Fact I pointed another poster using it in Response/Refutation of you!
It seems I have CAUGHT a Religious person in an ungodly LIE. (Two, including Manny's year-old same claim)
Love it!
Thus now multiple Deflections/Bluster.
Link, or Admit Lying.


EDIT to below
Manny CANNOT post a Link to his Claimed previous use of "the very same" Pew Graph.
He Made the same Claim/LIE a year ago to tosca1 after she AND smokeandMirrors posted in RESPONSE/Refutation of him.
Manny has been caught in a Multiple LIE.
Oh the Irony of the Religious person CAIUGHT LYING.
More giofy embarrassed deflection with totally Diffrent graph/link below.

 

[Manny]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

You only have Only 1100+ posts here in two years.
When someone demands a LINK? for your very specific claim (of posting the "very same" Pew Graph), it's on YOU to provide it.
Especially in light of the fact I pointed another poster using it in Response/Refutation of you!
It seems I have CAUGHT a Religious person in an ungodly LIE. (Two, including Manny's year-old same claim)
Love it!
Thus now multiple Deflections.

I don't owe you an internet search, mbig. I've done enough to show I am right.
How about getting on topic. I think you are deflecting from useful debate here. Please respond to the topic matter in the thread, the information I posted etc.

Let's instead discuss this graph, which I uploaded to this forum and linked to you earlier, before you went off calling me liar, etc over nothing at all.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/attac...lligence-w-319-a-religion-vs-intelligence-jpg

 

[Somerville]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

This article was also discussed here recently. I am reminded of my previous reply to the graph shown on Wikipedia. A good thread, suggest you read a few posts on these pages-
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ce-w-319-a-post1063522471.html#post1063522471
See my posts 14, 15.
The comment I made was, if we separate the population at the IQ = 100 mark, something very interesting happens to the data. See the image I posted here-
http://www.debatepolitics.com/attac...lligence-w-319-a-religion-vs-intelligence-jpg

As you see it shows there are very few atheists at the above average or genius IQ level, when the data is properly analyzed.

In fact I see you were in on that. Do you not remember the discussion we had?

Not a very valid justification as it shows very few atheists in total. If one were to average all of the believers IQs, owing to their much greater number, one would have to give the believers a low IQ.

If you don't have equal numbers, you can't compare two groups in any way.

 

[Manny]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Not a very valid justification as it shows very few atheists in total. If one were to average all of the believers IQs, owing to their much greater number, one would have to give the believers a low IQ.

If you don't have equal numbers, you can't compare two groups in any way.

Thanks Somerville. What do you mean, that the data is no good now?
I know it's hard to interpret statistical data relating to "social science". Please be as specific as possible.

I made this observation in my graph where I divided the data into two groups, one which has <50% atheists, the other >50% atheists. On the vertical, I drew a line at IQ=100, which is about average. Now the graph is divided into 4 quadrants and reveals an interesting observation- the people with above average IQ's are predominantly non-atheists.

In regards to the low number of sample points, it was good enough to prove a point for some people here earlier. Why is it not good now?

 

[Manny]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

EDIT to below
Manny CANNOT post a Link to his Claimed previous use of "the very same" Pew Graph.
He Made the same Claim/LIE a year ago to tosca1 after she AND smokeandMirrors posted in RESPONSE/Refutation of him.
Manny has been caught in a Multiple LIE.
Oh the Irony of the Religious person CAIUGHT LYING.[/b]
More giofy embarrassed deflection with totally Diffrent graph/link below.

Ok, you're havin fun. That's nice.

Still waiting for your intelligent reply to this data, mbig-

mbig:
<crickets>...</crickets>