Atheism predates Jesus by at least 500 years

[back to earth]

It would be like a cross between this http://sebpearce.com/bull****/

and the reverse of this https://www.gutenberg.org/files/972/972-h/972-h.htm

[+Sherapy]

Here is the standard joke we used about him (aside from the one about being another Basil Fawlty) ;

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....

I guess there is a walkies in every town.

[psyche101]

The pre-Zoroastrian ' Mazdayasni ' seem to be first recorded 'monotheists' ( seeing Zoroaster as a reformer of an earlier religion that became corrupted by .... ( * see below) . I read that this is believed to have originated from within Siberian Shamanism and into the Aryan tribes via the Eurasian Steppe and Kazakhstan ( and follows the development of 'domesticated horse cultures' ) , but no source or reference was given. .

Indeed, but most of the earliest sources were lost weren't they? I thought the tablet I linked to was the oldest surviving written reference? I strongly suspect religious ideals evolved like everything else, starting the the Bear and Bird Cults going back to Neanderthal days, perhaps escaping death by offering the days hunt, and escaping while the animal ate (sacrifices) but when these animal God started eating people regardless of sacrifice, I strongly suspect they needed something stronger than a Bear, and saw lightning kill something - and it was realised the a killing force can come from above without warning. That I could see evolving into the God concepts we have today.

Wallace and Broome made interesting presuppositions to the latter parts of the theory.

Indeed, as did August Weismann. Interesting how Darwin cited Wallace as brilliant, but mostly disagreed with him in Descent of Man. Many consider him the inspiration behind Darwin. Personally, I think Weismann was every bit as brilliant as Darwin.

Do you mean Robert Broome? He sure had quite a conflicting theory, but it seems to me that he was just stuck in old ways that he refused to let go of? I do not see his claims of spiritual evolution holding any water.

That is interesting ! RNA is not alive but DNA is ( forget the rest of life, as I do see DNA as being self replicating , hence alive. And 'life' is the missing link between the 2 ?

More info ? ( maybe a ref for me, so as not to divert the thread too much ? )

LINK - The evolutionary transition from RNA to DNA in early cells.

Truncated abstract, but it should give you something to work with and follow further

I actually saw a documentary where this was mentioned, cannot remember the name of it now for the life of me, but if it comes back to me, I will post it.

Ooooow ....... then they would not be scientists in my book. My least fav thing in science is this .... a type of scientism decalring they know how to make life or they know how life evolved (I have seen this written in pop science articles )

Bad science ! This one I call ; 'The case of the time travelling scientist.

It goes like this .

Life may have evolved in a primordial soup of nutrients in a warm ocean stimulated by chemical reactions and electric discharges from the atmosphere, Simple self replicating life began and developed through evolution to what we see today . They cite the 'flask experiment ' to show that science can replicate the process and produce enzymes that are 'the building blocks of life' . Now, admittedly we have not yet managed to turn those enzymes into 'life' , but we are confident that in the future, we will be able to do this. Once they have the first organism, then scientific experiments , observation and theory do seem to show they understand the rest of the process.

But doing an experiment or series of them, and leaving out the most crucial and important step, and saying the process is presently valid by filling the present gap, by drawing some scientists from the future that we speculate might be able to do it, and inserting him into the past (our present ) ...... errrrmm .... aint really science ..... is it ?

When they can do the experiment properly and successfully then science will have been able to understand and create life in the lab.

Nah, it's all good, that is why we have not seen a paper published, they know the restraints but are frustrated as to how close they are. So it remains personal speculation until that final bit of proof does arrive, but they do know what they are looking for.

And it does make perfect sense - everything evolves, so would the beginning of life. The question they would really like answered was "did life arise on earth multiple times?" And the process being organic with no bones leaves no trace. making that question exceedingly difficult to answer.

* Devas, originally where the 'baddies' , the Mazdayasni had wars with them ; monotheists Vs polytheists

Deva - Sanskrit, Daeva - Avestan, Div - Persian . Not the Gk. or Lt. Dios or Deus as the Avestan was usage was first , although the Sanskrit vedic meaning is the same 'Gods'. But a 'div' a 'bad spirit' ; devil, deviate, diverge. Of course, the Vedic Aryan polytheists made the Iranian Aryan monotheist Gods , eventually, demons themselves - although in the earliest vedas they (Asuras) are acknowledged as the 'Elder Gods ' ( which could have been before the first 'Great War of Religion' - see 'The Vendidad and The Shahnameh' )

I believe that is how The Buddha is claimed to describe these spirits and gods, showing even the gentle ways of Buddhism is not safe form re-interpretation by man, man seems to hold little respect for any god by re-interpreting them and rewriting their words at the drop of a hat to suit modern conformity.

Its a sticky wicket that one !

Maybe, I see massive contradiction with man calling God's word ultimate, and then saying, well God, didn't really mean that, what he meant was........

yeah .... stupid dorks, they ..... wait ! ... a sex cult you say ?

Ohh ... they dont sound toooo bad

Nah, mate get your .303 out. Kiddies mate, these people need to be hung and then tarred and feathered. Their leader Claude Whorhillion has been banned from countries based upon his liberal views on sex with what the rest of the world deems minors.

Nothing good about Raelism sorry to say. The rest if it is just the Bible and they take out religious figures and makeup alien names to replace them with. It's not only pathetic, it is lazy as.

Well, obviously devas are deviates, asuras are demons not gods and 'you'r God is my devil ......

and on and on 'we' go

I reckon just don't bother with tall tales, crack a cold one and enjoy the view while it is there

I just do not get why people feel this need to worship in this day and age. Wiccan, Catholic, Muslim, or even pantheist, why does there have to be a supreme being? I cannot figure out why people keep insisting there is a top dog in the Universe. There is no ultimate source, we are all just in the same institution without supervision.

For some reason, some of us believe we need this higher power to guide us, and believe each one of us is special to the most important person in the Universe - sort of like people who make up UFO stories and claim the Government is "after them"

But religious authorities can tell us what to think .......

LINK - 103-year-old woman kicked out of her church for disagreeing with pastor

[+Nuclear Wessel]

And, he has posted countless times his parents taught him it's better to be right then anything else.

That's a very dangerous mindset, in all honesty.

[back to earth]

Indeed, but most of the earliest sources were lost weren't they? I thought the tablet I linked to was the oldest surviving written reference? I strongly suspect religious ideals evolved like everything else, starting the the Bear and Bird Cults going back to Neanderthal days, perhaps escaping death by offering the days hunt, and escaping while the animal ate (sacrifices) but when these animal God started eating people regardless of sacrifice, I strongly suspect they needed something stronger than a Bear, and saw lightning kill something - and it was realised the a killing force can come from above without warning. That I could see evolving into the God concepts we have today.

It may be, I was coming from the slant of 'oldest easily recognisable religious monotheism' .... in scriptural form , it seems to start earlier than the Vedas.

Your speculation re neolithic seems feasible , I like the 'lightning God' association ( here we have' the lightning brothers ' )

Indeed, as did August Weismann. Interesting how Darwin cited Wallace as brilliant, but mostly disagreed with him in Descent of Man. Many consider him the inspiration behind Darwin. Personally, I think Weismann was every bit as brilliant as Darwin.

Do you mean Robert Broome? He sure had quite a conflicting theory, but it seems to me that he was just stuck in old ways that he refused to let go of? I do not see his claims of spiritual evolution holding any water.

Its nearly a Vedic concept .

I just do not get why people feel this need to worship in this day and age. Wiccan, Catholic, Muslim, or even pantheist, why does there have to be a supreme being? I cannot figure out why people keep insisting there is a top dog in the Universe. There is no ultimate source, we are all just in the same institution without supervision.

I find it a very interesting psychological , cultural , anthropological and hermetic ( 'Know Thyself ' I see as including anthropology ) subject. There is an individual 'type scale' for the need to express this sort of thing. Maybe you are down the not need end of the scale, which makes it hard to comprehend why you would need it. But it is a need in others, and others make up the 'human collective psychology' .

For some reason, some of us believe we need this higher power to guide us, and believe each one of us is special to the most important person in the Universe - sort of like people who make up UFO stories and claim the Government is "after them"

But religious authorities can tell us what to think .......

LINK - 103-year-old woman kicked out of her church for disagreeing with pastor

Fascinating creatures , aren't we

thanks for the link.

I had not realised the level they had got to with RNA replication ... that in itself nearly qualifies it as life in the lab, except it is 'static' and not within the scientists own definition of lab life ;

" Joyce says that only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life. "We're knocking on that door," he says, "But of course we haven't achieved that."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

Edited February 25, 2016 by back to earth

[+Sherapy]

That's a very dangerous mindset, in all honesty.

Why do you think this teaching is dangerous; I am interested in your thoughts.

My youngest son asked his Dad once when he was about 5 how he knew something and my husband answered "because I know everything." A few days later my son asked him something else and he said "I don't know son," and my son said "Dad, I thought you knew everything."

This was the first and last time Dad ever claimed he knew everything and he told his son he made a good point.

I think ( assumed) most kids figure this out and I have wondered why MW a young self-professed child genius, who by his own posts was reading Philososphy at 3 didn't see through this too? I am thinking MW was not encouraged to question his parents, it was different time.

Shrugs.....

Edited February 25, 2016 by Sherapy

[back to earth]

Oh noooo ......

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Why do you think this teaching is dangerous; I am interested in your thoughts.

I think the idea of teaching children that it's better to be right compared to anything else will provide a major hindrance in their learning. If you teach a child, for their entire life, that the earth was created in 7 days by a sky wizard and keep assuring the child that this is the correct view and that this particular view is the view that should be adhered to above all else and that all other views are wrong, the child will be extremely resistant to any knowledge that completely objects to his views. I think it is important to encourage children to seek truth above all else--being right should be secondary.

was reading Philososphy at 3 didn't see through this too?

So apparently Walker has a three breasted Amazonian girlfriend, has the capacity to lucidly dream, can remote view, and began reading philosophy at the age of three? LOL

[psyche101]

It may be, I was coming from the slant of 'oldest easily recognisable religious monotheism' .... in scriptural form , it seems to start earlier than the Vedas.

For sure, that tablet was Greek, but excavated in Egypt, and the Dipylon Inscription outdated that again. Word got around......

Your speculation re neolithic seems feasible , I like the 'lightning God' association ( here we have' the lightning brothers ' )

Temüjin, Genghis Khan inspired the thought the way he finally defied lightning and "overcame" that God. Interesting how man has felt he always had certain powers over Gods, the Vikings though a solar eclipse was a Wolf God swallowing the sun, so they sent him of the only way they know how - the frightened him with shouts and screams all the while shaking their weapons in a threatening manner.

Hey - it worked every time!!

Its nearly a Vedic concept .

Yes, but I see a lot of commonality despite the diversity of deities with relgion, for instance, they all are associated with the sky, which brings me back to frightening and deadly natural things they might interpret like that - lighting being the most obvious to me.

I find it a very interesting psychological , cultural , anthropological and hermetic ( 'Know Thyself ' I see as including anthropology ) subject. There is an individual 'type scale' for the need to express this sort of thing. Maybe you are down the not need end of the scale, which makes it hard to comprehend why you would need it. But it is a need in others, and others make up the 'human collective psychology' .

I find it completely bewildering, perhaps I am too practical, but if something has been proven wrong, I just see no point in insisting on it as opposed to preserving it, I see no shame in preservation, rather the opposite, which would make relgion look much more respectable from a logical point of view.

Fascinating creatures , aren't we

To say the least, some more fascinating than others even ...........

thanks for the link.

Most welcome bud!! Glad I could be of service.

I had not realised the level they had got to with RNA replication ... that in itself nearly qualifies it as life in the lab, except it is 'static' and not within the scientists own definition of lab life ;

" Joyce says that only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life. "We're knocking on that door," he says, "But of course we haven't achieved that."

https://www.scienced...90109173205.htm

Mate, it came as something of a shock to me too, and I probably explained it zealously, as you can see it is still very much speculation, but we have good reason to be confident with this direction. I honestly think we are on the verge of resolving that one too. It has been quite a few years since Miller and Urey got together, and their experiments turned out to be more successful than either of them realised when the results were reexamined recently after both had expired. It seems they created enough amino acids for basic life and then some, it just seems to have taken some of them longer to develop than expected, but the full compliment of basics for life did eventually form in that primordial soup. It does still seem however that pressures of deep earth reacting with water in ocean floor volcanic vents might provide the final catalysts we are looking for.

IFL science. I don't get why everyone isn't a Toothfairy agnostic considering discoveries like this!! :D

From the link:

Incredible New Map Of The Milky Way Released

Dodo Brains Were Surprisingly Big

How cool is this stuff :D

[+Sherapy]

I think the idea of teaching children that it's better to be right compared to anything else will provide a major hindrance in their learning. If you teach a child, for their entire life, that the earth was created in 7 days by a sky wizard and keep assuring the child that this is the correct view and that this particular view is the view that should be adhered to above all else and that all other views are wrong, the child will be extremely resistant to any knowledge that completely objects to his views. I think it is important to encourage children to seek truth above all else--being right should be secondary.

So apparently Walker has a three breasted Amazonian girlfriend, has the capacity to lucidly dream, can remote view, and began reading philosophy at the age of three? LOL

Excellent point, there was not the focus on critical thinking for him like the kids now a days, it is started early now and it is producing better kids. IMO

Yes, according to MW he has an IQ of 180 ( where the ceiling for IQ tests falls around 160). He comprehends faster then the speed of light, he speed reads millions of words a week, he wins all the count the jelly beans in the jar --at his local contests, (with his psychic skills), he walks through walls.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

I think the idea of teaching children that it's better to be right compared to anything else will provide a major hindrance in their learning. If you teach a child, for their entire life, that the earth was created in 7 days by a sky wizard and keep assuring the child that this is the correct view and that this particular view is the view that should be adhered to above all else and that all other views are wrong, the child will be extremely resistant to any knowledge that completely objects to his views. I think it is important to encourage children to seek truth above all else--being right should be secondary.

So apparently Walker has a three breasted Amazonian girlfriend, has the capacity to lucidly dream, can remote view, and began reading philosophy at the age of three? LOL

I actually began reading (fluently) at the age of 2, and before i stared school was reading the daily newspaper and anything else I could lay my hands on .

I didn't read theories of philosophy until much later, despite Sherapys claims, but every book you read, every newspaper or magazine article, contains an element of human philosophy. My parents spoke with me about everything which arose from my reading and never censored any thing i read. They developed in me an attitude of mind to examine everything around me, and to learn all i could. My leisure reading pre school included the encyclopaedia Britannica and the Oxford dictionary when those were the only adult books i could access in the town library, unless an adult borrowed for me. .

I have deliberately ignored the rest of the posts about me, but I checked the rules and am deciding if i should simply report all the quite egregious examples where they are being broken, on so many threads. It still seems mean spirited of me if i was to report, but there are so many clear breaches, of so many of the rules, that perhaps i should. I do not believe this forum is meant to allow some of the comments and personal attacks being posted.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Mr Walker

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Indeed, I'd agree with you and offer my opinion or what I think keeping in mind it really is meaningless and is to be taken with a grain of salt. For MW, being right at all costs is a core value to him. And, he has posted countless times his parents taught him it's better to be right then anything else. Even with a University education he holds to this value --for all its worth--he has not revised or updated this know-it-all attitude of an example he grew up under. I think he notices how often he is wrong, or out of the loop because he spends post after post trying to make it "not so," I don't see it as sad, but I can appreciate why you would as it is like watching someone chase their own tail or beating a dead horse. For me, it would be exhausting, a hell of my own making, I would be desperate, and obsessed and cling to any kind of Google article that promised stress relief. I have been reading him for years and he remains unchanged.

I don't know, if I would consider it sad or that I would pity that behavior. I do find it unfortunate for someone to be like that. Fighting to preserve you look of 'correctness' is a wall against learning from others. I would think the excitement of 'I did not know that! ' would trump the constant task in looking better than everyone else. And as you pointed out, there is a vain type of work done constantly in doing that. The constant task of being the smartest is too much work and stress, and I find it useless to work at that, then relaxing and seeing how the other is right, ( when they do it correctly ) and just learning something. Isn't it the true way of existing? Always learning and being a part of a team, like I think of this message board and all of us posters?

And besides, aren't we all have been told, by our 'teachers' in practically everything, we learn the hard way, by making mistakes and learning from them?

[Mr Walker]

Excellent point, there was not the focus on critical thinking for him like the kids now a days, it is started early now and it is producing better kids. IMO

Yes, according to MW he has an IQ of 180 ( where the ceiling for IQ tests falls around 160). He comprehends faster then the speed of light, he speed reads millions of words a week, he wins all the count the jelly beans in the jar --at his local contests, (with his psychic skills), he walks through walls.

You exaggerate . But only slightly

There are many types of IQ tests, including low ceiling and high ceiling ones. Studies have found that a person can learn how to get perfect scores.

I simply (and accurately) reported the statistics truthfully when you asked how i knew i had a high intelligence I also mentioned that IQ scores are really a bit meaningless because you can teach yourself to excel at them as you can teach yourself to excel at anything (and yes speed reading and an eidetic memory are skills which also make it easier to do well on IQ tests which are set to a time limit.) You know, it isn't hard to read a million words a week even at a normal reading pace. I read 3 novels yesterday just by having a book with me all the time and reading it when i was doing nothing else A normal long novel (90000 words) takes me about 3 hours to read if i go slowly to enjoy it, and a short western or thriller about an hour. So 100,000 words a day is easy just from reading novels, and then there are all the newspapers magazines and on line things I read

. When teaching, I also had to read many thousands of words written by my students, usually not just once, but several times as they drafted them. I actually find it strange that anyone finds it hard to believe, that particular claim

I only walk through walls while dreaming. But each day i test my abilty to do so, and to fly, even while awake. It is part of the established pattern of reality checking I use every day and every night, to enhance lucid dreaming and also to establish objective reality while awake. I am pretty sure you read a LOT of what i write, without any real comprehension of what i am talking about, and then just mix-up lots of stuff into unbelievable forms.

Ps these are the 4 books i have read in the last 30 hours. Janet Evanovich's "Wicked Charms" and "The sweet spot", "There comes an evil day" by Paul green and the latest Chris Kruzneki thriller in the treasure hunter series. The two Evanovich novels alone totalled over 120000 words The kruznecki was about the same length, while the western was only 30000 words. So there is over 200,000 words in 30 hours, not counting the two daily newspapers and posts on UM or the motoring magazine I also read .

Edited February 25, 2016 by Mr Walker

[back to earth]

Excellent point, there was not the focus on critical thinking for him like the kids now a days, it is started early now and it is producing better kids. IMO

Yes, according to MW he has an IQ of 180 ( where the ceiling for IQ tests falls around 160). He comprehends faster then the speed of light, he speed reads millions of words a week, he wins all the count the jelly beans in the jar --at his local contests, (with his psychic skills), he walks through walls.

..... bends reason in his bare hands ...

[back to earth]

I actually began reading (fluently) at the age of 2, and before i stared school was reading the daily newspaper and anything else I could lay my hands on .

I didn't read theories of philosophy until much later, despite Sherapys claims, but every book you read, every newspaper or magazine article, contains an element of human philosophy. My parents spoke with me about everything which arose from my reading and never censored any thing i read. They developed in me an attitude of mind to examine everything around me, and to learn all i could. My leisure reading pre school included the encyclopaedia Britannica and the Oxford dictionary when those were the only adult books i could access in the town library, unless an adult borrowed for me. .

Well, if all that is true .... what happened ?

I mean kids like that at 2 years old usually end up flying through Uni at a young age, and having some complex career in science of some type and seem to be able to maintain their level of intelligence and learning.

You clearly have not been able to do that. So something must have happened ... or nothing like that happened in the first place.

I have deliberately ignored the rest of the posts about me, but I checked the rules and am deciding if i should simply report all the quite egregious examples where they are being broken, on so many threads. It still seems mean spirited of me if i was to report, but there are so many clear breaches, of so many of the rules, that perhaps i should. I do not believe this forum is meant to allow some of the comments and personal attacks being posted.

Oh, I dont think so ..... you got told off last time you tried to report someone .... imagine if multiple report start coming in about multiple people in multiple threads .... all made by Walker .

If you do decide to report anyone, here is a hint, dont include a page and a half of text with it explaining how your argument was right anyway ..... that didnt go down too well last time , and now , especially with multiple reports all at once...... you will jam the operating system.

[back to earth]

You exaggerate . But only slightly

You exaggerate , but greatly.

I see it is postulated that Leonardo Da Vinci had the same IQ as you claim

2 year old genius eh ?

[back to earth]

Anyway Walker, whats the deal with no posting all day and then posting at 2 am in the morning ?

Anyone might think Mrs Walker finally got sick of you blabbing about how wrong and unbelieving and illogical everyone on the internet was and she banned you from wasting your time doing that all day ...... so you had to sneak out of bed ion the middle of the night to do it

Dont get caught !

[XenoFish]

If only other religions were this flexible.

[+Sherapy]

You exaggerate . But only slightly

There are many types of IQ tests, including low ceiling and high ceiling ones. Studies have found that a person can learn how to get perfect scores.

I simply (and accurately) reported the statistics truthfully when you asked how i knew i had a high intelligence I also mentioned that IQ scores are really a bit meaningless because you can teach yourself to excel at them as you can teach yourself to excel at anything (and yes speed reading and an eidetic memory are skills which also make it easier to do well on IQ tests which are set to a time limit.) You know, it isn't hard to read a million words a week even at a normal reading pace. I read 3 novels yesterday just by having a book with me all the time and reading it when i was doing nothing else A normal long novel (90000 words) takes me about 3 hours to read if i go slowly to enjoy it, and a short western or thriller about an hour. So 100,000 words a day is easy just from reading novels, and then there are all the newspapers magazines and on line things I read

. When teaching, I also had to read many thousands of words written by my students, usually not just once, but several times as they drafted them. I actually find it strange that anyone finds it hard to believe, that particular claim

I only walk through walls while dreaming. But each day i test my abilty to do so, and to fly, even while awake. It is part of the established pattern of reality checking I use every day and every night, to enhance lucid dreaming and also to establish objective reality while awake. I am pretty sure you read a LOT of what i write, without any real comprehension of what i am talking about, and then just mix-up lots of stuff into unbelievable forms.

Ps these are the 4 books i have read in the last 30 hours. Janet Evanovich's "Wicked Charms" and "The sweet spot", "There comes an evil day" by Paul green and the latest Chris Kruzneki thriller in the treasure hunter series. The two Evanovich novels alone totalled over 120000 words The kruznecki was about the same length, while the western was only 30000 words. So there is over 200,000 words in 30 hours, not counting the two daily newspapers and posts on UM or the motoring magazine I also read .

MW,

A valid IQ test is one administered by a psychologist and includes a few different tests ( subtests) and a verbal assessment, it is over a period of a few days and then a report is written.

You are correct on one point an IQ is not static; it would go up or down depending on how one nurtures it.

What you are describing are standardized IQ tests administered in school (early grades) and are really meaningless and easy to get right.

With that being said, an IQ test really tells us little about applied intelligence, assimilation, ability to critically think, and problem solve.

I asked you to confirm (for myself) what you actually know or don't know about measuring for intelligence.

On reading a million words, I am not sure why it is relevant for determining ones intelligence?

Perhaps you can clarify?

Humans are terrible at seeing themselves (fundamental attribution error) and for me I get a much better picture of your online persona by questioning your claims.

It seems we agree, dreaming really isn't an amazing accomplishment in and of itself.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Sherapy

[back to earth]

I doubt it .... I bet he obfuscates the whole issue

[Mr Walker]

Well, if all that is true .... what happened ?

I mean kids like that at 2 years old usually end up flying through Uni at a young age, and having some complex career in science of some type and seem to be able to maintain their level of intelligence and learning.

You clearly have not been able to do that. So something must have happened ... or nothing like that happened in the first place.

Oh, I dont think so ..... you got told off last time you tried to report someone .... imagine if multiple report start coming in about multiple people in multiple threads .... all made by Walker .

If you do decide to report anyone, here is a hint, dont include a page and a half of text with it explaining how your argument was right anyway ..... that didnt go down too well last time , and now , especially with multiple reports all at once...... you will jam the operating system.

As i have already posted. I skipped a grade when i began school because i was advanced in reading and maths. This was probably an error because it affected my abilty to relate to kids a year older than me and a foot taller than me during my adolescence. I finished high school too young to enter uni so i did an extra final year which was really the most fun year of my schooling. I had already won scholarships to pay for my education from intermediate (year 10) to my final year. I also won a scholarship which paid all my living expenses and uni fees for 4 years at uni.

Ithen did what i had wanted to do from the age of about 10 and became a teacher. IMO my life has been highly successful as i loved going to work every day and was always happy and fulfilled.

The rules are clear, so indeed i will make all the reports necessary and we will see what happens. If you haven't read the rules lately, i suggest you do One of them forbids me from quoting them to you.

One moderator told me to ignore posts which made personal attacks but I do not believe that meets the requirements of the rules, nor is it an effective deterrent against such attacks.

I wanted to work with people, especially helping young people to help them with their own eduction and lives ( I was the oldest of four and was responsible for looking after the once my mother began working).

I like science and technology and learned a lot of practical stuff as a teenager, from design and engineering from my father through to chemicals and explosives/pyrotechnics I passed pre university maths physics and and some chemistry, but it would have been to boring for me to work in such an area, and pure science and maths had no real appeal., only their practical applications. .

[+Sherapy]

As i have already posted. I skipped a grade when i began school because i was advanced in reading and maths. This was probably an error because it affected my abilty to relate to kids a year older than me and a foot taller than me during my adolescence. I finished high school too young to enter uni so i did an extra final year which was really the most fun year of my schooling. I had already won scholarships to pay for my education from intermediate (year 10) to my final year. I also won a scholarship which paid all my living expenses and uni fees for 4 years at uni.

Ithen did what i had wanted to do from the age of about 10 and became a teacher. IMO my life has been highly successful as i loved going to work every day and was always happy and fulfilled.

The rules are clear, so indeed i will make all the reports necessary and we will see what happens. If you haven't read the rules lately, i suggest you do One of them forbids me from quoting them to you.

One moderator told me to ignore posts which made personal attacks but I do not believe that meets the requirements of the rules, nor is it an effective deterrent against such attacks.

I wanted to work with people, especially helping young people to help them with their own eduction and lives ( I was the oldest of four and was responsible for looking after the once my mother began working).

I like science and technology and learned a lot of practical stuff as a teenager, from design and engineering from my father through to chemicals and explosives/pyrotechnics I passed pre university maths physics and and some chemistry, but it would have been to boring for me to work in such an area, and pure science and maths had no real appeal., only their practical applications. .

Interesting on the math MW, I remember a post that said you were terrible in Math.

I'll find it.

"Im afraid maths of modern high level is outside my expertise. I successfully completed both mathematics courses at pre uni level and passed the studies of statistical mathematics at university, but maths simply does not appeal as a significant force in my life" ( Walker, Reliousness-religiously thread).

Strange that you won scholarships for something you didn't really excel at, according to you--that is.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

MW,

A valid IQ test is one administered by a psychologist and includes a few different tests ( subtests) and a verbal assessment, it is over a period of a few days and then a report is written.

You are correct on one point an IQ is not static; it would go up or down depending on how one nurtures it.

I was tested in my 20s and I was told recently by a PH.D in educational psychology who specialized in testing bright kids that if tested now it would be higher.

What you are describing are standardized IQ tests administered in school (early grades) and are really meaningless.

With that being said, an IQ test really tells us little about applied intelligence, assimilation, ability to critically think, and problem solve.

I asked you to confirm (for myself) what you actually know or don't know about measuring for intelligence.

On reading a million words, I am not sure why it is relevant for determining ones intelligence?

Perhaps you can clarify?

You don't read do you. At school i was assessed by professionals using professional tests. I then as a teacher in the seventies administered the tests set by professionals for all children to myself under the same conditions, and had them sent away and assessed by professionals. with the children's tests. In Australia IQ tests are not just done by psychologists ( there simply were not enough of these to test every child of school age ). today such general IQ testing isn't done but equivalent specialised tests are done twice a year online under test conditions and to a set time limit.

IQs show an abilty to do IQ tests. Intelligence today is recognised as much wider than that abilty Reading is one of the indicators of intelligence However reading (especially from a young age ) gives a person access to the world and to knowledge LOng before the internet I had a good knowledge and understanding of many things from reading. You cant read through the entire encyclopaedia britannica or oxford dictionary WITHOUT learning a lot. But general reading also give a person so much information about our world, people and cultures.

[XenoFish]

Yep Walker is definitely

person here.

[Mr Walker]

Interesting on the math MW, I remember a post that said you were terrible in Math.

I'll find it.

"Im afraid maths of modern high level is outside my expertise. I successfully completed both mathematics courses at pre uni level and passed the studies of statistical mathematics at university, but maths simply does not appeal as a significant force in my life" ( Walker, Reliousness-religiously thread).

Strange that you won scholarships for something you didn't really excel at, according to you--that is.

Go ahead. I passed pre uni maths and physics, but they weren't my strong suite. i have done no further work on maths since high school apart from passing statistics at uni. There is a difference between being reasonable at something and having a passion for it .

I should also have explained that i can accept your point about modern IQ testing and its difference from older style tests, (in fact i made it my self) but you asked how i know my own IQ or intelligence.

I know it from the professionally set, administered, and assessed tests applied to all school children in Australia from the sixties into the eighties . These involved sessions of a couple of hours of testing set over a number of days. maybe 6 to 8 hours in total of standardised IQ tests. They were found to have cultural and other biases and in a multi cultural country like Australia went out of favour in the eighties. However, in recent years i did the modern equivalents known as PAT -r (for the reading one) and looked at my results and comments

I haven't retested on pure IQ tests since i lost interest a few decades back and concentrated on other wider aspects of the mind. But the test results of the time showed my IQ/intelligence in the only standardised form then available.