Humans are Becoming Genetically Less Intelligent

[Sayonara]

Webster is the worst dictionary out there (well, of those aimed at adults).

 

On the other hand, unless you're using the Dictionary of Evolutionary Science (which may or may not exist), any such book is only going to give you a copy-editor's parred down version of a non-biologist's summary description of something he is not even attempting to explain. Aimed at the lay person.

[calbiterol]

Aight. I'll take that into consideration next time. I definitely think that the old Webster is better than the Dictionary.com definition, though.

 

On the other hand, unless you're using the Dictionary of Evolutionary Science (which may or may not exist), any such book is only going to give you a copy-editor's parred down version of a non-biologist's summary description of something he is not even attempting to explain. Aimed at the lay person.

 

Point taken.

 

I am seriously considering writing a module that scans for more than two paragraphs of waffle and automatically blocks that user from the subforum in question.

 

I just stop reading after the first two sentences. (Fetches 'skittles')

 

Don't you know, a baby's sight is hidden until it is born?

 

I'm sorry, did you miss the memo? It's dark in the womb. Too dark to see. There's no use for sight there anyway.

[Christ slave]

Too many people here are seriously disrespectful and ought to reevaluate their conduct and treatment of toward others (lest they find their selves in turmoil).

[Sayonara]

Too many people here are seriously disrespectful and ought to reevaluate their conduct and treatment of toward others (lest they find their selves in turmoil).

How did you decide on the "too many" bit, and why are you taking it upon on yourself to decide that?

[Christ slave]

I'm sorry, did you miss the memo? It's dark in the womb. Too dark to see. There's no use for sight there anyway.

 

I don't know about no use, but precisely my point. If your fetal spiritual body/form is in a womb and it's too dark to see, would not its eye be closed...? Would it perceive light? Tell me. Likewise, this is how things work (similarly).

 

Our spiritual bodies, although they exist and we, the BEINGS (those who simply ARE), exist and we have access to them, they are still unborn...in the darkness of the womb. So, one cannot fully comprehend nor know the outside world of the spiritual life--although one can certainly begin to grow as a fetus and become a baby...and one can certainly mature in the womb. Likewise, we can be spiritual, but until we die, you cannot chauk God (the Father) up to not existing or whatnot. Just like our earthly fathers when we were inside our mothers' wombs, we too are infinitely barred from the outside world until we actually step into the outside world (be born). This birth is death.

 

This is truly biological and scientific, don't you think? And likewis, if you too truly believed, accepted, and knew this, would yuo not be frustrated by others who constantly hound and oppress you, trying to make you out to be a wrong, out-of-place outkast or idiot? They try to make you shut up, telling you there's no room for your words...when, in reality, if death can be equated to the birth cycle itself of a biological form, and life to that of a pregnancy, is this not scientific? Shouldn't there be room for spirituality then in science? I find myself amidst those who think they know-it-all, and it becomes stressfully frustrating to constantly fall into the hands of ignorance--a band of brothers who form a colation to agree that anything spiritual is somehow absolute trash and worthless hog-wash, likewise shutting the mouths and enchaining millions of people who firmly accept, believe, and recognize the reality behind it.

 

To go studying evolution, birth, the origins of the universe, etc. but then ignore the future and deny that death and the afterlife are just as real and existent as a pregnancy and life, but just as "in-the-dark" as a fetus to the outside light of life some 2 inches on the other side of its mother's skin, is truly unfair and destructive. Since when did the truth stop becoming valuable...? And yet there are many people who do just this: they deny the truth of death and the afterlife (the spirit), yet they tyrannically reign down their know-it-allism of just how much they know and can comprehend scientific material truths and theories, concepts, etc. but then while they have the freedom to express their selves greatly and grow in stature with this aspect of knowledge and expression, they deliberately oppress and abuse those who accept truths beyond this present life and that which is spiritual--which should be equally (and if not equal, then MORE) valuable than something like studying the composition of the atmosphere or a distant galaxy.

 

Right? Does not a child look to adults (those who have been born and lived a long time) before their selves for knowledge and wisdom? Lest the child be stupid and fall into harm. So, then, wouldn't it be frustrating to be around people who are stupid and refuse the wisdom and knowledge of those who are older and have a lot to teach? We call those people rebels, and they're most commonly assessed to society's problems (crime rates, downfalls, and the like). So, then, if people go rebelling against spiritual things, why should we consider or I believe them to be any different? I consider them the same thing! They are responsible for the downfall, danger, and increasing crime rates of society. Right? The echoing of reality exists not solely in this time, but in the time to come and in the events to come. If we see the patterns and laws of the universe mirrored all over the place, be it distance (in space) or in time, in evolution, birth, and life, why then should death and the afterlife all of sudden draw up a blank and stop there?

 

That is rebellious, frustrating, and those who frustrate and attempt to oppress and degrade it into nothingness are like those rebels who would more than likely spit in your face than obey the rules and advance to higher education, understanding, and growth. So while there are science-people who profoundly speak of all their intelligent knowledge, they don't realize that they are truly just another form of a rebel. Sure, they may not disrespect their parents like some rebels or go off into the more obvious materialistic rebelliousness like crime and drugs, sex, etc...however, they don't realize that their egotistical "high and mighty" persona and conduct is just as degrading, oppressive, unfair, and destructive (oh, AND rebellious) than those who rebel against other people. If a child were to rebel against its mother, would not that child fall into a downward spiral if it slothfully refused growth? Likewise, those who refuse spiritual growth are just as destructive (yes, DESTRUCTIVE).

 

It's not cute and okay to let them go on doing so, nor reasonably acceptable, just because it has become a profound norm among people...because if it's destructive, then put an end to it--lest you grow up a child who refused to learn to speak the English language from your parents and other people wiser and more mature than yourself, refusing to learn to read, etc. and then fall into dissipation and intense frustration and stress.

 

 

 

P.S. Sorry for the lengthy post, but I feel it is necessary, educational, and insightful. Please do not edit this.

[Christ slave]

How did you decide on the "too many" bit, and why are you taking it upon on yourself to decide that?

 

Because as a human among other humans, in a society where we all interlock, grow, and live together, I too deserve to be treated fairly, regardless if you think that because you own these forums and I do not that means I have no right to think or speak for myself. Sorry if I have gotten the wrong impression of you, but I think I am on target here, aren't I? You ask this because you are in power and I am not, right? So, then, reconsider, because if you believe I should play dead, that's a totalitarian and tyrannical desire.

[calbiterol]

I have a feeling Asian Guy would appreciate it if this thread stayed on topic.

 

I don't mean to be harsh, but we are spending too much time bickering. If both sides compromise, than everyone can be happy and we can stop bickering. This thread is not the place to be waging your personal vendettas against others, this is somewhere to be discussing evolution in regards to declining human intelligence.

 

Here's a possibility. Bear with me until you see the entire thing. Christ Slave, you stop posting more than two or three paragraphs per post, and everyone else stop making degrading comments on Christ Slave's posts/beliefs/etc. This way, Christ slave doesn't feel like he's being unjustly persecuted, and other people don't see as much of a reason to comment negatively on Christ slave's posts. And those people who are upset with the length of your current posts won't have to worry about it. Yes, this will force you to be concise, Christ slave, and yes, it will force everyone else to retain their views of your beliefs, but that is for the best. And I'm not talking about everywhere, just on this thread.

 

By the way, Christ slave, I did read some of your posts - just not the whole thing. That's what I meant before, in the post that disappeared.

 

Sound like a deal?

[Christ slave]

If you didn't seem so "chop-chop", it would be a deal, because you're right, it is a feeling of unjust persecution, and I simply did not wish to go around accusing people of persecuting me, because that would have insued more problems, and they may have simply denied it and used it as an excuse to persecute and isolate me further.

 

But, when a topic begins boiling and this boiling involves the overall conduct of the forums, the harsh and harrassing treatment of other people toward others, and a moderator gets involved, those using a forum should be willing to make room for such debates within threads, be them on or off-topic completely.

 

I myself owned a vbulletin forums once and if somebody told me that I was being off-topic and should quit when a topic strewed into other sub-areas of discussion on things that are relevant (i.e. the atmosphere of the community), I'd be a bit annoyed with those people and feel unfairly persecuted there as well. Why? Because if I own a forum, and a debate arises about whether or not people are acting justly, I would for all purposes of keeping-the-peace find it a DESTRUCTIVE effort, rather than CONSTRUCTIVE, if people starting pushing and nudging me out of the way so that a thread could "get back on topic". Problems must be faced and fixed unless you want them to grow worse or remain.

[Sayonara]

Because as a human among other humans, in a society where we all interlock, grow, and live together, I too deserve to be treated fairly, regardless if you think that because you own these forums and I do not that means I have no right to think or speak for myself. Sorry if I have gotten the wrong impression of you, but I think I am on target here, aren't I? You ask this because you are in power and I am not, right? So, then, reconsider, because if you believe I should play dead, that's a totalitarian and tyrannical desire.

You seem to have misunderstood my question. I am not disputing your right to make those observations, but querying your method and motive. Out of interest.

 

The first question, for example, seeks to discover how you decided what qualifies as "too many".

[Christ slave]

You seem to have misunderstood my question. I am not disputing your right to make those observations' date=' but querying your method and motive. Out of interest.

 

The first question, for example, seeks to discover how you decided what qualifies as "too many".[/quote']

 

I'm sorry, but it is quite rare to find anyone genuinely interested in such things. Or is this a coverup? For instance, what qualifies as too many? Well, I can understand why you might ask this as it can help you in developing a better forum community, and I apologize if this was your intent, as that means I got the wrong impression of you--and I don't mean to flatter you in under influence.

 

What qualifies as too many? The amount of stress I sense. We all know when to simply look up and say, "I've had enough--you've gone too far, and this is way too ridiculous to simply allow you to keep kicking me in the testicles." At this point you have to simply agree that it is the person with too deep an interest in conflict, kicking your testicles, who is the one with the problem--not the one who had been assaulted. Likewise, my sense of "too many" is based off the stress (or, the increasing pain of being kicked in the testicles).

 

And I don't say this to be offensive, funny, or rude, but "being kicked in the testicles" is a good analogy.

[calbiterol]

Or is this a coverup?

 

Try not to get tooooooo paranoid. I have that problem sometimes, and it just makes things more difficult.

 

And I don't say this to be offensive, funny, or rude, but "being kicked in the testicles" is a good analogy.

 

I have to say, that's one of the most amusing (while oddly appropriate) analogies I heard in a long time.

[Christ slave]

Perhaps not paranoia necessarily, but it's being cautiously aware--lest we be naive.

[calbiterol]

I can see where you're coming from. Naiveity (sp?) is one of the things that can really get to me. But I also think that calling it a cover up might be a tad overboard - from my perspective. The way it was written just didn't strike me as a coverup. But, you never know... I'm giving Sayo benefit of the doubt, though - I think he deserves it.

[Sayonara]

It's perfectly normal to anticipate dispute in a thread that's turning into a debate, especially where flat claims are made without citation or any point of reference.

[Christ slave]

It's perfectly normal to anticipate dispute in a thread that's turning into a debate, especially where flat claims are made without citation or any point of reference.

 

"Too many" is not something to go searching out, weeding, and then dumping the weeded pile out for everyone to see. You must be disoriented or not thinking clearly. It's ridiculous to ask that one's overall opinion and sense of something ought to be based off some recorded data and indexing by which they go listing in order to justify their self.

[Sayonara]

"Too many" is not something to go searching out, weeding, and then dumping the weeded pile out for everyone to see. You must be disoriented or not thinking clearly. It's ridiculous to ask that one's overall opinion and sense of something ought to be based off some recorded data and indexing by which they go listing in order to justify their self.

Good job I didn't ask that then, isn't it?

[paleolithic]

http://www.neoeugenics.com/

3. The higher the level of civilization' date=' the better off the population. [/quote']

 

What exactly is your reasoning for this? As civilization progresses we get new cancers, new bombs, new wars, new genocides, new diseases, etc, etc. Modern medicine isn't really helping anything at all if you count what civilization causes in the first place. The few lives it does save only contributes to a genetically decadent overpopulated society.

Genetically decadent meaning for example: If somebody has diabetes, they would probably die before they had the chance to reproduce, however, if they recieved insulin, they would have the chance to live with their condition, allowing them to reproduce, and with that, their children will being more susceptible to diabetes.

[Aardvark]

Genetically decadent meaning for example: If somebody has diabetes' date=' they would probably die before they had the chance to reproduce, however, if they recieved insulin, they would have the chance to live with their condition, allowing them to reproduce, and with that, their children will being more susceptible to diabetes.[/quote']

 

Do you know anyone with diabetes?

[Christ slave]

Good job I didn't ask that then, isn't it?

 

Indeed?

[Aardvark]

He asked how you determined that 'too many' people were being disrespectful.

 

Not 'It's ridiculous to ask that one's overall opinion and sense of something ought to be based off some recorded data and indexing by which they go listing in order to justify their self.'

 

Simple question really, how have you determined that 'too many' people are being disrespectful?

 

Nothing to do with recorded data or indexing in that question.

[Christ slave]

He asked how you determined that 'too many' people were being disrespectful.

 

Not 'It's ridiculous to ask that one's overall opinion and sense of something ought to be based off some recorded data and indexing by which they go listing in order to justify their self.'

 

Simple question really' date=' how have you determined that 'too many' people are being disrespectful?

 

Nothing to do with recorded data or indexing in that question.[/quote']

 

I interpreted this comment:

especially where flat claims are made without citation or any point of reference.

 

As being in response to my response about there being an overwhelming amount of stress or something. So, what sort of citation and point of reference can be made to an overwhelming sense of stress accumulated from several areas/individuals? Like I said, it would be ignorant to expect people to go scouring for some sort of statistical data and analysis to be able to cite to someone in order to justify my sense of "too much".

 

Am I wrong here? I don't think so...

[Aardvark]

I interpreted this comment:

 

As being in response to my response about there being an overwhelming amount of stress or something. So, what sort of citation and point of reference can be made to an overwhelming sense of stress accumulated from several areas/individuals? Like I said, it would be ignorant to expect people to go scouring for some sort of statistical data and analysis to be able to cite to someone in order to justify my sense of "too much".

 

 

No one asked for citation or point of reference, simply how you had come to the conclusion that 'too many' people were being disrespectful.

 

Am I wrong here? I don't think so...

 

I think you are.

 

Being asked to provide some justification for your statements is perfectly reasonable.

[calbiterol]

Aardvark, you are dragging up an argument that was more or less settled - or getting there. It would be most advantageous to the thread if you didn't.

 

Hopefully, that wasn't too harsh, but it needed to be said.

[Christ slave]

I interpreted this comment:

 

As being in response to my response about there being an overwhelming amount of stress or something. So' date=' what sort of citation and point of reference can be made to an overwhelming sense of stress accumulated from several areas/individuals? Like I said, it would be ignorant to expect people to go scouring for some sort of statistical data and analysis to be able to cite to someone in order to justify my sense of "too much".[/quote']

No one asked for citation or point of reference, simply how you had come to the conclusion that 'too many' people were being disrespectful.

Am I wrong here? I don't think so...

I think you are.

 

Being asked to provide some justification for your statements is perfectly reasonable.

 

I think we made it clear that I was not asked to make specific cited references, although as I had the impression that it was desired and ideal to do so, I decided to provide a general opinion to it. Why are you getting involved where this does not involve you? As Sayo said, "Good job I didn't ask that then, isn't it?"

 

And, as I said, "Indeed?"

 

Or, are you just particularly unhealthily interested in conflicts and like to nose-in where you don't belong? My "Indeed?" response should have most likely ended such coversations as we came to a conclusion, and yet here you come, waltzing in and setting fire to my cabin.

[Christ slave]

Aardvark' date=' you are dragging up an argument that was more or less settled - or getting there. It would be most advantageous to the thread if you didn't.

 

Hopefully, that wasn't too harsh, but it needed to be said.[/quote']

 

No, not too harsh...and I even posted a response saying practically the same exact thing a minute or so ago in this thread. I posted it before I read your response, so sorry Aardvark if you feel ganged up on, but I had replied to you before I read calbitero's response which I am now quoting.