Religious people are less intelligent ...apparently.

[George Brims]

Many species died George, that's why they became extinct. All you have in a fossil George is a dead subject, there is no proof that the fossilised remains had any offspring. There is no record of what may be classed nowadays as endangered species, evolution is not an observable science, I for one have never seen primordial soup, that's if it ever existed at all, then there is the geological column that supposedly dates back millions of years but fossilised trees have been found vertically in the column, perhaps you with your scientific background could give an explanation?

The fossilized trees are no great puzzle. Trees grow straight up and down (mostly). Sometimes trees get buried in mud/sand during catastrophic floods. The mud/sand solidifies, and the trees become fossilized. What's the issue? Do you imagine the geologic column only has tiny thin layers for each year? Sometimes they do, but sometimes (in the case of big flood events or volcanic eruptions) one short period of time can be represented by feet upon feet of deposited material.
As for "evolution is not an observable science" I will state what I think which is that evolution is not even a theory. Evolution is an observable fact, and the only theory required is the refinement of the explanation of its mechanisms.

[maverick]

The fossilized trees are no great puzzle. Trees grow straight up and down (mostly). Sometimes trees get buried in mud/sand during catastrophic floods. The mud/sand solidifies, and the trees become fossilized. What's the issue? Do you imagine the geologic column only has tiny thin layers for each year? Sometimes they do, but sometimes (in the case of big flood events or volcanic eruptions) one short period of time can be represented by feet upon feet of deposited material.
As for "evolution is not an observable science" I will state what I think which is that evolution is not even a theory. Evolution is an observable fact, and the only theory required is the refinement of the explanation of its mechanisms.

Then perhaps you should get started refining the explanation of it's mechanisms.

[Rheghead]

Then perhaps you should get started refining the explanation of it's mechanisms.

Is that because you've never had it explained before?

[RagnarRocks]

I think you'll find if you do a wee bit of serious scientific reading you're confusion over fossil deposits will be easily remedied, if you start reading up on evolution with all the surrounding data with cross discipline referencing and instead of just constantly challenging other people's views,then,just then,maybe you can hold a rational coherent discussion on the subject. I mean I'm quite happy to discuss and have done with theologians it's not hard to disagree and remain on good terms but the bottom line is you need to have sufficient depth of knowledge to debate and discuss rather than just blind faith. Personally I've read the Bible, Torah and Quran they are nice books some good parts some dubious as a guide to living they aren't all bad but very much works of their time and to be read as such. When I read a scientific paper I judge the article on how it's written whether or not its been reviewed and all the surrounding data, when I read the bible it isn't so easy I'm asked to suspend belief and when the book is questioned there is a tendency to brush over the glaring errors or to try reinterpret it with modern thinking ie 7 days not actually 7 but some amount which is changed to suit the argument hardly good eh !It would appear if the authors of the religious texts had actually written there books clearly then most of the confusion would of been cleared up centuries ago.Before asking for explanations I suggest you read the vast pool of peer reviewed scientific evidence on all these subjects then enter the debate enlightened .

[cptdodger]

I certainly would not say that religious people are less intelligent, my late sister in law was an ordained minister, also she was the only woman professor of theology at a Scottish University (Edinburgh), and the first woman professor of theology at New College in its 160 year history. What does bother me though is reading this on the BBC News website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23734584. Whether that is lack of intelligence or blind faith, I have no idea, but these people are dangerous, and really should be stopped.

[theone]

I certainly would not say that religious people are less intelligent, my late sister in law was an ordained minister, also she was the only woman professor of theology at a Scottish University (Edinburgh), and the first woman professor of theology at New College in its 160 year history..

The headline on the article confuses the conclusion of the study. It did not show that religious people are necessarily less intelligent, it showed that intelligent people are less likely to be religious.

There's a big difference.

"Dead people are likely to be run over by buses" is not the same as "People run over by buses are most likely dead".

I'm sure your sister in law was very intelligent, but theology is not a science. I believe intelligence in a modern scientific sense is based more on reason, evidence gathering and analysis. Belief in what cannot be proved and blind faith, where there is no need for proof, is not in line with this. Hence why religious people do not fit the mould of what many see as "intelligent".

[cptdodger]

Sorry, I probably was'nt making myself very clear ! The point I was making about blind faith was referring to the article from the BBC. Pentecostal ministers telling people that water would cure HIV, so they stopped taking their medicine and told to rely on their faith in god - that is what I find disturbing, and dangerous to be honest. I'm not religious and never have been, and I grew up around religious people of different faiths in my family, it just never made any sense to me !

[maverick]

I think you'll find if you do a wee bit of serious scientific reading you're confusion over fossil deposits will be easily remedied, if you start reading up on evolution with all the surrounding data with cross discipline referencing and instead of just constantly challenging other people's views,then,just then,maybe you can hold a rational coherent discussion on the subject. I mean I'm quite happy to discuss and have done with theologians it's not hard to disagree and remain on good terms but the bottom line is you need to have sufficient depth of knowledge to debate and discuss rather than just blind faith. Personally I've read the Bible, Torah and Quran they are nice books some good parts some dubious as a guide to living they aren't all bad but very much works of their time and to be read as such. When I read a scientific paper I judge the article on how it's written whether or not its been reviewed and all the surrounding data, when I read the bible it isn't so easy I'm asked to suspend belief and when the book is questioned there is a tendency to brush over the glaring errors or to try reinterpret it with modern thinking ie 7 days not actually 7 but some amount which is changed to suit the argument hardly good eh !It would appear if the authors of the religious texts had actually written there books clearly then most of the confusion would of been cleared up centuries ago.Before asking for explanations I suggest you read the vast pool of peer reviewed scientific evidence on all these subjects then enter the debate enlightened .

Okay RagnarRocks this is my position regarding evolution. Adaptation is not molecules- to - man evolution. Adaptation can not be extrapolated to claim that dinosaurs turned into birds, or that apes descended into humans. The problem with evolution starting in the current and extrapolating to the past, is that it has to be done with suppositions and assumptions. To then declare it as fact is not science, let alone honest. When evolutionists say "we know that it evolved". I say "no you don't know that", because no one was there to watch it and there is no factual evidence for it. All you know are the speculations and assumptions, none of which can be proven. The fossil record gives no dates, has no dating tags on the fossils, and all dating methods are based on unprovable speculations. When I say evolution is not factual, what I mean is that there is no evidence for anything in regards to evolution. To take adaptation and claim that it can be extrapolated to molecules-to-man evolution is 100% speculation and assumption. There are no facts to support it, you can give me all the links in the world, but you will not find one with a fact about evolution. You will find only speculations, assertions and assumptions about what happened. I will concede that observed mutations seen in nature can indeed result in significant changes. However, observed mutations seen in nature do not create new genetic information that did not previously exist. New information requires a Designer. Natural selection can only select from what already exists.

[maverick]

Is that because you've never had it explained before?

Did you use both your brain cells to come up with that answer Richardhead?

[rob1]

Okay RagnarRocks this is my position regarding evolution. Adaptation is not molecules- to - man evolution. Adaptation can not be extrapolated to claim that dinosaurs turned into birds, or that apes descended into humans. The problem with evolution starting in the current and extrapolating to the past, is that it has to be done with suppositions and assumptions. To then declare it as fact is not science, let alone honest. When evolutionists say "we know that it evolved". I say "no you don't know that", because no one was there to watch it and there is no factual evidence for it. All you know are the speculations and assumptions, none of which can be proven. The fossil record gives no dates, has no dating tags on the fossils, and all dating methods are based on unprovable speculations. When I say evolution is not factual, what I mean is that there is no evidence for anything in regards to evolution. To take adaptation and claim that it can be extrapolated to molecules-to-man evolution is 100% speculation and assumption. There are no facts to support it, you can give me all the links in the world, but you will not find one with a fact about evolution. You will find only speculations, assertions and assumptions about what happened. I will concede that observed mutations seen in nature can indeed result in significant changes. However, observed mutations seen in nature do not create new genetic information that did not previously exist. New information requires a Designer. Natural selection can only select from what already exists.

What I find hard to understand is that there are and have been many men and women who have devoted their working lives trying to understand the origin and progression of life on this planet, they have conducted experiments, gathered evidence, writen paper, presented lectures and gained the respect of their peers, but you're prepared to ignore all of this because you just don't think that it is possible.

[rob1]

Did you use both your brain cells to come up with that answer Richardhead?

Rheghead's comment was perfectly resonable. You do give the impresson from your comments that no one has actually explaned evolution to you or more likely they have but you just did not want to listen. Instead of answering the question like adult, you chose to be petty and rude.

[maverick]

What I find hard to understand is that there are and have been many men and women who have devoted their working lives trying to understand the origin and progression of life on this planet, they have conducted experiments, gathered evidence, writen paper, presented lectures and gained the respect of their peers, but you're prepared to ignore all of this because you just don't think that it is possible.

I would fully agree with what you state here rob1, many of those who you describe are also Creationist scientists, I do not ignore any of this, there are several Creation models which have been accepted as possible. Science does not have all the answers for all the questions, I suppose there is the concept that if I can show it on paper then it is assumed to be more fact than fiction, however, I could on paper draw a picture of a man carrying an adult elephant.

[maverick]

Rheghead's comment was perfectly resonable. You do give the impresson from your comments that no one has actually explaned evolution to you or more likely they have but you just did not want to listen. Instead of answering the question like adult, you chose to be petty and rude.

Petty no, rude yes, but then when the originator of the thread claims that being a theist allegedly makes you less intelligent than an atheist, just goes to show the level of ignorance of that person.

[cptdodger]

Petty no, rude yes, but then when the originator of the thread claims that being a theist allegedly makes you less intelligent than an atheist, just goes to show the level of ignorance of that person.

As it was pointed out to me maverick, by theone - "The headline on the article confuses the conclusion of the study. It did not show that religious people are necessarily less intelligent, it showed that intelligent people are less likely to be religious." - Now, that's probably my fault because I did'nt read the article. And to be honest, I am not sure I agree with that statement either, because I have met a lot of people whom I consider to be more intelligent than me that do believe in god. I do'nt, and I am certainly no genius !

[ducati]

Petty no, rude yes, but then when the originator of the thread claims that being a theist allegedly makes you less intelligent than an atheist, just goes to show the level of ignorance of that person.

With every post you make the headline more believable.

[maverick]

With every post you make the headline more believable.

In your own words ducati, it wasn't that long ago you were calling someone a tosser, well everybody has the freedom and right to be a tosser but you really shouldn't abuse the privilege.

[Rheghead]

Being religious definitely shows that a person is lacking the ability to think critically about their surroundings. Now if they are unable to think critically does that mean they lack some mental ability or just not interested in finding a different explanation?

[Dadie]

OK I know the lifeforms on Earth evolved over time.
But who would tell someone on their deathbed there isnt a heaven?
If its their only thing to look forward to, is, their next life after they gasp their last....as a comfort to them and their loved ones.
Even very intelligent people like to think there is something after death....when faced by the grim reaper waiting in the wings with very little sand left in their timer and no chance of the timer getting flipped over.
And by that I dont just mean a box buried or ashes scattered...I mean souls going to heaven or reincarnation etc whatever their religion dictates...

[golach]

Being religious definitely shows that a person is lacking the ability to think critically about their surroundings. Now if they are unable to think critically does that mean they lack some mental ability or just not interested in finding a different explanation?

Are you inferring that because I am an Agnostic by choice that I must be intelligent? Sorry I cannot see how that works.

[Rheghead]

Are you inferring that because I am an Agnostic by choice that I must be intelligent? Sorry I cannot see how that works.

I'll probably claim that you have the ability and the desire to think critically about your surroundings. Your choice was was an intelligent one.