[Leagon]

Interesting man.

Very interesting, actually. I think I saw him on an episode of Ripley's and they said his girlfriend has a 170 IQ. Just a random fact.

Pillbox, you're either joking or incorrect when you say the purpose of life is money. For a greater part of mankind's history, there was no money. Wealth only became possible with the concept of abundance.

Dysentery, you seem somewhat intelligent but you're behaving trollaciously. By very definition, God can neither be proven or disproven. The necessity of a God can be argued, but the existence of an omnipotent being? Not really worth arguing as the idea of such a being opens the doors to any and all arguments and counter-arguments.

[bobbylight]

Originally Posted by Leagon

Interesting man.

Very interesting, actually. I think I saw him on an episode of Ripley's and they said his girlfriend has a 170 IQ. Just a random fact.

Pillbox, you're either joking or incorrect when you say the purpose of life is money. For a greater part of mankind's history, there was no money. Wealth only became possible with the concept of abundance.

Dysentery, you seem somewhat intelligent but you're behaving trollaciously. By very definition, God can neither be proven or disproven. The necessity of a God can be argued, but the existence of an omnipotent being? Not really worth arguing as the idea of such a being opens the doors to any and all arguments and counter-arguments.

Now this is something I can refute. My evidence: his posts in the thread.

But on a serious note I am pretty sure he is just trolling.

[MGMustards]

The average guy who does stuff > The genius who does nothing.

[baatar]

It is tough to gauge what an IQ score means without knowing which test was administered. Traditionally the average is 100, but some have an average of 120, etc. So obviously a 170 is practically impossible on a test with an average of 100 and an essential max of 150 (with a roughly 18 point standard deviation). So, it would be more meaningful to know their standard deviations or percentage placement in the population. blah, blah, stats, blah.

[Dysentery]

I realized that debating less intelligent people on religious ignorance is almost a losing battle .... kind of like some warfare. The problem will be solved by integrating computers into our brains in the near future. Humanity version 2.0. We'll be able to correct the guy this thread is abouts software. Although it might prevent some evil actions in the meantime with those who smart/rational enough to be taught but not figure it out on their own.

[baatar]

Originally Posted by Dysentery

I realized that debating less intelligent people on religious ignorance is almost a losing battle

Holy shit, I think you and I just agreed on something!

[Madmick]

Originally Posted by Systemanoob

The smartest man on earth is a creationist?

ABCNEWS.com : Chat Transcript: Chris Langan's IQ Sets him Apart

Yeah, dude, Einstein believed in God, too. So do many great scientists. They're just not assholes who refuse scientific knowledge to save the inerrant interpretation of scripture, or pretend to know God's will or moral code.

Also, the IQ is way out of date. Read up on Howard Gardner (the Harvard professor whose penned the "Multiple Intelligence" theory; he has outlined twelve; the IQ test only analyzes two).

[villasenor]

his hair is what bothers me the most

[Lubaolong]

Originally Posted by Madmick

Yeah, dude, Einstein believed in God, too. So do many great scientists.

Einstein used "god" as a poetic ****phor for nature or mysteries of the universe. He said long ago that rumors of his belief in a personal god were lies. And just recently a letter of his comes out where he describs religion as "human weakness," the bible as "primitive legends," and belief in such things "pretty childish." I thought this would be the nail in the coffin, but it seems nothing will stop the quote miners.

I would say most great scientists share this sentiment. I, of course, am refering to modern scientists, not those that lived 300 years ago that creationists tend to cite.

Originally Posted by Madmick

Also, the IQ is way out of date. Read up on Howard Gardner (the Harvard professor whose penned the "Multiple Intelligence" theory; he has outlined twelve; the IQ test only analyzes two).

His "theory" is one that few psychologist accept and most discredit. It seems pretty silly to me.

[Leagon]

Originally Posted by Lubaolong

Einstein used "god" as a poetic ****phor for nature or mysteries of the universe. He said long ago that rumors of his belief in a personal god were lies. And just recently a letter of his comes out where he describs religion as "human weakness," the bible as "primitive legends," and belief in such things "pretty childish." I thought this would be the nail in the coffin, but it seems nothing will stop the quote miners.

I would say most great scientists share this sentiment. I, of course, am refering to modern scientists, not those that lived 300 years ago that creationists tend to cite.

The idea of the Unmoved Mover isn't a rare one. Until String Theory and M Theory and all other similar theories are completed, I wouldn't discredit any scientist for holding other beliefs.

His "theory" is one that few psychologist accept and most discredit. It seems pretty silly to me.

The idea of several different kinds of intelligence/genius is silly? You think Babe Ruth would've scored high on an IQ test?