Skip to comments.How smart was ancient man? (28 min video)
Posted on 01/16/2014 10:37:41 AM PST by fishtank
DESCRIPTION A consequence of evolutionary thinking is that ancient people were intellectually inferior to moderns. On the other hand, the bible records that people began with high intelligence and had great capabilities. This week we look at evidence for the biblical record.
The Creation Magazine LIVE! TV program is a ministry of Creation Ministries International. With offices in seven countries and more PhD scientists than any Christian organization this program features cutting edge science that supports the Bible delivered in a non-technical, visually-rich, discussion-based format.
antikythera mechanism (from about a 2000 year old shipwreck)
I once read that some archaeologist had calculated that the average IQ among ancient Greeks of the Golden Age was around 120.
Considering all the brilliant men produced by a city of never more than 100,000, that makes sense to me.
Why, thank you.
US population in 1770s = 2,500,000. Leaders include Franklin, Jefferson, Madison.
US population in 2010s = 316,000,000. Leaders include Obama, Biden, Kerry.
Proof that natural selection does not favor intelligence?
A proof that crap floats to the top of the talent pool in party politics.
“A consequence of evolutionary thinking is that ancient people were intellectually inferior to moderns.”
The evolutionary scientists have painted themselves into a corner on this one. According to their dating, we have had modern humans, anatomically indistinguishable from ourselves, for at least 100,000 years. Yet, by their same dating, they must insist that we were using the same rudimentary stone tools, with little technological innovation, for nearly that entire time period.
Now, it’s true that modern men can subsist with stone age tools alone, even to this day. However, we only see that happening with isolated pockets, who don’t have to compete with other humans, and who live in a stable, unchanging environment. We can’t posit the same conditions for man, worldwide, for 100,000 years.
Nah, that’s more like proof that artificial selection is less efficient than natural selection. If we were still mainly under the driving forces of nature, clowns like our modern politicians wouldn’t have survived to adulthood. They’re the curse we bear because we have been so successful at conquering nature.
Well, we’ve been killing off the best and brightest with wars for thousands of years. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if we have lost some IQ points, on average.
At which time the democrat party was formed....and we all no what happened then!!!
I think that ancient man was, on average, smarter. People then had to use their wits to survive - there was no welfare, etc. to cushion the impact of sheer stupidity. I believe that the movie, “Idiocracy” is prophetic, with large reductions in average intelligence already evident throughout the population.
we might have more “highly intelligent” people now but on average today people are stoooooooooooppppiidddd
not in a society with a safety net and welfare.
As we have now abandoned that concept for over 100-150 years we are now reaping the consequences of intermarrying the intelligent with the less intelligent.
If they were all that smart, they’d have waited until after the internet was invented to be born, wouldn’t they?
Life without the internet?!? Why bother?
So question in the future how will we be able to distinguish created life from naturally evolved life?
Because in the far future the only test I can think for created versus evolved is to look back at the fossil record for a pattern of emergence of new species. Oddly in that test i would expect created species should come in burst vs evolves species should come at a steady pace
Watch the movie Idiocracy.
The future awaits...
We stand on the shoulders of giants. The closer in time we get to creation, the greater the intelligence, the less genetic mutation and drift.
People were smart enough to invent things like the wheel, etc. Today we think they’re no-brainers, but at one point it took a brain to come up with those things. And they didn’t have the benefit of a few thousand years of accumulated human knowledge.
We could watch the David Letterman show and find out.
In other words, these politicians are the Cream of the Crap
Obama also stands on the shoulders of giants, ie the last two Dem Prezzes preceding him. He's The Best of The Best, in that he combines the Morality & Integrity & Authenticity of Bill Clinton with the Effectiveness, Leadership and Matchless Accomplishments (especially in Foreign Policy) of Jimmy "The Peanut" Carter.
Or at least in the Dem's hagiography.
But from where I am, he appears to be Standing on the Shoulders of Midgets. (Apologies for defaming Little People)
Just read what was written in the past. Our founding fathers wrote a lot, and much of it is difficult to interpret for modern readers. A good example is the Federalist Papers.
Then, go read the Bible. The apostle Paul wrote his epistles and freely quoted the Old Testament, likely from memory (especially while he was in prison).
Just because their technology wasn’t advanced like it is now, doesn’t mean they were stupid. In some ways I think modern devices detract from our intellect simply be being such a distraction. We don’t take the time to really ponder things like we should.
I could well be mistaken but I think if you look at the genealogy of some of greatest inventors and thinkers (DaVinci, Galileo, etc.) you’ll find that your theory falls flat on its face.
If it is (as it must be) then breeding between two intelligent adults will on average produce more intelligent children than breeding between two dumb people, or between one intelligent and one dumb person.
Long before humans even knew of DNA or gene's we intuitively knew this and thus was born the concept of the aristrocry and why they only married each other or those who had newly earned their way into what was basically an elite breeding club.
Long before humans even knew of DNA or gene’s we intuitively knew this and thus was born the concept of the aristrocry and why they only married each other
Just because their technology wasnt advanced like it is now, doesnt mean they were stupid. In some ways I think modern devices detract from our intellect simply be being such a distraction. We dont take the time to really ponder things like we should.
You are right in that no one ponders any more, we let others do our thinking for us..................
records that people began with high intelligence and had great capabilities.
Also wasn’t there just a discovery that there are multiple information patterns in DNA and we have only seen one?
If you except the Founding Fathers and an occasional individual after that period, there is a lot to be said for that assessment.
Yes, that’s worked so well for the British Monarchy. I’m sure intellectual ability in part lies in the genes...personality and societal upbringing likely play a large part, as well. I don’t think it’s something you can simplify — idiot savants are quite the quandary.
Ashkenazi Jews have been breeding exclusively with each other for 1,000’s of years and are proven to be far more intelligent.
It is a mistake to think that humans can not be bred like any other animal breed for certain desired traits.
It may be true that only the younger sons of aristocratic families would have gone to the New World (if they had no hope of an inheritance back home) but they must have been an insignificant proportion of the emigrants. Most people in England, Scotland, or Ireland were not aristocrats, and it was that sort of people who would willingly go to America. Of course some went unwillingly as punishment for crimes.
I think that’sh what Shimmy The Greek wash trying to say! Hic! Hic!