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

EDIT: And chemical evolution is also a bunch of hooey unless they can come up with some better theories.

You simply cannot fuse past Iron, so where did the rest of the periodic table come from?


That's the problem with evolutionists today. All of their "examples" are merely micro evolution, but they try to pass off cosmic/chemical/macro evolution in the text books by citing the fact that a vast majority of scientists belive in evolution. But in most cases, those scientists are referring to micro evolution.


Just admit that Macro Evolution is no less a religion than creationism, and I'm fine with it all.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I cant stand it when people say things under the "guise" of information gathering etc, when all they are really doing is making a political statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

guids, I promise you I'm not trying to make a political statement. I'm just trying to figure out what kind of people poker players are. I like to know who populates my favorite forums.

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are a TON of people that believe there is a god, and he created something, but we dont know what it is, and man did go through the scientific evolution process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vagueness doesn't help me. Either man evolved or he didn't. Either evolution occurs or it doesn't. Either the earth is 6K years old or it is older. They either support the CO2 consensus or they don't. I'm trying to keep it stupid simple.

[/ QUOTE ]


again, you seem to fail to see what Im saying. Either man evolved or he didnt, thats fine, that should be your question:

Did man evolve?

yes

no

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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Just admit that Macro Evolution is no less a religion than creationism, and I'm fine with it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed... what's your point? last time I checked the scientific community wasn't running around claiming to be able to explain everything. Natural selection = sound scientific theory. Conclusions on a large scale based on a rudimentary understanding of "evolution" by politicians and activists = not sound scientific theory.

The point here should be either: science vs. not science OR science vs. religion (in terms of OP's poll questions), but the people saying "evolution proves man evolved from ape-like creatures" are not the scientists...

btw I (obviously) don't believe in god or anything, and man most likely did evolve from some ape-like creature. Natural selection is an existing process or feature of the world. One doesn't prove or disprove the other though... t

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

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.

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

Questions 3 and 5 don't have enough answers. Namely: "I don't know, not enough data."

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im thinking of ID in the same terms that teh general population of America would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I mean ID is exclusive to the theory of natural selection, it posits a completely different hypothesis for the reasons organs and features change. What I meant was, I thought you said you voted for ID because you the evolution option implied atheism, but I may have been wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


ID is the proposition that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as natural selection.[1]

Discovery Institute, Center for Science and Culture

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligent design regularly gets cute like this. I seriously doubt anyone in intelligent design posits god as a maybe or as one choice co-equal among others. No matter how any inquiry shakes out, intelligent design proponents will insist on their foregone conclusion. That is because they have never been working from science toward religion, but from religion, trying to make it seem more plausible. Intelligent design is not a process of scientific discovery, but of religious apologetics.

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

I believe in evolution within the species but I dont think monkeys turned into man. maybe we were more primitive versions of us, but I dont think we were monkeys.

I would say almost any human with a brain thinks species can evolve within itself, even Christians. However you wont convince me that all this world came from some dust in space somewhere and now we have this.

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

[ 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.

A better version of this poll
 

Here's a better version of this poll:

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

[ 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.

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

Mm, hit a nerve did I? Nice resorting to ad hominem in lieu of argument. With that, we're definitely done here. Great job, hope you're proud of yourself.

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

polltard

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

[ QUOTE ]
Mm, hit a nerve did I? Nice resorting to ad hominem in lieu of argument. With that, we're definitely done here. Great job, hope you're proud of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Standard response when asked to put up or shut up.

Thanks for proving my point.

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

Don't bother. Trolls go on ignore.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Don't bother. Trolls go on ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

blarg, I think you should elaborate, he did back you into a corner, and even though he attacked you, I think you were the first to post something with no substance in it (when he attacked at least he made a valid point). When we've argued about random crap in the past, Ive noticed you tend to just get dismissive when youve "lost" or have no other points to make.

Re: A better version of this poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a better version of this poll:

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't like this one either. There should be an option for a strong agnostic who recognizes god as extremely improbable but still cannot eliminate the longshot possibilty.

I voted for "strong athiest" in the first poll however, not because I feel that way, but because I think that is how the OP/ society would interpret my views.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Questions 3 and 5 don't have enough answers. Namely: "I don't know, not enough data."

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be better if OP changed the question to something like "is it almost certain" or "is x the only plausible explanation" rather than changing the answers

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

I didn't make a post with no substance at all. The immediate result was a personal attack. I try not to reward that kind of thing too much unless the need is really pressing. Here, it's not. More than that, this poster is both freaked out and invested to the hilt in his ideas. There will be no persuading him, but an infinity of boring time could be spent on it to no avail. This kind of situation with no positive outcome is the reason I rarely contribute to threads about or substantially about religion. I slipped up this time and got repaid for it with the same pay-off you get 99% of the time. This is why I don't hang around the politics forum, too.

You're right, I usually do leave a topic when it gets pointless, and stop responding to specific posters when they act like jerks. In poker parlance, I don't believe in throwing good money after bad.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't make a post with no substance at all. The immediate result was a personal attack. I try not to honor that kind of thing too much unless the need is really pressing. Here, it's not. More than that, this poster is both freaked out and invested to the hilt in his ideas. There will be no persuading him, but an infinity of boring time could be spent on it to no avail. This kind of situation with no positive outcome is the reason I rarely contribute to threads about or substantially about religion. I slipped up this time and got repaid for it with the same pay-off you get 99% of the time. This is why I don't hang around the politics forum, too.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ya, but *I* dont learn anything if you guys dont argue both sides more in depth.

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

Yes, yes.... take the "high road."

I am by no means "freaked out and invested to the hilt in his(my) ideas"

I am a perfectly reasonable individual. You do not have to leave your brain at the door to be religious.

An actual example of Macro Evolution would be such a ground breaking occurence, that if one actually existed, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

The simple fact of the matter is that you made a statement that can only be verified by something that does not exist. It is therefor no less faith-based than any of the many religions we have in our society. So just admit that it's a religion and we can move on to discussing actual "facts".

Like the inconvenient fact that different types of animals cannot procreate, thus decimating the Theory of Evolution as it stands today.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Is man made CO2 changing the climate?
You may choose only one
Yes, and it's going to destroy the world the day after tomorrow!
No, it's all a bunch of hocus pocus created to attack good old American capitalism.
There is not enough scientific data to form a valid opinion either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is terrible. there is no correct answer.

Re: A better version of this poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a better version of this poll:

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't like this one either. There should be an option for a strong agnostic who recognizes god as extremely improbable but still cannot eliminate the longshot possibilty.

I voted for "strong athiest" in the first poll however, not because I feel that way, but because I think that is how the OP/ society would interpret my views.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I said it was a better version not perfect. I actually dislike the way I worded the first answer to the evolution question. Made it hard for agnostics to choose that answer.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is man made CO2 changing the climate?
You may choose only one
Yes, and it's going to destroy the world the day after tomorrow!
No, it's all a bunch of hocus pocus created to attack good old American capitalism.
There is not enough scientific data to form a valid opinion either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is terrible. there is no correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the third answer is definitely the "correct" answer, but if you happen to believe one of the other answers, you just need to have a sense of humor and pick it. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is man made CO2 changing the climate?
You may choose only one
Yes, and it's going to destroy the world the day after tomorrow!
No, it's all a bunch of hocus pocus created to attack good old American capitalism.
There is not enough scientific data to form a valid opinion either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is terrible. there is no correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you fail to have a sense of humor. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
lol..sorry about that

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is man made CO2 changing the climate?
You may choose only one
Yes, and it's going to destroy the world the day after tomorrow!
No, it's all a bunch of hocus pocus created to attack good old American capitalism.
There is not enough scientific data to form a valid opinion either way.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is terrible. there is no correct answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the third answer is definitely the "correct" answer, but if you happen to believe one of the other answers, you just need to have a sense of humor and pick it. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the currently available data tell us that it is at least extremely likely that humans are contributing to global warming.

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

That's what is rather remarkable about this planet we live on.

Life will adapt and the climate takes care of itself.

Higher temperatures lead to increased volcanic activity, which in turn lowers the temperature of the planet.

Do you really think that Man, who only occupies maybe 3% of the Earth's surface, can have a significant impact on something as vast and complex as the GLOBAL ecosystem?

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

[ QUOTE ]
Life will adapt and the climate takes care of itself.

Higher temperatures lead to increased volcanic activity, which in turn lowers the temperature of the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
this has worked out nicely for venus.

[ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that Man, who only occupies maybe 3% of the Earth's surface, can have a significant impact on something as vast and complex as the GLOBAL ecosystem?

[/ QUOTE ]
this is irrelevant

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Life will adapt and the climate takes care of itself.

Higher temperatures lead to increased volcanic activity, which in turn lowers the temperature of the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
this has worked out nicely for venus.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol?

You do realize that Venus is 25% closer to the sun, right?

And there's the night and day difference in atmospheric content.

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

If you want to compare OOT to the US at large, you have to ask the exact same questions from the US survey. Just copy and paste. No bias that way (even if the US survey has some bias), since you aren't trying to get absolute data from OOT, just comparing it to the US. Do it in a new thread.

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

LOL, lead your questions much?

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

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that Man, who only occupies maybe 3% of the Earth's surface, can have a significant impact on something as vast and complex as the GLOBAL ecosystem?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is hilarious

Re: A better version of this poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a better version of this poll

[/ QUOTE ]

Never better.

Still very bad though.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that Man, who only occupies maybe 3% of the Earth's surface, can have a significant impact on something as vast and complex as the GLOBAL ecosystem?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is hilarious

[/ QUOTE ]

What's hilarious is the people who actually think there is anything we can do if the planet is heating up.

Well, we can certainly lower our CO2 emissions. How about you be the first one to stop breathing, eh?


You

Can

Not

Stop

Global

Warming



(If it's even happening at all, which ALSO remains to be seen.)

I realize the left would like "the debate to be over" about global warming. But the funny thing is that since it's been getting so much attention, there are now scientists coming out of the woodwork claiming that you cannot even accurately assess a GLOBAL temperature to begin with, much less know that it's rising.

The weather is such an incredibly complex system on the planet. Temperature is checked and balanced in so many ways.

An inconvenient truth, indeed.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I have a tough time answering these because I want to say "both" on some.

Man was created.....via evolution...but I believe there was supernatural that got the initial ball rolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no ball.

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

If we acknowledge that you are really cool, and that people who don't share your views are fools, will you stop posting slightly different versions of this thread every single week? We get it. You can't prove there is a God based on the scientific methodology/evidence that we have. That's why it's called faith. Seriously, what are your demands? In the future, please name the thread something like "Weekly Douche Mocking Religion Thread" so I don't waste time reading it again and again.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If we acknowledge that you are really cool, and that people who don't share your views are fools, will you stop posting slightly different versions of this thread every single week? We get it. You can't prove there is a God based on the scientific methodology/evidence that we have. That's why it's called faith. Seriously, what are your demands? In the future, please name the thread something like "Weekly Douche Mocking Religion Thread" so I don't waste time reading it again and again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not mocking religion and I think you have me confused with somebody else. If it's any consolation I went to church today. So please stop acting like you know exactly what is going on in my head.

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

For someone that is trying to gather "scientific" data, the OP's poll is friggin awful.

OP, along the same lines of your original question, you should add these:

Do you believe that gays should marry?

No, it will bring about the end of the world.
Yes, gay marriage is supported by all logical, sound-thinking people.


Should prostitution be legalized?

No, it will bring about the end of the world.
Yes, you're an idiot if you think otherwise.
Yes, I'm a lonely geek that makes bad poles and I need company.


Will Jesus return?

Yes, he is the son of god and will return one day in the end times.
No, obviously only idiots think this.

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha. Kung ar du. = you are king, something we use when we appreciate someone in sweden.

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

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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
For someone that is trying to gather "scientific" data, the OP's poll is friggin awful.

OP, along the same lines of your original question, you should add these:

Do you believe that gays should marry?

No, it will bring about the end of the world.
Yes, gay marriage is supported by all logical, sound-thinking people.


Should prostitution be legalized?

No, it will bring about the end of the world.
Yes, you're an idiot if you think otherwise.
Yes, I'm a lonely geek that makes bad poles and I need company.


Will Jesus return?

Yes, he is the son of god and will return one day in the end times.
No, obviously only idiots think this.

[/ QUOTE ]

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