Originally posted by dadudemon
This cat knows. 313
to be straight, I don't think the numbers reflect a general improvement of what I would define as intelligence though.
imho, any real increase in intelligence is due to more leisure time to involve oneself in academic practices and the institutionalizing of public education and test taking in general. One of the interesting trends of these findings is that they seem to plateau (though not disappear, yet), accelerating during periods of initial industrialization and setting up education systems. IQ scores themselves might simply reflect the fact that people, over time and culturally, become more used to using and taking written tests.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If knowing more makes you smarter then the average modern physicist is smarter than Einstein.
You do know that that average professional physicist knows cascades more than Einstein knew about physics, right?
It's still non-sequitur, however.
The intelligence (the way I am using) would not necessarily be the same. Einstein very well could have a higher IQ than the theoretical person you speak of. Also, I am using knowledge and intelligence, not "smarts". This is also why it "does not follow".
Originally posted by dadudemon
You do know that that average professional physicist knows cascades more than Einstein knew about physics, right?
Yes, I actually made that point. Read what I write before responding, would you?
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's still non-sequitur, however.
If X then Y
X
Y
If you believe knowledge is intelligence then any modern scientist is more intelligent than Einstein.
You believe knowledge is intelligence.
You believe any modern physicist is more intelligent than Einstein.
It's follows perfectly.
All I'm arguing is that your definition of intelligence seems like a poor one. We have the perfectly good word "knowledgeable" to describe what you're trying to refer to. Then again, you're probably picking the most ambiguous possible terms just to make yourself difficult to understand.
In any event I'm not getting sucked into more of your trolling. Have a nice night.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, I actually made that point. Read what I write before responding, would you?
No, that's not the point you made. Read what I write before you automatically try to force a contrary or negative post at me. This time, I'm serious and not just playing word games with your insults. You actually did not make the same point I did.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If X then Y
X
YIf you believe knowledge is intelligence then any modern scientist is more intelligent than Einstein.
You believe knowledge is intelligence.
You believe any modern physicist is more intelligent than Einstein.It's follows perfectly.
All I'm arguing is that your definition of intelligence seems like a poor one. We have the perfectly good word "knowledgeable" to describe what you're trying to refer to. Then again, you're probably picking the most ambiguous possible terms just to make yourself difficult to understand.
In any event I'm not getting sucked into more of your trolling. Have a nice night.
You typed a bunch just to miss the point, yet again. It's hilarious that you say you're getting "sucked" into more of "my" trolling when your entire MO is to just post things contrary or in opposition to what I say. You literally follow me around on the boards and do that.
How often do I quote you in a conversation that I am not yet part of, and then say something to oppose it? How often do you do the same to me? Exactly: there's a very large disproportion, here. Why do you do it? Obviously, it is to troll. You're a subtle troll, for sure. You also didn't start pulling out the "troll" label until I called you out. Was it when I pointed out your internet bullying ADarkSideJedi? Seems like it has been that way since a bit after that time.
However, you're not irritating contrary to what you make think you're doing.
To actually address your point, I don't care what you think my definition of "intelligence" is. I don't care what yours is, either. You'll get over it just like you always do.
Additionally, I do not think knowledge is intelligence. You missed the point yet again. How could you miss it when that distinction was made in the same post you quoted? 🙁 You're killing me, man. 🙁
Lastly, how could I be picking ambiguous terms when inimalist quoted me, expanded my approach, and I gave him a virtual high-five for being on the same page? You're forcing it, man. Why can't we go back to the old days where you impressed me with your awesome and obscure knowledge of various topics and made awesome one liners? Just forget that I ever asked you to stop riding ADarkSideJedi's ass and pretend I endorsed your actions. I just felt sorry for her because there were no less than 3 people riding her about stuff she said in every other thread (you guys wouldn't drop shit, either). You were the worst about it. But, if you thought I was being a douche by calling attention to that behavior, pretend I never did (as best as you can) and forgive my past actions.
If you would like to continue this conversation, we should do so in private. If you respond here, I'll reply via PM.
Originally posted by inimalist
depending on how you feel about IQ tests, they do show upward trends over time. There are lots of theories about it, but as a consequence, the "mean" IQ score needs to be reset from time to time so that it actually reflects a score of "100".Again though, depends on how you feel about IQ tests.
EDIT: no, I don't know why I included quotation marks...
Or could that reflect the fact that the test has changed over time. It could be the test improving, and not over all human intelligence.
Originally posted by inimalist
thats my pointits changes in the culture that make people better at taking tests or give them free time to go to school and pursue academic activities.
Ok, but I'm not sure how we got away from prophecies. However, this thread has nothing to do with prophecy. Maybe we need a new thread.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A new thread will be made to talk about biblical prophecies after the atheistic backlash against them but immediately following a theistic apologetic discussion!
Corrected for proper wording and a proper parallel. estahuh
Remember, revelations doesn't say stuff "may" happen: it says sh*t is going down.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is also not talking about something far off in the future.
That's one interpretation (which is part of the problem).
There's some interpretations which has it as a mixture of "near" and "far". One where it had already happened. One where it is yours above: "near". One where it is only "far". One where it is completely false. One where it is the ravings of a madman. One where it was intended as literature (something to be enjoyed rather than taken as canon).
In fact, there are so many "legit" ways to approach that book as to make it virtually meaningless (IMO, of course).
Some have multiple authors (fact) involved with the book of revelations.
However, the general arguments are "Futurist, Preterist, Idealist, or Historicist".
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's one interpretation (which is part of the problem).There's some interpretations which has it as a mixture of "near" and "far". One where it had already happened. One where it is yours above: "near". One where it is only "far". One where it is completely false. One where it is the ravings of a madman. One where it was intended as literature (something to be enjoyed rather than taken as canon).
In fact, there are so many "legit" ways to approach that book as to make it virtually meaningless (IMO, of course).
Some have multiple authors (fact) involved with the book of revelations.
However, the general arguments are "Futurist, Preterist, Idealist, or Historicist".
It is ether fantasy, or written in code. I believe it is an anti-Roman code book, but we have lost the cipher.