Leaving creationism = leaving Christianity?

[River Jordan]

1. 2005 study, with some of the respondents as far back as 2002 (Japan/parts of Europe[just for chart]), Is it valid to say it is the same today? I do not think so. Other parts of their "analysis" go back 20 years to come to the conclusion?

I don't understand your comment. The paper was published in 2006. Why wouldn't they use survey data from 2002?

2. 35,020 respondents out of a global population of 6,500,000,000 (0.0000054%) Is that an accurate sampling? I do not think so.

Seriously? I don't think you read the original paper very carefully. If you had, you'd have noticed that they weren't commenting on the entire human population. Just those in the US and developed world (Japan and Europe).

3. Only 2 countries were represented out of the top 10 population countries in the world. 3 of the top 20? All of the countries represented were in the top 100 (out of 187 not the 196 commonly accepted much less the 230 recognized) in the list of countries by "Human Development". However, some notable countries were left out? Australia? Canada? Israel? Just examples...many more left out of top 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Again, I don't think you read the paper very carefully. They were looking into the developed world, not second or third world countries.

As far as the others, we can certainly look elsewhere to see if including those would skew the results.

These survey results show Canada's "positive evolution" views (theistic + natural) are 77%, right in line with the other countries (except the US and Turkey). Australia is 74-80%. Israel seems to be a little harder to figure, because the results vary greatly depending on how the questions are worded. But overall, it looks like they're somewhere around 54%.

So it looks like if Miller et al. were to include those three countries in their analyses, the results either wouldn't change much, or they would skew further to their original conclusions.

4. It was interesting how they used probabilities "The U. S. data for 2003 were collected online using a sample of 2,066 adults
from a probability-based national panel maintained by Knowledge Networks, Inc." Why use a probability based national panel? Looking for certain people?

Are you accusing them of fraud and/or unethical behavior? And again, that was one year's of data in the US. Surveys of Americans' views on evolution and science have been conducted for decades and the results haven't varied much at all.

5. I find some statements very hard to take seriously like: "Although these data were collected by three different methods over a period of 20 years, comparison of responses to a set of benchmark questions involving demographic and related characteristics found no systematic mode effect." Seriously? There was no mode effect after a difference in 20 years? Is it unreasonable to say...they are solving for the answer they want?

That doesn't make sense. They're just saying that even though over 20 years the survey data was collected via different modes (paper, telephone, internet), the results remained consistent, indicating that the mode of survey did not affect the results.

The only way your comment makes sense is if you're accusing these people of deliberately manipulating the data and lying about the existence of a mode effect (or you didn't know what mode effect is).

That's an extremely serious accusation.

I could go on and on. This is not compelling to me for a multitude of reasons. I would be willing to discuss it in further detail, but I would just bore everyone else.

While I appreciate your willingness to actually look at this material, your response seems to be an accusation that they deliberately manufactured a data set and fudged the analyses in order to get an answer they wanted. As I said, that's extremely serious.

And from what I can tell, your basis for such an accusation is....well, I wouldn't even call it "flimsy".

One final question...Is this the same kind of "science" done to prove evolution? Cherry pick the info they want and ask loaded questions to get the answers they want?

Wow....how disappointing. I expected better from you.

 

[aspen]

lastest news is that scientists are claiming to have recorded an echo of the Big Bang. if it can be verified thay may win a Nobel Peace award.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

I don't understand your comment. The paper was published in 2006. Why wouldn't they use survey data from 2002?


Seriously? I don't think you read the original paper very carefully. If you had, you'd have noticed that they weren't commenting on the entire human population. Just those in the US and developed world (Japan and Europe).


Again, I don't think you read the paper very carefully. They were looking into the developed world, not second or third world countries.

As far as the others, we can certainly look elsewhere to see if including those would skew the results.

These survey results show Canada's "positive evolution" views (theistic + natural) are 77%, right in line with the other countries (except the US and Turkey). Australia is 74-80%. Israel seems to be a little harder to figure, because the results vary greatly depending on how the questions are worded. But overall, it looks like they're somewhere around 54%.

So it looks like if Miller et al. were to include those three countries in their analyses, the results either wouldn't change much, or they would skew further to their original conclusions.


Are you accusing them of fraud and/or unethical behavior? And again, that was one year's of data in the US. Surveys of Americans' views on evolution and science have been conducted for decades and the results haven't varied much at all.


That doesn't make sense. They're just saying that even though over 20 years the survey data was collected via different modes (paper, telephone, internet), the results remained consistent, indicating that the mode of survey did not affect the results.

The only way your comment makes sense is if you're accusing these people of deliberately manipulating the data and lying about the existence of a mode effect (or you didn't know what mode effect is).

That's an extremely serious accusation.


While I appreciate your willingness to actually look at this material, your response seems to be an accusation that they deliberately manufactured a data set and fudged the analyses in order to get an answer they wanted. As I said, that's extremely serious.

And from what I can tell, your basis for such an accusation is....well, I wouldn't even call it "flimsy".


Wow....how disappointing. I expected better from you.

There is a very long list of people disappointed in me.

1. Sigh. Yes. 2006. Information used from 2002. Some information as old as 20 years in a report from 2006 (which is now 8 years old). This makes all the information as relevant as an episode of ALF. I shouldn't have to explain what is obvious.

2. I am not accusing, I am asking if it is unreasonable to be very skeptical. Why use probabilities to find the people you want to ask?

3. I do not trust anyone. I question everything. Always have, probably always will. Unfortunately, I generally assume people are misrepresenting information because everyone has an agenda to push. We could tie just about anything we wanted to, to anything else we wanted to in this world using statistics. Statistics do not lie, but liars use statistics.

4. Could there be any possibility of any other reason the results are skewed in the US? Could it just be as simple as we discuss it more? They made a big point about how "hotly it is debated" in this country as opposed to other countries...could it just be that simple? We know the flaws because we "debate" it all the time...they don't?

I am sorry to disappoint you, but you should probably get used to it.

SL

 

[aspen]

SecondHL - healthy skepticism is a good thing - good science is based on it. in fact, healthy skepticism is what lead to the exposure of the scientist who falsified data and results from his studies of red wine - i cannot remember the name of the main ingredient he was studying. Anyway, one of the great things about the scientific method and process is that it encourages skepticism.

 

[KingJ]

Until you define "uphill evolution", I can't really address it.


1) Natural selection just is, like gravity or erosion. It has no ethical currency.

2) There is no missing scripture.

3) I have no idea what you're talking about.

1. River, don't you see that that is denial on par with atheism?
2. No, just 194 000 missing years where God was not interested in us..... :blink:
3. But we have discussed it before. You have yet to '''deal with it'''. You know where that argument heads and you simply cannot win it. For the umpteenth time....Jesus died for mankind because mankind is intelligent and accountable....babies and mentally handicapped go straight to heaven...can you guess why? Now evolving intelligence.....makes the cross a JOKE.

I am asking you nicely to stop this self denial. It is a sin against yourself and God.

 

[River Jordan]

There is a very long list of people disappointed in me.

That last comment you made was pretty childish and out of character.

1. Sigh. Yes. 2006. Information used from 2002. Some information as old as 20 years in a report from 2006 (which is now 8 years old). This makes all the information as relevant as an episode of ALF. I shouldn't have to explain what is obvious.

That still doesn't make any sense. Given the question they were trying to answer (What are the views on evolution in the developed world, and a follow-up of why is the US such an outlier?), using as much data as they can from as long a period as they can is almost mandatory. I mean, I have a feeling if they'd only used data from 2005, you'd be complaining about that....like "Only one year's data? How do they know that year wasn't just an anomaly?"

2. I am not accusing, I am asking if it is unreasonable to be very skeptical. Why use probabilities to find the people you want to ask?

Again, this doesn't make sense. That's exactly how statistical sampling works. But again back to the mode effect point and large data set issues, they also used data from other sources and as they explain, the results were consistent across different sources and different methods.

That's why you use as much data as you can, from as many different sources and methods as you can. If their results are all wildly different, then something's wrong. But if they're all consistent then it's likely that they're reliably accurate.

3. I do not trust anyone. I question everything. Always have, probably always will. Unfortunately, I generally assume people are misrepresenting information because everyone has an agenda to push. We could tie just about anything we wanted to, to anything else we wanted to in this world using statistics. Statistics do not lie, but liars use statistics.

That's funny coming from a person who tried to cite statistics in the evolution of beetles. So I guess you assume you also have an agenda and are lying?

4. Could there be any possibility of any other reason the results are skewed in the US? Could it just be as simple as we discuss it more? They made a big point about how "hotly it is debated" in this country as opposed to other countries...could it just be that simple? We know the flaws because we "debate" it all the time...they don't?

That still leads to the same question...why is it "discussed more" and "hotly debated" in the US, but not other developed countries? That's what they sought to figure out. And they found 3 main factors, conservative Christianity, conservative politics, and knowledge of genetics.

I am sorry to disappoint you, but you should probably get used to it.

I'm trying to figure out if your comments are a result of you not really understanding what they were doing, or if they're just reflexive hand-waiving because they results aren't what you want.

1. River, don't you see that that is denial on par with atheism?
2. No, just 194 000 missing years where God was not interested in us..... :blink:
3. But we have discussed it before. You have yet to '''deal with it'''. You know where that argument heads and you simply cannot win it. For the umpteenth time....Jesus died for mankind because mankind is intelligent and accountable....babies and mentally handicapped go straight to heaven...can you guess why? Now evolving intelligence.....makes the cross a JOKE.

I am asking you nicely to stop this self denial. It is a sin against yourself and God.

1. No
2. Nope, not missing.
3. Still not making any sense at all.

Thanks for your advice.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


Uppsala,

There's an issue I would like to address further with you.

You've asked me to provide you "empirical evidence within biology that any bird was previously a reptile, or that life came from non-life, or that humans decended [sic] from any ape-like creature, or that common descent should be considered a fact".

Normally, I'd be more than willing to dive into technical discussions of those points, but in this case I really don't see a reason to do so. The reason being, you've clearly indicated that your standard of evidence is something along the lines of Ken Ham's "were you there". Specifically, you've stated...

"NO ONE living today was present to test and verify the claims that ANY scientists has made about the origin of the earth or the universe! In that respect it is NOT testable, repeatable or observable science."

"Were you present when the rocks being dated were created so that you can VERIFY the things that the Tulane paper cliams? YES OR NO!"

[in response to me asking if you were citing “were you there”] "Do so, I don't care. It is the truth, is it not? The only one who was present when the universe was created was God."

"the truth of origins is only available to the only one who was there at the time"

"The fact that you prefer to believe in those who weren't there simply shows that you don't believe in him and don't listen to his voice."

IMO, that paints a pretty clear and consistent picture of someone whose standard of evidence begins and ends with "were you there". Given that, it would be total folly to try and discuss with you the topics you mentioned.

 

[KingJ]

1. No
2. Nope, not missing.
3. Still not making any sense at all.

Thanks for your advice.

Ok, it is time to mark your answers.

1. No, is not an answer. Comparing it to erosion and gravity gives you zero marks for lateral thought. Being eaten alive by evolving scavengers like vultures and hyenas is not evil?... :blink: ...sure you believe that. You tell kids its not and leave them to grasp the obvious. Since you have an IQ above 10, you are guilty of being evil to the kids you teach.

2. Intelligent man not receiving any direction from God for 194 000 years = evil God insinuation = same underlined conclusion as above.

3. Can't make sense of intelligent man = accountable :blink: / mankind created beneath the angels = accountable / Jesus dying for a random man in 203 116 bc years ago that was intelligent enough to be accountable and then another in 197 353 bc and then suddenly a woman in 196 288 bc = mocking the cross = same underlined conclusion as 1 above.

Result = 0 lateral thought + 0 objectivity + 0 dealing with scripture + 0 respect for application of TE rules + 100% bias + 100% evasiveness + IQ above 10 = someone who shouldn't be on this site, let alone teaching kids :wacko:

 

[River Jordan]

Ok, it is time to mark your answers.

1. No, is not an answer. Comparing it to erosion and gravity gives you zero marks for lateral thought. Being eaten alive by evolving scavengers like vultures and hyenas is not evil?... :blink: ...sure you believe that. You tell kids its not and leave them to grasp the obvious. Since you have an IQ above 10, you are guilty of being evil to the kids you teach.

2. Intelligent man not receiving any direction from God for 194 000 years = evil God insinuation = same underlined conclusion as above.

3. Can't make sense of intelligent man = accountable :blink: / mankind created beneath the angels = accountable / Jesus dying for a random man in 203 116 bc years ago that was intelligent enough to be accountable and then another in 197 353 bc and then suddenly a woman in 196 288 bc = mocking the cross = same underlined conclusion as 1 above.

Result = 0 lateral thought + 0 objectivity + 0 dealing with scripture + 0 respect for application of TE rules + 100% bias + 100% evasiveness + IQ above 10 = someone who shouldn't be on this site, let alone teaching kids :wacko:

1. No more "evil" than falling off a cliff or being caught in a landslide.

2. Who said "intelligent man" received no direction from God for 194k years?

3. Nope, sorry....still not making any sense at all.

Result: Thanks for your input.

 

[aspen]

Com'mon KJ, the only criteria you have for Gods behavior being evil is whether or not the behavior was attributed to Him in the Bible. For example, the baldy in I Kings calling a bear out of the woods to devour some children who were teasing him - attributed to God and in the Bible so it must be Good! Dead bodies devoured by hyenas and vultures due to a cycle in nature - not in the Bible and attributed to a cycle of nature set in motion by God, but recorded by scientist - must make God look evil and needs to be rejected.

Based on your morality which is defined by your literal interpretation of the Bible, you have no business judging and one or anything.

 

[KingJ]

1. No more "evil" than falling off a cliff or being caught in a landslide.

2. Who said "intelligent man" received no direction from God for 194k years?

3. Nope, sorry....still not making any sense at all.

Result: Thanks for your input.

1. Accident = purpose :blink:. God's presence caters for either? You expect to see death in heaven?

2. Do you have proof? Did Jesus die for them too? Do they have an Abraham too? Do you know why Abraham was chosen? Do you know how Abraham was chosen? Answering these questions and then dealing with them will help your lateral thought.

3. Then please re-read until you get it. It will blow you away when you get it.

1. Com'mon KJ, the only criteria you have for Gods behavior being evil is whether or not the behavior was attributed to Him in the Bible. For example, the baldy in I Kings calling a bear out of the woods to devour some children who were teasing him - attributed to God and in the Bible so it must be Good!

2. Dead bodies devoured by hyenas and vultures due to a cycle in nature - not in the Bible and attributed to a cycle of nature set in motion by God, but recorded by scientist - must make God look evil and needs to be rejected.

3. Based on your morality which is defined by your literal interpretation of the Bible, you have no business judging and one or anything.

1. Before Adam's sin = no sin / death, After Adam's sin = sin and death entered the world. Now is the bear in Kings after or before sin entered the world? Not hard to understand Aspen. As I asked River, do you see death of any-kind in heaven? taking place in God's presence?

2. Not.... recorded by scientists. That is where ''you believe'', the likes of River are truthful in their insinuations far above their heads from cloud cookoo land. Her textbooks will be updated and amended next year. Soon alien species inter-mingling / answering the trillions of gaps in missing links will be taught as a valid 'theory' along with 'pigs + monkeys = humans'.

3. I have explained before, I don't have a literal interpretation. But I deal with what is written. The inspired writers will have a valid gripe with you and River one-day in heaven....I hope God overlooks it...but from judging the bias and evil God insinuations...mockery of the cross...you know what I am assuming.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

There's an issue I would like to address further with you.

You've asked me to provide you "empirical evidence within biology that any bird was previously a reptile, or that life came from non-life, or that humans decended [sic] from any ape-like creature, or that common descent should be considered a fact".

Normally, I'd be more than willing to dive into technical discussions of those points, but in this case I really don't see a reason to do so. The reason being, you've clearly indicated that your standard of evidence is something along the lines of Ken Ham's "were you there". Specifically, you've stated...

"NO ONE living today was present to test and verify the claims that ANY scientists has made about the origin of the earth or the universe! In that respect it is NOT testable, repeatable or observable science."

"Were you present when the rocks being dated were created so that you can VERIFY the things that the Tulane paper cliams? YES OR NO!"

[in response to me asking if you were citing “were you there”] "Do so, I don't care. It is the truth, is it not? The only one who was present when the universe was created was God."

"the truth of origins is only available to the only one who was there at the time"

"The fact that you prefer to believe in those who weren't there simply shows that you don't believe in him and don't listen to his voice."

IMO, that paints a pretty clear and consistent picture of someone whose standard of evidence begins and ends with "were you there". Given that, it would be total folly to try and discuss with you the topics you mentioned.

RJ, "being there" is fairly important when it comes to discussing empirical evidence, don't you think?

If you disagree then I'm sure everyone here would be very tickled to hear why you do.

 

[aspen]

so you believe the bear eating the children was a sin? where does it say that in text?

 

[River Jordan]

KingJ,

Thanks for your input.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Uppsala,

No, just because no H. sapiens personally witnessed an event does not mean it lies outside the ability of science to investigate and reach accurate conclusions on.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

KingJ,

Thanks for your input.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Uppsala,

No, just because no H. sapiens personally witnessed an event does not mean it lies outside the ability of science to investigate and reach accurate conclusions on.

I don't recall saying it was, so what's your point?

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

Then I'm going to ask you to help me out here. All these comments you made...

"NO ONE living today was present to test and verify the claims that ANY scientists has made about the origin of the earth or the universe! In that respect it is NOT testable, repeatable or observable science."

"Were you present when the rocks being dated were created so that you can VERIFY the things that the Tulane paper cliams? YES OR NO!"

[in response to me asking if you were citing “were you there”] "Do so, I don't care. It is the truth, is it not? The only one who was present when the universe was created was God."

"the truth of origins is only available to the only one who was there at the time"

"The fact that you prefer to believe in those who weren't there simply shows that you don't believe in him and don't listen to his voice."

...to me paint a pretty clear and consistent picture that your standard of evidence is direct observation, and events without direct observation lie outside of science's ability to investigate or draw reliable, accurate conclusions on (they are not testable, repeatable, or observable).

If that's not your view, then perhaps you could explain?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

Then I'm going to ask you to help me out here. All these comments you made...

"NO ONE living today was present to test and verify the claims that ANY scientists has made about the origin of the earth or the universe! In that respect it is NOT testable, repeatable or observable science."

"Were you present when the rocks being dated were created so that you can VERIFY the things that the Tulane paper cliams? YES OR NO!"

[in response to me asking if you were citing “were you there”] "Do so, I don't care. It is the truth, is it not? The only one who was present when the universe was created was God."

"the truth of origins is only available to the only one who was there at the time"

"The fact that you prefer to believe in those who weren't there simply shows that you don't believe in him and don't listen to his voice."

...to me paint a pretty clear and consistent picture that your standard of evidence is direct observation, and events without direct observation lie outside of science's ability to investigate or draw reliable, accurate conclusions on (they are not testable, repeatable, or observable).

If that's not your view, then perhaps you could explain?

Since all you have done here is try to boil down my "standard of evidence" into an oversimplification then what's to explain?

As I said, this particular issue has to do with empirical evidence, which is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. I made no statement about the reliablity of conclusions that are made using a lesser degree or standard of evidence.

As usual, you exaggerate, twist and resort to strawmen as part of your mud-slinging campaign againt creationists.

 

[River Jordan]

I don't know how you can complain here, because I'm taking what you've posted, saying what my impression is, asking you if my impression is accurate, and requesting that if it's not, you clarify.

IOW, I'm saying "Here's what you've said. This is what I think you meant. Is that right? If not, what did you mean?" Isn't that the way we all should interact with each other? I

So rather than complain, just clarify what you meant.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I don't know how you can complain here, because I'm taking what you've posted, saying what my impression is, asking you if my impression is accurate, and requesting that if it's not, you clarify.

IOW, I'm saying "Here's what you've said. This is what I think you meant. Is that right? If not, what did you mean?" Isn't that the way we all should interact with each other? I

So rather than complain, just clarify what you meant.

What is it you are still struggling to understand? To me it seems that you are trying to isolating a few comments and pull them out of their original context in an effort to portray me as someone who doesn't accept anything other than empirical evidence, which is totally not true.

If you have a point that is that is relative to the topic of this thread then perhaps you should make it, rather than wasting everyone's time.

 

[aspen]

oh brother.....

jordan cannot be anymore clear UD. She cannot bring her expectations for the most basic of human interaction any lower.......

At this point, your so commited to muddying the waters and creating confusion and throwing up roadblocks, you may as well be countering her points by protesting against her choice of font.

Your back is so pressed up against the wall that Bill Clinton's famous denial of his inappropriate relationship with Monica by argruing against the special prosecutions use of the word "is" sounds rational and well played. I guess the only reason i have to check in on your posts anymore is for your introduction of the "I am rubber/you are glue defense......it is only a matter of time at this point.......

 

[UppsalaDragby]

oh brother.....

jordan cannot be anymore clear UD. She cannot bring her expectations for the most basic of human interaction any lower.......

At this point, your so commited to muddying the waters and creating confusion and throwing up roadblocks, you may as well be countering her points by protesting against her choice of font.

Your back is so pressed up against the wall that Bill Clinton's famous denial of his inappropriate relationship with Monica by argruing against the special prosecutions use of the word "is" sounds rational and well played. I guess the only reason i have to check in on your posts anymore is for your introduction of the "I am rubber/you are glue defense......it is only a matter of time at this point.......

What is this? Aspen to the rescue again? And what a bunch of baloney! I don't have my back against the wall at all. What on earth are you talking about???

Please save me all the cheap rhetoric and make a solid point if you have one. This is turning into a circus.