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

From: George Hammond (nowhere_at_nomailspam.com)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:24:32 -0400

"Glenn Arnold" <oldnoah@att.net> wrote in message
news:4182C209.5000009@att.net...
>
>
> ZenIsWhen wrote:
>
> > --
> > -
> > "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.
> >>
> >>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. 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
> >>
> >
> > Careful ... George wrote that - not me.

[Hammond]
NO, I don't have the expressions "weed out" or "fine-tuning" in my
vocabulary. This is standard pseudo-intellectual jargon. I believe
the "> >>" indicates ZenIsWhen wrote it.

> >
>
>
> Sorry about the attribution.

[Hammond]
You still don't have the attribution right.

>
>
> Glenn Arnold
>
>

====================================
   SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
        1st mirror site:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
        2nd mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
     new site (under construction):
http://home.comcast.net/~proof-of-god
====================================

Quantcast