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

[Hume]

[ QUOTE ]
Example?

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory of gravity, Newton's laws of physics etc.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Example?

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory of gravity, Newton's laws of physics etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're going to have a pretty hard time with this if you're going to compare the Theory of Evolution which has zero evidence to the Theory of Gravity, which we experience every single moment of our lives.

[Klompy]

The first poll is worded so bad that the first thing that came to my mind is that this has to be a joke, or an attempt at figuring out how much you can sway peoples opinions by the way you ask a question.


I think if you want to compare numbers like this you can't compare OOT to the general US population. Numbers about religion will change a lot as people get older and understand that they will actualy die someday.

I think it's less likely that the universe came from a big bang, and that life formed from nothing.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a valid debate tactic.

"You go look it up, you idiot" doesn't do any good. Why don't you take 3 minutes to find some verifiable information and prove him wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call him an idiot. I simply responded that the "proof" he wanted was easily accessible. But, there is really no point, because he believes what he wants to believe. Nothing I could offer him would change that. I only pointed out the obvious, so that others reading the posting wouldn't think his argument had merit, when it has already long since been discredited.

Finally, I only debate with people who are open-minded, searching for the truth, and willing to accept the truth based on the value of the preponderance of the evidence; even at the expense of their existing beliefs.

Religious and political zealots do not fit my criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am hardly a zealot.

And I've explained no less than half a dozen times in other posts that I am VERY interested to see your proof for Macro Evolution. Hell, I'd be interested in proof for any type of evolution as long as it isn't micro.

You're trying to make me out to be some sort of bible thumping right wing nut just so you don't have to back up your claims.

I got news for you, I don't even go to church. I just happen to think it absurd that something as amazing and complex as the universe just got there by chance. Moreso than the Universe, the Earth itself. Just look around you. Do you honestly believe that everything you see evolved by random chance from the acidic runoff from 4 billion year old rocks?

If you do, that's absolutely fine with me. But please stop using my tax dollars to spread your religion to the poor kids in the public schools.




EDIT: To humor you, I googled "Proof for Evolution" and this is the first site that came up: http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

This numbnuts leads by saying he's going to prove evolution and then these are his three claims:

1: All living things have to have a parent. (..... and?)

2: There are different kinds of animals.

3: The less complex fossils are burried deeper than the more complex ones.

So what he's trying to do (what MANY evolutionists try to do) is use the so-called "Geologic Column" to prove evolution. That's all well and good, except for the tiny little problem that the Geologic Column as you see it in your textbooks is a complete farce.

The geologic column exists only in text books. If you were to actually dig holes in the ground, the layers would be completely out of order nearly everywhere you looked. I fully admit that there are 3 or 4 places where you can find almost all the layers in order, but even then there are problems. This will be important, pay attention Scientists are basing all of this data on the fact that these layers take millions of years to form. (My first thought is how come there aren't any erosion marks between layers.... did it not rain for a few million years at the end of each era so as to not confuse modern scientists when we dug it up?) Anyway, so they take millions of years to form, right?

Well here's the problem. And it is best explained by an illustration.

.......................II............
....II.................II............
,,,,II,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,II,,,II,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
..............II........II...........
..............II........II...........
...II...................II...........
,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,


The various punctuation depict the levels of strata. And the II's are TREES. Yes, fossilized trees that run straight through several layers of strata. And by using whatever the hell they call that process, you can basically link the first tree to the bottom tree due to the overlap. Which means one of two things:

1: Those trees stood straight up for hundreds of millions of years waiting to be burried.

2: Those layers do not depict hundreds of millions of years and as such, mean the geologic column is useless as a means to date fossils.


Some other little tidbits to think about:


-Did you know they've found oysters at the top of Mt. Everest? I'd like to point out that Everest is a long way from the ocean, and oysters don't climb mountains very well.

-Did you know they find countless examples of vegitation burried deep in the ice of the antarctic? Perfectly preserved palm leaves that haven't even withered found burried under hundreds of feet of ice.

-I hate linking people to sites like Answers in Genesis, but the website I initially found this on is no longer there and I can't find a good replacement other than this. But read about the Lost Squadron You know those ice cores they take and find hundreds of thousands of "annual" rings in? Well turns out those aren't annual rings afterall. They're simply warm/cold. Which means our ice caps have formed only recently (last few thousand years)

-The oldest living tree is a little over 4000 years old. Why the hell isn't there an older tree out there somewhere if trees have been around for hundreds of millions of years?

-There are human artifacts found in seams of coal all over the place. But I thought coal takes hundreds of millions of years to form? I could be wrong about the state, but I believe in North Dakota there is also a coal mine where the same tree phenomenon as I illustrated above happens in multiple different seams. Coal/Dirt/Coal/Dirt/Coal/Stone/Coal with trees running through all the layers.
I know this is getting into things that make evolutionists incredibly defensive and pissed off, but don't shoot the messenger.

There are lots of very simple examples that are plainly visible that shoot huge holes in the Theory of Evolution.


I am not some wacky bible thumping kook who flogs himself when he has impure thoughts or some such nonsense. I like porn just as much as the next guy. I am MORE than willing to be shown some serious evidence for Evolution. But that has yet to be found for anything other than Micro Evolution.

As far as the big bang goes, I said no self-respecting scientists still belive in it and that's true for the most part. The latest thing is that it must have been more like "the opening of a seed" which helps fix all of the problems with innumerable broken laws of physics. It still doesn't explain where that seed came from.



tl;dr? Then you're just lazy.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
I was never taught this, and Ive been through about 13 years of catholic school. What was taught to us is that the bible was written by man, and not to be taken literally. There are FUNDAMENTALIST christians that believe it, but thats a fairly small group of people. We I got out of my schooling is that, we evolved, teh science as far as that goes is undeniable, but at some point where science fails to explain where everything came from, there is something higher that created it (ie the begining of the universe or whatever), and thats where faith comes in.


edit: I am under the imression that most christians do not actually believe that we were made from adam and eve

[/ QUOTE ]
I concur that this is the basic catholic belief. (Except I think you ARE supposed to take most of the bible literally, just not the first few books.)

Do most christians agree? I think so.

[ QUOTE ]
The general US has 6% athiest and 16% agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's silly. A hell of a lot of people were raised in a certain religion, and will respond that they are "of" that religion when asked, even if they rarely set foot in church/temple/etc and don't adhere to/believe in half the teachings. I'd guess true agnostic is closer to 50% than 16%.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Example?

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory of gravity, Newton's laws of physics etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're going to have a pretty hard time with this if you're going to compare the Theory of Evolution which has zero evidence to the Theory of Gravity, which we experience every single moment of our lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're going to have a pretty hard time with this if you think gravity is better supported than evolution. Also, if you insist on using phrases like 'zero evidence.' We experience gravity every day? Oh really? How do you know? How would you be able to tell if what you experience is gravity according to the Theory of Gravity and not some other kind of gravity? I'm sure the scientific community appreciates your tireless efforts as a gravitometer.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a valid debate tactic.

"You go look it up, you idiot" doesn't do any good. Why don't you take 3 minutes to find some verifiable information and prove him wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call him an idiot. I simply responded that the "proof" he wanted was easily accessible. But, there is really no point, because he believes what he wants to believe. Nothing I could offer him would change that. I only pointed out the obvious, so that others reading the posting wouldn't think his argument had merit, when it has already long since been discredited.

Finally, I only debate with people who are open-minded, searching for the truth, and willing to accept the truth based on the value of the preponderance of the evidence; even at the expense of their existing beliefs.

Religious and political zealots do not fit my criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am hardly a zealot.

And I've explained no less than half a dozen times in other posts that I am VERY interested to see your proof for Macro Evolution. Hell, I'd be interested in proof for any type of evolution as long as it isn't micro.

You're trying to make me out to be some sort of bible thumping right wing nut just so you don't have to back up your claims.

I got news for you, I don't even go to church. I just happen to think it absurd that something as amazing and complex as the universe just got there by chance. Moreso than the Universe, the Earth itself. Just look around you. Do you honestly believe that everything you see evolved by random chance from the acidic runoff from 4 billion year old rocks?

If you do, that's absolutely fine with me. But please stop using my tax dollars to spread your religion to the poor kids in the public schools.




EDIT: To humor you, I googled "Proof for Evolution" and this is the first site that came up: http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

This numbnuts leads by saying he's going to prove evolution and then these are his three claims:

1: All living things have to have a parent. (..... and?)

2: There are different kinds of animals.

3: The less complex fossils are burried deeper than the more complex ones.

So what he's trying to do (what MANY evolutionists try to do) is use the so-called "Geologic Column" to prove evolution. That's all well and good, except for the tiny little problem that the Geologic Column as you see it in your textbooks is a complete farce.

The geologic column exists only in text books. If you were to actually dig holes in the ground, the layers would be completely out of order nearly everywhere you looked. I fully admit that there are 3 or 4 places where you can find almost all the layers in order, but even then there are problems. This will be important, pay attention Scientists are basing all of this data on the fact that these layers take millions of years to form. (My first thought is how come there aren't any erosion marks between layers.... did it not rain for a few million years at the end of each era so as to not confuse modern scientists when we dug it up?) Anyway, so they take millions of years to form, right?

Well here's the problem. And it is best explained by an illustration.

.......................II............
....II.................II............
,,,,II,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,II,,,II,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
..............II........II...........
..............II........II...........
...II...................II...........
,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,II,,,,,,,,,,,


The various punctuation depict the levels of strata. And the II's are TREES. Yes, fossilized trees that run straight through several layers of strata. And by using whatever the hell they call that process, you can basically link the first tree to the bottom tree due to the overlap. Which means one of two things:

1: Those trees stood straight up for hundreds of millions of years waiting to be burried.

2: Those layers do not depict hundreds of millions of years and as such, mean the geologic column is useless as a means to date fossils.


Some other little tidbits to think about:


-Did you know they've found oysters at the top of Mt. Everest? I'd like to point out that Everest is a long way from the ocean, and oysters don't climb mountains very well.

-Did you know they find countless examples of vegitation burried deep in the ice of the antarctic? Perfectly preserved palm leaves that haven't even withered found burried under hundreds of feet of ice.

-I hate linking people to sites like Answers in Genesis, but the website I initially found this on is no longer there and I can't find a good replacement other than this. But read about the Lost Squadron You know those ice cores they take and find hundreds of thousands of "annual" rings in? Well turns out those aren't annual rings afterall. They're simply warm/cold. Which means our ice caps have formed only recently (last few thousand years)

-The oldest living tree is a little over 4000 years old. Why the hell isn't there an older tree out there somewhere if trees have been around for hundreds of millions of years?

-There are human artifacts found in seams of coal all over the place. But I thought coal takes hundreds of millions of years to form? I could be wrong about the state, but I believe in North Dakota there is also a coal mine where the same tree phenomenon as I illustrated above happens in multiple different seams. Coal/Dirt/Coal/Dirt/Coal/Stone/Coal with trees running through all the layers.
I know this is getting into things that make evolutionists incredibly defensive and pissed off, but don't shoot the messenger.

There are lots of very simple examples that are plainly visible that shoot huge holes in the Theory of Evolution.


I am not some wacky bible thumping kook who flogs himself when he has impure thoughts or some such nonsense. I like porn just as much as the next guy. I am MORE than willing to be shown some serious evidence for Evolution. But that has yet to be found for anything other than Micro Evolution.

As far as the big bang goes, I said no self-respecting scientists still belive in it and that's true for the most part. The latest thing is that it must have been more like "the opening of a seed" which helps fix all of the problems with innumerable broken laws of physics. It still doesn't explain where that seed came from.



tl;dr? Then you're just lazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about you try this site instead of 'the first hit when you googled proof for evolution.' What is the first site you get when you google 'ridiculous strawman?'

Really quickly: what exactly separates macroevolution from microevolution, in your mind? I'm curious, because the answer is 'nothing' in my mind, and usually 'vague misconception' in the mind of creationists, but if you could give me a hard and fast description of this barrier to macroevolution up front it would make the argument easier for me. Don't worry, you are still allowed to shift goalposts later on...this is the internet after all. I'm just looking for a starting point. Please refrain from calling them 'kinds.'

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone willing to lay 3:1 that he actually shuts up?

[CrazyEyez]

Inso0 at the very least is presenting his arguments in a thoughtful way and trying to include backup. Can't people disagree with him without calling him a kook/zealot or being rude?

(vhawk this is not solely directed at you.)