|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Mark Seif as a POKER COMMENTATOR: 1-to-10 scale | |||
| 1 |
   
|
30 | 21.58% |
| 2 |
  
|
17 | 12.23% |
| 3 |
  
|
28 | 20.14% |
| 4 |
  
|
19 | 13.67% |
| 5 |
  
|
16 | 11.51% |
| 6 |
  
|
8 | 5.76% |
| 7 |
|
9 | 6.47% |
| 8 |
|
5 | 3.60% |
| 9 |
|
1 | 0.72% |
| 10 |
|
6 | 4.32% |
| Voters: 139. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
05-05-2007, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 
|
|
#42
05-05-2007, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#43
05-05-2007, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#44
05-05-2007, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#46
05-05-2007, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#47
05-05-2007, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#48
05-05-2007, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#50
05-05-2007, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
