Re: God=G_uv proves 40k B.C. Creation

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.com)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:33:19 -0400

"Glenn Arnold" <oldnoah@att.net> wrote in message
news:418185A3.8090404@att.net...
>
>
> ZenIsWhen wrote:
>
> > "George Hammond" <nowhere@nomailspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:eIadnZ017-5Yrh3cRVn-rg@comcast.com...
> >
> >>"Glenn Arnold" <oldnoah@att.net> wrote in message
> >>news:418022D6.4070409@att.net...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>George Hammond wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"David Evens" <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:iiumn05ft8gphrlpshggq9cha039feim4g@4ax.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:18:46 -0400, "ZenIsWhen"
> >>>>><ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:cldam3$ova$05$1@news.t-online.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>ZenIsWhen wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>George Hammond wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>No, Robo-George - that's what scientists _know_ about it...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>[Hammond]
> >>>>>>>>>No Robo-Sho, after all we're listeing to someone who thinks a
> >>>>>>>>>cube can be defined as:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"12 equal lines meeting at right angels"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>One can't believe ANYTHING said by someone copable
> >>>>>>>>>of that level of stupidity"
> >>>>>>>>> __
> >>>>>>>>>__| |__
> >>>>>>>>>|__ __|
> >>>>>>>>> |__|
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>this is 12 equal lines meeting at right ancgles
> >>>>>>>>>and it is NOT A CUBE.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Though true - this rebuttal is from an idiot who claims EVERY 18
> >>>>>>>>
> > year
> >
> >>>>old
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>has an I.Q. of 1800.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>[Robo-George] has forgotten: We were speaking of three
> >>>>>>>(not two!) dimensional objects. The shown figure might
> >>>>>>>be valid for two dimensional objects, but this is com-
> >>>>>>>pletely OT, the discussion was about three dimensional
> >>>>>>>objects. He's always changing the subject to avoid the
> >>>>>>>moment where he has to admit he was wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>If height is a required property, my definition cannot
> >>>>>>>form any other object, it always will be a cube.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>Agreed; but the way George presented it ( I don't know the whole
> >>>>>>conversation), his two dimensional version is right too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>BTW...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The 1800 I.Q. points can be true for GRE or SAT tests.
> >>>>>>>1800 would be be sufficient for a membership in all of
> >>>>>>>the HighIQ societies, except the "Giga Society" (which
> >>>>>>>requires an IQ of 200 or above).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>Ahhhh......but SAT (GRE??) does not measure I.Q..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>Yes it does, it just scales the thing differently and gives it a
> >>>>>better name. IQ tests were ALWAYS intended to be predictors of
> >>>>>scholatic performance, that's what they were originally invented to
> >>>>>do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>[Hammond]
> >>>>What amazes me is how most people ignore the fact that IQ
> >>>>is a "quotient".... that it is actually "Intelligence divided by age".
> >>>>What amazes me is that the average person does not recognize
> >>>>that the most fundamental thing about "Intelligence" is that it
> >>>>increases with age (for the first 18 years) and therefore the
> >>>>main determiner of "intelligence" is in fact "brain growth".
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>The intellectual age/ chronological age formula hasn't been used in
many
> >>>decades. The name: "Intelligence Quotient" is merely an artifact of
that
> >>>formula. Today, IQ is a normative standard where 100 is average, and
the
> >>>standard deviation is 15. Although Stanford-Binet is sometimes
> >>>administered to adults, it is generally accepted by psychometrists that
> >>>it is useless beyond 18 years of age. Weschler uses different tests for
> >>>different ages (and different types of intelligence, though not the
> >>>"Multiple intelligences" of Howard Gardner) and norms the test results
> >>>against it's own age group. Thus chronological age becomes irrelevent.
> >>>
> >>[Hammond]
> >>The statement "chronological age becomes irrelevant" is incorrect.
> >>
> >>Of course I know that modern scaling is done by adjusting the mean
> >>and std deviation of different age groups. But the underlying fact,
> >>discovered ages ago and readily apparent to all observers since the
> >>beginning of the human race, is that "Intelligence" increases (nominally
> >>linearly) with age for the first 18 years and then stops increasing
> >>when growth stops at 18.
>
>

> First you have to define intelligence. Binet defined intelligence as:
> "What my test measures." Hardly a rigorous definition.

[Hammond]
   I'll skip the history and get right to the bottom line.
Modern Research scientists (Eysenck, Jensen, Vernon
and hundreds of others) have suceeded in showing that
the main biological component of Intelligence is "mental speed"
(problem solving speed in bits/second). This can be
measured by simple decision tasks flashed on a computer
screen connected to electronic timers. The problem contains
a KNOWN number of bits of information ranging from 1 or 2
to dozens or more. Times are measured in milliseconds
to seconds. This measure correlates with measured IQ higher
than any other known biological correlate.
   So, intelligence, is basically "mental speed". This is of course
in line with what we have known for thousands of years, that
people of low intelligence, or outright retarded people, have always
been referred to as "slow".
   Incidentally, this measured "mental speed" increases linearly
with age up to about 18 (adulthood) and then remains constant
for the rest of one's life.... explaining why we always had to
divide "intelligence" by age (up to 18) in the early days of intellgence
testing.

> Is it possible to learn beyond the age of 18? From what I read above,
> you would seem to be claiming that it's not possible.

[Hammond]
On the contrary.. that is exactly my point.
   Learning is an ODOMETER which starts at zero when you are
conceived and keeps on increasing until the day you die.
   Intelligence is a SPEEDOMETER which begins a zero when you are
conceived increases steadily until it hits red line at age 18, and then
remains pegged at the speed limit for the rest of you life.

> Of course, the
> brain still forms new synapses, and weeds unused synapses throughout
> life. While there may be not "growth" in terms of brain mass, the
> process of fine-tuning intelligence never really ends.
>
>
> Glenn Arnold
>
>

Quantcast