God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[abu afak]

I find apu to be even less intellectually capable than you and that's hard to do.

As even you can see, my posts are the intellectual Pillars of the section.
But as you can also see I barely post here any more, and in fact barely ever did.
7K+ in 18 years.
And yet my posts/opinions Dominate the section!

(and ding just Learned/used 'punctuated equilibrium,' I term I posted twice in the last few hours.)

Back to Mensa for me where I don't have to debate accepted science with one-line mental defective motor-mouths like you.

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Back to Mensa for me where I don't have to debate accepted science with one-line mental defective motor-mouths like you.

I don't think you understand IQ. The IQ score is not a measure of "intelligence" it is a measure of your ability to pass an IQ test. Nobody knows what intelligence is let alone how to "measure" it.

I suggest you listen to this round table discussion between academics, they disagree and on this and its most interesting:

In Our Time - Intelligence - BBC Sounds

Melvyn Bragg explores the origins, manifestations and possibilities of intelligence.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[abu afak]

I don't think you understand IQ. The IQ score is not a measure of "intelligence" it is a measure of your ability to pass an IQ test. Nobody knows what intelligence is let alone how to "measure" it.

I suggest you listen to this round table discussion between academics, they disagree and on this and its most interesting:

In Our Time - Intelligence - BBC Sounds

Melvyn Bragg explores the origins, manifestations and possibilities of intelligence.

www.bbc.co.uk

Google
AI Overview

According to psychologist John Antonakis, IQ is the most important predictor of work success. IQ is a measurement of a person's ability to reason, process information, and use that information to solve problems.

Studies have shown that high IQs are reliable predictors of academic success, job performance, career potential, and creativity. IQs are especially notable predictors of success in skilled occupations like engineering, physics, and neurosurgery.""

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Wiki
AI Overview

According to psychologist John Antonakis, IQ is the most important predictor of work success. IQ is a measurement of a person's ability to reason, process information, and use that information to solve problems.

Studies have shown that high IQs are reliable predictors of academic success, job performance, career potential, and creativity. IQs are especially notable predictors of success in skilled occupations like engineering, physics, and neurosurgery.""

`

Listen to the discussion:

How do we define intelligence, how do we measure it; what are its origins and how do we uncover it? But are we any closer to understanding what this elusive quality of intelligence is? The debate still rages as to whether we are born with it or whether intelligence is something we develop as we grow, and evidence for either camp seems to pile up almost daily.

With Dr Ken Richardson, educational psychologist, former Senior Lecturer, Open University and author of The Making of Intelligence; Professor Michael Ruse Philosopher of Biology, University of Guelph, Ontario and author of Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?

Ken Richardson​

Kenneth Richardson (born 21 July 1942) is a British psychologist, author, and former lecturer at the Open University, where he began working in 1971.[1][2] He has written several books highly critical of IQ testing and related concepts in the field of psychometrics, such as Spearman's g.[3][4] He contends that the definitions of intelligence, and the assumptions of its causes, "lie at the core of political ideologies", and has called for IQ tests to be banned.[5] He has supported this position by arguing that IQ tests do not measure cognitive ability, but rather conformity with the culture of the tests' designers.[6][7][8] Richardson debated the measurement of intelligence with philosopher of science Michael Ruse on the BBC's In Our Time.[9]

 

[abu afak]

Listen to the discussion:

Ken Richardson​

I posted the overview of the whole body of research.
I don't need to read an outlier/google scraping.
IQ is in fact, the solidest thing IN the Social sciences.

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I posted the overview of the whole body of research.
I don't need to read an outlier/google scraping.
IQ is, in fact, the solidest thing IN the Social sciences.

You are not very intelligent then, you steer clear of controversy, you pretend there is none and when there is you dismiss it as irrelevant. The audio is a discussion between two educational academics about IQ, unless you actually listen you won't know what they say!

You are so typical of fake intellectuals these days, you have a belief and seek only preserve it, if you avoid controversy, disagreements, disputes, unconventional opinions then you have no hope of actually learning anything new, you're a fake.

Progress is made by disagreements not parroting what the majority believe, you are more religious than the theists in this forum!

 

[ding]

As even you can see, my posts are the intellectual Pillars of the section.
But as you can also see I barely post here any more, and in fact barely ever did.
7K+ in 18 years.
And yet my posts/opinions Dominate the section!

Back to Mensa for me where I don't have to debate accepted science with one-line mental defective motor-mouths like you.

`

Back to Mensa

 

[ding]

so sweet of you to share that

thank you

You're welcome. Apu can carry your water.

 

[Dante]

You're welcome. Apu can carry your water.

Thank you. And I'll have his back.

Now...

 

[ding]

Thank you. And I'll have his back.

Now...

View attachment 997750

You can pinkie dip her for all I care.

 

[ding]

You'll have to excuse Ding.
He's going back and forth between this section and Religion, while talking about our duties to god under the constitution!
His Religion/delusion dicktates his positions.

`

I've forgotten more science than either of you science groupies ever knew. So keep jerking each other off.

 

[abu afak]

Thank you. And I'll have his back.

Now...

View attachment 997750

You'll have to excuse Ding.
He's going back and forth between this section and Religion, while talking about our duties to god under the constitution!
His Religion/delusion dicktates his anti-science positions.

`

 

[ding]

You'll have to excuse Ding.
He's going back and forth between this section and Religion, while talking about our duties to god under the constitution!
His Religion/delusion dicktates his anti-science positions.

`

How many times we going to do this?

I've forgotten more science than either of you science groupies ever knew. So keep jerking each other off.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Contrarians on steroids ain't pretty.

 

[ding]

Contrarians on steroids ain't pretty.

Agreed. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There are two definitions of atheism, the original one and the Flewsian one. The Flewsian definition is a vacuity, to say "I do not hold a belief" is trickery, wordplay.

One cannot say "I do not hold a belief that X is true" unless one knows what the proposition means and if one knows what it means and then chooses not hold the belief then that's no different to saying "I do not believe that X is true" which is the same as "I believe X is false" - i.e. "God does not exist" which is the established and well known original definition.

There are plenty of definitions for atheism, but lacking belief in supernatural explanations due to there being no compelling, supportive, empirical evidence covers the lot including agnosticism.

Clearly different from saying "one knows" or "I do not believe." No need to argue. You've already made the point several times. With zero evidence to show one might as well just be gesticulating wildly while emitting loud fart noises.

Those asserting positive claims need to back them up or go fish. Your bill for the latter is long overdue.

 

[scruffy]

.

Also, as I've shown in several posts recently, my belief in a creator is rooted in science not religion.

I doubt that very much, since science requires experimentation and there is no experimental test for a creator.

No, your belief is exactly that - a belief. An article of faith.

 

[scruffy]

How many times we going to do this?

I've forgotten more science than either of you science groupies ever knew. So keep jerking each other off.

Science is something you do, not something you know

 

[westwall]

There are plenty of definitions for atheism, but lacking belief in supernatural explanations due to there being no compelling, supportive, empirical evidence covers the lot including agnosticism.

Clearly different from saying "one knows" or "I do not believe." No need to argue. You've already made the point several times. With zero evidence to show one might as well just be gesticulating wildly while emitting loud fart noises.

Those asserting positive claims need to back them up or go fish. Your bill for the latter is long overdue.

No, I an an agnostic. I am not an atheist.

There is a huge difference.

 

[westwall]

Science is something you do, not something you know

Yes, and no. Science and the practice of it, is never ending. We know very little.

Something that is theorized about today will, when better instruments are devised, be found to be completely the opposite of what was envisioned.

That's the difference between scientists and non scientists. Non scientists simply don't have the deductive reasoning ability to recognize that fact.

The ability to think about processes, and how they occur in the real world is foreign to most people.

It simply never crosses their mind that there is a question about how something actually works.