This statement is roughly equivalent to "My opinions on topic X are soundly arrived at".

Perhaps, but I set forth the basis of my reasoning in a blog post elsewhere. So I did more than simply assert a conclusion.

Since this branch of the discussion has fallen below the comment threshhold, I am happy to discuss things here.

In any event, would you apply the same criticism to cupholder's atheism?

to a first approximation, zero useful or interesting content at this time

If you believe that what I stated was not useful or interesting, then you should not mind stipulating for the sake of argument that the facts I state there are correct. Agreed?

Meanwhile you have wasted the time and attention of many LW readers as you submitted cupholder to an interrogation that would have tried anyone's patience.

Unfortunately cupholder was rather evasive in our discussion. That's his fault not mine.

There is zero net evidence that IQ correlates with skin tone.

That's not true at all. There is overwhelming evidence that performance on IQ tests is hugely correlated with "race", which basically implies skin tone. Blacks, as a group, score 10-15 points below whites (almost a standard deviation), and (some) Asians and Jews are about half a deviation above whites.

The controversy is not whether there is correlation. The controversy is over the casual explanation. How much of this observed difference is due to genetics, how much due to environment, and how much due to the structure of standard IQ tests?

Mainstream science either holds that there is no genetic component or that the question is unresolved.

Just to clarify: the question is whether there is a genetic component to the observed difference in black/white (and other racial) group IQ scores.

There is clearly a genetic component to individual IQ scores.

This varies based on wealth. Among poor/impoverished peoples, variance in IQ scores is something like 60-90% due to environmental factors (like nutrition). Among wealthy peoples, 60-70% seems to be genetic.

The usual analogy is the height of growing corn. In nutrient-poor dirt, corn height is mostly a function of how much fertilizer/water/sun the plants get. But in well-tended farms, corn stalk height is almost completely a function of inherited genetics.

The two cases aren't even roughly comparable.

The fundamental similarity is that it's possible to be reasonable confident of a conclusion based on general knowledge, common sense, and despite scientific studies to the contrary.

Now for the hundredth time, if you would like to share the knowledge that we don't have that makes you so confident you are welcome to.

Lol, you have all the knowledge necessary to come to the same conclusion as I have. Surely you are aware that the cognitive gap between blacks and whites is essentially universal and intractable*. In both time and space, as far as anyone knows. While at the same time, other explanations offered for the gap are not so.

There is only one reasonable inference from these facts. One simple explanation which is not inherently ridiculous.

*I agree that the gap can be lessened to some extent since black children face the environmental disadvantage of being raised by black parents.

The existence of God has probably the lowest prior probability of any hypothesis ever seriously considered by humans. Any evidence in favor of theism has been swamped ...

Surely you mean 'likelihood' here, not prior probability. Prior probabilities are imputed based on one's uncertainty before any evidence is taken into account, and theism scores fairly high on this metric.