Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

wacki - it was not a good pole.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
wacki - it was not a good pole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your well supported arguments and flawless spelling have convinced me.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

I voted yes.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

wacki - 'pole' is a 2+2 joke.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

I haven't learned how to create a pole, but someone who knows how could simplify this immensely with one question:

Whose camp are you in ? Blarg or InsoO

1 vote for Blarg

peace, mondo

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

bob

it's so bad if you have to explain it

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, Im fine with that, but YOU MENTION INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE ANSWER and go on to say that evolution stops at ID, MOST PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS, I dont know how to make this much clearer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people can believe whatever the [censored] they want. Popular opinion does not make something true. ID is an alternative to evolution as a matter of fact no matter what you, 51%, or 99% of the world think.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]


Please quote one answer in my poll where I use the word "idiot" or some other pejorative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yeah. GREAT comeback.

Take your leading questions over to the 1-900 numbers.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

yeah, i know

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think OP was leveling us to make a point that every scientific survey is significantly skewed depending on the person in charge.

EDIT: And by person in charge, I of course mean God, who influenced everyone to pick their answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP might try and cover like that now.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

All I know is that we have an awful lot of athiests around here.
Interesting.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
All I know is that we have an awful lot of athiests around here.
Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the "not a good pole" is "interesting" now?

Honestly I think I spent an entire 30 seconds developing the questions for this poll. All I wanted to know is what percentage of people thought the earth started at the big bang vs 6K years ago. Who believes in evolution in general, evolution of man, ID of man, etc. Who supports the consensus on CFC's and CO2. That is all I wanted to know.

I agree I phrased the genesis question poorly and I edited the original post. The athiest/faith question is a little too vague but whatever I don't really care. It serves my purpose of getting a general feel of OTT even if it pisses a few people off. Despite fierce criticism, nobody has yet to come up with a better way of phrasing the other questions.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
All I know is that we have an awful lot of athiests around here.
Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

The general US has 6% athiest and 16% agnostic. It seems OOT is 54% and 28%. OOT is truly a different breed than the rest of the US. OOT numbers are very close to those in Sweden.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5196/elephantdt0.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, well, how did he answer the first part? Did the elephant materialize after the weight went off to the right? Did God put it there, or did it somehow evolve in that spot?

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, Im fine with that, but YOU MENTION INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE ANSWER and go on to say that evolution stops at ID, MOST PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS, I dont know how to make this much clearer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people can believe whatever the [censored] they want. Popular opinion does not make something true. ID is an alternative to evolution as a matter of fact no matter what you, 51%, or 99% of the world think.

[/ QUOTE ]

no its not.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most people can believe whatever the [censored] they want. Popular opinion does not make something true. ID is an alternative to evolution as a matter of fact no matter what you, 51%, or 99% of the world think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of.

It really boils down to one of two realities:


1: Man got here by a nigh-infinite number of amazing rolls of the dice. Where did the building blocks for life as we know it come from? We don't know... all these elements were "just there." We are accountable only to ourselves and by definition, make our own rules. Obviously, this is a very appealing option to many.

2: God (Aliens, whatever) put us here. This "Intelligent Designer" created the universe and all that is in it. Under this scenario, we are patrons of this world and as such are accountable to the rules of whoever made it. This scares the [censored] out of a lot of people because someday, they might have to explain themselves to someone.



Now you might say to me: "No, we don't believe God made the world because that's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. There is no proof for "God"."

I will say to you that Cosmic/Chemical/Macro Evolution is no different. It cannot be tested or demonstrated. Anyone who claims to have evidence of evolution will most assuredly be referring to Micro Evolution, which many (most?) Creationists fully agree with.


I don't sit here and pretend to have undeniable proof for all of my creationist views. But don't sit there and tell me that you have a single iota of proof for the Theory of Evolution (The Tree of Life) as it is widely spread on the backs of taxpayers today. It's a government subsidized religion. Admit it and move on.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's a government subsidized religion. Admit it and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, It's a falsifiable theory.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a government subsidized religion. Admit it and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, It's a falsifiable theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is being taught as fact in public schools.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a government subsidized religion. Admit it and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, It's a falsifiable theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is being taught as fact in public schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Along with plenty of other falsifiable theories.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
The general US has 6% athiest and 16% agnostic. It seems OOT is 54% and 28%. OOT is truly a different breed than the rest of the US. OOT numbers are very close to those in Sweden.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested in hearing where did you get these numbers? What's your source?

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people can believe whatever the [censored] they want. Popular opinion does not make something true. ID is an alternative to evolution as a matter of fact no matter what you, 51%, or 99% of the world think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of.

It really boils down to one of two realities:


1: Man got here by a nigh-infinite number of amazing rolls of the dice. Where did the building blocks for life as we know it come from? We don't know... all these elements were "just there." We are accountable only to ourselves and by definition, make our own rules. Obviously, this is a very appealing option to many.

2: God (Aliens, whatever) put us here. This "Intelligent Designer" created the universe and all that is in it. Under this scenario, we are patrons of this world and as such are accountable to the rules of whoever made it. This scares the [censored] out of a lot of people because someday, they might have to explain themselves to someone.



Now you might say to me: "No, we don't believe God made the world because that's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. There is no proof for "God"."

I will say to you that Cosmic/Chemical/Macro Evolution is no different. It cannot be tested or demonstrated. Anyone who claims to have evidence of evolution will most assuredly be referring to Micro Evolution, which many (most?) Creationists fully agree with.


I don't sit here and pretend to have undeniable proof for all of my creationist views. But don't sit there and tell me that you have a single iota of proof for the Theory of Evolution (The Tree of Life) as it is widely spread on the backs of taxpayers today. It's a government subsidized religion. Admit it and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural Selection is a fine concept. It's certainly true.

But Natural Selection... well it SELECTS, it does not create.

Natural Selection is quality control, it is not research & development.

Natural Selection, as mbillie said, does not prove evolution. In fact, the actual process of natural selection should be separated completely from the theory of evolution.

DNA is an amazing molecule, but it has limits. It cannot create a monkey out of blueprints for a turtle.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not trying to do so. Indeed there is no "tryer." And it doesn't do so overnight. Your statements don't make a lot of sense.

Evolution is indeed all about research and development. Different gene combinations are tried out, and things develop from the successes and failures alike. This is exactly what evolution does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we already know from your post in "What do you do to piss people off?" that you're just confrontational. But if you're going to sit there and tell me that Macro Evolution happened and just required lots of TIME. Then I say to you: Show me even a SINGLE transitional fossil and I'll shut up.

This has to be a fossil that hasn't already been proven (or admitted) to be a fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many transitional fossils and your argument that there are none, is old and discredited.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All I know is that we have an awful lot of athiests around here.
Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

The general US has 6% athiest and 16% agnostic. It seems OOT is 54% and 28%. OOT is truly a different breed than the rest of the US. OOT numbers are very close to those in Sweden.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's only because a lot of the agnostics around here identify as atheists, while most national polls on the subject are going to post the concepts without using the leading words. You'll notice that on the poll I did, agnostic came out ahead.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now you might say to me: "No, we don't believe God made the world because that's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. There is no proof for "God"."

I will say to you that Cosmic/Chemical/Macro Evolution is no different. It cannot be tested or demonstrated. Anyone who claims to have evidence of evolution will most assuredly be referring to Micro Evolution, which many (most?) Creationists fully agree with.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a good amount of evidence for evolution. On the other hand, there's about as much evidence for the big bang as there is for God, yet people supoprted that theory very heavily. (strangely enough in nearly the same proportion as those that support global warming)

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, Im fine with that, but YOU MENTION INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN THE ANSWER and go on to say that evolution stops at ID, MOST PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS, I dont know how to make this much clearer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people can believe whatever the [censored] they want. Popular opinion does not make something true. ID is an alternative to evolution as a matter of fact no matter what you, 51%, or 99% of the world think.

[/ QUOTE ]

ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Most Christians believe in both.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you might say to me: "No, we don't believe God made the world because that's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. There is no proof for "God"."

I will say to you that Cosmic/Chemical/Macro Evolution is no different. It cannot be tested or demonstrated. Anyone who claims to have evidence of evolution will most assuredly be referring to Micro Evolution, which many (most?) Creationists fully agree with.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a good amount of evidence for evolution. On the other hand, there's about as much evidence for the big bang as there is for God, yet people supoprted that theory very heavily. (strangely enough in nearly the same proportion as those that support global warming)

[/ QUOTE ]
It's been discovered that the universe is constantly expanding, which strongly supports the big bang theory. There's no such evidence for god.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you might say to me: "No, we don't believe God made the world because that's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. There is no proof for "God"."

I will say to you that Cosmic/Chemical/Macro Evolution is no different. It cannot be tested or demonstrated. Anyone who claims to have evidence of evolution will most assuredly be referring to Micro Evolution, which many (most?) Creationists fully agree with.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a good amount of evidence for evolution. On the other hand, there's about as much evidence for the big bang as there is for God, yet people supoprted that theory very heavily. (strangely enough in nearly the same proportion as those that support global warming)

[/ QUOTE ]
It's been discovered that the universe is constantly expanding, which strongly supports the big bang theory. There's no such evidence for god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good, but you did know that the Georges Lemaître who first purposed the big bang theory was a catholic priest and professor of physics and astronomy. The big bang/expanding universe theory fit in quite nicely with his religious views of a Genesis like moment of creation. His initial work was actually criticized because some felt that its' implications imported religious concepts into physics.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural Selection is a fine concept. It's certainly true.

But Natural Selection... well it SELECTS, it does not create.

Natural Selection is quality control, it is not research & development.

Natural Selection, as mbillie said, does not prove evolution. In fact, the actual process of natural selection should be separated completely from the theory of evolution.

DNA is an amazing molecule, but it has limits. It cannot create a monkey out of blueprints for a turtle.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not trying to do so. Indeed there is no "tryer." And it doesn't do so overnight. Your statements don't make a lot of sense.

Evolution is indeed all about research and development. Different gene combinations are tried out, and things develop from the successes and failures alike. This is exactly what evolution does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we already know from your post in "What do you do to piss people off?" that you're just confrontational. But if you're going to sit there and tell me that Macro Evolution happened and just required lots of TIME. Then I say to you: Show me even a SINGLE transitional fossil and I'll shut up.

This has to be a fossil that hasn't already been proven (or admitted) to be a fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many transitional fossils and your argument that there are none, is old and discredited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah? Well watermelons are actually blue on the inside until you pierce the skin.


PROOF MAN. You cannot just say "you're wrong, there are lots of transitional fossils." and move on. You need to either back up your claim with PROOF or take a hike.

I know there were a lot of so-called transitional fossils. To the best of my knowledge, every single one of them were proven to be either falsified or just mistakenly identified as something they were not.

Link me to just one. Just ONE transitional fossil and I'll gladly shut up.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a government subsidized religion. Admit it and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, It's a falsifiable theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is being taught as fact in public schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Along with plenty of other falsifiable theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Example?

I am not anti-evolution in schools for the sake of being anti-evolution in schools. I have a problem with them deeming creationism unfit for public schools because it is religious, when in fact the Theory of Evolution is no less based on faith than creationism.

We are NOT talking about Micro Evolution here folks. That happens. I acknowledge that. We're talking about text books using micro evolutional examples to try and pass off their macro evolution agenda.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's been discovered that the universe is constantly expanding, which strongly supports the big bang theory. There's no such evidence for god.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are very few self-respecting scientists who still believe in the Big Bang.

There are also 11 instances in the bible where God is said to have "stretched" out the heavens. Some claim it to be a coincidence, but in my opinion that is a pretty significant statement. When I think of something being "stretched" I certainly get a visual sense of expansion.


The big question for your big bang theory would simply be: What the hell exploded?

The problem is, if you answer that question, you open yourself up to SO many new questions that all lead back to a creator of some kind.

Then you have the law of angular momentum which would have applied to that mythical spinning ball containing all the matter in the universe. Sadly for Big Bangers, that law is broken all over the place. Hell, even several of our neighboring planets aren't obeying that law. Entire galaxies are spinning backwards!


The Big Bang Theory is dead as an explanation for universal genesis.

You can find a VERY extensive article debunking the Big Bang theory here.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

Whose version of creation would you teach? And where would you teach it? Science? Literature? Religion?

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whose version of creation would you teach? And where would you teach it? Science? Literature? Religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be honest. I don't want creationism taught in public schools.

I repeat: I am not in favor of teaching creationism in public schools.

I would leave creationism to the private schools to teach. I just want all the lies out of the public, TAX supported text books.

If people want to teach the religion of Evolution, let them open their own schools. It has no place in our public schools.

I can open up just about any public science text book and find no less than a dozen outright lies that pertain to the theory of evolution. But those lies are being used to teach our children this theory that we all came from rocks that were rained on for a few billion years.

I have no problem with people beliving in evolution. I just don't think they should be able to indoctrinate it into our public school kids by means of lies and half-truths. I think you'll find that once you take all the lies out of the text books, there isn't anything left to teach Cosmic/Stellar/Checmical/Planetary/Organic/Macro Evolution with.

All that will be left is Micro Evolution, which is perfectly acceptable and entirely true!

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

^ this guy is just leveling.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a government subsidized religion. Admit it and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, It's a falsifiable theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is being taught as fact in public schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

No public school is teaching ID as fact.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a government subsidized religion. Admit it and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, It's a falsifiable theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is being taught as fact in public schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

No public school is teaching ID as fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was referring to the Theory of Evolution, not ID.

There's no way in hell the public schools would get away with teaching ID in any capacity. The ACLU would have protesters on their doorstep within the hour and half a dozen lawsuits threatened shortly thereafter.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

Ins0 - You're good. Religious debate much?

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

The information you seek can be found in any public library or by using any decent search engine. You can easily access the information (3-5 minutes), if you really want to learn the facts. I don't know if it will matter, you seem to have your mind made-up.

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

Inso, obviously you have rehearsed rhetoric in response to all of this discussion - asking what exploded in the big bang and saying watermelons are blue before the skin is pierced (i still dont fully understand the relevance of that to your argument but moving on...)

in trying to assess where youre coming from, do you believe in the existence of dinosaurs and where do they fit in w/ your view of creation/evolution?

Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
 

[ QUOTE ]
This was referring to the Theory of Evolution, not ID.

There's no way in hell the public schools would get away with teaching ID in any capacity. The ACLU would have protesters on their doorstep within the hour and half a dozen lawsuits threatened shortly thereafter.

[/ QUOTE ]

My mistake.

And as for your comments earlier in the thread about evolution being the explanation of the origin of life being taught in public schools as fact, I didn't really experience that. The general scientific ideas of evolution were taught, but I don't recall reading a text that authoritatively stated that evolution is single-handedly responsible for the origin of life.

Furthermore, concepts of ID and creationism were taught in my schools, and rightfully so in my opinion. There are a significant number of physicists and astronomers who believe in design principles for the universe.