Ralph Strean to produce a Christian version of 'Cosmos'....

[The Barbarian]

And we actually do have a dropping IQ crisis.

Well, let's take a look at the data:

Looks like the Flynn effect is in trouble. LOL!

Not so far. There is some evidence that it's leveling off in developed nations. Because it has risen far too fast for evolutionary change to be responsible, the rise can only be accounted for by envirionmental changes that favor skills required to do well on an IQ test.

But that's not going to faze our modern geniuses. They'll find something else to blame. It can't be that the Bible is true.

It has nothing whatever to do with the Bible. It just means that intelligence in humans is a lot more dependent on learning than on genetics.

We can't possible be dumber than their ancestors.

A lot smarter in some ways. Those ways happen to be the ones that are measured on an IQ test:
Major Findings
The overall Flynn effect of 2.31 produced by this meta-analysis was lower than Flynn’s (2009a) value of 3.11 and Fletcher et al.’s (2010) value of 2.80. It also fell below Dickinson and Hiscock’s (2010) estimate of 2.60, which was the average of separate calculations for each of the 11 Wechsler subtests. However, our overall comparisons included all identified studies back to 1951. When a meta-analytic mean was calculated for the modern set (composed exclusively of 53 comparisons involving the Wechsler/Binet and excluding 3 atypical comparisons, and more comparable to the studies from Flynn [2009]), the Flynn effect was 2.93 points per decade, a value larger than estimates based on studies that included older data. This value is the most reasonable estimate of the Flynn effect for Wechsler/Binet tests normed since 1972 and is similar to the 3 points per decade rule of thumb commonly recommended in practice. The standard error of this estimate is less than 1 point (SE = 0.35).
The Flynn Effect: A Meta-analysis

Decrying modern means of learning and education is by no means a new phenomenon. Here is Plato, quoting Socrates:
"Enough of the art of speaking; let us now proceed to consider the true use of writing. There is an old Egyptian tale of Theuth, the inventor of writing, showing his invention to the god Thamus, who told him that he would only spoil men’s memories and take away their understandings. From this tale, of which young Athens will probably make fun, may be gathered the lesson that writing is inferior to speech. For it is like a picture, which can give no answer to a question, and has only a deceitful likeness of a living creature. It has no power of adaptation, but uses the same words for all. It is not a legitimate son of knowledge, but a bastard, and when an attack is made upon this bastard neither parent nor any one else is there to defend it. The husbandman will not seriously incline to sow his seed in such a hot–bed or garden of Adonis; he will rather sow in the natural soil of the human soul which has depth of earth; and he will anticipate the inner growth of the mind, by writing only, if at all, as a remedy against old age. The natural process will be far nobler, and will bring forth fruit in the minds of others as well as in his own.

The conclusion of the whole matter is just this,—that until a man knows the truth, and the manner of adapting the truth to the natures of other men, he cannot be a good orator; also, that the living is better than the written word, and that the principles of justice and truth when delivered by word of mouth are the legitimate offspring of a man’s own bosom, and their lawful descendants take up their abode in others. Such an orator as he is who is possessed of them, you and I would fain become. And to all composers in the world, poets, orators, legislators, we hereby announce that if their compositions are based upon these principles, then they are not only poets, orators, legislators, but philosophers. All others are mere flatterers and putters together of words."
Plato, Phaedrus

Before writing, memory and auditory learning skills were probably those that produced greater intelligence. Then writing changed everything, and literacy was strongly correlated with intelligence. We might be moving into another change like that, but I'm thinking it's far from clear how that might happen.

Please say it isn't so.

If intelligence is the same of cognitive skills measured by IQ tests, we've gotten a lot smarter over the last few hundred years, and that trend accelerated in the last few decades. In first-world nations, that trend seems to be slowing, probably because it's running into the limitations of the hardware.

But as you see, people have been getting smarter for a long time now.

 

[Calminian]

Well, let's take a look at the data:

Not so far. There is some evidence that it's leveling off in developed nations. Because it has risen far too fast for evolutionary change to be responsible, the rise can only be accounted for by envirionmental changes that favor skills required to do well on an IQ test.



It has nothing whatever to do with the Bible. It just means that intelligence in humans is a lot more dependent on learning than on genetics.



A lot smarter in some ways. Those ways happen to be the ones that are measured on an IQ test:
Major Findings
The overall Flynn effect of 2.31 produced by this meta-analysis was lower than Flynn’s (2009a) value of 3.11 and Fletcher et al.’s (2010) value of 2.80. It also fell below Dickinson and Hiscock’s (2010) estimate of 2.60, which was the average of separate calculations for each of the 11 Wechsler subtests. However, our overall comparisons included all identified studies back to 1951. When a meta-analytic mean was calculated for the modern set (composed exclusively of 53 comparisons involving the Wechsler/Binet and excluding 3 atypical comparisons, and more comparable to the studies from Flynn [2009]), the Flynn effect was 2.93 points per decade, a value larger than estimates based on studies that included older data. This value is the most reasonable estimate of the Flynn effect for Wechsler/Binet tests normed since 1972 and is similar to the 3 points per decade rule of thumb commonly recommended in practice. The standard error of this estimate is less than 1 point (SE = 0.35).
The Flynn Effect: A Meta-analysis

Decrying modern means of learning and education is by no means a new phenomenon. Here is Plato, quoting Socrates:
"Enough of the art of speaking; let us now proceed to consider the true use of writing. There is an old Egyptian tale of Theuth, the inventor of writing, showing his invention to the god Thamus, who told him that he would only spoil men’s memories and take away their understandings. From this tale, of which young Athens will probably make fun, may be gathered the lesson that writing is inferior to speech. For it is like a picture, which can give no answer to a question, and has only a deceitful likeness of a living creature. It has no power of adaptation, but uses the same words for all. It is not a legitimate son of knowledge, but a bastard, and when an attack is made upon this bastard neither parent nor any one else is there to defend it. The husbandman will not seriously incline to sow his seed in such a hot–bed or garden of Adonis; he will rather sow in the natural soil of the human soul which has depth of earth; and he will anticipate the inner growth of the mind, by writing only, if at all, as a remedy against old age. The natural process will be far nobler, and will bring forth fruit in the minds of others as well as in his own.

The conclusion of the whole matter is just this,—that until a man knows the truth, and the manner of adapting the truth to the natures of other men, he cannot be a good orator; also, that the living is better than the written word, and that the principles of justice and truth when delivered by word of mouth are the legitimate offspring of a man’s own bosom, and their lawful descendants take up their abode in others. Such an orator as he is who is possessed of them, you and I would fain become. And to all composers in the world, poets, orators, legislators, we hereby announce that if their compositions are based upon these principles, then they are not only poets, orators, legislators, but philosophers. All others are mere flatterers and putters together of words."
Plato, Phaedrus

Before writing, memory and auditory learning skills were probably those that produced greater intelligence. Then writing changed everything, and literacy was strongly correlated with intelligence. We might be moving into another change like that, but I'm thinking it's far from clear how that might happen.



If intelligence is the same of cognitive skills measured by IQ tests, we've gotten a lot smarter over the last few hundred years, and that trend accelerated in the last few decades. In first-world nations, that trend seems to be slowing, probably because it's running into the limitations of the hardware.

But as you see, people have been getting smarter for a long time now.

Take a close look at the arguments these modern day self-described geniuses are making. First they cite very recent statistics showing an upswing in intelligence. Then new data comes out suggesting we're going downhill fast. Then suddenly, we can't trust the data anymore. Suddenly we have to wait for new data to correct this current data that doesn't support their theory.

Such is the futility of modern man. If we're getting smarter (evolving) then all is well. We'll eventually rule the Universe. But if we're getting dumber, all hope is lost. We're at the mercy of our Creator.

I picture a future conversation, in the age to come, of some of our modern geniuses speaking with Shem or Noah or Adam. I can see our ancestors laughing out loud. "YOU REALLY BELIEVED THAT!"

 

[The Barbarian]

And we actually do have a dropping IQ crisis. Looks like the Flynn effect is in trouble. LOL!

Well, let's take a look at that. From your link:
Dr Nijenhuis studied the results of 14 intelligence studies conducted between 1884 and 2004 to come to his conclusion. Each study measured peoples’ reaction times – how long they took to press a button after being prompted. It is claimed that reaction time mirrors mental processing speed – so it reflects intelligence.


They found that visual reaction times averaged 194 milliseconds in the late 19th Century, but in 2004, they had increased to 275 milliseconds. This would suggest that people have become less intelligent, they said.

So, you see, Muhammed Ali was a super genius (he had remarkable reaction times) and Albert Einstein was a moron, based on Doc Nijenhuis' measurements. Nijenhuis thought reaction time was a better measure of intelligence than finding patterns in data, recognizing analogies, or reasoning.

Modern humans are better than earlier ones at everything above, except reaction times. And from that, your guy thinks modern humans aren't as bright as those of years past.

That doesn't strike me as a particularly intelligent conculsion. How about you?

But that's not going to faze our modern geniuses.

Cognitive ability in childhood and cognitive decline in mid-life: longitudinal birth cohort study
BMJ. 2004 Mar 6; 328(7439): 552.
Reaction time variability is also correlated with IQ but this largely reflects the interdependence of the variability and the mean. Once the dependence on the mean is accounted for the relationship to IQ is weak and inconsistent. (my emphasis)

The results here for the 1950s cohort at age 50 are in close agreement with those for the 1930s cohort reported previously when they were aged 56. The correlations then of AH4 scores with simple and 4-choice reaction time means were − 0.31 and − 0.49, respectively, compared with − 0.30 and − 0.047 reported here. Even these very small differences barely detract from the agreement given the trend towards increasing correlation with age which is discussed below.

As you see, other researchers don't find the same results as your guy, whose findings seem to have never been reproduced by other researchers. As you see, IQ continues to rise, and has risen markedly in the last 100 years. And as you also now see, reaction times have only a weak correlation with intelligence. Which is what you'd expect, given that reaction times change with training.

There are many dependable ways to do this. I have used several of them, coaching soccer players, and they work. Like intelligence, reaction time depends a great deal on experience and training.

They'll find something else to blame. It can't be that the Bible is true.

This has nothing whatever to do with the Bible.

We can't possible be dumber than their ancestors.

As you now realize, we aren't. People have been getting more intelligent for at least the last 100 years, probably longer. Not because we're inherently brighter. Because our environment has changed in ways that favor higher intelligence.

 

[Calminian]

....So, you see, Muhammed Ali was a super genius (he had remarkable reaction times) and Albert Einstein was a moron, based on Doc Nijenhuis' measurements. Nijenhuis thought reaction time was a better measure of intelligence than finding patterns in data, recognizing analogies, or reasoning.

Modern humans are better than earlier ones at everything above, except reaction times. And from that, your guy thinks modern humans aren't as bright as those of years past.

The irony is, he's actually not my guy, he's your guy. LOL! I highly doubt he's coming from the perspective of biblical creation. You guys are arguing among yourselves. I suggest you work it out among yourselves. I'm just on the sideline eating popcorn. I have no interesting in proving myself smart than Adam. I couldn't think of anything more foolish to do.

Second, you're generalizing. You're anecdotally isolating 2 individuals. Does that strike you as an intelligent argument? Seems a fallacy Adam would have avoided.

This has nothing whatever to do with the Bible.

It has everything to do with the Bible, if the Bible is accurate history.

 

[The Barbarian]

The irony is, he's actually not my guy, he's your guy. LOL!

Nope. As you learned, he's following your belief. Apparently no other researcher thinks intelligence is about reaction time, and not about cognitive ability.

I highly doubt he's coming from the perspective of biblical creation.

No one who thinks humans are less intelligent than earlier humans is coming from the perspective of Biblical creation. Creationism and creation are often at odds, as in this case.

Second, you're generalizing. You're anecdotally isolating 2 individuals.

Just pointing out the fallacy. By your guy's measure, Muhammed Ali was a lot smarter then Albert Einstein. You sure that's right? As you learned, over the past few hundred years, humans have gotten a lot smarter. Again, that's if you think "smarter" means "brain works better at solving problems."

Does that strike you as an intelligent argument?

Why did you bring it up, then?

Seems a fallacy Adam would have avoided.

But he wasn't a creationist, after all.

It has everything to do with the Bible,

Not if you accept it as it is without adding things.

 

[Calminian]

Nope. As you learned, he's following your belief. Apparently no other researcher thinks intelligence is about reaction time, and not about cognitive ability.



No one who thinks humans are less intelligent than earlier humans is coming from the perspective of Biblical creation. Creationism and creation are often at odds, as in this case.



Just pointing out the fallacy. By your guy's measure, Muhammed Ali was a lot smarter then Albert Einstein. You sure that's right? As you learned, over the past few hundred years, humans have gotten a lot smarter. Again, that's if you think "smarter" means "brain works better at solving problems."



Why did you bring it up, then?



But he wasn't a creationist, after all.



Not if you accept it as it is without adding things.

I just think it's humorous how you believe you were smarter than Adam, citing Einstein vs. Ali. I'm not sure I need to expand. The irony meter is off the charts.

 

[The Barbarian]

I just think it's humorous how you believe you were smarter than Adam

I think it's sad how you have to invent things and claim others believe them.

citing Einstein vs. Ali.

By your guy's measure, Einstein was a moron and Muhammad Ali was a genius. That alone should make you reconsider.

I'm not sure I need to expand.

You need to give your ideas more thought.

The irony meter is off the charts.

Indeed.

 

[Calminian]

I think it's sad how you have to invent things and claim others believe them.....

I think it's sad you (and your fellow evolutionary religionists) compare yourself physiologically to the original humans (based on Einstein vs. Ali). You truly are a man of faith.

 

[The Barbarian]

Calminian said: ↑
I just think it's humorous how you believe you were smarter than Adam

think it's sad how you have to invent things and claim others believe them.

I think it's sad you (and your fellow evolutionary religionists) compare yourself physiologically to the original humans

That was your claim. In fact, there's really nothing at all in the Bible about that sort of thing, or about the relative intelligence of people then and now. That belief is the invention of YE creationists, but it has no grounding in scripture.

You should let God's word be as it is, without adding or subtracting anything.

You truly are a man of faith.

Thank you. My faith is based in God's word, but it's enriched by the world that He made for us.

 

[Calminian]

....In fact, there's really nothing at all in the Bible about that sort of thing, or about the relative intelligence of people then and now. ....

Hmmm. So you don't believe brain function is physiological. Interesting. Adam lived 935 years. That's more than 10x how long you and I will live. I would think even you would conclude from that that Adam was physiologically superior.......

Yeah, I have a feeling you're going to backtrack on this and claim the Bible's not literally true and the antediluvians didn't live that long (in fact didn't even exist). In fact, do you even believe in Adam?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
....In fact, there's really nothing at all in the Bible about that sort of thing, or about the relative intelligence of people then and now. ....

Hmmm. So you don't believe brain function is physiological.

Remember when I advised you against making up odd positions and insisting that other people have to believe them? You did it again.

Interesting. Adam lived 935 years.

God says that he would die the day that he ate from the tree. So if you take time periods in the Genesis tale as literal, rather than figurative, Adam died very young. This is one of the reasons most Christians recognize that Genesis is not a literal history.

And there's no reason why the Bible can't include a parable about real people. After all, the Bible itself says it does.