The Scientist who promotes evolution and touts it as truth, or the christian that believes that an omnipotent being, who has dominion over all the universe and beyond cares about them.
@Damanar You mean the scientist who has studied the actual facts and developed very careful reasoning who promotes evolution not as truth, but as the best science we have (which is itself truth) OR the science denialist who asserts they have truth without having ever engaged in any activity that could be confused with actual research on the subject?
@TheFallibleFiend Yes, that is kind of my point. I think it is extremely arrogant for a person to believe an all powerful creator would invest any amount of time or concern for them. Scientists and philosophers spend their entire lives looking for answers and are admonished for it, generally speaking, in the ID community as being arrogant in their conviction. Where as most christians read one book, or several books about said book, and have even greater conviction.
It's all about mind control. Knowledge by itslef is limited if you don't have wisdom, understanding and spiritual discernment to properly apply it to life and sound reasoning.
@TheFallibleFiend Oh no; I'd....we'd all, be foolish to ignore this opportunity to watch you condescend to the rest of our levels to provide insight into why/how you're so much better than mensans, creationists, et al, to move along.
@miketacoma5 Nothing in my any of my posts states that I'm better than Mensans or have anything less than respect for them. OTOH, creationists tend to be a pretty ignorant lot.
@TheFallibleFiend Well, you can hide behind the fact that you make no overt statements to that effect, or your flurry of disclaimers, throughout your vids that you "...have all the respect in the world for...", or "...have many friends in...", but the underlying message speaks loudly. You're obviously an intelligent fellow and I enjoy your tutorial vids, but you've opened yourself up to criticism and my silly desire to amuse myself by defending myself and fellow mensans.
@miketacoma5 I don't make overt statements to that effect, because I don't believe it (that I'm superior to Mensans). I suspect I would be pretty average for a Mensan. I was going to make a few videos in another vein where I talked about how I was unfair to mensans and how I had seen people be outright rude to them for no reason ... but I'm in the middle of other projects and am also rethinking on how to do the channel. Just didn't get around to it yet.
@miketacoma5 I have deleted some of my videos - and will delete others, perhaps many others. I'm not sure yet. The criticism of my "umming and ahing" is correct. I don't care that I bore people in general but I do worry that the existence of my worst vids might make it harder to find other people's vids that are worthwhile - or cause frustration to those who are trying to learn.
Second, the article goes on to talk about the trim5 cypa mutation. Well I looked it up on google, and it is not a mutation, it is a retrotransposition of another gene called cyp-a into the trim5 region. As you know retrotransposition is not a mutation, it is when one gene is carried from one part of the genome to another by a transposon. Therefore the cypa gene already existed in another part of the genome of the old world monkeys.
@violentlyhappy1 Go away. Do some honest homework. Waste someone else's time. I'm talking to somebody who is not an idiot - and programming. You are boring and uneducated.
@violentlyhappy1 I don't care what degree you have. You're talking about what you don't know about. It's not my job to do your homework for you. Your lack of education is a big fail.
@TheFallibleFiend actually evolutionary theory is my expertise. That is how I know there are no examples of beneficial mutations. And that is why you can´t even name a single example of one. Come on, just one example. And I will destroy in debate. You can´t even stick up for the theory you claim to be defending?
@violentlyhappy1 No one can prove anything to an idiot who has already made up his mind. In general, science does not disprove them. However, if we were to use it the word proof in the legal sense, evolution has been proved. Your abject ignorance does not disprove evolution. I don't care whether you believe it. Do some actual homework - or don't do any homework and keep saying stupid shit.
@TheFallibleFiend ok, then if you don´t want to prove evolution at least present verifiable evidence that speciation and beneficial mutations occur. These are two crucial aspects on which your theory hinges.
@TheFallibleFiend This is what happens when you refer me to sites made by people who are not scientists. The mutation you are talking about is the lactase gene. The article is completely wrong. It says most people lose the ability to digest milk in adulthood. In fact most people are lactose tolerant in adulthood. True lactose intolerance is excideengly rare in the human population. Second, people are lactose intolerant because they do not drink milk. conitnued....
@violentlyhappy1 Well, you're right. It's "New Scientist" magazine. How about you take it up with discovery institute weenies who admit that mutations can increase info: v=0MHAO4JE0G0
@TheFallibleFiend PLOS journales generally have a very low standard of peer review, and that is why common mistakes appear in the journal such as this.
The statement that most adults can´t digest lactose is demonstrably false. See: emedicine, lactose intolerance.
In the majority of cases when they can´t digest it, it is NOT because they lack the lactase gene, it is because the enzyme is inhibited, because they don´t drink milk. See: emedicine, lactose intolerance
@violentlyhappy1 "Lactose intolerance in adulthood is very common and is the result of a genetically programmed progressive loss of the activity of the small intestinal enzyme lactase."
@TheFallibleFiend well apparently I was wrong. However, even in those who are lactose intolerant, the intestinal flora will metabolize lactose because their genes are inducible (from the same emedicine article). Therefore what is the difference between your intestinal flora or your intestinal cells metabolizing lactose? None. So how is this a beneficial mutation over the normal lactose non-persistence which nonetheless does not lead to lactose intolerance with enough milk consumption?
Second, milk is high in cholesterol and fat. And while it is also high in calcium, whether milk consumption in adulthood is generally healthy or not is debetable. because consumption of diary products it is tied to hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerosis. Without pasteurization is is also a source of many infectious idseases like salmonelossis or brucella.
when they do drink milk their lactose intolerance is reversed. This is called enzyme induction. The mechanisms of enzyme induction is not a mutation, rather it is mechanism present in every cell, whereby, when more substrate is available to a cell, more of an enzyme is produced. When people who normally don´t drink milk do drink it, they will be intolerant of lactose for a while, until their lactase enzymes are induced.
@violentlyhappy1 Yes, engineering math and computer science. I imagine your going to go off on an irrelevant tangent now that you are demonstrably wrong on yet another issue.
@violentlyhappy1 Yes. I certainly believe you have such a degree, as much as I believe you have an IQ of 167. You don't know what you're talking about either way.
@violentlyhappy1 Extract your head from your backside. Theory in science does not mean "doubtful." The Germ Theory of Disease is "just a theory." It was conceived as a theory, it is still a theory, and it will always be a theory, because not because it's uncertain, but because it serves the function of a theory - which is to explain. Laws are not distinguished from theories because they are more certain, but by their function - which is to describe.
@violentlyhappy1 Again, you demonstrate that you are thoroughly ignorant of the subject. The criteria you tried to pass off was that evolution was "just a theory." I explained that you don't know what the word "theory" means to the scientist. Of course evolution is observable - but it doesn't need to be directly observable to be good science. Seriously, just go do some actual homework instead of pretending you're smart.
@TheFallibleFiend when I said evolution is just a theory, I was using the word "theory" in its common sense usage. You assumed I was using it in the scientific sense. And iguanas do not turn into humans.
@violentlyhappy1 Evolution is not a theory in the vernacular sense. It's only possible to assert that by being thoroughly ignorant of the subject. Evolution does not say that iguanas turn into humans. Understandable. Wherever you find someone who rejects evolution, there too you find someone with a comic book understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
Can a high IQ person believe in God in some form? Yes - Spinoza and Chris Langan come to mind. Can a high IQ person believe in Creationism? No. Having a high IQ immediately allows you to see the folly of Creationism.
@JungleJargon Scientists don't claim that mutations order anything. Comic book science is not science. It's amusing when religious nut-jobs try to explain science to the rest of us.
You need to account for the origin of the hundreds of layers of sediments in the strata up to a mile and more deep containing the fossils before you say anything.
The function of hydrogen and derivatives working inside of us also shows us that the entire universe was made by the same Maker that made hydrogen to work inside of us.
Atheists and evolutionist have not even addressed the first questions that need to be asked and that is the reason there is no basis for anything they say about it.
@JungleJargon You are intellectually lazy. You need to do actual homework on the subject before repeating stupid crap you read on a creationist website. Include a course on logic - several of them. Thanks for demonstrating you don't know what you're talking about. No go away.
@JungleJargon I don't give a rat's ass about your "issues." Do your own homework - and post to videos appropriate to the topic. And try to be clear on the topic next time - so study evolution, logic, and maybe take a writing course or three. Now go away.
@TheFallibleFiend I will leave you with your fantasy. Just don't expect me to believe evolution when there is no accounting for where the hundreds of layers in the strata came from.
but bear in mind one thing first kids, everyone wants to know,and everyone wants something,ANYTHING to beleive in.most choose to beleive its all gonna be nicey-nice to die.the universe is not nicey-nice!and if you read the bible,neither was god on several occasions,jesus was continually fustrated and angry even to violence!this after life bullcrap is a hoax to make you o.k. with one day being dead.plain and simple!! ITS NOT O.K.!!theres nothing remotely o.k. about it!mostly i wish i was an idiot
so verify to yourselves that youre all fighting over the same force,deity,god,plasma reaction,genie snapping its fingers,or whatever you wish it to be.everyone has a unique concept of what GOD is,and its different to everyone,so all you little children might not even be debating the same concept at all! but ill say this,it is and was whatever it was or is,REGARDLESS of what you beleive! so before you run around the carpenters bench,make sure the weasel and monkey touch base,and compare notes.
so now go look at what god really is,and youll veiw the universe a bit clearer.math is the basis of all things,we are the only thing that can understand the complexities of math(the mind of god)that which gives us emotions and feelings between our own two ears,that part of every person that instictively knows right from wrong,that is god within you.that is the only 'supernatural' thing in the universe.cant see it,hear it,or touch it,but we all know it exsists.
or was this giant mathematical reaction(sperm) something that arrived from 'outside' the confines of the inert formless evenly spaced non-energetic non-cohesive materials that were the base ingredients of everything(womb)just like in biology in our 3d universe,the two exsist separately,its only when they come together does mathematically controlled form take shape into whatever its supposed to be.or was it mixed in,just waiting to spring just cause something occured and it HAD TO flash to being
hi.162 right here! listen guys,the giant sperm that caused the reaction of the great flash,NOT expanding bang,but great flash,that gave mathematical instructions(cohesion and energy) to the inert formless matter can be assigned any verbal designation you wish,it was what it was,and it set the laws and cycles of everything we have now.in 3d which is what the universe is,you need male from outside to plant instuctions in.what is the origin of this mathematical cohesion?was it here all along?
I have an IQ of 142 and I am what you call a high functioning dyslexic. I think these tests for intelligence are bogus as we don't have a clear way in defining intelligence in a numerical fashion. IQ tests could be easily be misused like in eugenics of the 20th century. Personally discussing the intellogence of creationists is a waste of time. We need better science. Like seeing if abiogenesis is possible in a chemistry lab with a wide possibility of chemicals with random conditions.
Oh how amusing it is watching people equate a linear quantity with the rather abstract nature of what we call our intelligence. If an intelligence quotient is so definitive and standardized, associating certain processes and capacities of memory and tangible quantities,for any being, what room remains for a soul, an abstraction in the metaphysical existence that so many of these creationists dearly defend. Interestingly enough, the tenability of either argument is remarkably extensive
I have a IQ of 120-140 and I am 14 years old. I also believe in God. That is because my prayers have came true and I experanced wierd things with explanations that are supernatrual. It's hard to talk about without sounding liek a wierdo.
@ChristinaWolfle 1) Believing in God is not what makes a person a creationist. 2) People have biases that sometimes prevent them analyzing their situation correctly. 3) There is no logical way to conclude that something is supernatural. One can only conclude that one doesn't understand the phenomenon.
@TheFallibleFiend No.. I can't explain it to you but I can explain it.. Like how do I explain demons and stuff without sounding liek a couk. I understand teh phenomenon but I know its of supternatrual origin. {11 year old telling me hes possesed-parents taking him to a preist-attacking people-geting expelled-going to an aslyum)
but how do I say that knowing dead on its a demon(if it wasent why would he be upset when I said a prayer) (attacking people with no will) I understand pretty well I...
@TheFallibleFiend ..I logically evaluate things..everything ..even science.. and the bible(I never claimed I believd everything in teh bible... a lot was fabricated....alot is unknown)
@ChristinaWolfle I'm slightly skeptical of your IQ being in that range given the grammar in your comment. Nevertheless, I will give you the benefit of the doubt only because of the latter two parts of your statement. I too know what it's like to have those "supernatural" (call it that if you will) experiences. If you believe that god is a "unified energy" you're on the right page, from my perspective.
@daveforfun22 Chris Langan, supposedly the smartest man in the world (who consistently breaks the ceiling of IQ tests distributed by a number of different experts), supports creationism.
@HecticRat IQ is irrelevant; however according to wiki, Chris Langan accepts evolution, but accepts the creation story as allegory. He believes a God started everything in motion. I don' t know how reliable the quote is, but if correct, it makes him a theistic evolutionist along the lines of Frances Collins or Ken Miller.
Langan's a moron with vastly overrated but unequivocally high intelligence.
Perfect.
Hectic Rat is correct, Langan does support creationism and is thus theistic. That this would lend any credence to religion is of course, bull shit. But since his remark is topological, then it is unreasonable to challenge his assertion on grounds that are presumably tenuous.
It's probably analogous to writing all the volumes of Lord of The Rings or Harry Potter, where one needs to create a whole new language and deep plots to suspend disbelief. Even Isaac Newton was a devout catholic who spent much of his time decoding the bible's 'hidden messages'.
I don't doubt that there are creationists out there with high IQ's. (A high IQ may only mean that one has the ability to reason well and match complex patterns but says nothing about ones skepticism). It actually might take a pretty high IQ to create such a tremendous myth as creationist story.
@eggsaladinthetub If the numbers mean what I've heard they meant, the actual age should not matter, because the number is normalized across ages. "High" is a relative term. Assuming a normal distribution with mu=100, sigma=16, 121 the z-value is (x-mu)/sigma = (121-100)/16 = 21/16 = 1.31. Consulting a table of z values, puts this about 90% level, meaning 90% of people have IQs less or equal to this value. Another view is only 10% "smarter." Not a Mensa candidate, but pretty smart.
MY FINAL TEXT. I've now covered the topic of IQ with the best logic I can implement at this time. As you've noticed I never said you're wrong and the reason that is is because I don't know if you are and I also do not know if you're right. You don't even know. So why did I write these statements one after another? To prove everything is interpreted into individual meanings, which have been interpreted by its interpreter.
The factors can be anything on that specific topic, examples: Do you believe it exits? How important is IQ? Do you enjoy the concept of IQ because you have an above average IQ? Do you dislike the concept of IQ because you have a below average IQ? Moving on. Right before the end of your video you say the charts are wrong about the 100 marker and you're correct. The reason this is, is because not everyone on the planet has been tested, therefore it is an incorrect measurement....continued
@MsGerrytodd Why so much hate? Are you ok? If you want to talk I'm here, seriously. People who act this way usually don't get enough attention elsewhere. They also tend to go down the path of drugs, let me help you.
@Genius2088 i "hate" nothing but stupidity and that appears to be the only thing you can offer this world :) I do not want to "talk" to your stupid ass. no one does. that is why you sit on your computer on youtube all day typing your idiotic comments. you sure do know a lot about drugs. i hope you do not get any help with your drug problems - you will always be a worthless loser no matter what :)
Does that mean that there isn't a best pineapple? Nope, there's a best pineapple but it means that even if we think we have the best pineapple we don't. Now I will tell you how that story relates to the IQ system. Moral of pineapple story: Everyone has a different perception of the things around them. This means that everyone sees the idea of IQ on different levels and those levels depend on many factors...continued
But the major problem with this pineapple situation is that even if I get the best one according to my standards and taste that there's going to be another person with different standards and taste. To him the best pineapple might be the 25th best out of the 100 pineapples. The point of this pineapple story is that NO ONE contains the same views and ideas on any given situation. Does that mean that there isn't a best pineapple?...continued
@Genius2088 It's likely that some very, very few of those creationists who claim to have high IQs really do. Most of them, I suspect, are basing their assessment on a test they took over the web or from self-assessment. Some of them are profoundly stupid. Take a look at the YT user "GoodScienceForYou" for an example. Additionally, their IQs don't make them right in areas where they have not studied. IQ doesn't trump education.
I might take a few seconds to study them or just grab one and pluck out a leaf from its stalk to test its health. If it's good then I'll take it and go on my way. Now does that mean I've got the best pineapple? Nope, it means I've got a pineapple that is good enough. For me to get the best pineapple I would need more research on each pineapple: where it came from, how long until it was shipped off, how long it has set in the store...continued
A HIGH IQ does have more pull, considering the benefits. Now I'm not saying IQ tests are 100% accurate because they're not. The one major thing I realize with my IQ is that I use a lot more logical principles when making decisions than others do. Lets take a minute to review that statement. I'm not saying I make the better decision, for example if I went into a grocery store and go to get a pineapple, I might take a few seconds to study them or just grab one and pluck out...continued
My IQ is 135. That is not a statement which should receive any comment. An IQ of 135 is only Mensa entry level. Means I would be one of the dumbest Mensa members(putting aside knowledge). The fact is that IQ should not be used as a tool where you have to install a sort of faith to even believe they have the stated IQ. Nor should it be used as a proxy to great understanding, however I do escalate to the extent that a HIGH IQ does have more pull...continued
Fallible, dude...You're mad at high IQ creationists for studying a certain field of work and dismissing the other fields. What are you doing right now? Are you also studying the creationists work? Are you reading what they read and you looking at it through their eyes and are they looking at your work through your eyes? The answer to both is no. The fact of the matter is that you're mad at them for deciding to take theory for fact, which is what you're doing. lol
@Genius2088 Yes, I have read much of the creationists' work. I'm reading their works the same way I would read any other works. I don't have to read it "through their eyes."
@TheFallibleFiend Well you do if you want to understand it the way they do, same thing goes for them and the work you've done, but since people aren't capable of doing that(no one is) then you must read it in your individual view and make your own deductions, which I assume you've done.
@Genius2088 I have always tried to read critically - tried to understand what a person is saying, established hypotheses to confirm my understanding, asked questions the answers to which would confirm my understanding, and evaluated the text on what it was attempting to say.
Creationists often insist that their primary source, The Bible, has to be read differently than any other book to understand. You have to accept it, before you understand it. Drink the kool-aid?
I agree with you on the notion that a high IQ score does not, and should not allow people to use it as a proxy to validate anything they have studied. I would also like to add that an IQ test evaluates more than just critical thinking and logic, which are the fundamental tools used in making an intelligent assessment of evolution/creationism. Perhaps these creationists are vocabularily apt, yet logically inept (or average).
@Anichels I think some very few of them have high or modestly high IQs. Most of them, I suspect, base their assessments on the results from pay sites trying to lure them in.
Well first of all just because you take an iq test and score above the.. say 98th percentile doesn't mean you can approach anything using 100% logic. Alot of the problems with Creationist people with High IQs is that more of there ideas and questions within themselves is based on things that they were brought up upon. More likely creating some sort of biast to what you said, Fallible Evolutionism. The problem in my opinion is there aproach to subjects. In some sort trying to proove one wrong. Ty
People seem to want God to either be the way THEY think He/She/It should be, or they just cannot believe in a God because of all the twisted theories society has. I believe in God personally because I can connect with 'him'. I learned to do this using deep meditation. I don't expect everyone to agree...I'm just trying to encourage some people to try it if they are willing.
"Your insult to people's intelligence here was carefully crafted to deceive those who don't think for themselves. You are guilty of the very same thing that you accuse those who believe in God of. Try being honest next time. "
My original statement stands. A high IQ does not compensate for lack of knowledge in biology. You'd have to look far & wide for a professional biologist who doesn't accept evolution. BTW, I'm not an atheist.
I am sorry my friend. You just don't offer any good reasoning against those who believe in God in your entire video here. And 'you' are being arrogant, rude, and disrespectful with how you deceitfully insult those who believe in God.Once again(and in particular for that guy Masterwow123), there actually is not any bit of proof for evolutionary theory. What happens is, so called archaeologists/doctors offer up lies, then scientists and gov.. agree, then it's forced on everybody else or else...
@olympicsnow I'm not arguing against those who believe in God. I'm arguing against those who reject evolution and accept creationism. No. I'm not being rude. There is a lot of very strong evidence for evolution - not absolute proof, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't make it go away. Your comic book explanation of evolutionary theory in that single message demonstrates what level of understanding you have.
@olympicsnow "there actually is not any bit of proof for evolutionary theory"
You're playing with words to hide your near-perfect ignorance of the subject. Although you use the word "proof", you clearly mean "evidence", and in that case, you are dead wrong. There are mountains, MOUNTAINS, of evidence for evolution by natural selection. NO theory is EVER "proven" in an absolute sense, and this is why science works as a tool for investigating the natural world.
A lot of intelligent people can be fooled by creationist rhetoric. It has been carefully crafted to appeal to those who don't have formal training in biology. There's no substitute for actually studying biology.
You insult to people's intelligence here was carefully crafted to deceive those who don't think for themselves. You are guilty of the very same thing that you accuse those who believe in God of. Try being honest next time. And by the way, to be honest, you can't pretend you are being honest and lie, yet still be honest. I just thought that you should know that.
@Masterwow123 In science, the word "theory" does not mean "speculation." Evolution has been proven beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt. The fact is that creationists have not done their homework. They believe they have done their homework, but the central problem is that don't even know what real homework looks like.
@TheFallibleFiend Are you fucking retarded? If it was proven that was disprove god and they would do away with it...stop being a dipshit and read more
@Masterwow123 Actually, I've over a dozen books on evolution and many more on other areas of science. I've also read many dozens of actual science articles in peer-reviewed journals. Try to post a coherent message next time.
@TheFallibleFiend Stating you have books doesn't mean you read them and it also doesn't mean you even have them, if you want to talk about evolution then talk about it, otherwise fuck off.
@Masterwow123 I have read them and I can talk about evolution. OTOH, this video is about creationists who believe their hi iqs are support their understanding of the science. You see, I made the video and I get to say what is proper discuss under it. When you make a video, then you can change the subject all you want. The word "theory" does not mean "speculation" in science.
@TheFallibleFiend Definition of Evolution: change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. WOW, how can they prove that we evolved from nothing? they can't means it isn't proven...please read up on things before you make speculations about what is when you don't even understand it.
@TheFallibleFiend ugh, I didn't say they did. I was showing how your previous statement has fallacious judgement. In your previous statement it said they've proved evolution, but you can't prove that everything came from an ancestor is at some point nothing existed. Understand?
@TheFallibleFiend dude, genetics is proved, not evolution lol. I think that clears things up nicely, eh? No one has proved that we come from chimps but they've proved we both contain DNA and they're very similar. So, basically, you are confusing the two.
@Masterwow123 I think what is cleared up is that you don't know what you're talking about. No one has proved we don't come from chimps because no one claims we come from chimps. The DNA is more than just similar - it's similar in a particular way. Look GULOP on YT and study about nested hierarchy. Frankly, I don't think you're smart enough or attentive enough to understand the concept.
@TheFallibleFiend In all seriousness, 1 man on youtube says vitamin C proves natural selection, DAMN it must be true. Ok, that wasn't that serious, but then again I don't take you serious. Answer this question for me, if your answer comes out no then my time spent talking with you is purely pointless. Do you consider a god? Is there any possible way for you to even consider a higher intellect exists beyond our greatest imagination? If no, then you cannot comprehend natures true beauty.
@Masterwow123 I can conceive that a God exists, but that doesn't explain anything. Evolution is irrelevant to god's existence. If you cannot understand how "God did it" is not an explanation of anything, then you are wasting everyone's time including your own.
@TheFallibleFiend I agree that it doesn't explain in detail but i disagree on evolution being irrelevant to god's existence. Without god there wouldn't be evolution, considering I believe a god exists, and by evolution I mean natural selection. I believe everything was created by blueprints (genes) then evolution began only after we were created, I believe everything originated from god. To think we all originated from 1 entity, other than god's creations, is unsatisfiable, and a weak argument.
@Masterwow123 you are right in the fact that there must be something above any one intellect, God. I've lived on this earth for 16 years and I haven't seen any reason to believe that this existence of life was a mistake. Take a Flower say a rose; there's is a lot of beauty in a rose; This one biologist tried to argue that pedals or the true beauty of a flower has no purpose, more likely a bi-product of the Flower. BS the Flower shows the true beauty and mind of what this one intellect say God.
@TheFallibleFiend I find Darwinism unconvincing. I will be compelled to acknowledge the apparently paradoxical fact that I find it convincing as well. I find it convincing because it is in certain respects correct, and in fact tautologically so in the logical sense; I find it unconvincing because it is based on a weak and superficial understanding of causality and is therefore incomplete. -Chris Langan
I thought it was only fair I bring into play another person as you did. check his site out.
@TheFallibleFiend Homework is based on Faith, Scientist completely ignore that is there desicion but I really believe Creationist shouldn't care if theyve done there homework at all. But for some reason they do.
@ILoveKimPearson Homework is not "based on faith." Homework that doesn't impart understanding is not good homework. Faith imparts the illusion of understanding without the fact.
@TheFallibleFiend Well look at the Dark ages & Middle Ages basically people lived to die & go to heaven; In one way not really living with a purpose. So people like that didnt really care about unanswerable questions. Making it kind of what you said "Bad Homework" But then again people from then and today differ in the fact that we now wonder more & are effected by skeptisim. Back then skeptics were burned at the stake for their beliefs. All in all People died not knowing EVERYTHING about Faith.
Congrats on showing your ignorance. A "theory" in science is a network of logic and statements that describes a phenomena, allows people to make predictions about a phenomena, and to explain a phenomena (i.e., state the cause of a phenomena). Theories are supported by "facts," which are the results of studies, experiments, and observations.
So long as the studies, experiments, and observations are unbiased, and so long as theories stick to the evidence, the theory is strong.
@Masterwow123 Actually, *you* are the idiot. You don't know what constitute a theory or a fact in science. The germ theory of disease is just a theory, but it's a fact that germs exist. The theory of gravitation is just a theory, but gravitation is considered a fact. Pull your head out of your backside, quit telling people who know more than you do to read, and then go do some actual homework yourself.
@TheFallibleFiend haha, I guess i was operating under a false theory. Tell me if I did anything wrong there. I know that statement is true, but do you? no answer means you do.
@Masterwow123 Look. No theory has to explain everything. Atomic theory isn't wrong just because it doesn't explain the origin of atoms. Germ theory isn't wrong just because it doesn't explain the origin of germs.
@MrNobody47710 I find Darwinism unconvincing. I will be compelled to acknowledge the apparently paradoxical fact that I find it convincing as well. I find it convincing because it is in certain respects correct, and in fact tautologically so in the logical sense; I find it unconvincing because it is based on a weak and superficial understanding of causality and is therefore incomplete. -Chris Langan
I thought it was only fair I bring into play another person as you did. check his site out.
@TheFallibleFiend Of course he did, he wouldn't be considered the smartest man in the world if he wasn't considered logical lol. Nothing is proved, hell, we can't even prove that we exist other than our senses. Physicists cannot agree whether we are in the fuckin matrix, in a dream, or inside of gods mind, or actually real. We can't ever prove it, therefore, I will go on "believing" there is a god, and not "knowing" there is a god. Need more space...Continued...
@TheFallibleFiend In reality everyone has their own realizations, which they'll keep believing. So in other words, it has been fun chatting with you, but I'm pretty sure this is where our journey ends, good luck to you.
@TheFallibleFiend But if you think that way Fallible isn't that kind of sweeping the dust under the carpet? IF Evolutionism as whole is true and somehow man put all the puzzle pieces of are existence together and we're are only just a spec of the universe. I watched the show Universe on I think History channel and it explained how the Universe was created.. Well i don't think any of those scientist realize that they dont know a thing of how the universe was created. Time is meant to end Entropy.
I read your comment before it got removed. I think you misunderstood me. Within scientific jargon, "fact" and "theory" have specific definitions that differ from everyday definitions. In science, a theory will never be called a fact.
When you refer to facts as truth, then evolution probably has enough truth to be partially considered a fact, according to the common use of the term. I'm not a biologist, and my beliefs in things are loose, in terms of strength.
@Masterwow123 LOL! wow you are a fucking idiot :) "saddest" isn't even a word LOL! and you even have trouble spelling the word "too" LOL! but i know that is a tough one for retarded mongoloids like you :)
@Masterwow123 hey retard - you do know that we can read your idiotic comment before you remove them don't you? you remove them because you are ashamed. you are guilty. you looked up the word "sadist" - how nice that you finally used your mommy's computer for something useful LOL you are so fucking pathetic :)
@Genius2088 wow did you make that up? or has it been said a million times to you? and since you are incapable of original thought you copied it like a dumb parrot? wow you are fucking retarded :) too retarded for the special olympics :)
And I want to address Feynman. The notion that his IQ was 125 is ludicrous. This probable falsehood originated from Feynman himself and he provided zero corroboration for the claim. Arthur Jensen, one of the foremost authorities in psychometrics, says he doesn't believe it either. Feynman's scores on his graduate entry exams to Princeton were perfect (in math/physics). Never happened before. 125 is ridiculous.
Never took "the mensa test," but I qualify by proxy. And I never said I believe in any gods - but that is irrelevant to the topic of the video, which you seem not to have watched prior to commenting.
What is more arrogant?
The Scientist who promotes evolution and touts it as truth, or the christian that believes that an omnipotent being, who has dominion over all the universe and beyond cares about them.
Damanar 6 days ago
@Damanar You mean the scientist who has studied the actual facts and developed very careful reasoning who promotes evolution not as truth, but as the best science we have (which is itself truth) OR the science denialist who asserts they have truth without having ever engaged in any activity that could be confused with actual research on the subject?
TheFallibleFiend 6 days ago
@TheFallibleFiend Yes, that is kind of my point. I think it is extremely arrogant for a person to believe an all powerful creator would invest any amount of time or concern for them. Scientists and philosophers spend their entire lives looking for answers and are admonished for it, generally speaking, in the ID community as being arrogant in their conviction. Where as most christians read one book, or several books about said book, and have even greater conviction.
Damanar 6 days ago
@Damanar I agree. It's incredible to me that scientists get accused of being arrogant.
TheFallibleFiend 6 days ago
It's all about mind control. Knowledge by itslef is limited if you don't have wisdom, understanding and spiritual discernment to properly apply it to life and sound reasoning.
Ramohog 2 weeks ago
Why so many Creat clips on youtube have the comments disabled?.
FinflazodeTurroai 1 month ago
@FinflazodeTurroai They don't want anyone confusing them with facts.
TheFallibleFiend 1 month ago
@TheFallibleFiend It figures.Non Compos Mentis...
FinflazodeTurroai 4 weeks ago
uh. um. uh. that. uh. um. er. ahhh. um. uh
miketacoma5 2 months ago
@miketacoma5 Feel free to move along.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend Oh no; I'd....we'd all, be foolish to ignore this opportunity to watch you condescend to the rest of our levels to provide insight into why/how you're so much better than mensans, creationists, et al, to move along.
miketacoma5 2 months ago
@miketacoma5 Nothing in my any of my posts states that I'm better than Mensans or have anything less than respect for them. OTOH, creationists tend to be a pretty ignorant lot.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend Well, you can hide behind the fact that you make no overt statements to that effect, or your flurry of disclaimers, throughout your vids that you "...have all the respect in the world for...", or "...have many friends in...", but the underlying message speaks loudly. You're obviously an intelligent fellow and I enjoy your tutorial vids, but you've opened yourself up to criticism and my silly desire to amuse myself by defending myself and fellow mensans.
miketacoma5 2 months ago
@miketacoma5 I don't make overt statements to that effect, because I don't believe it (that I'm superior to Mensans). I suspect I would be pretty average for a Mensan. I was going to make a few videos in another vein where I talked about how I was unfair to mensans and how I had seen people be outright rude to them for no reason ... but I'm in the middle of other projects and am also rethinking on how to do the channel. Just didn't get around to it yet.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@miketacoma5 I have deleted some of my videos - and will delete others, perhaps many others. I'm not sure yet. The criticism of my "umming and ahing" is correct. I don't care that I bore people in general but I do worry that the existence of my worst vids might make it harder to find other people's vids that are worthwhile - or cause frustration to those who are trying to learn.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
I won´t even read the rest of the article, as they have already lied on the first two points.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
Second, the article goes on to talk about the trim5 cypa mutation. Well I looked it up on google, and it is not a mutation, it is a retrotransposition of another gene called cyp-a into the trim5 region. As you know retrotransposition is not a mutation, it is when one gene is carried from one part of the genome to another by a transposon. Therefore the cypa gene already existed in another part of the genome of the old world monkeys.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
When their lactase enzymes are induced, they will be able to digest lactose. You can look up all of this on emedicine or other websites.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
beneficial mutations have never been observed. Evolution fails at the two most crucial hurdles.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 Go away. Do some honest homework. Waste someone else's time. I'm talking to somebody who is not an idiot - and programming. You are boring and uneducated.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend "you are boring and uneducated"
I have a Master´s degree in Biotechnology. And I am the uneducated one?
You can´t even post an example of a beneficial mutation? That´s a big fail, butterball.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 I don't care what degree you have. You're talking about what you don't know about. It's not my job to do your homework for you. Your lack of education is a big fail.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend actually evolutionary theory is my expertise. That is how I know there are no examples of beneficial mutations. And that is why you can´t even name a single example of one. Come on, just one example. And I will destroy in debate. You can´t even stick up for the theory you claim to be defending?
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
speciation has never been observed.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
if ou can´t prove it, then there´s no reason to believe it.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 No one can prove anything to an idiot who has already made up his mind. In general, science does not disprove them. However, if we were to use it the word proof in the legal sense, evolution has been proved. Your abject ignorance does not disprove evolution. I don't care whether you believe it. Do some actual homework - or don't do any homework and keep saying stupid shit.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend ok, then if you don´t want to prove evolution at least present verifiable evidence that speciation and beneficial mutations occur. These are two crucial aspects on which your theory hinges.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1
search on: dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information
Now go do actual homework and quit pretending you know something.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend This is what happens when you refer me to sites made by people who are not scientists. The mutation you are talking about is the lactase gene. The article is completely wrong. It says most people lose the ability to digest milk in adulthood. In fact most people are lactose tolerant in adulthood. True lactose intolerance is excideengly rare in the human population. Second, people are lactose intolerant because they do not drink milk. conitnued....
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 Well, you're right. It's "New Scientist" magazine. How about you take it up with discovery institute weenies who admit that mutations can increase info: v=0MHAO4JE0G0
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend is new scientist peer reviewed? Thought so. My aunt buys new scientist magazine to read on the toilet.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 Does your aunt read PLoS in Computational Biology (the source for the article I originally pointed to)? Apparently you don't either.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend "does your aunt...." Yeah, that is what she uses for toilet paper.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1
"Most adults worldwide do not produce the enzyme lactase and so are unable to digest the milk sugar lactose."
from "The Origins of Lactase Persistence in Europe" by Yuval Itan, et. al. in PLoS Computational biology.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend PLOS journales generally have a very low standard of peer review, and that is why common mistakes appear in the journal such as this.
The statement that most adults can´t digest lactose is demonstrably false. See: emedicine, lactose intolerance.
In the majority of cases when they can´t digest it, it is NOT because they lack the lactase gene, it is because the enzyme is inhibited, because they don´t drink milk. See: emedicine, lactose intolerance
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 "Lactose intolerance in adulthood is very common and is the result of a genetically programmed progressive loss of the activity of the small intestinal enzyme lactase."
From emed article 930971-overview
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend well apparently I was wrong. However, even in those who are lactose intolerant, the intestinal flora will metabolize lactose because their genes are inducible (from the same emedicine article). Therefore what is the difference between your intestinal flora or your intestinal cells metabolizing lactose? None. So how is this a beneficial mutation over the normal lactose non-persistence which nonetheless does not lead to lactose intolerance with enough milk consumption?
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
Second, milk is high in cholesterol and fat. And while it is also high in calcium, whether milk consumption in adulthood is generally healthy or not is debetable. because consumption of diary products it is tied to hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerosis. Without pasteurization is is also a source of many infectious idseases like salmonelossis or brucella.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
when they do drink milk their lactose intolerance is reversed. This is called enzyme induction. The mechanisms of enzyme induction is not a mutation, rather it is mechanism present in every cell, whereby, when more substrate is available to a cell, more of an enzyme is produced. When people who normally don´t drink milk do drink it, they will be intolerant of lactose for a while, until their lactase enzymes are induced.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
whenever I talk to people like you the bar I set is quite simple: prove evolution to me.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
By the way my IQ is 167.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
Ypou only used the word ´PROXY¨INSTEAD OF ÏNDICATION¨to appear that you have a greater vocabulary than you really do.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 No. I used it because it is the correct word and it's very common used in my own field of computer science. It's just a word.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend Doubtful, but I'm not impressed either way.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend woah, woah, computer "SCIENCE"?
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 Yes, engineering math and computer science. I imagine your going to go off on an irrelevant tangent now that you are demonstrably wrong on yet another issue.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend "engineering and computer science"
I have a degree in genetic engineering. And evolution is nonsense.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 Yes. I certainly believe you have such a degree, as much as I believe you have an IQ of 167. You don't know what you're talking about either way.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
Evolution is just a theory, it is not science, it shares many aspects in common with religion.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 Extract your head from your backside. Theory in science does not mean "doubtful." The Germ Theory of Disease is "just a theory." It was conceived as a theory, it is still a theory, and it will always be a theory, because not because it's uncertain, but because it serves the function of a theory - which is to explain. Laws are not distinguished from theories because they are more certain, but by their function - which is to describe.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend the germ theory of disease is observable directly, evolution is not. FAIL.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 Again, you demonstrate that you are thoroughly ignorant of the subject. The criteria you tried to pass off was that evolution was "just a theory." I explained that you don't know what the word "theory" means to the scientist. Of course evolution is observable - but it doesn't need to be directly observable to be good science. Seriously, just go do some actual homework instead of pretending you're smart.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend when I said evolution is just a theory, I was using the word "theory" in its common sense usage. You assumed I was using it in the scientific sense. And iguanas do not turn into humans.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 Evolution is not a theory in the vernacular sense. It's only possible to assert that by being thoroughly ignorant of the subject. Evolution does not say that iguanas turn into humans. Understandable. Wherever you find someone who rejects evolution, there too you find someone with a comic book understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
TheFallibleFiend 2 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend maybe I know more about evolution than you.
violentlyhappy1 2 months ago
My iq is 153 and I'm lazy as hell :D
Epsand 3 months ago 2
@Epsand Not uncommon. Many people with high intelligence learn to coast.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
Can a high IQ person believe in God in some form? Yes - Spinoza and Chris Langan come to mind. Can a high IQ person believe in Creationism? No. Having a high IQ immediately allows you to see the folly of Creationism.
PCoderch 6 months ago
@PCoderch Mutations do not order anything.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 3 months ago
@JungleJargon Scientists don't claim that mutations order anything. Comic book science is not science. It's amusing when religious nut-jobs try to explain science to the rest of us.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
You got all this from a creationist web site... clearly.
TamaNewb 7 months ago
You need to account for the origin of the hundreds of layers of sediments in the strata up to a mile and more deep containing the fossils before you say anything.
The function of hydrogen and derivatives working inside of us also shows us that the entire universe was made by the same Maker that made hydrogen to work inside of us.
Atheists and evolutionist have not even addressed the first questions that need to be asked and that is the reason there is no basis for anything they say about it.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon You are intellectually lazy. You need to do actual homework on the subject before repeating stupid crap you read on a creationist website. Include a course on logic - several of them. Thanks for demonstrating you don't know what you're talking about. No go away.
TheFallibleFiend 7 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend You did not say anything or address any issue. Address the issues.
Objects don't make themselves and they don't do anything without being ordered.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon I don't give a rat's ass about your "issues." Do your own homework - and post to videos appropriate to the topic. And try to be clear on the topic next time - so study evolution, logic, and maybe take a writing course or three. Now go away.
TheFallibleFiend 7 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend I will leave you with your fantasy. Just don't expect me to believe evolution when there is no accounting for where the hundreds of layers in the strata came from.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon I don't expect you to believe evolution, because I don't expect you to ever do any honest homework on the subject.
TheFallibleFiend 7 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend It wouldn't be fair for me to say that I don't expect you to address the issues.
I hope you do consider the issues. Objects don't do anything without being ordered and sediments don't fall from the sky in layers.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon GIGO
TheFallibleFiend 7 months ago
There seems to be a paradox in your title sir.
debit256 8 months ago
@debit256 An oxymoron would be the more precise term.
eosimias1 7 months ago
but bear in mind one thing first kids, everyone wants to know,and everyone wants something,ANYTHING to beleive in.most choose to beleive its all gonna be nicey-nice to die.the universe is not nicey-nice!and if you read the bible,neither was god on several occasions,jesus was continually fustrated and angry even to violence!this after life bullcrap is a hoax to make you o.k. with one day being dead.plain and simple!! ITS NOT O.K.!!theres nothing remotely o.k. about it!mostly i wish i was an idiot
irishbreakfast 10 months ago
so verify to yourselves that youre all fighting over the same force,deity,god,plasma reaction,genie snapping its fingers,or whatever you wish it to be.everyone has a unique concept of what GOD is,and its different to everyone,so all you little children might not even be debating the same concept at all! but ill say this,it is and was whatever it was or is,REGARDLESS of what you beleive! so before you run around the carpenters bench,make sure the weasel and monkey touch base,and compare notes.
irishbreakfast 10 months ago
so now go look at what god really is,and youll veiw the universe a bit clearer.math is the basis of all things,we are the only thing that can understand the complexities of math(the mind of god)that which gives us emotions and feelings between our own two ears,that part of every person that instictively knows right from wrong,that is god within you.that is the only 'supernatural' thing in the universe.cant see it,hear it,or touch it,but we all know it exsists.
irishbreakfast 10 months ago
or was this giant mathematical reaction(sperm) something that arrived from 'outside' the confines of the inert formless evenly spaced non-energetic non-cohesive materials that were the base ingredients of everything(womb)just like in biology in our 3d universe,the two exsist separately,its only when they come together does mathematically controlled form take shape into whatever its supposed to be.or was it mixed in,just waiting to spring just cause something occured and it HAD TO flash to being
irishbreakfast 10 months ago
hi.162 right here! listen guys,the giant sperm that caused the reaction of the great flash,NOT expanding bang,but great flash,that gave mathematical instructions(cohesion and energy) to the inert formless matter can be assigned any verbal designation you wish,it was what it was,and it set the laws and cycles of everything we have now.in 3d which is what the universe is,you need male from outside to plant instuctions in.what is the origin of this mathematical cohesion?was it here all along?
irishbreakfast 10 months ago
I have an IQ of 142 and I am what you call a high functioning dyslexic. I think these tests for intelligence are bogus as we don't have a clear way in defining intelligence in a numerical fashion. IQ tests could be easily be misused like in eugenics of the 20th century. Personally discussing the intellogence of creationists is a waste of time. We need better science. Like seeing if abiogenesis is possible in a chemistry lab with a wide possibility of chemicals with random conditions.
jonbrotto 10 months ago
Oh how amusing it is watching people equate a linear quantity with the rather abstract nature of what we call our intelligence. If an intelligence quotient is so definitive and standardized, associating certain processes and capacities of memory and tangible quantities,for any being, what room remains for a soul, an abstraction in the metaphysical existence that so many of these creationists dearly defend. Interestingly enough, the tenability of either argument is remarkably extensive
MIchaelpanchenko1 10 months ago
Wow, this is one dumb, fat, fat guy
ou812ryan 1 year ago
Comment removed
ou812ryan 1 year ago
@ou812ryan As both a victim and exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect, you are too stupid to judge anyone's intelligence.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
I have a IQ of 120-140 and I am 14 years old. I also believe in God. That is because my prayers have came true and I experanced wierd things with explanations that are supernatrual. It's hard to talk about without sounding liek a wierdo.
ChristinaWolfle 1 year ago
@ChristinaWolfle 1) Believing in God is not what makes a person a creationist. 2) People have biases that sometimes prevent them analyzing their situation correctly. 3) There is no logical way to conclude that something is supernatural. One can only conclude that one doesn't understand the phenomenon.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend No.. I can't explain it to you but I can explain it.. Like how do I explain demons and stuff without sounding liek a couk. I understand teh phenomenon but I know its of supternatrual origin. {11 year old telling me hes possesed-parents taking him to a preist-attacking people-geting expelled-going to an aslyum)
but how do I say that knowing dead on its a demon(if it wasent why would he be upset when I said a prayer) (attacking people with no will) I understand pretty well I...
ChristinaWolfle 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend ..I logically evaluate things..everything ..even science.. and the bible(I never claimed I believd everything in teh bible... a lot was fabricated....alot is unknown)
ChristinaWolfle 1 year ago
@ChristinaWolfle I'm slightly skeptical of your IQ being in that range given the grammar in your comment. Nevertheless, I will give you the benefit of the doubt only because of the latter two parts of your statement. I too know what it's like to have those "supernatural" (call it that if you will) experiences. If you believe that god is a "unified energy" you're on the right page, from my perspective.
1chicken90210 7 months ago
creationists with high iqs? does not exist. you know you should not stutter think about what you want to say then say it flowing properly.
daveforfun22 1 year ago
@daveforfun22 Chris Langan, supposedly the smartest man in the world (who consistently breaks the ceiling of IQ tests distributed by a number of different experts), supports creationism.
HecticRat 1 year ago
@HecticRat IQ is irrelevant; however according to wiki, Chris Langan accepts evolution, but accepts the creation story as allegory. He believes a God started everything in motion. I don' t know how reliable the quote is, but if correct, it makes him a theistic evolutionist along the lines of Frances Collins or Ken Miller.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend That's because Langan is an intelligent moron.
That's not quite right.
Langan's a moron with vastly overrated but unequivocally high intelligence.
Perfect.
Hectic Rat is correct, Langan does support creationism and is thus theistic. That this would lend any credence to religion is of course, bull shit. But since his remark is topological, then it is unreasonable to challenge his assertion on grounds that are presumably tenuous.
IamTheRealSolidSnerk 1 year ago
please fix your microphone
TheEruditepolymath 1 year ago
It's probably analogous to writing all the volumes of Lord of The Rings or Harry Potter, where one needs to create a whole new language and deep plots to suspend disbelief. Even Isaac Newton was a devout catholic who spent much of his time decoding the bible's 'hidden messages'.
wrdeboise 1 year ago
I don't doubt that there are creationists out there with high IQ's. (A high IQ may only mean that one has the ability to reason well and match complex patterns but says nothing about ones skepticism). It actually might take a pretty high IQ to create such a tremendous myth as creationist story.
wrdeboise 1 year ago
For a 13 year old you would consider 121 high, right?
eggsaladinthetub 1 year ago
@eggsaladinthetub If the numbers mean what I've heard they meant, the actual age should not matter, because the number is normalized across ages. "High" is a relative term. Assuming a normal distribution with mu=100, sigma=16, 121 the z-value is (x-mu)/sigma = (121-100)/16 = 21/16 = 1.31. Consulting a table of z values, puts this about 90% level, meaning 90% of people have IQs less or equal to this value. Another view is only 10% "smarter." Not a Mensa candidate, but pretty smart.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@eggsaladinthetub What kind of iq-test did you take?
Ko252 8 months ago
asian iq
240kankan 1 year ago
MY FINAL TEXT. I've now covered the topic of IQ with the best logic I can implement at this time. As you've noticed I never said you're wrong and the reason that is is because I don't know if you are and I also do not know if you're right. You don't even know. So why did I write these statements one after another? To prove everything is interpreted into individual meanings, which have been interpreted by its interpreter.
Genius2088 1 year ago
The factors can be anything on that specific topic, examples: Do you believe it exits? How important is IQ? Do you enjoy the concept of IQ because you have an above average IQ? Do you dislike the concept of IQ because you have a below average IQ? Moving on. Right before the end of your video you say the charts are wrong about the 100 marker and you're correct. The reason this is, is because not everyone on the planet has been tested, therefore it is an incorrect measurement....continued
Genius2088 1 year ago
@Genius2088 You miss the point regarding my comment on "100." I said, "You guys do realize the IQ score is not out of a 100, right?"
What I'm saying is that it's not like a test in school, where a 95 or a 98 is a great score.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Oops, totally misinterpreted that.
Genius2088 1 year ago
@Genius2088 of course you did. you're an idiot :)
MsGerrytodd 1 year ago
@MsGerrytodd Why so much hate? Are you ok? If you want to talk I'm here, seriously. People who act this way usually don't get enough attention elsewhere. They also tend to go down the path of drugs, let me help you.
Genius2088 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Genius2088 i "hate" nothing but stupidity and that appears to be the only thing you can offer this world :) I do not want to "talk" to your stupid ass. no one does. that is why you sit on your computer on youtube all day typing your idiotic comments. you sure do know a lot about drugs. i hope you do not get any help with your drug problems - you will always be a worthless loser no matter what :)
MsGerrytodd 1 year ago
Does that mean that there isn't a best pineapple? Nope, there's a best pineapple but it means that even if we think we have the best pineapple we don't. Now I will tell you how that story relates to the IQ system. Moral of pineapple story: Everyone has a different perception of the things around them. This means that everyone sees the idea of IQ on different levels and those levels depend on many factors...continued
Genius2088 1 year ago
But the major problem with this pineapple situation is that even if I get the best one according to my standards and taste that there's going to be another person with different standards and taste. To him the best pineapple might be the 25th best out of the 100 pineapples. The point of this pineapple story is that NO ONE contains the same views and ideas on any given situation. Does that mean that there isn't a best pineapple?...continued
Genius2088 1 year ago
@Genius2088 It's likely that some very, very few of those creationists who claim to have high IQs really do. Most of them, I suspect, are basing their assessment on a test they took over the web or from self-assessment. Some of them are profoundly stupid. Take a look at the YT user "GoodScienceForYou" for an example. Additionally, their IQs don't make them right in areas where they have not studied. IQ doesn't trump education.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
I might take a few seconds to study them or just grab one and pluck out a leaf from its stalk to test its health. If it's good then I'll take it and go on my way. Now does that mean I've got the best pineapple? Nope, it means I've got a pineapple that is good enough. For me to get the best pineapple I would need more research on each pineapple: where it came from, how long until it was shipped off, how long it has set in the store...continued
Genius2088 1 year ago
A HIGH IQ does have more pull, considering the benefits. Now I'm not saying IQ tests are 100% accurate because they're not. The one major thing I realize with my IQ is that I use a lot more logical principles when making decisions than others do. Lets take a minute to review that statement. I'm not saying I make the better decision, for example if I went into a grocery store and go to get a pineapple, I might take a few seconds to study them or just grab one and pluck out...continued
Genius2088 1 year ago
My IQ is 135. That is not a statement which should receive any comment. An IQ of 135 is only Mensa entry level. Means I would be one of the dumbest Mensa members(putting aside knowledge). The fact is that IQ should not be used as a tool where you have to install a sort of faith to even believe they have the stated IQ. Nor should it be used as a proxy to great understanding, however I do escalate to the extent that a HIGH IQ does have more pull...continued
Genius2088 1 year ago
Fallible, dude...You're mad at high IQ creationists for studying a certain field of work and dismissing the other fields. What are you doing right now? Are you also studying the creationists work? Are you reading what they read and you looking at it through their eyes and are they looking at your work through your eyes? The answer to both is no. The fact of the matter is that you're mad at them for deciding to take theory for fact, which is what you're doing. lol
Genius2088 1 year ago
@Genius2088 Yes, I have read much of the creationists' work. I'm reading their works the same way I would read any other works. I don't have to read it "through their eyes."
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Well you do if you want to understand it the way they do, same thing goes for them and the work you've done, but since people aren't capable of doing that(no one is) then you must read it in your individual view and make your own deductions, which I assume you've done.
Genius2088 1 year ago
@Genius2088 I have always tried to read critically - tried to understand what a person is saying, established hypotheses to confirm my understanding, asked questions the answers to which would confirm my understanding, and evaluated the text on what it was attempting to say.
Creationists often insist that their primary source, The Bible, has to be read differently than any other book to understand. You have to accept it, before you understand it. Drink the kool-aid?
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
I agree with you on the notion that a high IQ score does not, and should not allow people to use it as a proxy to validate anything they have studied. I would also like to add that an IQ test evaluates more than just critical thinking and logic, which are the fundamental tools used in making an intelligent assessment of evolution/creationism. Perhaps these creationists are vocabularily apt, yet logically inept (or average).
Anichels 1 year ago
@Anichels I think some very few of them have high or modestly high IQs. Most of them, I suspect, base their assessments on the results from pay sites trying to lure them in.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
Good punch line. Anyone who would try to convince by claiming a high IQ rather than presenting a valid argument hasn't got a clue.
Blackmark52 1 year ago
Well first of all just because you take an iq test and score above the.. say 98th percentile doesn't mean you can approach anything using 100% logic. Alot of the problems with Creationist people with High IQs is that more of there ideas and questions within themselves is based on things that they were brought up upon. More likely creating some sort of biast to what you said, Fallible Evolutionism. The problem in my opinion is there aproach to subjects. In some sort trying to proove one wrong. Ty
ILoveKimPearson 1 year ago
Your giving them too much credit, like everything else that comes out of there mouth, the crap about there IQ is nothing but lies.
alvcard2 1 year ago
People seem to want God to either be the way THEY think He/She/It should be, or they just cannot believe in a God because of all the twisted theories society has. I believe in God personally because I can connect with 'him'. I learned to do this using deep meditation. I don't expect everyone to agree...I'm just trying to encourage some people to try it if they are willing.
maktorri9 1 year ago
Olympicsnow wrote:
"Your insult to people's intelligence here was carefully crafted to deceive those who don't think for themselves. You are guilty of the very same thing that you accuse those who believe in God of. Try being honest next time. "
My original statement stands. A high IQ does not compensate for lack of knowledge in biology. You'd have to look far & wide for a professional biologist who doesn't accept evolution. BTW, I'm not an atheist.
prschuster 1 year ago
I am sorry my friend. You just don't offer any good reasoning against those who believe in God in your entire video here. And 'you' are being arrogant, rude, and disrespectful with how you deceitfully insult those who believe in God.Once again(and in particular for that guy Masterwow123), there actually is not any bit of proof for evolutionary theory. What happens is, so called archaeologists/doctors offer up lies, then scientists and gov.. agree, then it's forced on everybody else or else...
olympicsnow 1 year ago
@olympicsnow I'm not arguing against those who believe in God. I'm arguing against those who reject evolution and accept creationism. No. I'm not being rude. There is a lot of very strong evidence for evolution - not absolute proof, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Your ignorance of the evidence doesn't make it go away. Your comic book explanation of evolutionary theory in that single message demonstrates what level of understanding you have.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@olympicsnow "there actually is not any bit of proof for evolutionary theory"
You're playing with words to hide your near-perfect ignorance of the subject. Although you use the word "proof", you clearly mean "evidence", and in that case, you are dead wrong. There are mountains, MOUNTAINS, of evidence for evolution by natural selection. NO theory is EVER "proven" in an absolute sense, and this is why science works as a tool for investigating the natural world.
reclusivesage 1 year ago
@olympicsnow listen genius.... all religious people have done is lie to me while I was a child. Yeah, a kid. That's mental abuse.
and now these people are putting my life in danger with their stupid false beliefs and nuclear weapons.
Respect? kiss my ass. How's that for respect.
Triple9Stud 1 year ago
@olympicsnow Dude, that's what I said dipshit, way to insult someone who is on your side lmfao
Masterwow123 1 year ago
A lot of intelligent people can be fooled by creationist rhetoric. It has been carefully crafted to appeal to those who don't have formal training in biology. There's no substitute for actually studying biology.
prschuster 1 year ago
You insult to people's intelligence here was carefully crafted to deceive those who don't think for themselves. You are guilty of the very same thing that you accuse those who believe in God of. Try being honest next time. And by the way, to be honest, you can't pretend you are being honest and lie, yet still be honest. I just thought that you should know that.
olympicsnow 1 year ago
yeah... you're a moron.
planet1000 1 year ago
They're arrogant, they have no proof and yet they shove evolution THEORY down all the school systems like it's been proven. How is that not arrogant?
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 In science, the word "theory" does not mean "speculation." Evolution has been proven beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt. The fact is that creationists have not done their homework. They believe they have done their homework, but the central problem is that don't even know what real homework looks like.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Are you fucking retarded? If it was proven that was disprove god and they would do away with it...stop being a dipshit and read more
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 Actually, I've over a dozen books on evolution and many more on other areas of science. I've also read many dozens of actual science articles in peer-reviewed journals. Try to post a coherent message next time.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Stating you have books doesn't mean you read them and it also doesn't mean you even have them, if you want to talk about evolution then talk about it, otherwise fuck off.
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 I have read them and I can talk about evolution. OTOH, this video is about creationists who believe their hi iqs are support their understanding of the science. You see, I made the video and I get to say what is proper discuss under it. When you make a video, then you can change the subject all you want. The word "theory" does not mean "speculation" in science.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Definition of Evolution: change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. WOW, how can they prove that we evolved from nothing? they can't means it isn't proven...please read up on things before you make speculations about what is when you don't even understand it.
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 Scientists don't claim that we evolved from nothing. That's a straw man.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend ugh, I didn't say they did. I was showing how your previous statement has fallacious judgement. In your previous statement it said they've proved evolution, but you can't prove that everything came from an ancestor is at some point nothing existed. Understand?
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 Evolution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Evolution doesn't say we evolved from nothing.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend dude, genetics is proved, not evolution lol. I think that clears things up nicely, eh? No one has proved that we come from chimps but they've proved we both contain DNA and they're very similar. So, basically, you are confusing the two.
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 I think what is cleared up is that you don't know what you're talking about. No one has proved we don't come from chimps because no one claims we come from chimps. The DNA is more than just similar - it's similar in a particular way. Look GULOP on YT and study about nested hierarchy. Frankly, I don't think you're smart enough or attentive enough to understand the concept.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend In all seriousness, 1 man on youtube says vitamin C proves natural selection, DAMN it must be true. Ok, that wasn't that serious, but then again I don't take you serious. Answer this question for me, if your answer comes out no then my time spent talking with you is purely pointless. Do you consider a god? Is there any possible way for you to even consider a higher intellect exists beyond our greatest imagination? If no, then you cannot comprehend natures true beauty.
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 I can conceive that a God exists, but that doesn't explain anything. Evolution is irrelevant to god's existence. If you cannot understand how "God did it" is not an explanation of anything, then you are wasting everyone's time including your own.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend I agree that it doesn't explain in detail but i disagree on evolution being irrelevant to god's existence. Without god there wouldn't be evolution, considering I believe a god exists, and by evolution I mean natural selection. I believe everything was created by blueprints (genes) then evolution began only after we were created, I believe everything originated from god. To think we all originated from 1 entity, other than god's creations, is unsatisfiable, and a weak argument.
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 you are right in the fact that there must be something above any one intellect, God. I've lived on this earth for 16 years and I haven't seen any reason to believe that this existence of life was a mistake. Take a Flower say a rose; there's is a lot of beauty in a rose; This one biologist tried to argue that pedals or the true beauty of a flower has no purpose, more likely a bi-product of the Flower. BS the Flower shows the true beauty and mind of what this one intellect say God.
ILoveKimPearson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFallibleFiend I find Darwinism unconvincing. I will be compelled to acknowledge the apparently paradoxical fact that I find it convincing as well. I find it convincing because it is in certain respects correct, and in fact tautologically so in the logical sense; I find it unconvincing because it is based on a weak and superficial understanding of causality and is therefore incomplete. -Chris Langan
I thought it was only fair I bring into play another person as you did. check his site out.
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Homework is based on Faith, Scientist completely ignore that is there desicion but I really believe Creationist shouldn't care if theyve done there homework at all. But for some reason they do.
ILoveKimPearson 1 year ago
@ILoveKimPearson Homework is not "based on faith." Homework that doesn't impart understanding is not good homework. Faith imparts the illusion of understanding without the fact.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Well look at the Dark ages & Middle Ages basically people lived to die & go to heaven; In one way not really living with a purpose. So people like that didnt really care about unanswerable questions. Making it kind of what you said "Bad Homework" But then again people from then and today differ in the fact that we now wonder more & are effected by skeptisim. Back then skeptics were burned at the stake for their beliefs. All in all People died not knowing EVERYTHING about Faith.
ILoveKimPearson 1 year ago
@Masterwow123
Congrats on showing your ignorance. A "theory" in science is a network of logic and statements that describes a phenomena, allows people to make predictions about a phenomena, and to explain a phenomena (i.e., state the cause of a phenomena). Theories are supported by "facts," which are the results of studies, experiments, and observations.
So long as the studies, experiments, and observations are unbiased, and so long as theories stick to the evidence, the theory is strong.
MrNobody47710 1 year ago
Comment removed
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 Actually, *you* are the idiot. You don't know what constitute a theory or a fact in science. The germ theory of disease is just a theory, but it's a fact that germs exist. The theory of gravitation is just a theory, but gravitation is considered a fact. Pull your head out of your backside, quit telling people who know more than you do to read, and then go do some actual homework yourself.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend haha, I guess i was operating under a false theory. Tell me if I did anything wrong there. I know that statement is true, but do you? no answer means you do.
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 Look. No theory has to explain everything. Atomic theory isn't wrong just because it doesn't explain the origin of atoms. Germ theory isn't wrong just because it doesn't explain the origin of germs.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@MrNobody47710 I find Darwinism unconvincing. I will be compelled to acknowledge the apparently paradoxical fact that I find it convincing as well. I find it convincing because it is in certain respects correct, and in fact tautologically so in the logical sense; I find it unconvincing because it is based on a weak and superficial understanding of causality and is therefore incomplete. -Chris Langan
I thought it was only fair I bring into play another person as you did. check his site out.
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 Chris Langan is not a biologist and is not trained in biology, but he also wrote:
"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory." Note the word ALLEGORICAL.
In any case, what he thinks is irrelevant.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Of course he did, he wouldn't be considered the smartest man in the world if he wasn't considered logical lol. Nothing is proved, hell, we can't even prove that we exist other than our senses. Physicists cannot agree whether we are in the fuckin matrix, in a dream, or inside of gods mind, or actually real. We can't ever prove it, therefore, I will go on "believing" there is a god, and not "knowing" there is a god. Need more space...Continued...
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend In reality everyone has their own realizations, which they'll keep believing. So in other words, it has been fun chatting with you, but I'm pretty sure this is where our journey ends, good luck to you.
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend But if you think that way Fallible isn't that kind of sweeping the dust under the carpet? IF Evolutionism as whole is true and somehow man put all the puzzle pieces of are existence together and we're are only just a spec of the universe. I watched the show Universe on I think History channel and it explained how the Universe was created.. Well i don't think any of those scientist realize that they dont know a thing of how the universe was created. Time is meant to end Entropy.
ILoveKimPearson 1 year ago
@Masterwow123
I read your comment before it got removed. I think you misunderstood me. Within scientific jargon, "fact" and "theory" have specific definitions that differ from everyday definitions. In science, a theory will never be called a fact.
When you refer to facts as truth, then evolution probably has enough truth to be partially considered a fact, according to the common use of the term. I'm not a biologist, and my beliefs in things are loose, in terms of strength.
OK, we cool?
MrNobody47710 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 LOL! wow you are a fucking idiot :) "saddest" isn't even a word LOL! and you even have trouble spelling the word "too" LOL! but i know that is a tough one for retarded mongoloids like you :)
MsGerrytodd 1 year ago
Comment removed
Masterwow123 1 year ago
@Masterwow123 hey retard - you do know that we can read your idiotic comment before you remove them don't you? you remove them because you are ashamed. you are guilty. you looked up the word "sadist" - how nice that you finally used your mommy's computer for something useful LOL you are so fucking pathetic :)
MsGerrytodd 1 year ago
@MsGerrytodd Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded.
Genius2088 1 year ago
@Genius2088 wow did you make that up? or has it been said a million times to you? and since you are incapable of original thought you copied it like a dumb parrot? wow you are fucking retarded :) too retarded for the special olympics :)
MsGerrytodd 1 year ago
@MsGerrytodd ha ha, I love this, "too retarded for the special Olympics."
Genius2088 1 year ago
And I want to address Feynman. The notion that his IQ was 125 is ludicrous. This probable falsehood originated from Feynman himself and he provided zero corroboration for the claim. Arthur Jensen, one of the foremost authorities in psychometrics, says he doesn't believe it either. Feynman's scores on his graduate entry exams to Princeton were perfect (in math/physics). Never happened before. 125 is ridiculous.
b1naryd1g1t5 1 year ago
Comment removed
b1naryd1g1t5 1 year ago
Who's this Fallible dude?
My mensa Iq test was out of thousands.
You're obvious a envious person who flunked the mensa test.
And when are you people going to understand that MAN created the god concept.
It's history. I suppose you believe in zeus, too, right?
And where was gods logic in creating adam and eve and a meat eating dinosaur at the same time? DUH!
iqstlye 1 year ago
Never took "the mensa test," but I qualify by proxy. And I never said I believe in any gods - but that is irrelevant to the topic of the video, which you seem not to have watched prior to commenting.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago