Got Faith?

[daniel49]

Hmmm guess newsweek didn't do the polling in here.
Text


Also some support in the poll for the antiwar group.
I think they should leave Edwards alone and quit hounding him and tony snow about cancer.

The questions in poll

 

[piasabird]

Interesting poll questions.

When things are going bad in a war, I would expect many people would be less than satisfied and respond in the negative.

What would the answer be if you asked them if they thought the Democrats had a valid plan to deal with the war, or if they approved of what Pelosi was doing?

You never see approval ratings for the senate or the house. I estimate it to be around 30%. This would probably lower than the president. They are all too quick to bring up the polls for the president, but not for themselves!

I dont agree with this war, and I dont agree with many things in government. I am waiting for something good to come out of the Democrats but I dont see anything to speak of that is all that great. On behalf of the Democrats, I think that raising the minimum wage may have been a good idea. However, this is always a sore subject. On one hand I care about people's welfare, on the other hand I believe in Honesty and Ethics. I dont see much honesty form most people in the government. All I see is Pary Politics. Our politicians care more for staying in power than they do in protecting the voter's Interests.

 

[JEDIYoda]

so now that the Democrats are in office.....could somebody please tell me what they were suppose to do about the current state of affairs again??

 

[Screech]

how do you have 13% of agnostics/atheists saying god created humans in their current form?

As far as quesiton 15.....sheesh. Some people (ie, 48% of respondents) need to get out more....

 

[DealMonkey]

Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

It is pretty pathetic to see those numbers in 2007. What really gets me is the people who believe this planet is only 6000 years old and that early people lived for hundreds of years.

I really want to know what made science the enemy of christianity.. was it when the world was found to not be flat? or was it when they figured out Earth was not the cneter of the universe they all said "okay this science and rational thinking has to stop!".

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
so now that the Democrats are in office.....could somebody please tell me what they were suppose to do about the current state of affairs again??

Well for now the democrats are politely asking GWB to discuss things with them and stop being stuck on stupid. While making some threats and reminders about what kind of funding powers congress has. And I somewhat agree with you JEDIYoda, that way does not seem
have altered GWB behavior. But you know the old saying---you can do it the easy way or the hard way. And if GWB&co. stays stuck on stubborn, you can watch our congress ramp up the pressure until a chastised GWB screams Uncle---and failing that---there is always impeachment---I can already hear you pointing out there are no grounds for impeachment, which may be partly true today but is very unlikely to be true after the next three months.

Right now you are just seeing the congress trying for the easy way---but don't be fooled or be near as gullible as GWB&co. There is always the hard way that has not been tried YET.

And maybe you will even grow up to be granted some wisdom. But my observation is that
in power struggles of various kinds, the side that ultimately loses is the same side that engages in grandiose verbal boasting, while the side that wins usually speaks softly and carries the big stick.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

1. I don't think a lot of people understand the theory.
2. I think a lot of them have been lead to believe that you can't believe in evolution and believe in God at the same time, as if one trumps the other.
3. Or we have a bunch of people going "nananana not listening"

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

1. I don't think a lot of people understand the theory.
2. I think a lot of them have been lead to believe that you can't believe in evolution and believe in God at the same time, as if one trumps the other.
3. Or we have a bunch of people going "nananana not listening"

A lot of people are trained to not believe in evolution at a young age.

It's actually rather incredible what you can get someone to believe if you work at it the right way.

 

[slash196]

Those poll numbers made me slowly shake my head sadly.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Believe in God all you want, but geeze ...

...nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

The ignorant are apparently proud of their ignorance!

What part of theory are you confused about?

 

[johnnobts]

most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

*facepalm*

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

Yes your right, it will always be a "theory" until we can go back millions of years in time with a time machine and see if for our own eyes.

But I think the overwhelming amount of data that supports the theory of evolution pretty much shows it to be true. There is a huge amount of data that supports the theory of evolution.

While your at it take a look at:
-Introduction to Evolution
-Evolution (more scientific explination)

Along with every other article that is in there

Edit:
Unless your kidding (which I don't think so by the matter of your tone here )

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

the·o·ry (the'?-re, thîr'e) pronunciation
n., pl. -ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a scientific theory. I love how some people insist on using the idea of belittling the crap out of something, hoping it will somehow make people ignore basic rules and concepts in science.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

Johnnobts, in so posting you show absolute and total ignorance of modern science. What you
post may be be a semi accurate description of a scientific hypothesis. But when a scientific hypothesis rises to a theory, it is already well past almost unassailable. It may not be prefect and describe everything, its not immune from modification, but a theory is too compelling to be lightly dismissed by a lightweight such as yourself.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

"Just a theory" doesn't cut it. I suspect your understanding of the meaning of the word, "theory" is a bit weak. Let's start with a real definition of the word:

the·o·ry (the'?-re, thîr'e)
n., pl. the·o·ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
   
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
   
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
   
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
   
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
   
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The last definition appears to be what you have in mind and is common in less demanding conversation, but in science, a theory is only acceptable if it has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Furthermore, it takes only one exception to disprove a theory.

Creationism, "creation science" and other so-called "theories" of divine causation simply do not meet the criteria for a valid theory. They can't be tested, and they can't be used to describe or to make repeated, accurate predictions about natural phenomena in any meaningful way.

Unless you can disprove evolution, or at least provide an alternative that can be tested in the real world, it's the only explanation that fits the criteria to be accepted as a scientifically valid theory.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

This point gets brought up in every single thread about evolution vs. ID and it gets shot down time and time again. Do you people learn?

 

[Luthien]

Simply more proof for those thinking belief in biblical creation as fact is a thing of the past and only an "extremely small percentage" believe it. lol

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

"Just a theory" doesn't cut it. I suspect your understanding of the meaning of the word, "theory" is a bit weak. Let's start with a real definition of the word:

the·o·ry (the'?-re, thîr'e)
n., pl. the·o·ries.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
   
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
   
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
   
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
   
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
   
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The last definition appears to be what you have in mind and is common in less demanding conversation, but in science, a theory is only acceptable if it has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Furthermore, it takes only one exception to disprove a theory.

Creationism, "creation science" and other so-called "theories" of divine causation simply do not meet the criteria for a valid theory. They can't be tested, and they can't be used to describe or to make repeated, accurate predictions about natural phenomena in any meaningful way.

Unless you can disprove evolution, or at least provide an alternative that can be tested in the real world, it's the only explanation that fits the criteria to be accepted as a scientifically valid theory.

As you hinted scientific theories have to do with the first definition where as must people think that they deal with the last definition which is false.

In other words in the scientific world all scientific theories have to be tested and studied to death in order to be called theories. The only thing that prevents the theory of evolution from moving to the area of scientific fact is that we lack a time machine to go into the past to take and come back with real live samples of specimens.

Just how theory of gravity cannot not be proven as 100% fact because gravity is not something that is tangible. Gravity is something which you can pick up and show to someone like you could an apple. Though we know via observations on the causes and effects that gravity has on objects like a apples (along with many complex mathematical formulas) that there is a unseen force called gravity out there in the universe that as an effect on all objects including apples on our planet.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: johnnobts
most of you are confused about the matter of evolutionary theory being just that, a theory.

This point gets brought up in every single thread about evolution vs. ID and it gets shot down time and time again. Do you people learn?

If they were capable of learning, they wouldn't be on that side of the argument in the first place.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
As you hinted scientific theories have to do with the first definition where as must people think that they deal with the last definition which is false.

In other words in the scientific world theories have to be tested and studied to death in order to be called theories. The only thing that prevents the theory of evolution from moving to the area of scientific fact is that we lack a time machine to go into the past to take and come back with real live samples of specimens.

Just how theory of gravity cannot not be proven as 100% fact because gravity is not something that is tangible that you can pick up and show someone like an apple. Though we know via observations on the causes and effects that gravity has on objects like a apples ( along with complex mathematical formulas ) that there is a unseen force called gravity out there in the universe that as an effect on all objects including apples.

The good news is, gravity still works. Sometimes, I think the continued push by the ID/creationist wingnuts suggests evolution is having a rough go of it. :laugh:

 

[daniel49]

wonder how the same poll with same questions would do in here.
Would be interesting to compare and see how mainstream USA P and N is or isn't.
Although I have a theory on the outcome

 

[SuperFungus]

I of course think that evolution is a pretty good model for the formation of life. That said i have a problem with the concept of "believing in" evolution, evolutionary isn't something to believe in as i see it. It's something to understand and agree or disagree with. "Belief" carries the wrong connotations i think. I also think that it's more unscientific to try and cut down any opposition to your theory than it is to question a widely accepted and supported theory imo. Of course i also don't believe that "it's wrong because the bible says so" is a valid criticism.

It seems some people in here have a pretty good grasp of the theory itself so i'd like to get something clarified. As i understand it many species have specific chromosome counts which determine that species. Also I understand that an animal cannot successfully breed with another animal of a different chromosome count. So then how is a single common ancestor explained? It would seem impossably unlikely that two animals of opposite sex would mutate in the exact same way in geographically close enough proximity to each other to produce a succesful new species. Also, i saw a diagram in the smithsonian a while ago of the evolutionary history of elephants. There where dozens of radically different species in that tree. So why in our hundreds of years of natural history of thousands of different species have we not seen similar radical changes? Or have we? Thanks for any help here.

 

[kotss]

Well the main problem with the poll is that it is a poll! It all depends on where the poll sample is taken from and the wording of the questions. I could probably do a poll like this and come up with different results just by moving to a different part of the country.

In regards to gravity Drift3r, you are pretty close, it is the fact that there is no valid explanation for Quantum gravity yet that makes the theory of gravity incomplete at this time. On a large scale the theory works to the point of being a law.

I do agree with SuperFungus, it is not about belief in the Theory of Evolution as more to the point of do you understand the accumulated facts supporting it. Relgion can never be theory so it is all about belief, and IMHO there is nothing wrong with belief as long as you do not let it blind you to the facts of the real world.