Yet another silly poll

[Late_Cretaceous]

 

[TheBear]

I voted. I think most here know where I stand on this.

However, you may want to rephrase the first option. It may come across a little harsh to the YEC's.

 

[Praxiteles]

Hoorah for polls!

Prax loves polls.  More polls please.  

Oh, and now for something on topic (to legitimise my pother):  I voted in the "open to the idea of God" field.  Why?  Because it most accurately represents my position.  (Did I mention that I love polls?  Gee I love polls!)

Cheers,

Prax

 

[LouisBooth]

biased poll, not an option to say that my faith is strong in God and it will eventually be shown and is being shown that evolution is wrong

 

[chickenman]

is being shown?

errrr no

 

[lithium.]

i voted for ( I don't even believe in God, so it does not matter )

hehe cause i believe in the force. j/k heh

 

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
biased poll, not an option to say that my faith is strong in God and it will eventually be shown and is being shown that evolution is wrong

If evolution is being shown to be wrong, why is it that a small percentage of Christians in the US are more or less the only people in the entire world to oppose it?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
biased poll, not an option to say that my faith is strong in God and it will eventually be shown and is being shown that evolution is wrong

By what means?

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
If evolution is being shown to be wrong, why is it that a small percentage of Christians in the US are more or less the only people in the entire world to oppose it?

That would be an appeal to popularity.

-jon

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity
That would be an appeal to popularity.

Appeal to popularity is only mostly a fallacy; if one were to show that an immense majority of experts in a field agreed, it would be a strong argument, although not a logical proof.

I do want to know what the alternative explanation is for the huge bulk of accumulated data which appear to support evolution. All I ever see is second-hand "Someone told me this was impossible", and very little serious analysis of the data.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by seebs
Appeal to popularity is only mostly a fallacy; if one were to show that an immense majority of experts in a field agreed, it would be a strong argument, although not a logical proof.

I do want to know what the alternative explanation is for the huge bulk of accumulated data which appear to support evolution. All I ever see is second-hand "Someone told me this was impossible", and very little serious analysis of the data.

When there's a disagreement, however, you tend to get answers like "because they are wrong," "because of the evil atheistic conspiricy to brainwash children in the public school system," or what-have-you. Why point out the opinions of scientists they don't trust when you can just break young earth creationism's back with science itself?

-jon

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity
When there's a disagreement, however, you tend to get answers like "because they are wrong," "because of the evil atheistic conspiricy to brainwash children in the public school system," or what-have-you. Why point out the opinions of scientists they don't trust when you can just break young earth creationism's back with science itself?

I think it's mostly a response to periodic claims that "much of the scientific community" doubts evolution. It's not much of an argument on its own, but it's a much easier argument to present than anything rooted in a careful study of the science.

You watch; so far, only one or two people have expressed *ANY* interest in an understanding of information theory that would allow them to reasonably approach the question of whether or not "new information" can be added to genetic material.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by seebs
I think it's mostly a response to periodic claims that "much of the scientific community" doubts evolution. It's not much of an argument on its own, but it's a much easier argument to present than anything rooted in a careful study of the science.

In that case it would be quite useful.

You watch; so far, only one or two people have expressed *ANY* interest in an understanding of information theory that would allow them to reasonably approach the question of whether or not "new information" can be added to genetic material.

You're right. However, in my case years of hearing real, scientific answers to my creationist tripe probably helped quite a bit when I eventually opened my mind.

-jon

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity
That would be an appeal to popularity.

-jon

True. It's a weak argument, but it hints that the forceful opposition to evolution has cultural rather than scientific roots.

 

[Sinai]

The title of this poll may be especially correct.....

 

[Sinai]

The title of this poll may be especially correct.....

 

[LouisBooth]

"If evolution is being shown to be wrong, why is it that a small percentage of Christians in the US are more or less the only people in the entire world to oppose it?"

Actaually the lastest poll I have seen is that around 44 or so percent believe in it thanks


I'd go with CTI on this one though. doesn't matter how many people believe in it, thus I'm not phased, as I do not being in the theory.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"Actaually the lastest poll I have seen is that around 44 or so percent believe in it thanks "

Can you cite this poll Louis?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Can you cite this poll Louis?"

Sure, I don't have the book with me. its a gallap poll from a book called, "surveying the religious landscape" at least I think that's what its called.