Unpopular Opinions.

steddyeddy

mickrock wrote: »

Well, I'm not religious and don't believe in a god.

The only alternative is intelligent design, which a growing number of scientists are considering a possibility.

Many will say that intelligent design is another term for God but it isn't.

Aliens?

mickrock

steddyeddy wrote: »

Aliens?

No thanks.

steddyeddy

mickrock wrote: »

No thanks.

I dont get what your proposing Mickrock.

strobe

mickrock wrote: »

"As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10^[SIZE=-1]119,879[/SIZE] is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.

At this rate he estimates it would require 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit."

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Mick, there is a reason (well lots of reasons) why nowadays you will only find creationist websites such as the above still putting forward Coppedge's 1973 argument from Evolution: Possible or Impossible. Primarily it is because pretty much everyone else now accepts that his argument is based on several flawed and/or outdated assumptions.

For example, one assumption he bases his figures on is 'the required estimate of 239 protein molecules [400 amino acids per protein on average] for the smallest theoretical life form.' This figure of 239 protein molecules [400 aa] was based on a 1969 paper (making it even more outdated) by a guy called Morowitz. The 400 amino acids was in his own words "the average number of amino acids in proteins of the smallest known living thing is 400, at the very least". Which is completely irrelevant when what he should be basing his figures on is the minimum number of amino acids that could have existed in the first life. Not the average in the smallest known living things in 1969 that were already billions of years more advanced than the first life.

He also when coming up with his figures arbitrarily uses the rate of meaningful word formation in random English letter generation (basically how often throwing out random letters will produce proper English words) to calculate the number of possible combinations which would produce a viable gene. This is meaningless.

He goes on to make other similar assumptions that were mistakes when he made them or were based on information from the 70's or before which has now been proven inaccurate.

Kanoe

there's two pages of this god vs evolution crap here, can ya kindly find somewhere else to have this monotonous, constantly regurgitated discussion that no one really gives a crap about?

strobe

Kanoe wrote: »

there's two pages of this god vs evolution crap here, can ya kindly find somewhere else to have this monotonous, constantly regurgitated discussion that no one really gives a crap about?

Don't like it, don't read it. << That's my unpopular opinion for the day.

(It's abiogenesis vs intelligent design crap btw, not god vs evolution crap.)

Kanoe

strobe wrote: »

Don't like it, don't read it. << That's my unpopular opinion for the day.

(It's abiogenesis vs intelligent design crap btw, not god vs evolution crap.)

exactly its unpopular opinion thread not what you think is responsible for all life thread. Take to A&A or humanities ffs

strobe

Kanoe wrote: »

exactly its unpopular opinion thread not what you think is responsible for all life thread. Take to A&A or humanities ffs

People have been discussing all sorts of opinions that have been popping up. Don't like it, report the posts. You know how it works. Take it to ranting and raving ffs.

wonderfulname

ffs...

billybudd

ffs,,,,,

Kanoe

If this was elsewhere it might have some credence but it's AH for the love of Abiogenesis/Creative Designer. I like it lowbrow, I like that it's somewhere I don't actually have to think when I post/read here.make it go away, please.



ffs

K-9

Buddhists win tbh.

Paddy Cow

eth0 wrote: »

One off houses are brilliant places to live.

What are one off houses?

Cavehill Red

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

K-9

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

Didn't know about Jewish people, knew about East Asians.

Women tend to be more of average intelligence as well.

Men tend to be either spectacularly smart or spectacularly dumb whereas women tend to be in the middle.

Read it on the internet somewhere.

kraggy

Paparazzo wrote: »

Only 50% of women in this country breastfeed! And that's on leaving the hospital, many stop very soon afterwards.
That's a lot of social problems!

How do you know? Did you get a picture of them?

Pics or gtfo.

Cavehill Red

This meta-study was quite revealing.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

It debunks all the usual rejoinders offered to IQ testing differences. Nurture is ruled out by trans-adoption studies, cultural specificity of the test is ruled out by the fact that East Asians consistently outperform Europeans who developed the test, historicity is ruled out by virtue of consistent results over a 90 year period using variations of intelligence testing, and there is a provable correlation in relation to cranial capacity and intelligence (wherein east asians have on average an extra cubic inch of brain capacity compared to whites, who have five cubic inches more than blacks)

wonderfulname

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose I'd espouse one particularly unpopular opinion in the current climate.

I believe that - on average - people of negroid origin are less intelligent than other people. Various forms of intelligence tests (and some physiological ones) have indicated this in the past, placing some Jews top of intelligence tables, followed by East Asians, with caucasians a little above the global average and blacks about 15% back on average.

But doing such research is considered racist now because we all must consider everybody to be equal in capabilities (even though there hasn't been a white 100 metre sprinter of note in nearly 40 years.) Now, I've no problem with black people. I've been all over Africa, and enjoyed their company immensely. But they do seem to lack some forms of abstract thinking and can be much quicker to emotive responses, I find (anecdotally). I'm speaking averages here - obviously there are outliers and overlapping bell curves, which means that of course there are some immensely intelligent black people just as there are some incredibly dumb whites and Jews.

Right, is it you that posted this point earlier thinking you were being oh so rebellious? Averages are not a problem, everybody agrees with averages, but not everybody agrees they are relevant. I emboldened the bit you most misunderstood up there: we must consider everybody to be equal in potential, we can't assume a black person to be stupid because on average black people have lower IQs, just like we can't assume a man to be incapable of minding a child or a woman of lifting above a certain weight, it's not a hard concept to grasp.

Now the red bit, that's bold, you've just claimed all black people are lacking a brain function and are just a little bit more... primal in their response, you've implied that this is an innate characteristic, tut tut, now that is racist.

Cavehill Red

wonderfulname wrote: »

Right, is it you that posted this point earlier thinking you were being oh so rebellious? Averages are not a problem, everybody agrees with averages, but not everybody agrees they are relevant. I emboldened the bit you most misunderstood up there: we must consider everybody to be equal in potential, we can't assume a black person to be stupid because on average black people have lower IQs, just like we can't assume a man to be incapable of minding a child or a woman of lifting above a certain weight, it's not a hard concept to grasp.

Now the red bit, that's bold, you've just claimed all black people are lacking a brain function and are just a little bit more... primal in their response, you've implied that this is an innate characteristic, tut tut, now that is racist.

I think you'll find I haven't posted in this thread before this page. And I made the point about the difference between a group average and individuals more accurately than you did.

Furthermore, your point about potential is demonstrably facile and meaningless. Someone with an IQ of say 70 (a common finding among uneducated sub-Saharan blacks) is not going to suddenly find the capacity to comprehend complex theoretical physics problems no matter how much you wish they could.

The meta-study demonstrates that the nurture (we could substitute education for that term) argument doesn't hold water, anymore than one could feasibly argue that a morbidly obese person with arthritis could run a sub four minute mile in potential. It's not going to happen in actuality and the hypothetical and idealistic potential posited is just that, a naive belief unsupported by evidence or reality.

Now, as for the bit you marked it red, you'll note I stated that was a personal anecdotal experience of mine. Nevertheless it is borne out by the fact that almost no sub-Saharan languages of black origin (English, French and Afrikaans all being sub-Saharan languages too) possess comprehensive tenses for what we would understand as the conditional or subjunctive tenses.

This clearly implies that the abstract concepts involving conditionality ( eg: IF such a thing were to happen, I WOULD or SHOULD do something, etc) are not strongly held among those populaces that speak those languages (Xhosa and Zulu are two I know of with this feature.)

Now, you can choose, in your kneejerk and tediously uninformed fashion to slam the door shut on any discussion of that by deeming it racist. I frankly couldn't care less about how you choose to judge me. It demonstrates nothing more than your ideology clashing with the facts to me. An open mind would have first queried exactly what I meant by abstract concepts before dismissing the point. By failing to do so (though I've now explained it for you anyway) you demonstrated your own closed and prejudged mind.

I also think it's self-evident to anyone, including Africans themselves, who has spent time in their company that despite the existence of very many highly sanguine black individuals (Obama and Mandela both being good examples) nevertheless black people across the globe are generally quicker to laughter, quicker to dispute loudly, quicker to what we might term as I did emotive responses than other races. No doubt Asians, who are generally more reserved than caucasians might say something similar about us. One can if one chooses deem that a method of cultural expression, as it in itself is no correlative of intelligence, primality or anything else other than itself. Equally, there may be something beyond cultural in it. That's not something I've ever chosen to examine or research, personally, but I'd have no problem accepting it was simply a mode of cultural expression.

wonderfulname

Did you even read my post?

smegmar

Well done Cavehill, it's good to see some unpopular opinions well researched and backed up with a good argument.

To often people jump on the "It's racist" point and can't see an underlying reality. Yea African blacks lack some amount of cranial capacity, and abstract thought however in physical fields (sport) and music blacks win hands down.

It's about time we recognise there are some traits that on average give one race advantages or disadvantages, and use that for our collective gain.

Who is the fastest sprinter in the world: Usain Bolt Jamaican of African black decent.

Who is the fastest swimmer in the world: Michael Phelps, American, of White European decent.

If I need someone to sprint and I know nothing more then the colour of candidates skin, I won't voluntarily blind myself to be politically correct. Likewise if I need someone to do math I'll pick the guy with a Asian name.

It's a bit like betting on horses, you can only have indicators of potential speed of the horse, and never know for sure. However you're still going to bet knowing that you're playing on the statistics.

smegmar

On the topic of "Politically correct" and "Racism" I'll ask all those against me a question....

Which is superior Blue or Green?

I'm not asking which is your favorite, but which is the better and which is inferior.

The true answer is there is no superior, but if I awoke some morning and found the sky was green and the grass was blue, I'd know something has gone wrong.

wonderfulname

smegmar wrote: »

To often people jump on the "It's racist" point and can't see an underlying reality. Yea African blacks lack some amount of cranial capacity, and abstract thought however in physical fields (sport) and music blacks win hands down.

Em, that's not what lower IQ on average actually means.

It's about time we recognise there are some traits that on average give one race advantages or disadvantages, and use that for our collective gain.

How could this be used to our "collective gain"?

If I need someone to sprint and I know nothing more then the colour of candidates skin, I won't voluntarily blind myself to be politically correct. Likewise if I need someone to do math I'll pick the guy with a Asian name.

That's completely stupid, if you need someone to do maths just ask who's good at it, if you need someone to run from a group of non runners pick the one with the greatest overall fitness, there are so many relevant deciding factors before you bring up minor differences in racial averages.

It's a bit like betting on horses, you can only have indicators of potential speed of the horse, and never know for sure. However you're still going to bet knowing that you're playing on the statistics.

Not really, it's a bit like betting on a horse based on the fact he's Bay and hence more likely to be descended from Red Rum than the other horses, the probability is minute and you're better off looking at his history, parentage and jockey.

keano_afc

I really cant understand the fuss about Lone Parent allowance being cut. In my opinion, it is a financial reward for irresponsibly having children outside a stable relationship and should be cut altogether. My wife and I have one child, which we quite rightly receive no weekly payment for. Our neighbour, who has a boyfiend and they both work, receives a weekly payment for her child as she is unmarried. How can that be right?

wonderfulname

Tax credits for married couples - Why do they get free money when it costs less per head to keep two people than one?

Cavehill Red

wonderfulname wrote: »

Did you even read my post?

Judging by your complete failure to address anything in my last post, I'm going to be generous and suggest you didn't read it (wherein not only did I demonstrate I read your post, but answered it conclusively.)

The alternative interpretation would be that you have no response that doesn't conflict with your own prejudged ideology on the matter.

az2wp0sye65487

wonderfulname wrote: »

Tax credits for married couples - Why do they get free money when it costs less per head to keep two people than one?

To encourage marriage

wonderfulname

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Judging by your complete failure to address anything in my last post, I'm going to be generous and suggest you didn't read it (wherein not only did I demonstrate I read your post, but answered it conclusively.)

The alternative interpretation would be that you have no response that doesn't conflict with your own prejudged ideology on the matter.

No, you responded to what you assumed was an argument against everything you said, I can only assume you are as biased as I in reading what I wrote, let's try again; you cannot judge the individual on the basis of a collective average, so it's not an unpopular opinion to cite research that says black people on average have lower IQs, and it's not racist, you'd have to be dense to think it was, however it becomes racist when someone uses this information to prejudge an individual (which you didn't do by the way), you are for some reason being defensive towards a deserved negative backlash to the latter position when you are pushing the former, which makes no sense.

The implication of the information you chose to present as a personal experience of black people still stands as racist, it may merely be in the way you phrased it or you might be confident in tarring all people of one colour with the same brush, but it's not a valid point as it stands and you did put it very poorly.

Cavehill Red

keano_afc wrote: »

I really cant understand the fuss about Lone Parent allowance being cut. In my opinion, it is a financial reward for irresponsibly having children outside a stable relationship and should be cut altogether. My wife and I have one child, which we quite rightly receive no weekly payment for. Our neighbour, who has a boyfiend and they both work, receives a weekly payment for her child as she is unmarried. How can that be right?

It isn't, which is why they are now cross-referencing with tax returns to identify those claiming the allowance who are actually in relationships and not entitled to the benefit, something they ought to have done a long time ago.

However, the cut also affects those who ought to be entitled to it, despite your judgemental attitude. You're only one serious argument away from being one yourself, let's bear in mind. As a single parent myself, I certainly didn't have a child planning to be the sole parent. But sometimes life's like that.

The correct thing to do should have been to cut out the fraudulent claims, not slash and burn every one of those single parents who are struggling to raise children on the breadline without reference to their individual circumstances.

wonderfulname

Leandro Limited Saturn wrote: »

To encourage marriage

I know that, but why is that still relevant today? Why is it the states business?