₦airaland Forum

I mean! Somebody help me out here?

How people can advance such brazen illogicalities and seek shelter in further illogicalities simply beats me.

@ Inesqor: apologies  - I have to violate your request not to argue the point. You must realize that I view that request as an attempt to evade scrutiny of what must perforce emerge as seriously off-centre in your surmise.

Now here we go -

The premise is this - you located Noah in Pangea - Pangea is the name given to the single mass of land that existed before the last continental realignment/ continental drift. You stated that at the time of Noah, it all the continents were a single piece of land - thus you have stated that Noah lived in the time of Pangea.

Pangea was a reality about 250 million years ago. THUS you place Noah as having lived 250 million years ago. That is comical as it is absurd.

Rather than own up to this incongruity, you seek solace in a further incongruity - "pre aged" - helloooooo? Let's examine it!

InesQor:
Thus, carbon dating will read millions of years because the earth was MATURE when it was made. Your reference points of measuring time are plainly flawed.

Lol. This is just delightful. Inexie at his/her best. Read it again, bro! YOU STATE THAT THE EARTH WAS MATURE WHEN IT WAS MADE.

Was the "making"of the earth something that happened after the earth already existed and had already "matured"? ? ? ?

Lol.

So what's the deal, eh? Zing! Like Adam, it pops into existence fully formed, and as you say - "mature" - OR

- Second choice - and which obviously makes better sense - the earth developed and in so doing has gone through many stages lasting many millions of years.

Now in the process of that development, you have continental drift and at some point about 250 million years ago, you have all the continents as one mass of land, which is called Pangea. This happened right here, on this earth my dear, and so no need to develop any esoteric notion of time. Now you simply cannot argue that Noah supposedly lived 250 million years ago, or that Babylon existed 250 million years ago. That is not only false, but hideously off-centre. The fact is that the earth was already in existence at that point in time, so it make no sense to talk about it being pre aged. It was simply developing in time, as it doubtless still is.

So when you state that my reference points in measuring time are "plainly flawed" I will have to ask you to have a rethink on that - since you are the one locating Babylon and Noah at an improbable date 250 MILLION years ago.

Now assume, just assume the earth was created "pre-aged" as 5,000,000 years (judging by its level of maturity at the time of creation).

Now this is absolutely incoherent and makes no sense whatsoever. What do you mean "created pre aged"? ? ? ? ? ? You cannot speak of the "creation" of the earth as though it is an event that happened AFTER the earth had already been in existence and indeed had ALREADY "matured" for the example of 5, 000, 000 years that you indicated! This simply does not add up.

Now, time with respect to mankind, is at t=0. Thus the earth is minus 5 million years old.

Wrong, the earth is, using that example 5 Million years old - NOT minus 5 Million years old, which makes NO SENSE.

So when carbon-dating is carried out, the time is measured between two time-reference points: t1 and t0 as t1-t0. And thus in this case, something that took place 100,000 years ago will be measured as 100,000 minus (minus)5,000,000 which will give 5,100,000 and thus the measurement is flawed.

Stark gibberish. Carbon dating, and no form of dating, works with any such reference point. Dating is independent of the supposed date of arrival of man on the scene. Heck, Trees and Fossils that long predate mankind are dated - and NO such refernce point as your t-0 is used.

You are cooking up serious fallacies and the circus needs to be stopped right now.

It is much easier to admit it does not make sense, but you won't do that, will you? Carry on then.

This is my own understanding and I will please liek not to argue about it.

If you do not wish to discuss it, you can ignore my post. But such scary fallacies need to be set straight with a firm hand.

Be good.

You know i'm a first rate gentleman, am i not?

Inesqor - I don't recall that we have argued this in the past? Please refer me to the link.

There is nothing in your "pre-aged" post that even remotely addresses the question raised, sorry, but I cant see how it makes sense to professor Vescucci.

InesQor:
Alternatively, Peleg's name could also refer to the scattering at Babel "the earth was divided" and this makes sense too because it was the scattering at Babel that made the people go in various directions, where they would have noticed the continental drifts.

This would also mean that Babylon was in existence 250 million years ago. Chai, na wa for this oga-madam o.

Aite, got that.

InesQor:
At the time of Noah's flood, the continents were an entire land mass.

Chai, so Noah lived 250 Million years ago? Na wah for this Oga-Madam o.

Pangaea, Pangæa, or Pangea (pronounced /pænˈdʒiːə/, pan-JEE-ə[1], from Ancient Greek πᾶν pan "entire", and Γαῖα Gaia "Earth", Latinized as Gæa) was the supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago, before the component continents were separated into their current configuration.

^^^ His point is that all the mumbo jumbo about needing "the holy ghost" inorder to read the bible is simply escapist, as David has tried to do above.

Plain logic and reason can infer certain things written therein quite clearly.

The word "Nigeria" has no etymological relationship with the derogative slang "nigger."

The word "Nigeria" is sourced from the river Niger. Nigeria is the "Niger - Area" - thus, Nigeria.

chosen04:
Stop Ranting and living in denial. You can so well also prevent continued exposure of your IDIOSYNCRASY

Can you tell me -

1. When Federal Character was introduced into the Nigerian system

2. When zoning/ rotation was introduced into the Nigerian system.

ALSO -

Before the 1993 election, was the office of the President Zoned to any zone? If so why was it a contest between a Northerner and a Southerner? Abiola v Tofa?

Before the 1979 election, was the office of the President Zoned to any zone? If so why was it a contest between a Northerner and a Southerner? Awolowo v Shagari?

Did Federal Character not exist whilst all these happened?

Wake up: Federal Character is NOT the same thing as zoning/ rotation. This is an elementary fact.

Ice Age -

An "ice age" or, more precisely, "glacial age" is a generic geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of extra cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations", and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are still in the ice age that began at the start of the Pleistocene (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).[2]
More colloquially, "the ice age" refers to the most recent colder period that peaked at the Last Glacial Maximum approximately 20,000 years ago, in which extensive ice sheets lay over large parts of the North American and Eurasian continents. This article will use the term ice age in the former, glaciological, sense: glacials' for colder periods during ice ages and interglacials for the warmer periods.

Mazaje DO you deny that the meltdown at the end of an ice age can cause a global deluge?

Have a look at this image - that's a freaking load of ice, and you can't imagine the scale of deluge that its meltdown would cause -

What will happen to the sea level if the ice pointed by the arrow melts into the ocean? ? ?

mazaje:
There is no science that can explain a global flood of that magnitude, for example where did all the water come from and where did it all go to?. . . . .

Polar ice caps. That's your answer. Its an intriguing possibility.

If today global warming was accelerated, or there was global heat caused in another fashion - what do you think will happen if all the polar ice were to melt?

Men, that will be doomsday o. Better recognise.

A flood that will cover the entire earth including all the mountain tops is impossible in reality unless in stories. . . . . .

What is your scientific evidence for this assertion?

In addittion, how do you explain the extra-ordinary wide spread of the flood myth across a startling array of cultures and civilizations?

Look here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_flood#Jewish

When a myth is that wide spread, ya gotta excercise caution in categorizing it as false.

In my view, the only way you could do that would be to show compelling scientific evidence that it is impossible given the planetray engineering of the earth.

^^^ That is very well known. Like I did say, we cannot know for sure if there was ever a global flood. What I did mention are mere posers and the possibility you mentioned, whilst legitimate does not operate to rule out other possibilities, or does it?

chosen04:
@na_so

Are you also trying to be clever by half? So you did nt see the post below from Deep sight:-

When DEDE1 exposed his lies he cleverly change it to ROTATION.
''
BTW . . . . . .ZONING, FEDERAL CHARACTER, ROTATIONAL POSITIONS, QUOTA SYSTEM etc are all same. ''Old wine in new bottles''.

Thus, those who enjoyed any when it favoured them have no reason(S) to complain of another when it doesnot favour them. Period!

You are ill-informed.

Federal Character and Rotation are not the same thing, and that is a fact.

Addittionally, do you know of any country in the world where a sitting president has been denied the right to contest the presidency on account of where he comes from? ? ? ? ?

@ Folem -

Can you respond specifically to these points in the OP, THANKS -

2. Zoning disenfranchises the people and steals the liberty of democratic political choice - Why should the people not be free to choose exactly who they wish - regardless of where he comes from? Let us suppose that the generality of Nigerians do in fact want Goodluck Jonathan as their President. Would it not amount to a robbery of that Political will to insist that he cannot be presented to the populace for a free and democratic choice on account of his state of origin? Indeed that will be absolutely and totally undemocratic. Let's look at MKO Abiola in 1993 - a candidate that was popular across the length and breadth of Nigeria regardless of his ethnicity and religion. Let us imagine a situation where that sort of candidate is denied the oppurtunity to present himself before the people at that particular time of his popularity - would that not be a robbery of the people's democratic liberty? For this reason, Zoning is inherently undemocratic - there is NO democracy anywhere in the world that prohibits persons fom contesting office based on their ethnicity. It is not useful to state that they may do so at a later date, for heaven knows whether such a person would still be alive at that later date! Besides, if we want Barack Obama NOW, why must we be denied him and told to wait for four or eight years before we have him? That wait could make or ruin our nation, you know.

3. Zoning is subversive of the natural order of succession. Now this one you have to look at very carefully and sincerely. If you have a system based on Zoning and Rotation then the President and Vice-President will always be North/South or South/North. Now in either event, in the event of the death, resignation, incapacity or impeachment of the Head, the natural order is that the deputy will step in. This is standard legal practice globally. Now that deputy will not be from that same zone, based on the zoning principle. He will be from another Zone. This will create a perpetual problem and contradiction because the zone of the predecessor will always insist that the deputy stands down for a kins man of the departed leader. That makes no sense whatsoever and will lead to political turmoil of the sort experienced during Yaradua's illness. The only way that such can logically be avoided is the recognition by all parties that leadership should NOT be determined by zoning. I hope you see the point clearly: the zoning principle is internally contradictory for the simple reason that it will produce deputies who cannot step into their Masters shoes since they are not from the same zone!

vescucci:
Unfortunately, if I perceive our collective dispositions on this matter correctly, this won't be fun. What's the use of a buncha buzus who agree with each other? Go ye forth and find a dissenter

The truth is that you will find no dissenters showing up because it is impossible to defend this one.

One look at the world today, and it emerges forcefull that that flood was useless - at least as conceptually defined to the extent that its purpose was to eliminate sinners.

I do not entirely discountenance the possibility of a global deluge. There are three reasons for this -

1. Sea shells have been found on mountain tops. It is not inconceivable that in an era gone by, the sea level was simply much higher than it is today.

2. The quantity of water locked up in the polar regions as ice would easily cause a major global deluge if the temperature was significantly higher. At any point in time and on account of a galaxy of possible reasons, the temperature could have been (and in fact has been) intolerably high leading to various natural disasters.

3. The flood myth is so terribly ubiquituous in folk lore around the world that there is a suggestion that in a forgotten age such a trauma may have taken place.

So these are posers. . .yet we cannot say for sure that such a thing happened.

With respect to the purpose of the flood, as described by the bible, that purpose is just hilarious, given teh state of the world post-flood.

@ Pastor - What waste? Nothing is wasted in nature, that's elementary.


I think this from Vesc sums it up -

vescucci:
Fruits rotting in the jungle is exactly what a tree counts on to reproduce. But to the monkey, that's a waste. Semen seems a waste till you try to imagine an heavenly feeling with a drop. The earth is a perfect recycling plant if you remove man's influence and even in spite of it. Nothing is wasted.

Pastor AIO:
The problem lies in the very idea of wastage. Rather like the idea of God's perfection. It presumes a function, an intention for a thing or event.

Maybe it will help your ceaseless queries on God's perfection if perfection is defined simply as an eternal unchangeable. Hope that helps. So it is not function-based, as you repeatedly assert.

Sperms are meant to bring about human conception, that is their function. Therefore it follows that any spermatozoa that does not do so is being wasted.

To some extent, you have already answered your question.

Addittionaly, and opn a less serious note, I may say that if it takes millions of sperms to struggle to ensure that just one sperm makes it to the promised land, then the millions of sperms that do not make it are not wasted. That is what was required, simple.

However have we considered that there might be other things that the spermatozoa is used for. For instance I know that in many spiritual disciplines the sexual energy (horniness) is an essential factor in advancing in the practice.

The connections between se.xu.al energies and spiritual practices are legion.

I think I have tried to discuss this in the past and received a great deal of insult for the attempt. -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-324109.0.html

Similarly, if God is perfect, what is the function that he is perfect at Is he a perfect beast? A perfect moronn? A perfect mugu? (apparently many pentecostal pastors take him for a mugu). What is that role in which we are to appreciate his perfection?

As stated above, the perfection of God needn't be understood in the context of a function.

jumobi1:
In an ethnocentric/tribalistic Nigeria, if an Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa run for election, who would win most of the time? How would the other major tribe feel?

MKOs victory in 1993 showed that its is actually possible for Nigerians to vote above such narrow sentiments. It happened in 1993. If we will allow it, it can happen again and again. All we need is to stop listening to the lies of political leaders who advocate ethnic sentiments for their own narrow interests.

Dede1:
To insinuate federal character is different thing from zoning post in Nigeria is total display of political insincerity. The federal character is an attempt to make sure that every region is represented equally. Zoning is an attempt to make sure that every region is represented equally in having a shot to presidency of Nigeria. If zoning has suddenly become divisive in Nigeria, I say abolish federal character, quota system, resources control, state of origin, geopolitical zones such as south-south and in fact, states. Let us become One-Nigeria in the true sense of it.

^^^ Maybe what I should have stated is that - Federal Character and Rotation are not the same thing.

Federal Character can always be sustained, but rotation has incurable flaws. Federal Character simply means that there will be Nigerians from all parts of the Country within the Government. That is not the same thing as saying that the President must come from a particular zone.

Think about MKO's victory in 1993. Did that not show that it is possible for Nigerians to actually vote irrespective of tribe and religion. The man defeated Tofa in Tofa's home state, for crying out loud. What does that tell you?

Besides what is your view specifically of this -

3. Zoning is subversive of the natural order of succession. Now this one you have to look at very carefully and sincerely. If you have a system based on Zoning and Rotation then the President and Vice-President will always be North/South or South/North. Now in either event, in the event of the death, resignation, incapacity or impeachment of the Head, the natural order is that the deputy will step in. This is standard legal practice globally. Now that deputy will not be from that same zone, based on the zoning principle. He will be from another Zone. This will create a perpetual problem and contradiction because the zone of the predecessor will always insist that the deputy stands down for a kins man of the departed leader. That makes no sense whatsoever and will lead to political turmoil of the sort experienced during Yaradua's illness. The only way that such can logically be avoided is the recognition by all parties that leadership should NOT be determined by zoning. I hope you see the point clearly: the zoning principle is internally contradictory for the simple reason that it will produce deputies who cannot step into their Masters shoes since they are not from the same zone!

chosen04:
I find it difficult to fathom how same person who supported 'FEDERAL CHARACTER' CHARADE WILL TURN AROUND AND KICK AGAINST 'ZONING!!!!'

Federal Character and Zoning are not the same thing.

^^^ Well no, but it came again to my mind because I read an article in the papers today suggesting that anti-zoning arguments were immoral, dishonourable and sentimental, and so I did a response by email to the Newspaper. What you see above is the email I sent to them, and I thought to share it with NL.

It makes no sense.

My reasons are marshalled strictly by logic alone. Here are the reasons and I implore you to consider them objectively.

Zoning is an inherently illogical arrangement for the following reasons -

1. Zoning emphasizes division and not unity: if we are concerned about the state of origin of the President, that evinces an inclination to an "us versus them" mentality which shows disunity rather than unity.

2. Zoning disenfranchises the people and steals the liberty of democratic political choice - Why should the people not be free to choose exactly who they wish - regardless of where he comes from? Let us suppose that the generality of Nigerians do in fact want Goodluck Jonathan as their President. Would it not amount to a robbery of that Political will to insist that he cannot be presented to the populace for a free and democratic choice on account of his state of origin? Indeed that will be absolutely and totally undemocratic. Let's look at MKO Abiola in 1993 - a candidate that was popular across the length and breadth of Nigeria regardless of his ethnicity and religion. Let us imagine a situation where that sort of candidate is denied the oppurtunity to present himself before the people at that particular time of his popularity - would that not be a robbery of the people's democratic liberty? For this reason, Zoning is inherently undemocratic - there is NO democracy anywhere in the world that prohibits persons fom contesting office based on their ethnicity. It is not useful to state that they may do so at a later date, for heaven knows whether such a person would still be alive at that later date! Besides, if we want Barack Obama NOW, why must we be denied him and told to wait for four or eight years before we have him? That wait could make or ruin our nation, you know.

[b]3. Zoning is subversive of the natural order of succession. [/b]Now this one you have to look at very carefully and sincerely. If you have a system based on Zoning and Rotation then the President and Vice-President will always be North/South or South/North. Now in either event, in the event of the death, resignation, incapacity or impeachment of the Head, the natural order is that the deputy will step in. This is standard legal practice globally. Now that deputy will not be from that same zone, based on the zoning principle. He will be from another Zone. This will create a perpetual problem and contradiction because the zone of the predecessor will always insist that the deputy stands down for a kins man of the departed leader. That makes no sense whatsoever and will lead to political turmoil of the sort experienced during Yaradua's illness. The only way that such can logically be avoided is the recognition by all parties that leadership should NOT be determined by zoning. I hope you see the point clearly: the zoning principle is internally contradictory for the simple reason that it will produce deputies who cannot step into their Masters shoes since they are not from the same zone!

4. Zoning promotes mediocity - If the best man for the Job happens to be from Timbuktu or Kathmandu or Antartica, or even from the moon - that man should be supported for the job - it will be sad if on account of the zoning principle we ignore that competent man and choose a less competent leader simply because "it is his turn." I don’t think there is any advanced nation that could make progress with such an approach. You need the BEST leaders - always.

5. Zoning is illegal by reason of its discriminatory nature: The constitution of the Federal Republic states clearly that no person shall be denied access to any office or right on account of his ethnicity, sex or religion.

Hello Ilosi - oke!

Thank you for these very pertinent questions. Rather than answer them as though I am some all-knowing monk - which is certainly not the case - I think we should walk hand in hand and discuss these questions in an open manner - a mutual journey of discovery for both of us.

I say "mutual" because there have been aspects of this that have agitated my mind of recent and I am going to be completely honest and open about such.

One such aspect is the fact that I do pray. I do not go down on my knees or set about it in any particular or consistent manner. I simply have a quiet and extremely brief inward communication with that eternal element that I understand to be GOD. Mostly my prayers consist not of intelligible words but simply of a feeling that is within my soul. I believe that such inward feelings do communicate with the spiritual more powerfully than words can. And that's all there is to it.

Of course this makes me wonder what the use of such "prayers" are in terms of the concept of a non-interfering GOD. I find this to be a riddle, but it has not stopped me from praying. My feeling is that in the first place, there are laws inherent in creation for every scenario. In this regard I often reflect that prayer surely cannot or will not change anything. The laws of GOD weave our destinies based on the inward nature and aspirations of our souls. However this has not stopped me from praying in the manner that I have said above. IT fulfills a deep spiritual thirst - a thirst for reaching out to something greater than one self. Anyhow, that is what I understand by the spiritual nature of man. If prayer will not change events, it may at least nourish and enrich the praying soul. Such an enriched soul may by that enrichment be able to change his own environment for the better.

I am rambling. This is because right now there is a more clear and present thirst in my throat. It is the thirst for a bottle of Guiness Stout after a hard day's work. I am going to get that Guiness. I will take up the discourse 2moro morning, if you don't mind.

Cheers!

Pastor AIO:
I was being hypothetical.

Sure thing Pastor, and me, I was being[size=4pt]. . .a tithe hater[/size]

KAG:
Quick response:

There's not much logic involved in your argument. Further, if findings so far in our solar system and galaxy are an indication of the universe as a whole, then it would be more likely that life is a rarity.

There's also a simpler explanation for the will to life: it is those species that strive to survive that get to survive. Those species that didn't want to or could not try to live didn't pass that on. Evolution at work. Nature does have a balance between life and death.

I am afraid you have made a statement without supporting it in the least - you term this a weak argument - and yet you do not show why it is so.

What you need to demonstrate is this -

Why do creatures develop traits that enable them to survive?

What is the actuating or impelling factor behind this - even if it occurs only in some creatures?

Is there any reaosn why the material universe should be concerned about survival?

There is no reason that you can proffer for this phenomenon if you work with the concept of a strictly material universe.

Perhaps I should also ask you the more subtle and fundamental question: what do you consider the universe to be? It is this vast system of various energies in constant motion and expansion. Do you think that this vast system contains any energies or elements that are irrelevant to its overall structure? Following on this - what is the relevance of the energies of living things within the overall super structure.

I positively assert to you that within your materialist world-view, you can advance no possible logical relevance of living things to the universe's superstructure: and this presents you with an unavoidable incongruity - to wit - if the universe does not contain energies or systems irrelevant to its super structure, why then does it contain living things.

And worse - sentient living things.

And worst: sentient living beings that developed their bodies through a process of adaptation that gradually ensured that they remain able to survive within the superstructure.

Yet again, I ask - "What is the actuating or impelling factor behind this."

In assessing the bolded in red within this post, please take a moment to reflect on this with regard to the universe:

1. It is absolutely impossible for a pure illogicality to exist.

2. Within the super structure that the universe is, every element therefore has its cause and consequence - which defines its relevance.

3. What is the relevance of living things to the universe?

Pastor AIO:
If you take the sum of all that you've spent on your education and on books and courses etc and add it up, I wonder, would you be prepared to spend the same amount of money on developing and sharpening your faith?

Would your father invest the same amount on money on your 'growing in faith'?

Well faith does not cost money to build, _{except you factor the cost of tithes.}

MyJoe:
Em, the great philosopher wasn't talking about quantity, Deep Sight!

yep, that's why i said -

Deep Sight:
Lol; believe me i rather need to slow down on the [b][size=16pt]crazee[/size] [/b]stuff.

Believe me!

nuclearboy:
@DS:

So now you stalk me? Whats so painful? You give too much away with this victim thing - remind me to get under your skin weekly if thats makes you hard. I'm that comfy with myself that I'll bully you if you enjoy it so much

One would think that with time the aggression of adolecence would wilter away. Not so with all men. Ah, how slow I am, to notice, Nuclear[b]boy.[/b]

BTW, a lack of rules is different from a lack of ethics

So what rules were you referring to, pray? because it is most clear from your post that you indicated "belligerence. . ."

Aside this you mentioned "using hands, clubs, teeth, etc" as analogous to the behaviour of the atheists, vis-a-vis a football team. Ethical? Ha.

Sir: I play no victim: pardon me if the scent of dissapointment is painfully similar to the scent of despair.

thehomer:
Darwin rejected his religion

Rejection of religion is not the same thing as rejection of belief in the existence of God.

I do reject religion and yet I very much believe that God exists.

We cannot presume that Darwin was conclusively an atheist.

These are Wiki Quotes from the Page on Darwin's religious views -

Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver,[10][11] and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated,[12] and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters.[7]

In 1879 a letter came asking if he believed in God, and if theism and evolution were compatible. He replied that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, he had "never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God". He added that "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind."

Those opposing religion often took Darwin as their inspiration and expected his support for their cause, a role he firmly refused

thehomer:
Why do you think so? You do realize that you are an atheist with respect to some deities.

This is false. Atheism is a rejection of the existence of God or gods.

Accordingly no person who accepts belief in so much as one god, goddess or GOD, can be described as atheist.

If that were the case, then in the eyes of the Hindu, the Christian might be an atheist. That is an absurdity.

Theism is acceptance of the existence of GOD or gods. Any acceptance of any god removes an individual from the class of atheists, for atheists subscribe to NO god.

Darwin rejected his religion and his work has been misquoted at times to make it seem as though he still believed. But so what if many people in the past believed in some entity?

Again you are being clever by half. I did not merely say "many people." I said "the generality of the most brilliant minds throughout history" - and the relevance of that statement is in reference to the OP's suggestion that Atheists are "the most intelligent people."

nuclearboy:
Are Atheists The Most Intelligent People?

Imagine a soccer match - one team has rules

1. no hands
2. no rough tackles
3. only 11 of you on the field
4. etc

The other team has none - 200 of you, use hands, teeth, throw punches, carry clubs (swords, if you like)

I suspect the "no=rules" side will seem to have an upper hand.

This is supposing that a lack of ethics is exclusive to athiests: or even that atheism has anything to do with a lack of ethics. That is not true.

There are atheists with excellent ethics, just as surely as there are religious people without ethics.

I am sure some of your recent tirades will be sufficient to underscore my point in this regard.