05 May 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy apologies, you are correct, i take that back.
Your assertion that there is a correlation between IQ and religiosity is backed up by scientific studies. Your assertion that "stupid people belive in God" is not, neither is "clever people don't believe in God" which robbie essentially disproved with an example of an exception.
05 May 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTrading insults? It is you who called me Proper Noob (i like that one), imbecile and told me to get lost. And you're the Christian!! I have launched no personal insult at you.
actually Scriabin gave a much more comprehensive and lucid statement in the spirituality forum, clearly you were unable to do the same, why? one can only speculate, perhaps lack of teaching ability, inability to take a complex subject matter and break it down into its constituent parts, lack of illustrations, all in all a very shoddy piece of work i ...[text shortened]... t listen, i got better things to do, than trade insults wid you, so if you dont mind, get lost !
I pointed out the link between IQ and religious beliefs, you said it was garbage, i provided the link to back up my claim. Is that not scientific?
Maybe Scraibin can put his point across better than me, i though hold a better chess rating than both of you so my mental skills can't be too shabby.
Have a good day.
05 May 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobright thats it, challenge me, black or white, i is gonna whup you for this outrage!
Trading insults? It is you who called me Proper Noob (i like that one), imbecile and told me to get lost. And you're the Christian!! I have launched no personal insult at you.
I pointed out the link between IQ and religious beliefs, you said it was garbage, i provided the link to back up my claim. Is that not scientific?
Maybe Scraibin can put his ...[text shortened]... ter chess rating than both of you so my mental skills can't be too shabby.
Have a good day.
and no its not scientific, if you had been honest in your postings with regard to the universe, you would have stated, we havent got a clue, instead you have rehashed some old second hand postulation, gleaned from others, which can be described as nothing more than an opinion, you have given science a bad name!
i suggest we play chess, if i whup you, you will make a recantation that all theocrats are stupid and accept that it was divine intervention that gave me the victory, if you win, i will go away in a bad mood and like a true Christian forgive you!
05 May 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, Robbie, Robbie. I fear you are making a fool of yourself now.
right thats it, challenge me, black or white, i is gonna whup you for this outrage!
and no its not scientific, if you had been honest in your postings with regard to the universe, you would have stated, we havent got a clue, instead you have rehashed some old second hand postulation, gleaned from others, which can be described as nothing more than ...[text shortened]... me the victory, if you win, i will go away in a bad mood and like a true Christian forgive you!
'if you had been honest in your postings with regard to the universe, you would have stated, we havent got a clue' - end quote.
My first sentence on this post is - 'In short nobody knows'. Where i'm from that basically means, we haven't got a clue. Let me know if that's interpreted any different north of the border.
In my post i was merely referencing Stephen Hawking, who i would imagine has something useful to say regarding the beginning of the universe. Now if you think thats 'old second hand postulation' and 'bad science' there is no help for you.
Let me get my game load down first and will gladly give you a damn good thrashing. And we will play black and white.
05 May 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat should have been said was: 'At present, the lower a person's IQ, the higher the probability that that person will believe in God'.
Did not Fischer the King of Chess have a profound belief in God, well then, are you saying he was stupid, hardly! Sir Issac Newton, the eminent scientist also had a profound belief in God, are you saying he was also stupid, no, well then shut up and stop talking nonsense, this is the science forum and Fabian wants to discuss science here, so if you ...[text shortened]... eone here may be better able to explain the ideas in a more lucid fashion than you, imbecile!🙂
I, personally, do not believe that low IQ should be equated with 'stupidness'.
But, I do see what the poster was saying. It seems, at present, that a person's increased academic understanding of the universe leads to the inevitable conclusion that 'there is no God / Gods.'
05 May 09
Originally posted by znshoWith a time after BB is near to zero, the conditions are extrem. I don't know if the laws of physics in the Planck era are known. But apart from that, yes, that's a reasonable assumption. There are no magic laws in action, no.
I am not a physicist / astronomner, but one possible problem, I think, with Big Bang theory is that it assumes that the laws of physics remained the same throughout the whole time. Is, though, that a reasonable assumption?
05 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobexcuses excuses!, let me know when you are ready, in the meantime you had better offer up some incense to an effigy of ol Steve in an effort to evoke his spirit on the game, chant some 'scientific mantras', like, we haven't got a clue, we haven't got a clue, we haven't got a clue, you know the thing, and prepare to make a recantation, cause yo mine sucka! 🙂
Robbie, Robbie, Robbie. I fear you are making a fool of yourself now.
'if you had been honest in your postings with regard to the universe, you would have stated, we havent got a clue' - end quote.
My first sentence on this post is - 'In short nobody knows'. Where i'm from that basically means, we haven't got a clue. Let me know if that's interpret irst and will gladly give you a *** good thrashing. And we will play black and white.
once again Fabian i apologize, I will curtail my interlude, henceforth!
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
06 May 09
I'm no expert, but it seems logical to me that there Is/was a provable begining of time, but not yet a provable begining of the universe.
It is my therory that time is nothing fundimental to the universe. What time is fundimental to, is MEASUREMENT, and since "we" (the observers) are not fundimental to the universe, then somthing we created (ie time) cannot be fundimental either. This may be why the begining of the universe has no meaning,and may never will using the tool of "time" to define it.
06 May 09
Originally posted by joe shmoSpace is Space and Time is Time but SpaceTime cannot be separated I reckon😵
I'm no expert, but it seems logical to me that there Is/was a provable begining of time, but not yet a provable begining of the universe.
It is my therory that time is nothing fundimental to the universe. What time is fundimental to, is MEASUREMENT, and since "we" (the observers) are not fundimental to the universe, then somthing we created (ie time) ca ...[text shortened]... ng of the universe has no meaning,and may never will using the tool of "time" to define it.
06 May 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI am sure that we monitor events. Events are evolving within Space and Time, and this is the reason why we can measure the position of whatever we monitor solely at a particular time. But we can measure the time at which every event happens solely at a particular place. This means (to me) that SpaceTime cannot be separated -once it is separated we have to forget about velocity amongst else.
Are you sure?
I tend to accept that N=3 and T=1 is rational because this model describes perfectly the World 1 through my Experience, however I cannot forget that this view of mine is just the result of the data I collect by means of my 6 senses. Therefore I know that the N=3 and T=1 approach works seemingly well at the level of World 1 for the time being, but on the other hand I feel free to wait for new products of the World 3 that they will enable me to adjust my understanding of this very World 1😵
What do you think my Gota enemy?
06 May 09
Originally posted by black beetleWhat we see (or percieve) and wht there really is, is two different things. Our senses are not perfect about things we don't need to know. Like radioactivity, microscopic and universal size scales, etc. So we have a good experience about N=3 and T=1. But after the string theoreticans invented more spatial dimensions, we need to think again.
I am sure that we monitor events. Events are evolving within Space and Time, and this is the reason why we can measure the position of whatever we monitor solely at a particular time. But we can measure the time at which every event happens solely at a particular place. This means (to me) that SpaceTime cannot be separated -once it is separated we have ...[text shortened]... enable me to adjust my understanding of this very World 1😵
What do you think my Gota enemy?
Say that we really can decouple time ans space, then the time-machine is about to be invented, also supraluminal velocities is about to come. So it would be fantastic to know how to split time from space or space from time. But fantisizing has nothing to do with reality.
Whenever I ask some wise man (scientifically wise) about "What is time?" I sometimes get an answer of what he believes. But never I have got a good answer about "What is space?" Time is hard to explain, space is impossible to explain, it seems to be.
I'm sure that, enemy or not, we would have a nice discussion over a nice and cold bear some night, if we get the chance! 🙂
06 May 09
4 edits
Originally posted by znsho…
What should have been said was: 'At present, the lower a person's IQ, the higher the probability that that person will believe in God'.
I, personally, do not believe that low IQ should be equated with 'stupidness'.
But, I do see what the poster was saying. It seems, at present, that a person's increased academic understanding of the universe leads to the inevitable conclusion that 'there is no God / Gods.'
I, personally, do not believe that low IQ should be equated with 'stupidness'.
..…
I agree -at least when it comes to a persons behaviour -and I know this from personal experience:
I used to work as a carer for adults with leaning disabilities and all my clients obviously had very low IQ but some (sadly not all) were behaving far more maturely and reasonably than certain people I could name (but won’t) that obviously had very high IQ (I also noted that some of my clients had a much better memory than me (I have a bad memory) although they were rather lacking in certain other areas).
It seemed to me that whether your IQ is high or low doesn’t equate to whether you would act like a complete moron. I am not sure how much of a correlation there is between IQ and social maturity but I bet it isn’t nearly as strong as some people would imagine.