₦airaland Forum

illusion2:
Rather  unscientific if you ask me.  How  were the I.Q measured?

What do you mean by 'estimated I.Q' ?

The question of the reliability of intelligence testing has occupied experts for ages. There is now a consensus in the psychology community that I Q tests are NOT a conclusive method of measuring aptitude or intelligence. Experts are always trying to improve the system and so different methods have been invented. One of my most favoured approaches to intelligence is the theory of multiple intelligences developed by American psychologist Howard Gardner.

It appears the one used above is the traditional IQ test based on the system developed by American psychologist Lewis Terman, a method that uses a single score to grade set performances or responses.

While IQ tests are not definitive, dismissing them as unscientific is flippant. I would not have thought that Sharon Stone (154) is anything near as smart as Albert Einstein (160), but If Bill Gates is reported to have scored 1590/1600 in the SAT, who can question the 160 assigned to him? Pick all the names you are familiar with on that list and recall their achievements or performance. Then pick the highest-scoring individual in the list, Leonardo da Vinci, and see if you can find any human being whose mind comes anywhere near his in depth.

Of course, she doesn't know what she is talking about. That guy was not even radicalised in Nigeria.

Pastor AIO:
Actually I've just had a thought.  Maybe if it was caused by a certain combination (or permutation, I can't remember which is which)  of genes from the mum and the dad then it will always keep popping up in the population.  Kinda like the mule.  Mules can't procreate but as long as horses can and will mate with donkeys then you'll always have mules.

Add to this the possibility of a gene staying dormant in the "carrier" parent and becoming active in the child.

You raised some serious questions earlier. Some of them, I believe, are addressed in Sexology, by Dr Vladimir Antonov. I think it's available online.

Edit

A pity there are no Nigerian leaders there. Been thinking lately about having my brains surgically removed so I can join em in Abuja. Any guesses as to the IQs of

Dimeji Bankole
Alao-Akala
Lucky Igbinedion
Ibori
Adedibu
Obasanjo
Abacha
David Mark
Gowon

and others?

Abraham Lincoln President USA 128
Adolf Hitler Nazi leader Germany 141
Al Gore Politician USA 134
Albert Einstein Physicist USA 160
Albrecht von Haller Medical scientist Switzerland 190
Alexander Pope Poet & writer England 180
Sir Andrew J. Wiles Mathematician England 170
Andrew Jackson President USA 123
Andy Warhol Pop artist USA 86
Anthonis van Dyck Painter Dutch 155
Antoine Arnauld Theologian France 190
Arne Beurling Mathematician Sweden 180
Arnold Schwarzenegger   Actor/politician Austrian 135
Baruch Spinoza           Philosopher Holland 175
Benjamin Franklin           Writer, scientist & politician USA 160
Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli Prime Minister Israel 180
Bill Gates CEO, Microsoft USA 160
Bill (William) Jefferson Clinton President USA 137
Blaise Pascal Mathematician & religious philosopher France 195
Bobby Fischer Chess player USA 187
Buonarroti Michelangelo Artist, poet & architect Italy 180
Carl von Linn Botanist Sweden 165
Charles Darwin Naturalist England 165
Charles Dickens Writer England 180
Christopher Michael Langan Bouncer & scientist & philosopher USA 195
Sir Clive Sinclair Inventor England 159
David Hume Philosopher & politician Scotland 180
Dr David Livingstone Explorer & doctor Scotland 170
Donald Byrne Chess Player Irland 170
Emanuel Swedenborg thologian/scientist/philosopher Sweden 205
Sir Francis Galton Scientist & doctor British 200
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling Philosopher Germany 190
Galileo Galilei Physicist & astronomer & philosopher Italy 185
Geena (Virginia) Elizabeth Davis Actress USA 140
Georg Friedrich Händel Composer Germany 170
George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Philosopher Germany 165
George Berkeley Philosopher Ireland 190
George H. Choueiri A.C.E Leader Lebanon 195
George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans) Writer England 160
George Sand (Amantinr Aurore Lucile Dupin) Writer France 150
George Walker Bush President USA 125
George Washington President USA 118
Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz philospher / scientist / lawyer Germany 205
Hans Dolph Lundgren Actor Sweden 160
Hans Christian Andersen writer / poet Denmark 145
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton US Politician USA 140
Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht President of the Reichsbank / Nazi Officer Germany 143
Honoré de Balzac (Honore Balzac) Writer / novelist France 155
Hugo Grotius (Huig De Groot) Jurist Holland 200
Hypatia of Alexandria Philosopher & mathematician Alexandria 170
Immanuel Kant Philosopher Germany 175
Sir Isaac Newton Scientist England 190
Jakob Ludwig Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy Composer Germany 165
James Cook Explorer England 160
James Watt Physicist & technician Scotland 165
James Howard Woods Actor USA 180
Jayne Mansfield    --       USA 149
Jean Marie Auel Writer Finland/ America 140
Jodie Foster Actor USA 132
Johann Sebastian Bach Composer Germany 165
Johann Strauss Composer Germany 170
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe --   Germany 210
Johannes Kepler Mathematician, physicist & astronomer Germany 175
John Adams President USA 137
John F. Kennedy Ex-President USA 117
John H. Sununu Chief of Staff for President Bush USA 180
John Quincy Adams President USA 153
John Stuart Mill Universal Genius England 200
JohnLocke Philosopher England 165
Jola Sigmond Teacher Sweden 161
Jonathan Swift Writer & theologian England 155
Joseph Haydn Composer Austria 160
Joseph Louis Lagrange Mathematician & astronomer Italy/France 185
Judith Polgar Chess player Hungary 170
Kim Ung-Yong --   Korea 200
Kimovitch Garry Kasparov Chess player Russia 190
Leonardo da Vinci Universal Genius Italy 220
Lord Byron Poet & writer England 180
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte Emperor France 145
Ludwig van Beethoven Composer Germany 165
Ludwig Wittgenstein Philosopher Austria 190
Madame de Stael Novelist & philosopher France 180
Madonna Singer USA 140
Marilyn vos Savant Writer USA 186
Martin Luther Theorist Germany 170
Miguel de Cervantes Writer Spain 155
Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomer Poland 160
Nicole Kidman Actor USA 132
Paul Allen Microsoft cofounder USA 160
Philip Emeagwali Mathematician Nigeria 190
Phillipp Melanchthon Humanist & theologian Germany 190
PierreSimon de Laplace Astronomer & mathematician France 190
Plato Philosopher Greece 170
Ralph Waldo Emerson Writer USA 155
Raphael Artist Italy 170
Rembrandt van Rijn Artist Holland 155
Ren Descartes Mathematician & philosopher France 185
Richard Nixon Ex-President USA 143
Richard Wagner Composer Germany 170
Robert Byrne Chess Player Irland 170
Rousseau Writer France 150
Sarpi Councilor & theologian & historian Italy 195
Shakira Singer Colombia 140
Sharon Stone Actress USA 154
Sofia Kovalevskaya Mathematician & writer Sweden/Russia 170
Stephen W. Hawking Physicist England 160
Thomas Chatterton Poet & writer England 180
Thomas Jefferson President USA 138
Thomas Wolsey Politician England 200
Truman Cloak   -- --    165
Ulysses S. Grant President USA 110
Voltaire Writer France 190
William James Sidis   --   USA 200
William Pitt (the Younger) Politician England 190
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Composer Austria 165

http://www.aceviper.net/estimated_iq_of_famous_people.php

davidylan:
I guess you never heard the saying - to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

If not for those "forecasts" you so ignorantly deride . . . chickenpox would still be killing us today.

Those forecasts were wide off the mark but its better to be safe than sorry. Viruses that make the animal-human jump are known to be the most virulent and difficult to treat. Think Ebola or Marburg viruses.

Facts.

This is a touching story.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=388072.msg5394970#msg5394970 date=1264583043]Its no different from a businessman testifying to the public thus, " I have been praying to god for a big contract, then the haiti earthquake struk and God blessed me with a contract worth millions of dollars to supply relief materials. . . .praise the lord i'm now a millionaire".[/quote]I do have a Christian contractor friend who says this sort of thing. "God can crash a plane because of you," his exact words, and I just sit there listening as he goes on and on about his idea of God.

Poster's intentions are obviously good, but the last 17 words understood in the context of God having sent them to that country in advance are bound to rub people the wrong way. They are not in good taste.

If you read this before it's deleted, JeSoul,  my apologies, for defying your exclusion clause. It's not really about being Christian, in my opinion. I know of Christians who will see things differently.

Thanks for your response, 49cents.

49cents:
Nudism is a relative thing really; there have been Natives of southern American (centuries)who go topless as we have in africa without shame or trying to catch the fun nudists speak about or even to be one with nature; for these fellows it as natural as putting on clothes,

I agree. As stated, in fact, emphasised, in the OP, this is not an absolute theory. It is neither a recommendation, an invitation, a proposal, nor a draft bill for the African Parliament sitting in Cape Town. It is a write-up highlighting the beauty and possible benefits of nudism when it is practised without skewed intents. The benefits of nudism are already a part of the lives of the natives you speak of. They don't need to seek them.

49cents:
tthere is actually no particular reason for nudity though not total as we have with conventional nudists.

@poster You spoke about being one with nature as the motive behind nudism; my question is even if your motive is satiated why exactly do you want to feel one with nature?

There is nowhere in this thread I have presented oneness with nature as the reason for nudism. It is simply included in a list of benefits (or reasons) of nudism. Note, also, that I do not deny your position that some may go into it to seek release from tension.

Nudists try to feel one with nature because they want to feel one with nature. Why do you prefer one type of auto to another even though they may have the same capabilities? Why do you like to watch a sunset or hear birds sing?

^^^ I fail to comprehend why this question is asked of me. Maybe you should read my "concise" post again. Thanks.

I appreciate the advancement in technology, my brother, Sam. Yes, there are enough atom bombs to wreck the whole world if launched. I am not a scientist, but (1) bombs are bombs and earthquakes are earthquakes (2) my sense does not tell me that this is possible (3) I have spoken to friends who do science and they concur (4) The Americans don't have a motive to level Haiti that I can think of (5) this is not the first earthquake in Haiti's history (6) the idea of someone channeling earthquake to destroy buildings (this one killed an archbishop, the UN head and leveled the presidential palace) and spare roads and runways so they can take US war planes seem hilarious to me (7) to conspiracy theorists, there are no natural disasters, terrorist attacks or accidents - once anything happens people, particularly in the Third World, come up with these theories - I heard so many on Sept 11 I lost count

_{The Arab doctor and European nurses did not inject the Libyan kids with HIV. The story of how Libya's health authorities tried to find scapegoats for their own failures is fairly well known.}

A few conspiracy theorists actually say some credible things that after listening to, you say, "oh, well, it's possible". Like the one propounded by 49cents in this thread.  But with a majority of them, this credibility is lacking. They usually don't bother to make their stories believable. The fact that the story is far fetched takes one's breath away as much as the fact that nothing is offered by way of proof. They hope to rely entirely on its sensationality as its selling point. They say it and expect you to accept it. When you don't they dismiss you as unintelligent.

Someone is really saying here that all that energy required to create a 7.0 earthquake was created in a laboratory, then piped to a certain location, and then people - human beings - were able to instruct it, or laser guide it, such that only targets - schools and other buildings - were hit while roads were spared. The purpose of all these to,  err,  occupy their country and grab their crude oil? Interesting!

Googler:
Reasonable and incisive.

I concur that that statement of viaro's is reasonable.

The problem you often find with materialist thinkers and their counterparts at the religious end of the spectrum is that they are too dismissive.

Is the doctrine of reincarnation grounded on the Bible? Can it be objectively presented as a biblical doctrine? No. The scriptures that are often called into service to buttress it such as John 9:2 (1) require interpretation (2) conform to other possible interpretations (3) pale into insignificance when compared to the systematic body of arguments in favour of resurrection which are presented in a way that on the surface of it is exclusive of reincarnation. This explains why Christians often refuse to see reincarnation in these verses following from the fact that this doctrine is not taught by the church. But I will make the following observations:

1. I do not know whether Elijah reincarnated as John the Baptist or not. But I find it quite incredible that anyone will believe that a human being such as we are, did not die but was shipped into heaven in flesh and blood(!). Maybe that was to win arguments but I rather find John 3:13 unambiguous. Here is how noetic explains it.
2.  I have interacted with a number of Christians who are open minded on reincarnation and others who accept it, the overwhelming majority of the latter being clergy.
3. Most who patiently examine the doctrine of reincarnation concede that it is reasonable and logical.
4. I do not have a personal experience of reincarnation but of the doctrines I have examined purporting to explain existence, reincarnation is the most logical, reasonable and just.

I have read the site. I, too, am interested in the true religion. Would you, perhaps, be so kind to share how you came to the conclusion that that is the one? Thanks.

Gamine:
Homosexuality is a dead-end for genes.
Whether you like it or not, most of our behaviour is
specifically for the propagation of the species.

So, on that count, Homosexuality is an aberration,
and the homosexuals' will die out if they don't heed to
the call of the genes and do what is right by them (Reproduction)

Homosexuals were around when Moses was penning the OT, right?. Going by your reasoning, why haven't they died out? Who gave birth to the ones around today, immaculate conception?

@JeSoul.

Thanks for educating me. I was gung-ho about this healthcare bill and came here to ask why you allowed Brown to win! Now I am not so sure. I will see what I can find out about that bill.

49cents:
Very insightful thread maybe to me cos i was once intrigued by pure nudism as an extension of my belief of the purity and beauty of the human body; however on second thoughts and research i have to see it is wholly impractical at least; there is no way a fellow who is still struggling to  keep his zip up or her skirt on her waist to see the naked body without lusting after it! Even avowed pure nudissts get hard ons for the men in their nude beaches albeit involuntarily.

Aside this obvious point, inasmuch as the human body is beautiful, it is also sacred, simply because it houses the soul it which has the capacity to be residence of the Holy Spirit, the Third person of the Holy Trinity, unlike the souls of beast that roam the wild. It must be percieved with the reverence proper to the Divine like a  Bible, Conscrated Altar, Tarbancle etc (like we have them in Catholic Church). 

Purity is a thing of the mind, it can not really be achieved by pulling off; i suspect nudists whose sensitivity to the human body as sexually provocative is a consequence of what naturally happens when you have seen things too frequently it looses it fancy (Gynaecologists will affirm this). Nudists are unconsciously seeking what every human soul seeks: freedom from tension, in this case sex.  Ironically even the sex maniac seeks this freedom from sexual tension but erronouesly does so by indulging in the ACT with just everyone,almost everytime with every position, little did he (she) know that true sexual freedom comes by the possesion of the true FACTS about what is sex actually is, its beauty, purpose and limitations, sadly our generation seem not to have inkling (now i digress!)   

Since purity goes beyond insensitivity to a  nude human body especially of the opposite gender; infact this sensitivity is God-given and must not be regarded as a weakness or pervasion of the human will. Christain Purity is not about having dimiinished libidos (that is why Origen the prominent early christian scholar was never canonised by the RCC cos the felllow eronouesly castrated himself) but having controlled of the sexual instincts which is  indispensable for procreation and expression of love within the booundaries of love characterised by life-long commitment, i mean marital love.

I believe God was being practical when just after the fall of our first parents in the graden  He got them covering for their naedness; covering the body is to be the path for fallen humanity to manage his loss of pure vision; even after the redemption by Jesus Christ clothes would still be the case, as Jesus garbed Himself, so much so that the helm of His clothes healed a woman with a flow of  blood and the roman soldiers casts lots for it at the foot of the cross.
PURITY RESIDES IN THE INFORMED MIND NOT THE ENUMBED ONE.

Thanks for a beautiful and well thought out post. I concur almost all the way and I think what you said about practicality reiterated what I stated clearly in OP. Personally, I am against "indecent exposure" as is common on modern dressing.

I don't believe that the issue of insensitivity to the nude human body applies to all nudists. There can be no doubt that the matter of seeking release from tension by conquering spontaneous stimulation at the sight of someone of the opposite sex is a factor in nudism. But that is not an absolute theory. For, you see, I seriously doubt that a reasonable degree of success will be attained if nudism were to be administered as a therapy on sex maniacs. Which would suggest that nudism is for disciplined and continent people, which takes us back to the issue of the emotional state or development of the individual. I strongly suspect that with many, it is to do with that: their inner emotional state or maturity. They do not overcome sensitivity and, consequently, their sexuality. Far from it. They simply are able to separate sex from the nude human form! Point I am making is, I believe one can be a nudist because he is informed, rather than enumbed. This category of nudists are in it not to get release from tension but to experience true beauty, harmony, simplicity, purity and oneness with nature.

I do not concur that nudity is unharmonious with the sacredness of the human body. There can be nothing irreverent or ungodly about removing our clothes and being in our true state in the presence of those fellow human beings who are comfortable with it.

I agree 100% that purity is a thing of the mind and cannot be achieved merely by pulling off.

toba:
What d hell is dis thread doing in religion section- A K O&Manmu what are u doing to stop d opening of frivolous threads in here? God hav mercy

Can you itemise the points of frivolity?

imhotep:
Ignorance regards the temporary as the permanent,

The impure as pure,

The bad as good.

This leads to violence, dishonesty, lust, anger,

And these lead to suffering and delusion . . .

Presumption or haste declares impurity where there is none.

This leads to delusion or misapprehension.

These lead to conflicts.

THE AMAKA:
[color=#ff1199]wow!! isn't attacking a NL against the rules? why is this on the front page so everyone can come and ridicule mama-gee? hasn't she had enough? does this even make any sense?
what a way to hide it under such a title.
really sad, the hypocrisy.[/color]

Thank you.

Been wondering, too!

Krayola:
I also have a question regarding the "soul". Where does it come from? . . . As in, is one's "soul" 50% from the mother and 50% from the father? Do little spermies have souls, or do eggs in the ovaries have souls. Are souls lost during every mas.turbation session, or every time an unused egg is "flushed out"; Or does the soul enter into the body after birth, or at the point one gains "consciousness", in which case it has nothing to do with the parents. . . . ?

I tried to highlight this point in easylogic's tread about mind-body. Obviously the spermies and the eggs aren't souls, half souls or pseudo-souls, therefore they cannot on their own turn to souls after fusion. This leaves us with the option of the soul coming from outside. There are two schools of thought: that it enters at the middle of pregnancy or when the baby takes it first breath, as figuratively captured by the Genesis account of creation. I am not proving anything, of course. But I could suggest a book or two. They won't prove anything, but they will give you something to chew on.
Cheers

@OP
Perhaps if you decide you don't know and then open your mind it will help. You can start by talking to those who claim to have had experiences. Dreams, for instance. If you don't dream, do you know anyone that does?

Truth to tell, you can never grasp these things with your hands, that is why they are "supernatural". That is why scientists who investigate them in the cold and detached atmosphere of a laboratory often come up with nothing. The scientist here seems to have made some progress, though inconclusive.

I do not believe anyone can show these things to you. You can find out for yourself. I suggest you read and question, then start trying to verify every claim you hear.