|
A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
EDIT: The "when was the universe was created" question is in reference to 6,000 years ago (hand of god) vs the big bang. I realize that it's entirely possible to believe the big bang occurred and not lose faith in god.
|
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
whats the difference between somewhat of an atheist and strong atheist?
|
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
wacki, is there a reason why you biased the poll with the wording in regards to teh Co2 changing the climate question?
|
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
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. |
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 ] all the wording is very very retarded and biased |
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. [/ QUOTE ] I fail to see the difference between universe created by "god" and one created by "big bang". |
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 ]
whats the difference between somewhat of an atheist and strong atheist? [/ QUOTE ] 'Militant/strong' atheists generally go "There is no god and anyone that believes in god is stupid". 'Reasonable/somewhat' atheists tend to admit they might be wrong but are still atheists. I should have made that clearer. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
wacki, is there a reason why you biased the poll with the wording in regards to teh Co2 changing the climate question? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, some people aren't well read enough to know that pretty much every scientific organization on the planet endorses the IPCC. I wanted to separate the ignorant from the skeptics and deniers. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
all the wording is very very retarded and biased [/ QUOTE ] Yeah these polls are pretty awful. I'm not religious at all but I'm sure that amongst those who are, there's a difference between "agnostic" and "my faith never wavers." |
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 ] Since a supernatural got the ball rolling but man was created by evolution, what did you pick when it came to the big bang/genesis? |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] all the wording is very very retarded and biased [/ QUOTE ] Yeah these polls are pretty awful. I'm not religious at all but I'm sure that amongst those who are, there's a difference between "agnostic" and "my faith never wavers." [/ QUOTE ] How should I have phrased that question? |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] wacki, is there a reason why you biased the poll with the wording in regards to teh Co2 changing the climate question? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, some people aren't well read enough to know that pretty much every scientific organization on the planet endorses the IPCC. I wanted to separate the ignorant from the skeptics and deniers. [/ QUOTE ] HAHAH...the similarity between the church telling everyone the world is flat, and the politicians feeding you the global warming hysteria is too much. If you cant see how that poll wording is biased, you are a moron. And it has nothing to do with whether people believe there is a scientific consensus or not. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have a tough time answering these because I want to say "both" on some. [/ QUOTE ] I fail to see the difference between universe created by "god" and one created by "big bang". [/ QUOTE ] hrm........ I should have phrased it: "the universe was created: A) 6,000 years ago B) at the big bang" |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
You need to reword ALL these questions.
|
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] whats the difference between somewhat of an atheist and strong atheist? [/ QUOTE ] 'Militant/strong' atheists generally go "There is no god and anyone that believes in god is stupid". 'Reasonable/somewhat' atheists tend to admit they might be wrong but are still atheists. I should have made that clearer. [/ QUOTE ] This sounds more like an analysis of attitude than a delineation of fact. Your "reasonable/somewhat atheists" just sound mellow and potentially verging over into agnostics. Your "militant/strong atheists" just sound like dicks. Also, I think you need to parse finer that a person can believe stupid things without being stupid. There probably are very few people ever born who didn't believe some surprisingly stupid things. That isn't necessarily enough to make them stupid. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
evolution vs intelligent design is another dumb one. Why even post these leading questions?
|
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
I fail to see the difference between universe created by "god" and one created by "big bang". hrm........ I should have phrased it: "the universe was created: A) 6,000 years ago B) at the big bang" [/ QUOTE ] You know Wacki you really seem to be clueless on this sort of stuff. Someone could believe in God and still believe in the big bang. The way you write these questions is similar to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
evolution vs intelligent design is another dumb one. Why even post these leading questions? [/ QUOTE ] I think he's trying to find out if OOT is more or less scientifically inclined than your average American, per the OP. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory/idea/etc, it's just a moral/political one. So accepting ID but rejecting evolution is anti-scientific, or unscientific at the very least. I think OP just wants to see how OOT's demographics compare to the USA's at large. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
evolution vs intelligent design is another dumb one. Why even post these leading questions? [/ QUOTE ] How in the hell is that a dumb one? Considering the national polls, it seems like a reasonable question to me. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] evolution vs intelligent design is another dumb one. Why even post these leading questions? [/ QUOTE ] I think he's trying to find out if OOT is more or less scientifically inclined than your average American, per the OP. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory/idea/etc, it's just a moral/political one. So accepting ID but rejecting evolution is anti-scientific, or unscientific at the very least. I think OP just wants to see how OOT's demographics compare to the USA's at large. [/ QUOTE ] ID and evolution arent mutually exclusive is my point. It really is a nice try, you know, getting his wording to pander to the "intelligent" posters on this board, but anyone with half a brain can see how ridiculously leading and condescending the questions are. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] evolution vs intelligent design is another dumb one. Why even post these leading questions? [/ QUOTE ] How in the hell is that a dumb one? Considering the national polls, it seems like a reasonable question to me. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, becuase national polls are always unbiased. If you fail to see how you can believe in evolution and intelligent design, than you shouldn't even be making these types of posts. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I fail to see the difference between universe created by "god" and one created by "big bang". hrm........ I should have phrased it: "the universe was created: A) 6,000 years ago B) at the big bang" [/ QUOTE ] You know Wacki you really seem to be clueless on this sort of stuff. Someone could believe in God and still believe in the big bang. The way you write these questions is similar to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" [/ QUOTE ] The question didn't stack up believing in God vs. thinking the universe started with the big bang. It set against each other believing the universe started 6000 years ago and thinking it started with the big bang. Significant difference. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] evolution vs intelligent design is another dumb one. Why even post these leading questions? [/ QUOTE ] How in the hell is that a dumb one? Considering the national polls, it seems like a reasonable question to me. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, becuase national polls are always unbiased. If you fail to see how you can believe in evolution and intelligent design, than you shouldn't even be making these types of posts. [/ QUOTE ] I think it's implied that "Evolution" has no God/Designer/Creator involved. If you do believe that there is a God/Designer/Creator you should pick the ID option. For what it's worth, if you believe there is a God/Designer/Creator involved, you are also dumber than those who picked "Evolution." Bet ya can't guess what I picked on the first poll question... |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
ID and evolution arent mutually exclusive is my point. It really is a nice try, you know, getting his wording to pander to the "intelligent" posters on this board, but anyone with half a brain can see how ridiculously leading and condescending the questions are. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that his language isn't precise, and probably a little more loaded/biased than helpful. Not being religious myself I didn't have a problem picking the choices, but you're right that not all of the choices are mutually exclusive. I think a more interesting way to word the evolution/ID question would have been either: Which of the following is a scientific theory: 1) Natural Selection 2) Intelligent Design 3) Both 4) Neither or something like that, though that just measures knowledge and not so much personal "belief" I guess |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] evolution vs intelligent design is another dumb one. Why even post these leading questions? [/ QUOTE ] How in the hell is that a dumb one? Considering the national polls, it seems like a reasonable question to me. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, becuase national polls are always unbiased. If you fail to see how you can believe in evolution and intelligent design, than you shouldn't even be making these types of posts. [/ QUOTE ] I think it's implied that "Evolution" has no God/Designer/Creator involved. If you do believe that there is a God/Designer/Creator you should pick the ID option. For what it's worth, if you believe there is a God/Designer/Creator involved, you are also dumber than those who picked "Evolution." Bet ya can't guess what I picked on the first poll question... [/ QUOTE ] I think it's implied that "Evolution" has no God/Designer/Creator involved. If you do believe that there is a God/Designer/Creator you should pick the ID option. Ya, you can imply it all you want but it is ridiculous, and basically just panders to the extreme sides of the debate, basically discounting about 90% of the population that believes there is a god, but evolution happened. Hence why I keep calling these questions stupid, and asinine. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, becuase national polls are always unbiased. If you fail to see how you can believe in evolution and intelligent design, than you shouldn't even be making these types of posts. [/ QUOTE ] guids, did I hit a soft spot? In all honesty I never met anyone that believed in ID AND thought that man was *created* by evolution. That is very different than man being created by god and then evolving from that starting point. All of the ID arguments are based off of the assumption that certain organs are too complex to have evolved. Since you seem so upset by this poll, maybe you can find a poll from a major news outlet that leaves a slot for people who believe in both ID and the *creation* of man through evolution. BTW, if you read my poll carefully it's entirely possible to vote that man was created via ID but evolution still happens. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
wacki,
I think guids' point is that the questions in the poll seem to juxtapose religion and science to a degree that most people do not in their personal lives (?) also guids, you may be working with a somewhat broader definition of ID than wacki who might be thinking of ID in more specific terms... I get the impression that guids may be equating a faith-in-god+acceptance-of-evolution position with ID? |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yes, becuase national polls are always unbiased. If you fail to see how you can believe in evolution and intelligent design, than you shouldn't even be making these types of posts. [/ QUOTE ] guids, did I hit a soft spot? In all honesty I never met anyone that believed in ID AND thought that man was *created* by evolution. All of the ID arguments are based off of the assumption that certain organs are too complex to have evolved. Since you seem so upset by this poll, maybe you can find a poll from a major news outlet that leaves a slot for people who believe in both ID and the *creation* of man through evolution. BTW, if you read my poll carefully it's entirely possible to vote that man was created via ID but evolution still happens. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, the soft spot you hit is bias. 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. 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. If you havent met many people like this you should get out of your house once in awhile. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
poll is too black and white. There are instances when I do not agree with any options. That said, I sided w/ the religion options, besides the ones that do not acknowledge evolution.
|
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
wacki, I think guids' point is that the questions in the poll seem to juxtapose religion and science to a degree that most people do not in their personal lives (?) also guids, you may be working with a somewhat broader definition of ID than wacki who might be thinking of the more specific forms of ID, one of which was rejected by a court in PA last year [/ QUOTE ] Im thinking of ID in the same terms that teh general population of America would think. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ 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 assumed that the evolution option implied atheism, but I may have been wrong. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I fail to see the difference between universe created by "god" and one created by "big bang". hrm........ I should have phrased it: "the universe was created: A) 6,000 years ago B) at the big bang" [/ QUOTE ] You know Wacki you really seem to be clueless on this sort of stuff. Someone could believe in God and still believe in the big bang. The way you write these questions is similar to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" [/ QUOTE ] The question didn't stack up believing in God vs. thinking the universe started with the big bang. It set against each other believing the universe started 6000 years ago and thinking it started with the big bang. Significant difference. [/ QUOTE ] The problem with his re-worded question is it basically is just the initial question. If you answer "6,000 years ago" you are basically answering that you believe that God created the universe. A properly worded question would be: "the universe was created: A) Through the direction of a God. Whether that be via a big bang or some other act, God had some hand in it. B) I don't believe in God and accept that the universe was created via the currently scientifically accepted theory of the big bang. That's a much better question. But, of course the question is superfluous anyway. All you have to ask is: "Do you believe in God?" |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ 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. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ 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 |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
"Evolution" in itself is a loaded term.
I certainly believe that we see a variation between the same KIND of animal (Micro Evolution), but I most certainly do NOT believe that I am the end-game offspring of some rocks that were rained on for a few billion years. (Macro Evolution) |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ 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 ] I don't think this is the commonly accepted understanding of ID. I realize it is linguistically possible to reconcile the two, but it seems like quite a reach to say you accept evolution/natural selection and ID. I think religion/belief in god and evolution/natural selection are quite compatible, but ID is essentially (in any instance of it) an attempt to offer an account for a biological organ or process contrary to the currently held scientific view. |
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 ] If you want to gather information about the people who frequent this forum, your wording of all these quesitions basically makes about 90% of the general "poker" population skewed. Word your questions correctly, and you might actually get a real answer. |
Re: A few \'scientific\' polls to compare OOT to the rest of the US
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ] I don't think this is the commonly accepted understanding of ID. I realize it is linguistically possible to reconcile the two, but it seems like quite a reach to say you accept evolution/natural selection and ID. I think religion/belief in god and evolution/natural selection are quite compatible, but ID is essentially (in any instance of it) an attempt to offer an account for a biological organ or process contrary to the currently held scientific view. [/ QUOTE ] That was taken from wiki, I just cited the source that wiki used, and imo, most people believe ID is exactly what I posted, hence the bias I am talking about. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.