High IQ And World View

[Pauls' Revere]

What do the lumps on my head mean?

 

[nate895]

My example was a metaphor for the vast amount of possibility (biochemical combinations) in a vast physical world (universe).

If one consides human DNA a password to create a human being, then why can't that password be broken by brute force exhaustive attack?

Furthermore, we know that natural selection acted like password hints.

Lastly DNA itself is made of basic building blocks bound by the aforementioned principles.

You continue to equivocate the process of selecting and making the appearance of letters in an alphabet with actually giving the combination of letters meaning. I am saying that DNA, which is a language in every respect of the word with the exception of it being spoken, and that the only way to give a language meaning is for there to be an intelligence that gives it meaning.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

You continue to equivocate the process of selecting and making the appearance of letters in an alphabet with actually giving the combination of letters meaning. I am saying that DNA, which is a language in every respect of the word with the exception of it being spoken, and that the only way to give a language meaning is for there to be an intelligence that gives it meaning.

There doesn't need to be an intelligence giving it meaning. It (DNA) doesn't NEED meaning.

It simply is. My points still stand. You are trying to bog the discussion down in the subjective analysis of language which is not relevant.

 

[nate895]

I agree with tmosley, your statements are absurd.

You are engaging in a philosophical dialogue, which means you have just accused me of contradicting myself (that is what an absurdity is). Either back the assertion or drop the objection.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

You are engaging in a philosophical dialogue, which means you have just accused me of contradicting myself (that is what an absurdity is). Either back the assertion or drop the objection.

Well, why would an imaginary friend be required for logic to exist?

 

[nate895]

There doesn't need to be an intelligence giving it meaning. It doesn't NEED meaning.

It simply is.

Yes it does. DNA codes for human beings one combination of genes says "brown hair, hazel eyes," and another says "blonde hair, blue eyes." DNA actually codes. Now who is the one who to deny reality again? Oh yeah, I'm just the crazy Calvinist who continues to use logic and reason and actually know what the words mean. Sorry, guess I'll go to church tomorrow morning with my fellow knuckledraggers and we'll talk about how stupid we are together.

 

[nate895]

Well, why would an imaginary friend be required for logic to exist?

That doesn't even deserve a response, besides this one:

Romans 1:18-23:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

That doesn't even deserve a response.

Thank you for the discussion. I guess it ends here on this point.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Yes it does. DNA codes for human beings one combination of genes says "brown hair, hazel eyes," and another says "blonde hair, blue eyes." DNA actually codes.

and?

Now who is the one who to deny reality again? Oh yeah, I'm just the crazy Calvinist who continues to use logic and reason and actually know what the words mean. Sorry, guess I'll go to church tomorrow morning with my fellow knuckledraggers and we'll talk about how stupid we are together.

I didn't accuse you of being stupid by the way.

 

[nate895]

That's the meaning you have derived from DNA. The DNA didn't come with this meaning, you inferred it.

Then how did it get that meaning? Someone, somewhere, gave it meaning. Otherwise DNA just a bunch of chemicals with absolutely no importance at all. Have you seriously ever taken biology? Even the atheists will talk about DNA being a code.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

Then how did it get that meaning? Someone, somewhere, gave it meaning. Otherwise DNA just a bunch of chemicals with absolutely no importance at all. Have you seriously ever taken biology? Even the atheists will talk about DNA being a code.

I erased that portion shorly after posting it, but since you brought it up:

DNA is a bunch of chemicals technically speaking.

It has importance to our world sure.

But I don't see how your points contradict mine.

I guess I fail to see why there must be someone? providing meaning? to it for it to exist..

Oh well, I am more than happy to disagree with you.

I respect everyone's right to hold an opinion (as long they don't use force against me).

 

[nate895]

I didn't accuse you of being stupid by the way.

I know, the other guy I was debating with earlier did and you kind of took his place, and I was simply trying to demonstrate that your side of the aisle accuses our side of being backwards hillbillies who know little to nothing, and whenever we actually demonstrate that we know a little about what they're saying, you (and you have done this) will just tell us to crawl back in our holes and shut up because we have no idea what we're talking about.

What I want to know is where all this stuff comes from. We creationists will quote atheists, in context, and refute what they're saying factually, and we are then accused of being backwards flat-earth types. We'll then quote an atheist pointing out difficulties in an atheistic worldview, and we are told to shut up. Why is this? The only reason in the whole wide world I can think of is right there in the Romans passage. Seriously, given everything I know, I still cannot understand half of it without appealing to Scripture. Maybe that makes me an idiot, but by God, the writers of Scripture must have been geniuses to have made is correlate so well.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

I know, the other guy I was debating with earlier did and you kind of took his place, and I was simply trying to demonstrate that your side of the aisle accuses our side of being backwards hillbillies who know little to nothing, and whenever we actually demonstrate that we know a little about what they're saying, you (and you have done this) will just tell us to crawl back in our holes and shut up because we have no idea what we're talking about.

What I want to know is where all this stuff comes from. We creationists will quote atheists, in context, and refute what they're saying factually, and we are then accused of being backwards flat-earth types. We'll then quote an atheist pointing out difficulties in an atheistic worldview, and we are told to shut up. Why is this? The only reason in the whole wide world I can think of is right there in the Romans passage. Seriously, given everything I know, I still cannot understand half of it without appealing to Scripture. Maybe that makes me an idiot, but by God, the writers of Scripture must have been geniuses to have made is correlate so well.

A famous person once said something like this:

I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it.

To summarise my view, I base it on a simple recognition that I have not witnessed any evidence suggesting that non man-made items around me were created by superior undetectable creatures.

It certainly may feel nice to believe it, but I haven't seen evidence to convince me of it.

I distinguish in my mind, pure faith and rational understanding.

My rational mind will not allow me to get comfy with an all powerful imaginary friend, simply because there is a book out there (with some contradictory advice).

 

[nate895]

I erased that portion shorly after posting it, but since you brought it up:

DNA is a bunch of chemicals technically speaking.

It has importance to our world sure.

But I don't see how your points contradict mine.

I guess I fail to see why there must be someone? providing meaning? to it for it to exist..

The reason why there must be someone giving it meaning is because nothing besides a mind, which is a characteristic of a person (and Trinitarian Christianity is the only religion with a truly personal God in every sense of the word), can make something like a language. There has to be communication of some sort in order for there to be a code or a language of any variety. Someone has to know have the "key" to the code in order for there to be a code at all. Otherwise, DNA would be gibberish and the next generation could look like absolutely anything at all, if DNA has no meaning and there is no code maker. This isn't actually my best area to argue, since argue much better philosophically, but I refer you to these by a recognized scientist in the field of information theory:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/med...ing-was-information/beginning-was-information
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/In-the-Beginning-Was-Information,4631,226.aspx

 

[nate895]

A famous person once said something like this:

I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it.

To summarise my view, I base it on a simple recognition that I have not witnessed any evidence suggesting that non man-made items around me were created by superior undetectable creatures.

It certainly may feel nice to believe it, but I haven't seen evidence to convince me of it.

I distinguish in my mind, pure faith and rational understanding.

My rational mind will not allow me to get comfy with an all powerful imaginary friend, simply because there is a book out there (with some contradictory advice).

You have just as much faith, if not more, than I do. Hopefully someday you're eyes will be opened so you can actually see it.

 

[TheEvilDetector]

There has to be communication of some sort in order for there to be a code or a language of any variety.

With respect to our current topic of DNA:

Why?

Communication between who?

Isn't communication between chemicals sufficient?

Someone has to know have the "key" to the code in order for there to be a code at all.

Why?

Doesn't the simple passage of time itself hold the key?
(Natural Selection and Chemical Reaction being participants)

 

[TheEvilDetector]

You have just as much faith, if not more, than I do. Hopefully someday you're eyes will be opened so you can actually see it.

Why would you say this?

 

[kpitcher]

I have seen many studies showing that the higher the IQ the less happy the person was. For guys I see why, not getting as much action as others!

Of course this isn't new news, numerous studies have stated the same thing over the years. There's even a wikipedia article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

 

[johngr]

this reminds me of Idiocracy. is Mike Judge a prophet?

No prophet. Just a parodist. Future dystopia is just a literary device. He was commenting on what was happening at the time.

 

[mczerone]

I have a fairly high IQ... so I skipped the article entirely.

win!


I, having faith in my beliefs, being in a committed relationship, and feeling that groupthink labels are counterproductive, think the article was more about ego-smoothing than anything: "atheist liberals" love to talk about how great they are.

This article is nothing but stereotyping for effect, something that would be wholeheartedly denounced by "liberals" if the results were in any way related to race. But say something good about them (and, by correlation, negative about conservative godwads), and they'll overlook the hypocrisy and lap up the praise.