Droldnallufepoh:

another useless epistle

More evidence that disproves your "research" .

KingEbukasBlog:

More evidence that disproves your "research" .

okay

Droldnallufepoh:


Doctiralien should be very grateful to his goons cuz he's been spouting nonsense on this thread till his cohorts came and gave him a reason to ignore my posts, I'm pretty sure he's learnt a lot from this thread and would not make the idiotic claim he made on this thread, claims like

"Big bang is an explosion"

"Big Bang is an atheistic claim"

I think you're the one who learnt something from me today. I'm very happy that from today on, I will never see you ignorantly claim that the formation of stars and planets are fully explained.

No, no, you don't need to thank me. It's my duty to educate "freethinkers".

DoctorAlien:


I think you're the one who learnt something from me today. I'm very happy that from today on, I will never see you ignorantly claim that the formation of stars and planets are fully explained.

No, no, you don't need to thank me. It's my duty to educate "freethinkers".

educate us by claiming big bang is an atheistic claim

educate us by claiming big bang is an explosion

educate your people by calling anyone who's "opinion" differs from yours ad hater of your imaginary friend eg Kingebukasblog

as for the formation of stars, I already told you to read a bit about science, that should help you on your way

you can thank me but it would be understandable if you don't

Deicide:
Intelligence is a biological factor I don't see any reason why an atheist should be more intelligent than a religious person be it a Christian or a Muslim or a budhist

* Yes, intelligence is a biological concept, and is relative in humans.

*intelligence can be increased and decreased, via negative and positive neuro-conditioning cues.

E.g- tell a normal child at iq score of 50, that a test shows that he has the best mental ability in the class. But it will show in his results, if he practices X, Y and Z (positive cues). If this child believes this, it has been confirmed that the child's iq score will increase.

*please note, these research that concluded by saying that atheists are more intelligent than religious folks, Are designed within specific domain of enquiry and selected variables.

*in this study, the narrowed domain was INSTINCT and the variable considered was STRESSFUL SITUATION.

* According to the study, the atheists have overcome the instinct that makes human brain, to lean easily towards God's help, during stressful situations.

*atheists understand and know, what stressful or perplexing situation are, therefore, they engage their mental power to address the situation.

*religious folks on the other hand, switch easily towards "God's power", when in the same situation.

*if you objectively assess the outcome of these two approaches, the atheists on the average, will have positive results, that will be significant.


The above, explains the conclusion!

Droldnallufepoh:


Doctiralien should be very grateful to his goons cuz he's been spouting nonsense on this thread till his cohorts came and gave him a reason to ignore my posts, I'm pretty sure he's learnt a lot from this thread and would not make the idiotic claim he made on this thread, claims like

"Big bang is an explosion"

"Big Bang is an atheistic claim"

"anyone who doesn't take literal parts of the bible that he (DoctorAilen) takes literally is a "god hater" hereby implying Kingebukasblog is a god hater"

Those cluster of christards, are the irritants that made intellectually honest Christians, stop commenting here.

Their pungent idiocy, has terribly damaged the Christian religion on NL. By presenting Christians as extremely hateful, savagery and primitive.

Also, most atheists avoid getting into discussion with Christians, because of the filthy antecedents of these buffoons.

akintom:


Those cluster of christards, are the irritants that made intellectually honest Christians, stop commenting here.

Their pungent idiocy, has terribly damaged the Christian religion on NL. By presenting Christians as extremely hateful, savagery and primitive.

Also, most atheists avoid getting into discussion with Christians, because of the filthy antecedents of these buffoons.

you have a brutal way with words

KingEbukasBlog:


Atheists with all the intelligence they claim to have resorted to violence and mass murdering to solve economic problems .

Really?

Aren't South Korea, China, Japanese, Sweden atheistic countries?

Born2Freak:



Really?

Aren't South Korea, China, Japanese, Sweden atheistic countries?

North Korea and China are atheist nations . Japan and Sweden are not atheist countries .

akintom:


* Yes, intelligence is a biological concept, and is relative in humans.

*intelligence can be increased and decreased, via negative and positive neuro-conditioning cues.

E.g- tell a normal child at iq score of 50, that a test shows that he has the best mental ability in the class. But it will show in his results, if he practices X, Y and Z (positive cues). If this child believes this, it has been confirmed that the child's iq score will increase.

No i don't think intelligence can be increased it can only be worked upon so the person might seem more knowledgeable but this doesn't mean the IQ increased or anything. and by the way intelligence by IQ is how fast someone can understand something and then retain the information.

Please note!

my familiar moniker akintom is banned at present. This is my alternative moniker.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Deicide:

No i don't think intelligence can be increased.

INTELLIGENCE
Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including as one's capacity for logic, understanding , self-awareness , learning , emotional knowledge , planning ,
creativity , and problem solving . It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

- Wikipedia

Based on the above definition, intelligence can be increased.

Deicide:

it can only be worked upon so the person might seem more knowledgeable but this doesn't mean the IQ increased or anything. .

Not "seem", it can be objectively established. Knowledge is a component of intelligence, and not intelligence itself.

IQ test is an objective means of ranking intelligence. And it's realistically valid.

Deicide:

and by the way intelligence by IQ is how fast someone can understand something and then retain the information.

No, IQ has a more grand assessment function than your description. Pls check it out.

DoctorAlien:


I know it's so painful seeing me cherrypick the bias in your allegory.

The onus is on you to prove how Christians bend facts to support theories.

With a brief google check this is what I found:

So I would like to take a look at these 10 pieces of evidence and explain why they could not be further from evidence for something as silly as young earth creationism.

1. Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

This argument may make some sense if you read it naively of geological science, but it is simply not the case. According to Matthew S. Tiscareno of Cornell University:

Due to Plate Tectonics, ocean floor is continuously created at mid-ocean ridges and subducted into the Earth’s mantle at ocean trenches. This process moves at about an inch or two per year, so the average age of the ocean floor is in fact a few tens of millions of years, and thus the result is completely consistent with old-Earth science.

As you can see, science has explained this via plate tectonics, a proven, verifiable and natural occurrence. So no, very little sediment offers no proof of a young earth.

2 Bent Rock Layers

In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down separately over hundreds of millions of years and already hardened?

This argument is the same as their “the geological column doesn’t exist” argument. Creationists think you should see the layers of rock like those of a cake, all over the earth, and apparently if there is any bending, that is proof the earth is young.

Not so much. No one expects there to be an unbroken record of the earth as creationists are claiming must exist for the earth to be over 4 billion years old, so the claim they are making is very misleading from the start.

To quote from Matthew S. Tiscareno again:

Deposited layers can be later eroded away or destroyed in other ways, and drought can prevent layers from being deposited at all for long periods of time. However, the above statement is very misleading in that it insinuates that the geologic column is somehow a “figment of the evolutionist’s imagination.” The truth is that the geologic records all over the world are very well correlated with each other, not only with stratigraphy (i.e., which layer overlies which layer) and fossils, but with paleomagnetism, radiometric dating, and many other important factors, all of which fit together remarkably well.

The earth’s record may not be perfect, and if it was, geologists could just go home, but we have enough evidence and understanding to have a very good grasp about on what the geological record says.

So again, no young earth evidence.

3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody “knows” died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.

Actually, Dr. Schweitzer’s discovery, as remarkable as it is, is also fully explained, and our previous thought about how long tissue can last has shifted since discovering this.

In fact, these findings have enhanced our knowledge of the dinosaur and their DNA, but have also helped us confirm their very old age. The Smithsonian Magazine claims that young-earth creationists have hijacked Dr. Schweitzer’s find, and Dr. Schweitzer herself, a faithful Christian, believes the age of the tissue to be millions of years old, not thousands of years.

So Answers in Genesis is trumpeting Dr. Schweitzer’s findings, and using her name and she doesn’t even agree with them.

4 Faint Sun Paradox

Evidence now supports astronomers’ belief that the sun’s power comes from the fusion of hydrogen into helium deep in the sun’s core, but there is a huge problem. As the hydrogen fuses, it should change the composition of the sun’s core, gradually increasing the sun’s temperature. If true, this means that the earth was colder in the past. In fact, the earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, when life supposedly evolved.

So this may be the closest creationists get to actual science, not actually doing science, just simply exploiting science that is not fully understood yet and claiming that to be evidence for their position.

This is not actually how science works, but it’s cute to watch them try. The original issue was actually raised by Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972, because studying sun like stars shows that the sun should get brighter and hotter over time, but the earth’s geological record shows a rather steady temperature with the exception of one really cold phase.

This does not however help the argument for young earth creationism though, because the layers that are being studied to measure the temperatures in this research are millions and billions of years old, so that alone means using the sun as evidence simply will not work.

If scientists today still don’t have a full understanding of the faint sun paradox, why would anyone think a group of people who believe in talking snakes do?

5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

The earth is surrounded by a magnetic field that protects living things from solar radiation. Without it, life could not exist. That’s why scientists were surprised to discover that the field is quickly wearing down. At the current rate, the field and thus the earth could be no older than 20,000 years old.

Not really, because evidence shows a fluctuation in the magnetic field, not a constant decay as Answers in Genesis is claiming.

According to Talk Origins the concept itself was dreamed up by two creationists who often had to use divine intervention in their explanations for the for the magnetic decay they claimed to have found, and according to Matthew S. Tiscareno again:

“[…] The evidence shows that the magnetic field has fluctuated back and forth in strength as well as direction. These fluctuations are clearly observed in places where the stratigraphy (i.e. which rocks are older than which rocks) is obvious due to either layering or distance from a sea-floor spreading ridge. The decrease measured in the past few hundred years, therefore, is nothing more than a downward trend as part of an overall fluctuation, and has no implication for the age of the Earth.”

6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

During the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium contained in rocks, lots of helium is produced. Because helium is the second lightest element and a noble gas—meaning it does not combine with other atoms—it readily diffuses (leaks) out and eventually escapes into the atmosphere. Helium diffuses so rapidly that all the helium should have leaked out in less than 100,000 years. So why are these rocks still full of helium atoms?

Talk Origins explains this rather perfectly in that helium diffusion is not a straightforward rate that applies universally; subsurface pressure and temperature affect just how quickly helium would leak out of these rocks.

Creationists would have you believe that what is true for one rock is true for all, and this is simply dishonest and misleading. In fact, the leader young earth creationist pushing this theory, Dr. D. R. Humphreys has invoked miracles in his findings when he cannot explain a phenomena and has refused to publish or submit any of his findings to a single peer-review journal, instead publishing them in his own books.

7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly—with a half-life of only 5,730 years—that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils—supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old—ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating.

You can basically read everything in #6 above to understand the methods used to make this claim. Creationists simply ignore how radiocarbon dating works and how the process actually takes place.

If you ignore the actual science and invent you own, you can claim anything is possible, as creationists have.

8 Short-Lived Comets

A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But once each orbit a comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sun’s heat to evaporate much of the comet’s ice and dislodge dust to form a beautiful tail. Comets have little mass, so each close pass to the sun greatly reduces a comet’s size, and eventually comets fade away. They can’t survive billions of years.

The basic claim here is that comets would not exist if the universe was old because they would have melted by now.

According to Matthew S. Tiscareno:

“[…] The point is a valid one. However, this claim is a One-Sided Equation that considers the rate at which comets are destroyed without considering how the comet population is replenished. The population of comets is kept in equilibrium by new comets which are continuously introduced into our solar system from beyond Pluto’s orbit. When they are far away from the Sun’s deteriorating effects, comets can last indefinitely.”

The claim by creationists would posit that no new comets are being created and that they all make such regular trips around the sun they would be gone, but this simply isn’t the case.

9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

If the world’s oceans have been around for three billion years as evolutionists believe, they should be filled with vastly more salt than the oceans contain today.

These claims are starting to feel a little desperate aren’t they?

And to quote Matthew S. Tiscareno for the thousandth time:

There are many processes that take salt out of seawater, including sea spray, high-temperature alteration of brine into albite at undersea hydrothermal vents, and deposition to the ocean floor. Precipitates on the sea floor will be swept clear periodically by plate tectonic subduction. It is also important to realize that there is a great deal that we do not understand about the deep ocean floor, due to the obvious difficulties in studying it, and it is likely that there are other important processes going on there that have yet to be discovered.

So as you can see, it is not as simple as saying salt should be there when there are scientific explanations for why it is not.

I think there should be a million dollars in my bank account, but there are many reasons there are not. None of them being that because I stated it, it must be true.

10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates).

For starters, yes, the age of the salt is dated to be 250 million years old, but the age of bacteria has not. So while it is believed the bacteria is old, it is most likely not as old as the salt.

Answers in Genesis leave that nugget of info out of their explanation. But the real thing here is simple; scientists themselves still don’t understand this ancient DNA and are still studying it. Yet Answers in Genesis, an organization that conducts no scientific research and has zero access to this DNA claims to have it all figured out.

Yet their discovery has not been published in any journal, or presented to any scientific organizations, they simply sit in their own arrogance and claim to know all about it.

So as you can see, not a single one of these 10 claims proves creationism and none of them even provide something close. All they provide is proof that Answers in Genesis is either completely scientifically ignorant, or they think their members and supporters are, so they exploit that ignorance.

Given that they are consistently untruthful, I think we can safely assume they know they are lying, but have a great understanding that their lies are worth money.

(Image: Answers in Genesis / YouTube Screenshot)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/ken-hams-10-facts-that-prove-creationism-debunked/

PastorAIO:


With a brief google check this is what I found:



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/ken-hams-10-facts-that-prove-creationism-debunked/

if the quotation is long we can sum it down to this:



Yet their discovery has not been published in any journal, or presented to any scientific organizations, they simply sit in their own arrogance and claim to know all about it.

So as you can see, not a single one of these 10 claims proves creationism and none of them even provide something close. All they provide is proof that Answers in Genesis is either completely scientifically ignorant, or they think their members and supporters are, so they exploit that ignorance.

Given that they are consistently untruthful, I think we can safely assume they know they are lying, but have a great understanding that their lies are worth money.

itsJude:


People who don’t believe in God tend to be more intelligent – and this is a fact which has been shown by multiple studies.

But the debate over why atheists might be more intelligent goes back much further, to Greek and Roman times – and it’s not because one belief system is more ‘correct’.

A new scientific paper by Edward Dutton of the Ulster Institute for Social Research in the UK, and Dimitri Van der Linden of the Rotterdam University in the Netherlands suggests an answer.


The authors suggest that the reason could be explained if religion is considered an instinct – one which intelligence gives people the ability to overcome.

It means that non-religious people may be better problem solvers


That would explain recent survey data which supports the stance that intelligence seems to be negatively associated with being religious, the authors write.

https://www.graphiq.com/vlp/f3mB1ztlcqx

If religion is an evolved domain then it is an instinct, and intelligence – in rationally solving problems – can be understood as involving overcoming instinct and being intellectually curious and thus open to non-instinctive possibilities,’ Dutton writs.

Dutton argues that being intelligent helps people to rise above their instincts during stressful times – a useful skill.

‘If religion is indeed an evolved domain – an instinct – then it will become heightened at times of stress, when people are inclined to act instinctively, and there is clear evidence for this,’ says Dutton ‘It also means that intelligence allows us to able to pause and reason through the situation and the possible consequences of our actions.’

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/atheists-intelligent-overcome-instinct-religion-111146334.html


Seun lalasticala

intelligent or Autistic? here is the research that shows atheism and autism are connected http://www.livescience.com/20654-autism-belief-god.html

akintom:


* Yes, intelligence is a biological concept, and is relative in humans.

*intelligence can be increased and decreased, via negative and positive neuro-conditioning cues.

E.g- tell a normal child at iq score of 50, that a test shows that he has the best mental ability in the class. But it will show in his results, if he practices X, Y and Z (positive cues). If this child believes this, it has been confirmed that the child's iq score will increase.

*please note, these research that concluded by saying that atheists are more intelligent than religious folks, Are designed within specific domain of enquiry and selected variables.

*in this study, the narrowed domain was INSTINCT and the variable considered was STRESSFUL SITUATION.

* According to the study, the atheists have overcome the instinct that makes human brain, to lean easily towards God's help, during stressful situations.

*atheists understand and know, what stressful or perplexing situation are, therefore, they engage their mental power to address the situation.

*religious folks on the other hand, switch easily towards "God's power", when in the same situation.

*if you objectively assess the outcome of these two approaches, the atheists on the average, will have positive results, that will be significant.


The above, explains the conclusion!

intelligence isn't relative to humans, other animals have been shown to be highly intelligent

Blogthug:


intelligence isn't relative to humans, other animals have been shown to be highly intelligent

* Yes, intelligence is a biological concept, and is relative in humans.

The above, has no connection with your remark.

Akiintom:

INTELLIGENCE
Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including as one's capacity for logic, understanding , self-awareness , learning , emotional knowledge , planning ,
creativity , and problem solving . It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

- Wikipedia

Based on the above definition, intelligence can be increased.

@bolded shows that there is a limit depending on the individual

Not "seem", it can be objectively established. Knowledge is a component of intelligence, and not intelligence itself.

IQ test is an objective means of ranking intelligence. And it's realistically valid.

A person that is intelligent might not necessarily be knowledgeable

No, IQ has a more grand assessment function than your description. Pls check it out.

i meant to say intelligence sorry

Interesting.....

The luck this ignorant generation have is the emergence of our lord jesus christ....

KingEbukasBlog:


North Korea and China are atheist nations . Japan and Sweden are not atheist countries .

Based on what sir?

How do you define an atheist nation? I ask this because Japan, Sweden, China etc all have an overwhelming number of atheists.

PASTORAIO, compare Dan Arel's poor attempt at producing a rebuttal to the full content of Ken Ham's "The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth" found in the link below:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/?utm_source=aigsocial08202014tenevidences&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebooktwittergooglelinkedin

Dan Arel was dishonest in picking only the first few sentences in each of the points contained in Ken Ham's piece. Of course all his "rebuttals" were equally rebutted in the "Rescuing devices" section of each point made in Ken Ham's piece.

DoctorAlien:
PASTORAIO, compare Dan Arel's poor attempt at producing a rebuttal to the full content of Ken Ham's "The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth" found in the link below:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/?utm_source=aigsocial08202014tenevidences&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebooktwittergooglelinkedin

Dan Arel was dishonest in picking only the first few sentences in each of the points contained in Ken Ham's piece. Of course all his "rebuttals" were equally rebutted in the "Rescuing devices" section of each point made in Ken Ham's piece.

Of course 'rebuttals' can go back and forth till the day of judgment, but I think the crux of Ken Ham, or is it Dan Arel is here:

PastorAIO:




Yet their discovery has not been published in any journal, or presented to any scientific organizations, they simply sit in their own arrogance and claim to know all about it.

A rebuttal to end all rebuttals would be to simple provide the real scientific journal in which their discoveries were presented and the acceptance of the scientific community.

akintom:


* consciously and subconsciously, this is the mental platform, from which 98% of Christians on NL, discuss the concept of religious beliefs from.

* when the Roman Catholic Church, who originally concocted the Christian religion, is increasingly admitting to the intelligent and intellectual honesty, of Bible, been largely metaphorical.

*this position of Roman Catholic Church and other liberal Christian groups, didn't come on basis of "godly humility", but the compulsion of scientific evidence that incontrovertible.

* now, if most Christians on this NL, remain glued to the idea, that the bible is literarily true, how can one possibly engage such folks in rational, logical and intelligent discussion?

The problem, I always say, is that the so-called Nigerian Christians hardly ever understand what Christianity is , how it began and how it had evolved over the ages.
Nigerians see and use Christianity as just another convenient superstition to replace the superstitions of their forefathers.

plaetton:


The problem, I always say, is that the so-called Nigerian Christians hardly ever understand what Christianity is , how it began and how it had evolved over the ages.
Nigerians see and use Christianity as just another convenient superstition to replace the superstitions of their forefathers.

You couldn't have said it better.

plaetton:


The problem, I always say, is that the so-called Nigerian Christians hardly ever understand what Christianity is , how it began and how it had evolved over the ages.
Nigerians see and use Christianity as just another convenient superstition to replace the superstitions of their forefathers.

Olboi, you don summarize the beginning and the end of the old tin. Clap for yourself.

I wish I could put those words on a plaque and hang it on my wall. Abeg dash me copyright.

Deicide:

No i don't think intelligence can be increased it can only be worked upon so the person might seem more knowledgeable but this doesn't mean the IQ increased or anything. and by the way intelligence by IQ is how fast someone can understand something and then retain the information.

Have you heard of Neural Plasticity ?
In layman's terms, " practice makes perfect ".

This simply means that if you practice anything , any Skill long enough, you will gradually improve your ability, become good at it, and able to completely master or a genius at it, any Skill at all.

In other words, every one is inbued with unlimited intelligence cranial dexterity, and under the right enabling environment, the brain or mind is naturally malleable enough to exponentially increase in intelligence or stagnate.

I made this similar argument earlier in the week in another thread, that our natural habitats in subsahara Africa, with our tropical vegetation and age old cultural norms had always been impediments to the growth and nurturing of Natural Curiosity and Intellectualism, and hence, our shortcomings in literary works, architecture and scientific achievements.

PastorAIO:


Olboi, you don summarize the beginning and the end of the old tin. Clap for yourself.

I wish I could put those words on a plaque and hang it on my wall. Abeg dash me copyright.

Copyright granted, good ol sire.

plaetton:

Have you heard of Neural Plasticity ?
In layman's terms, " practice makes perfect ".

This simply means that if you practice anything , any Skill long enough, you will gradually improve your ability, become good at it, and able to completely master or a genius at it, any Skill at all.

In other words, every one is inbued with unlimited intelligence, and under the right enabling environment, the brain or mind is naturally malleable enough to exponentially increase in intelligence or stagnate.

I made this similar argument earlier in the week in another thread, that our natural habitats in subsahara Africa, with our tropical vegetation and age old cultural norms had always been impediments to the growth and nurturing of Natural Curiosity and Intellectualism, and hence, our shortcomings in literary works, architecture and scientific achievements.

you guys are not getting me yes everyone is equipped with unlimited intelligence am not arguing that my point is the amount of time it would take Mr. A to understand something Mr. B might take just a tiny seconds to understand it.That's the intelligence am talking about, That is not something you practice and get perfect in.

Deicide:

you guys are not getting me yes everyone is equipped with unlimited intelligence am not arguing that my point is the amount of time it would take Mr. A to understand something Mr. B might take just a tiny seconds to understand it.That's the intelligence am talking about

Let me give you an example.

Math tests, standard math tests are usually used to test or measure intelligence.
People good in math are usually labeled "intelligent' , while people who are very poor in math are usually labeled dumb or OLODO(apologies to Deepsight).
Now, as a result , many potentially bright young people give up on themselves and future possibilities very early in their youth because of their poor math skills.

Using myself as an example, I realized late in secondary school that poor math teachers were the main problems associated with math phobia. I needed math in my career choice, so I motivated myself to conquer the phobia and devote my time to embrace math. After much much practice, I noticed that my brain/ mind began to organize numbers in my own custom unique patterns, and I began to be able to do complex calculations and math problems with greater ease over time,.a skill l still retain.

To put this in biological context, we have the two hemispheres of the brain, the instinctive and the logical, always fighting for supremacy. The instinctive part is the older, more primitive , rigid, very short focused, more animalistic part of the brain that was very useful in the earlier stages of our evolution, when we solely relied on instincts and primitive impulses for our very survival.
This instinctive side always wants to call the shots and have its
way.
In the side, we have the more recently evolved logical , rational part of the brain that is constantly challenging the status quo. This part of the brain also perceives in numbers and spatial terms.

In summary, with practice, the logical and rational part of the brain can overshadow the instinctive, primitive part of brain , thereby increasing logical reasoning ability, rationality , clarity and a simplified way of dealing with complex issues.

This dovetails with the thrust of the OP and the scientific conclusions quoted : that religion is part of the primitive instincts, and that a a breakaway from instinctive primitive behavior is an improvement in intelligence.

plaetton:


Let me give you an example.

Math tests, standard math tests are usually used to test or measure intelligence.
People good in math are usually labeled "intelligent' , while people who are very poor in math are usually labeled dumb or OLODO(apologies to Deepsight).
Now, as a result , many potentially bright young people give up on themselves and future possibilities very early in their youth because of their poor math skills.

But even with this poor Maths teachers people still pass right? The maths teacher asks a question and people still answer right but wait there is a guy at the back who seems not to be getting anything from what the teacher is saying. that's what am talking about of course this guy can improve his maths skills like me, for example, i would not understand some topic except you break it down very well for me or use real world examples to explain. so the point would be why do those people understand the poor maths teacher and the guy at the backs is finding it hard to understand?

Deicide:

But even with this poor Maths teachers people still pass right? The maths teacher asks a question and people still answer right but wait there is a guy at the back who seems not to be getting anything from what the teacher is saying. that's what am talking about of course this guy can improve his maths skills like me, for example, i would not understand some topic except you break it down very well for me or use real world examples to explain. so the point would be why do those people understand the poor maths teacher and the guy at the backs is finding it hard to understand?

Aside genetic dispositions, it could very depend on how the COGNITIVE SKILLS were developed at infancy.
We know that poor nutrition and hunger as well as malaria, for example, can negatively affect early COGNITIVE development, which would inevitably show in some learning disabilities or poor math skills.

plaetton:


Aside genetic dispositions, it could very depend on how the COGNITIVE SKILLS were developed at infancy.
We know that poor nutrition and hunger as well as malaria, for example, can negatively affect early COGNITIVE development, which would inevitably show in some learning disabilities or poor math skills.

Am not talking about maths only in maths you only need to know it secrete then it becomes simple