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

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians believe in micro-evolution, they dont believe that Man came from monkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you come up with this [censored]? or am I being leveled?

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought this was true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya cuz it is, Micro-evolution has been adapted by the christian/catholic (1 of the 2 or maybe both, i dont remember) church.

[/ QUOTE ]


Catholic schools teach evolution, not theistic evolution, as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact of evolution and the theory of its mechanisms. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values in a December 2004 letter sent to all U.S. bishops: "...Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. At the same time, Catholic parents whose children are in public schools should ensure that their children are also receiving appropriate catechesis at home and in the parish on God as Creator. Students should be able to leave their biology classes, and their courses in religious instruction, with an integrated understanding of the means God chose to make us who we are." [9]


I can tell you that I went to 14 years of catholic school, and no teacher ever taught us that we all descended from adam and eve.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians believe in micro-evolution, they dont believe that Man came from monkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you come up with this [censored]? or am I being leveled?

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought this was true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya cuz it is, Micro-evolution has been adapted by the christian/catholic (1 of the 2 or maybe both, i dont remember) church.

[/ QUOTE ]

They realized awhile ago that holding this line, then sending kids to college with this in their head wasn't the best way to get them to advance in the sciences.

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody has yet to come up with a better way of phrasing the other questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is this a better way, it is the only way to do it without bias. All reputable published survey results include the survey questions, so you should have no problem finding them.

[microbet]

Poker players might be a little more flexible, like:

god existing: 1000000000-1

earth being 6000 years old: 10000000000000000000-1

globe is not warming significantly: 25-1

man doesn't significantly contribute to warming: 5-1

and then a poker player should still be able to act on something that they aren't 100% sure about.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep saying scientists don't believe in the big bang? What are you basing this on? I am not a cosmologist but I've spoken to a few and the big bang is considered fact. As for the broken laws of physics, I have no idea what you are talking about. QFT and general relativity are probably the greatest accomplishments in the hisotry of human thought. It turns out there are problems dealing with gravity at very high energies like during the big bang. New physics is going to have to be created to deal with this problem. To say that the laws of physics are broken is like saying your car is broken because it can't drive from NY to Paris.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know enough to refute your post, in fact I just found what I found because I was curious about transitional fossils and decided to post it.

One thing I do want to say is that you shouldn't include a quote like

[ QUOTE ]
When all is said and done, however, a row of look-alike fossils cannot be proof that one species changed into another; we cannot be sure that the little rock badger of long ago changed into Orohippus, since it is just as likely that they have always been separate species, one still living, one extinct.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you claim that you're willing to accept evidence contrary to your viewpoint if only it were to be presented.

[/ QUOTE ]


You need to understand the difference between similar creatures, and transitional creatures. All of these "line-ups" are simply creatures that look alike put in some order that was determined by a predisposed hypothesis looking for justification.

That's like saying forks evolved from knives and showing you a picture like this:



Clearly you can see that we started with the knife, but millions of years of evolution turned it into a rounded spoon-like creature that was better adapted at gathering food. But spoons were no good at stabbing. So, by lucky roll of the dice, the SPORK was born! A few sporks developed a 4th tine due to random genetic mutations and these were found to be superior so all the 3 tined sporks died out due to starvation. More mutations and our spork tines grew longer, and more able to stab and hold struggling prey. Millions of years later after much refinement, we finally had the fork! A perfect food stabbing machine.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, this is not that bad of an argument. The only difference I can think of is that in living things there is DNA which allows communication between the different stages on the chart. Nice example though.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker players might be a little more flexible, like:

god existing: 1000000000-1

earth being 6000 years old: 10000000000000000000-1

globe is not warming significantly: 25-1

man doesn't significantly contribute to warming: 5-1

and then a poker player should still be able to act on something that they aren't 100% sure about.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah those sound about right, re: global warming, I believe the only CO2 graphs I've seen are from the last 400k years, and there hasn't been a spike this big in that timeframe, but the Earth is ~4.5billion yrs old, why can't it just be a once every 10million yr type spike(if this has been discredited I'd like to see it)

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont know what you believe, but I know what most atheists believe. their dogma is that there is no god and eventually science will explain everything, and if never does, it doesnt matter, it wasn't god that did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry dids but you're just plain wrong. I'd again suggest you to study concepts like 'faith', 'science' and 'atheism' and if you don't want to do that but want to continue discussing this topic, then you come out as ignorant. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]



1. Im not dids, dont every confuse me with him.

2. As a philosophical view, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2]

And if you fail to see how atheists dont adhere to some dogma (ecspecially on this forum), you do the [censored] research becuase you are the ignorant one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me put it this way. How do you feel about Thor? Do you believe in Thor? Do you reject Thor? Do you absolutely know that Thor doesn't exist? Well, I have the exact kind of attitude against Christian God that I have against Thor. I just don't simply believe in them. They are irrelevant. No evidence, no nothing which would suggest to me that they are real, true or worth worshipping for. Got it?

Science vs religion is irrelevant when discussing atheism. That kind of debate only goes on in the US. Atheism is simply stating that I believe in Christian God as much as I believe in Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (you've probably heard these examples before). There's a chance they might exist (there's always a chance that anything in the world might exist) but I think it's not likely and it's not relevant because of lack of evidence. That's it.

Atheism btw is a bad way of stating who someone is. I prefer 'secular humanism' because it's much clearer how someone thinks about the world. 'Secular' because no religion is relevant and 'humanism' because the humanist values are valued.

The main point you should try to understand is that agnosticism and atheism are not very clearly defined terms. They step in each others territory and they are not mutually exclusive. All people should be agnostic towards everything because as we all should know after watching Matrix lol, that our senses can betray us. Atheism is just a clearer way to say that I think it's unlikely God exists and that it plays no significant part in my life. Agnosticism carries "the baggage" of "I don't know, I haven't really made up my mind yet" which really doesn't suit me or many others because I have made up my mind. I don't believe pink unicorns exist (they still might and if evidence shows otherwise I believe that they exist) and that's the same attitude I have against all supernatural phenoms with no evidence, including Christian God and Thor.