Intelligence is entirely chemical. Some people are naturally gifted with the ability to use paths within their brain that others cannot understand how. Wisdom is based more on the individual's efforts to use intelligence in the acquiration, preservation and teaching of knowledge.

An intelligent man doesn't see a difference between the two. A wise man knows there is.

I think that wisdom has to do more or less with the "right" acting or thinking to the problems of life. We say that somebody has wisdom meaning that he takes the right decisions and he says the right things to do. So it has to do with experience. An old man with a normal I.Q., can be a wise man, if in his entire life had faced the same problem many times. So he "learned" how to deal with this. In the other hand a very intelligent person could be a kid but for sure it has no wisdom, because it has no experience -The main thing is that an intelligent can be wise very fast. -Also, no matter how experienced some people are they continue to make mistakes. SO, YOU CAN BE A WISE MAN ONLY IF YOU ARE INTELLIGENT.

I think that intelligence comes from studying, reading, and observing. It also has to do with what you think about and what you do. You can be very intelligent, but still do stupid things as well. Wisdom is more like knowledge that you have learned in your experiences in real life. You become wise by doing instead of learning. I really think that both are very important.

Intelligence is the ability to comprehend things, i.e., figure new things out based upon your knowledge (and intuition). The higher your intelligence is, the greater the volume of knowledge you can aquire if you work at it, assuming you understand that knowledge. This is to seperate memorizing from understanding. Wisdom is truth, and all wisdom comes from the creator. Intelligence (and knowledge) tell us that a sphere of uranium 235 with a radius of 214 CM is just supercritical at sea level. Wisdom tells us to not build it. Intelligence allows us to understand that a flame is hot. Wisdom tells us not to stick our hand in it to prove it.

My understanding of wisdom and intelligence is similar to Eric's. Intelligence is knowing information and skills, and being able to rationally solve problems. The field of Artificial Intelligence is a good example. Now whether it is "real" intelligence or not should be saved for another day, but A.I. is trying to emulate problem solving and other rational things like that. It's not called "Artificial Wisdom". Wisdom seems to be insight and judgement based on knowledge and experience. Solomon was the wisest man in the world, and it was shown not by quoting facts, but by resolving disputes and showing good judgement (for an example, read I Kings 3:16-28). So I believe intelligence is knowledge and information, combined with skills, while wisdom takes these things and applies them and judges which information or skill is needed at any given time.

Knowledge is basically just a collection of data and facts that a person has stored in their memory. Wisdom is knowing how to use those raw facts. The wise not only know the knowledge, but use the knowledge. They use it unselfishly and without causing harm to others or themselves. The wise do not collect facts just for the sake of knowing them, but try to apply them to the improvment of his life or that of others, but at the same time weigh the consequences of the uses of knowledge, so that the knowledge is not misused.

I think that intelligence is what you're born with. Wisdom is learned through a lifetime.

It is considered intelligent to defend yourself. It is considered wise to avoid that which forces you to defend yourself. Sounds strangely like double-talk, but you'd be surprised how long you can retain your health following this simple bit of advice. But I also understand how difficult it is to avoid trouble. As it is, no one can be both intelligent and wise at the same time, all the time. For instance: Dukes of Hazard scenario -- I love to drive. I have now clocked over fifty speeding tickets (had my '69 Dodge Charger doing 153 on one occasion), both here and overseas, and have been involved in twenty-seven auto accidents, three of which I would relinquish as being entirely my fault, like my bit of stupidity the other day. Back in 1978, Thanksgiving, I woke up at marvelous Gorgas Hospital in the Republic of Panama four days after my very first accident (a drunk sergeant major folded my Datsun). The other day I found ice on the freeway and ended up backwards at fifty-five and up against the guardrail. No injuries logged and the car, minus a scraping, is fine. What can I say? I love to drive. One day, it will probably kill me. This is neither intelligent nor wise, but it is in my nature. Every Which Way But Loose scenario -- Some people in this world actually go hunting bars for fights. Being ex-infantry, I have had the opportunity to meet and speak with quite a number of these rather fascinating individuals. To my way of thinking, they all seem to have one thing in common -- a lack of intelligence? -- wisdom? A lack of neither, really. They just happen to be aggressive men (generally big, but not necessarily) who love to fight. Sitting at the bar in the Ancon Inn, Panama City, Panama, I observed as one particular fellow actually stalked his prey, watching, long before any fight was evident, for two things. 1) Any weaknesses, and 2)always a back way out. This strikes me as being the intelligent way to go about picking fights. He would always pick on someone bigger than him, though, which he explained merely built his confidence when his victim finally fell. Now, eventually, barroom fighting will hurt this man, possibly even kill him. Again, this is neither intelligent nor wise, but it is in his nature. The contrast between intelligence and wisdom has been thoroughly debated since the days of Socrates and Aristotle, and there will be nothing new gained on the topic this day. Suffice to say that if you keep your nose out of trouble, eventually people will come to YOU for advise. YOU will become that wise old man up on the mountain.

Being niether intelligent or wise, I can only speculate. Simply speaking, intelligence is knowing stuff. Wisdom is knowing good things and using it effectively. However the meanings go beyond that. I think wisdom goes further than intelligence meaning that widom comes from intelligence after time. Maybe not. I need some intelligent people to answer this for me...or do I mean wise....?

Everybody, everywhere, effects somebody, somewhere. The effective change, however, depends upon the individual. It was Sir Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) who gave us those inescapable Laws of Gravity, enabling us, by the way, to explore other planets by way of rockets. He had all this figured out, according to his wonderful diary, before his twenty-fourth birthday (in the midst of the Great Plagues of Europe). He published a modicum work of his curiosities called the "Principia" in 1687 at the age of 45, over twenty years later, but it was even later than this that a young student of his pressed upon him to write out his Laws of Gravity in great detail for posterity, which he finally did a few weeks later--at the ripe old age of seventy- seven, just eight years before his death. We almost missed the boat on that one (thank you and no historical changes here PLEASE!). Now, if it were at all possible to travel back and change anyone's mind about anything, I would have attempt to persuade Julius Caesar NOT to force his way into Egypt. What happened during this "invasion", which was really nothing more than a pompish emperor flexing his muscles for a prospective bed-mate, was the destruction of Cleopatra's beautiful library at Alexandria. In this monument of science and history was stored ALL THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE KNOWN WORLD. Excuse the caps, but when I say all the knowledge, that's exactly what I mean. Cleopatra had passed a law several years before wherein all vessels that should lay anchor or dock at any Egyptian port would be boarded and searched for written text. All documents, ledger, books, even notes, were to be confiscated for the purpose of copying at the Library of Alexandria, then returned to the boarded vessel, often upon a ship's return visit. What this knowledge comprised was the wherewithal for mankind to have reached the stars (you heard me) over 500 years ago. Talk about the onset of the dark ages. Philosophies, tables of geometry, trigonometry . . . At the time that the library was burned to the ground, the EXACT circumference of the Earth was known and there were recorded stories from the orient of a vast, unexplored, land lying on its far side. The stars. We could be there by now, folks. 'Course I wouldn't mind changing Hitler's mind as well -- maybe for something in a polished .357 hollow-tip. --Dan

All history after the change would be affected, but in a gradual fashion. The disturbance of events and lives would reach out slowly like the ripples in a pond, after a rock has been thrown into the water. Some of history would proceed the same as it would have otherwise (given that the life changed wasn't a world shaking life such as Einstein, Hitler, or Jonas Salk - or one of their ancestors)for a period of time, but eventually, the "ripple effect" would touch all lives. Are you familiar with Alvin Plantinga (a philosopher)and his dealings with "possible worlds" theories ?

I think that it would alter history quite a bit. Different actions give way to unique consequences. For example, if John F. Kennedy had not been shot, what would our nation be like today? I believe it would be very different. Perhaps we would not have gotten involved in Vietnam (he opposed it more than Johnson and Nixon). Those thousands who died would still be here, and maybe the succession of presidents would be different. I am positive our country would be different today if John Kennedy or Robert Kennedy were able to lead the country as the American people wanted, but they were assassinated at the height of their popularity. We will never know what legacy they could have left us if they had had the chance Nixon and others had-but blew.

Very much! Even if he/she were insignificant.

Ya know, I asked my son that very question just last month. He thought for a bit, then he asked me, "Is this in relation to the past? I mean, after all, twice a year we change our clocks for Savings or Standard Times." My response to this was something along the line of, "Hm-m." But then, what is a clock but a counter? . . . And just what is it that this counter is counting? Are seconds real? Are the countless intervals between those seconds any more real? What is this Time thing? How can something that cannot be adequately described exist? And if it doesn't exist, how can it be changed? And if it does exist, can you tell me why? And if YOU can't tell me why something exists, how can YOU possibly change it? Well, maybe next week I'll travel back in time and change this answer, but for now, I think it stands that Time, as that lovable, tangible, ringing sensation next to the bed, is indeed unchangeable. I had Chanukah off, so I'm a little late in wishing a happy one to all. But good month of Ramadan and a most joyous Christmas, folks! --Dan

If I understand what you mean by that, I would have to say "No." You can always define time differently. You could have "Metric Time" with 100 "metric seconds" in a "metric minute", 100 "metric minutes" in a "metric hour", 10 "metric hours" in a day, etc. You could call today the 5th day of the 13th month, in the year 2502 (depending on how you define years, months, and days, as well as when the calendar you are using "starts".) However, that doesn't "change time", any more than measuring something in meters and centimeters instead of inches and feet changes how long it really is. "Time" is a measure of duration. It can be positive or negative ("two days ago", "last month", etc.) It's a manmade "ruler" of sorts, with the "0 mark" at the beginning of the year 0. We are now 1999 years and 18 days from the beginning of the ruler. It's a sort of "length". One minute is one minute, wherever it is, just like one inch is one inch regardless of what you are talking about. "Changing time" would be analogus to "stretching an inch", which is just as impossible.

NO! We defined it. Just like math, since we defined it, it can't be changed. It is only an idea.

I most certainly believe what the Bible says. However, I am not sure whether I believe the 6 days of Creation were literally 6 periods of 24 hours or whether they were just 6 time periods. But that's a discussion for another time.

Evolution huh?? I tell ya that few topics raise as much argument at that. I don't see what the big deal is. A chap by the name of Charles Darwin came up with this theory of eveolution, that he did not even belive, to suport his white supremicy. The only reason he researched and did what he did was cuz wanted to prove that blacks were inferiour to whites because they were farther back on the "evolution" chain. Charles Darwin knew all along that he was wrong, but still he said what he said and the damage is done. On his death bed what he said was I never belived this, I know that God with Christ is the only way to life. What I am trying to say is that Evolution mearly a joke in the hole skeem of life. I know I wasn't mutated from an ameaba, I am a child of God who in 6 days created the world as we know it. Then on the seventh day he rested.

First let me say that we'll never know the answer and it's foolish to think that we do or have any idea at all about it. There is, however, much more proof of evolution than of creation. But if you look up into the sky at night and wonder what's past the stars, past all the other galaxies and past the wide open space, you have to believe that there is a God of sorts out there.

I do not believe in evolution. God is the creator of all things! He created you Eric, then gave you to us and we love you and are soooo proud of you. Mom & Dad

I tell people that creationism is a theory and they seem to get all hot and bothered, stating that the evidence is in the Bible. Well, that is a book, written by humans, rewritten a dozen times or more by other humans to different English translations, read to us in churches and temples by humans . . . How'd it ever stay so accurate? And another thing, why are the Dead Sea Scrolls such a mystery and why is it that Jews are not allowed to read them? Boy, I'm glad I got all that out. I feel a little lighter. So . . . What modern-day discoveries, Eric? I'm rather well versed in both creationism and evolution. -And as for a theory being too old, what about creationism? I'm sorry, Eric, but the religions of the world have had literally eons to ferment their theories into solid faith. Considering the fact that Darwinism is still very young, I do believe that what has been discovered requires further investigation. If the new discoveries you write of are related to geologic substratas not laying out in the clean layers described at the turn of the century, please bear in mind that the initial proclamations were set to explain the colored layers found along the walls of the Grand Canyon. This, by the way, was a grave error. Core samplings should have been gathered from various regions of the world long before stating any conclusions as to how stratas are laid out. By no means should a single location in such a test ever be used as the base. The simple fact that it was negates all theories-and by the way, these errors were brought to light by later geologists who were simply trying to seek out facts. At the time this was going on, by the way, our own Secretary of state, whoever that knucklehead was, was fighting a bill to start the US Patent Office because, and I do have the quote, "Everything that can be invented has already been invented." That's the mentality Darwin was up against. Or perhaps you are referring to theories of how life even got started, with the famous Primordial Soup theory. Until we know EXACTLY what our planet was like at its birth, what else can we do but theorize? The arguments against the primordial theory seem to revolve around atmospheric oxygen content. If there was oxygen in the air, and I for one seriously doubt it was available in any large quantity, it seems that amino acids would be unable to develop, thereby knocking DNA out at the start. But then, without oxygen, there would be no ozone and the building blocks would become bombarded with destructive ultraviolet radiation. Catch-22. But then, that assumes ultraviolet radiation is dangerous to early life. For that matter, why does the oxygen have to be in the atmosphere? And even if it was, would it have to be in great quantity? Did life actually begin at the surface of some pond? I really do think that you need oxygen to make water, so maybe we should strike that one. But what if life actually began underground and only surfaced later after the necessary amino acids had developed enough to survive the environment? Well, let's see. What were the conditions? The Earth cools after being formed, it rains for a few million years, and here we are? Was water actually helpful in the development of aminos? Are we actually the descendants of some alien dump site? Sounds ludicrous, I know, but in all reality none of these are really known. It would seem that evolution requires quite a bit of faith . . . Hm-m. There's that "F" word again. How about that? And creationism seems to require a bit of faith as well. My, my, my. Well, Eric. Now what do we do? What we have here is a dilemma in both faith and ethics. Nothing will be resolved in this discussion and, in all reality, nothing is expected to be. The evidence for creationism is wrapped in religious faith as well as scientific discoveries. Evolution, regardless of what the hard-ball paleontologists say, require a modicum of faith as well. Charles Darwin was born in 1809 and dedicated his entire life to the study of how things came to be-and not simply how humans came to be, flora and fauna as well. All the theories he presented on the evolution of the animal and plant kingdoms were accepted without question, simply because he was thorough in his research, accurate in his documentation, and noted for his scholarly contributions. As such, he thought nothing of extending his research to a very interesting field, the evolution of man. At the time that he published his Origin of Species in 1859, Darwin had this to go on: 1856 -- Neanderthal man discovered 1856 -- Dryopithecus discovered Not a lot, surely, but enough to back the book and that's what counts. By the time he had written The Decent of Man twelve years later in 1871, he had this to back him: 1859 -- Origin of Species published 1863 -- Moulin Quignon forgeries exposed 1869 -- Cro Magnon man discovered The field was coming alive. In 1882, Darwin died. In the interim, however, nothing of value ever showed itself to add to, or refute neither his findings, nor his writing. In 1925, in the little town of Dayton, located in Rhea County, Tennessee, a young school teacher by the name of John Scopes was put on trial for teaching what was at the time accepted scientific fact. You may have heard of the famous Monkey Trials (Check out the film Inherit the Wind with Sencer Tracy, Fredric March, Gene Kelly, & Dick York [it's not a musical]). What Scopes had to back him, since the death of Darwin, was this:

1890 -- Java Man discovered
1898 -- Galley hill "man" discovered [modern, misinterpreted]
1903 -- First molar of Peking man found
1907 -- Heidelberg man discovered
1908 -- Dawson (1908-1911) discovers first Piltdown fragments
1909 -- Dawson and Teilhard de Chardin meet
1912 -- February: Dawson contacts Woodward about first skull fragments
1912 -- June: Dawson, Woodward, and Teilhard form digging team
1912 -- June: Team finds elephant molar, skull fragment
1912 -- June: Right parietal skull bones and the jaw bone discovered
1912 -- Summer: Barlow, Pycraft, G.E. Smith, and Lankester join team.
1912 -- November: News breaks in the popular press
1912 -- December: Official presentation of Piltdown man
1913 -- August: the canine tooth is found by Teilhard
1914 -- Tool made from fossil elephant thigh bone found
1914 -- Talgai (Australia) man found, considered confirming of Piltdown
1915 -- Piltdown II found by Dawson (according to Woodward)
1916 -- Dawson dies.
1917 -- Woodward announces discovery of Piltdown II.
1921 -- Osborn and Gregory "converted" by Piltdown II.
1921 -- Rhodesian man discovered
1923 -- Teilhard arrives in China.
1924 -- Dart makes first Australopithecus discovery.
1925 -- Edmonds reports Piltdown geology error. Report ignored.
Looks pretty impressive to me. A lot of people may say, "What about the Piltdown Hoax that was revealed in 1925?" As shown, it was largely ignored at the time of the trials. There was simply too much evidence for the discovery not to be valid. Since then, aging techniques have been proven time and time again to be accurate, inaccurate, inconclusive, inadequate --Dan

Creationism. Darwin's theory of evolution is too old and does not account for some more modern day discoveries. Besides, I believe what the Bible says.