How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[crowTrobot 2]

So 34 countries would be approximately 18% of that number. And I see whole continents that are not represented on that list. I'd say it's pretty darn elitist to say that only North America and Europe count when it comes to this poll.

i don't think the purpose of that particular chart is to represent the world. presumably that chart was put together more to show how backwards the USA is among most of the rest of the worlds most educated countries.

[speedz99 145]

The theory of evolution doesn't posit an origin of life silly

The theory of evolution doesn't need to posit an origin of life. My bio professor started our section on evolution with a statement that went something like this: "We will be learning about the mechanics of evolution on a genetic level. This does not mean that we will be discussing how the universe was created, how the earth was formed, or how life first began. If you want to discuss those issues you can do it in another class."

[brvheart 1,752]

Do you have any links for these polls? Anything real in print by a reputable source that these polls took place and that the statistics show what you say they do? How many countries were represented? How many people per country?

this is the specific one i was thinking of, representing 140 countries -http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution...ent-Design.aspxthis page has a chart from a 2005 poll showing a breakdown of 34 countries -http://richarddawkins.net/article,706,Publ...-Shinji-Okamoto

el oh el

[speedz99 145]

el oh el

Apparently you didn't click on the link...

[KramitDaToad 0]

el oh el

Of course he was only showing a study carried out by others but perhaps you could enlighten us as to why you would consider Richard Dawkins to be disreputable?Oh, and how is your 'research' into the Egyptian Pharaohs going?

[speedz99 145]

Of course he was only showing a study carried out by others but perhaps you could enlighten us as to why you would consider Richard Dawkins to be disreputable?

Because he believes in evolution, of course. He must be disreputable. Silly "scientists" and their "facts".

[LongLiveYorke 38]

For the record, it's not the percentage of people polled that makes it accurate or not. Having 4% of 100 people (4 people) is a lot less accurate than having 4% of 10,000 people (400 people).

[Balloon guy 158]

Because he believes in life being planted on earth by space aliens and has stated so in a recent documentary, of course. He must be disreputable. Silly "scientists" and their "facts".

fyp

[Balloon guy 158]

For the record, it's not the percentage of people polled that makes it accurate or not. Having 4% of 100 people (4 people) is a lot less accurate than having 4% of 10,000 people (400 people).

No but getting larger percentages helps cut across more lines.Seeing as how the original point was a poll on the whole world, then theres a lot of lines that need represented.Until the sample size picks random people in all areas of the world, then either the number's are fudged ( Dawkinized ) or they are inaquate to base any silly notion on.The fact here is that a person on the evolution side of the argument, misspoke. Making a blanket statement with no facts and not a shred of proof. Rather than admit they were wrong, they dragged this out, to the delight of this Junior High drop out who has been having a blast making fun of it. The fact others are jumping to his defense shows that you guys will not concede anything, even a ridiculous indefensible statement.All while accusing us of being closed minded.In other circles we call this dogmatic, radical or even *GASP* brain washed.Please continue, it make sthe rest of your points clearer to understand

[speedz99 145]

fyp

Although that's no crazier than what you believe, I didn't know that and see your point.

[crowTrobot 2]

No but getting larger percentages helps cut across more lines.Seeing as how the original point was a poll on the whole world, then theres a lot of lines that need represented.Until the sample size picks random people in all areas of the world, then either the number's are fudged ( Dawkinized ) or they are inaquate to base any silly notion on.The fact here is that a person on the evolution side of the argument, misspoke. Making a blanket statement with no facts and not a shred of proof. Rather than admit they were wrong, they dragged this out, to the delight of this Junior High drop out who has been having a blast making fun of it.

i didn't mispeak. around a year ago i remember reading about a 140 country poll (gallup i thought) with evolution belief at 50%+ overall, but to this point i haven't been able to find a link for it. so if it makes you happy i'll retract the original statement about the "world" whatever it was, for now since it's unimportant. i believe my original point was that there are more people that believe in evolution world-wide than there are christians, which is certainly the case. you can conservatively imply somewhere between 1/2 a billion and a billion evolution believers just from the general areas represented in the chart, and most other countries in the world have at least a sizeable portion of their populations receiving the same science education taught in the countries listed in the chart. this started because you have the gross misconception that evolution is some sort of fringe belief, and i am trying to show just how ignorant that is. and the chart by the way is directly from an article in 'science' magazine, a very prestigious publication. dawkins had nothing to do with it.

[crowTrobot 2]

Because he believes in life being planted on earth by space aliens and has stated so in a recent documentary

this is a lie.

[speedz99 145]

fyp

Although that's no crazier than what you believe, I didn't know that and see your point.

this is a lie.

Lol...you'd think that I would've learned whose facts I can trust around here.For the record, BG, Dawkins stated that the alien seeding thing is in the realm of possibility for the creation of life on this planet, not that it's what he actually believes happened.

[Loismustdie 0]

i didn't mispeak. around a year ago i remember reading about a 140 country poll (gallup i thought) with evolution belief at 50%+ overall, but to this point i haven't been able to find a link for it. so if it makes you happy i'll retract the original statement about the "world" whatever it was, for now since it's unimportant. i believe my original point was that there are more people that believe in evolution world-wide than there are christians, which is certainly the case. you can conservatively imply somewhere between 1/2 a billion and a billion evolution believers just from the general areas represented in the chart, and most other countries in the world have at least a sizeable portion of their populations receiving the same science education taught in the countries listed in the chart. this started because you have the gross misconception that evolution is some sort of fringe belief, and i am trying to show just how ignorant that is. and the chart by the way is directly from an article in 'science' magazine, a very prestigious publication. dawkins had nothing to do with it.

Not to play your part here, but numbers don't mean dick, and you know it. Wasn't that long ago we all thought the earth was flat. That's not to say that evolution doesn't occur. It's clear that it does. The issue, if it's even an issue, considering the fact that I don't care if you believe in God or don't and you very much are vested in my belief or disbelief, the issue is that evolution as much as you would like to pretend that it doesn't does usurp God as creator because it tries to take the route of proving that he is not neccessary for creation, which in a back door type way then turns former believers against God. Which is fine, I have no problem with that. Do your thing, each can make his or her own choice. But, that being said, lets not pretend that evolution and it's driving force is not trying to replace God by making him an afterthought because it very much it is. What bothers me, and continues to an always will, is that neither side can prove that God either does or doesn't exist, this goes for any God or the christian God, neither can prove it, but it's perfectly okay for your side to say that you are right and degrade believers, even go so far as to disown/fire believers from teaching positions, based on your belief in an idea that you cannot prove. Why is that acceptable? I thought "ideas" was the whole idea? I see no reason to believe science isn't capable of squashing other "ideas" seeing that it is more than willing to squash this one, so why should I trust it any more than I should the catholic church? Truth is science can be bought and sold as much as religion can. (See global warming, CFC's, Ozone layer, etc. Pick your cause, and run with it.) I lol'ed at Dawkins seedling comment- I think it's funny that THAT is a possibility, but God is not. I also think it's very telling how he believes that alien life forms are very possible yet highly unlikely that they are smarter or as evolved as us, if you want a painting of they why atheists are the way they are it's in that statement, because it's not so much a lack of a belief in God it's the erroneous belief that we are all that and a bag of chips. I believe one of the reaosns was,"Out of all those radio signals why haven't they answered us back?" The answer could easily be the same as why I always, without fail drive by the insane asylum in central phoenix, because I have no interest in communicating with them. The answer could easily be that these aliens, if they exist, just don't feel the need to reach out to those as lowly as us. We could very easily be intelligent beings project 32, dumb as **** set, and Projects 1 through 31 are pointing and laughing right now at our stupidity. It's easily within the realm of possibility that are intelligence is actually on a scale not known to us is somewhere between throwing shit and spanking it in public. Except, not with Dawkins, because his system starts with him and his boys as the best, numero uno on the intelliegence scale.

[crowTrobot 2]

Not to play your part here, but numbers don't mean dick, and you know it. Wasn't that long ago we all thought the earth was flat.

i wasn't arguing that they do, i was arguing that evolution isn't a fringe belief. but i certainly could argue that numbers mean something when it comes to long-term-surviving beliefs that are the result of modern science. but that would be stating the obvious

because it tries to take the route of proving that he is not neccessary for creation

in the same way science goes about its business without worrying about whether pink unicorns are necessary to explain gravity, yes. god is not a precondition any more than pink unicorns are. "god" is just a hypothesis that requires evidence if science is going to take it seriously and incorporate the concept in the directions it takes.

I lol'ed at Dawkins seedling comment- I think it's funny that THAT is a possibility, but God is not.

dawkins has never said "god" is impossible.what's funny is you think it's somehow logical that god seeding life on earth is more likely than aliens doing it.

[speedz99 145]

dawkins has never said "god" is impossible.

Exactly. He just says that it's so unlikely that it's ridiculous for people to believe in god with 100% certainty. Big difference.

[Loismustdie 0]

i wasn't arguing that they do, i was arguing that evolution isn't a fringe belief. but i certainly could argue that numbers mean something when it comes to long-term-surviving beliefs that are the result of modern science. but that would be stating the obvious in the same way science goes about its business without worrying about whether pink unicorns are necessary to explain gravity, yes. god is not a precondition any more than pink unicorns are. "god" is just a hypothesis that requires evidence if science is going to take it seriously and incorporate the concept in the directions it takes. dawkins has never said "god" is impossible.what's funny is you think it's somehow logical that god seeding life on earth is more likely than aliens doing it.

No, I just don't have a problem with calling the alien God. WTF is the difference? Nobody can explain what and why, so what is the harm in calling the what and why God? You think I care what an organization that can be bought and sold thinks about God? I notice you won't touch THAT with a ten foot pole. Science is as corrupt as any religion could ever be. Of course, it's just individuals, so it sure would be wrong for me to hold the whole idea responsible, but you do it to my side, so I might as well go ahead and jump on that band wagon.

[Loismustdie 0]

Exactly. He just says that it's so unlikely that it's ridiculous for people to believe in god with 100% certainty. Big difference.

He may be the smartest guy in hell. Whoopee.

[Balloon guy 158]

what's funny is you think it's somehow logical that god seeding life on earth is more likely than aliens doing it.

Quoted for awesomnessOnly not how you meant it

[Balloon guy 158]

i didn't mispeak. around a year ago i remember reading about a 140 country poll (gallup i thought) with evolution belief at 50%+ overall, but to this point i haven't been able to find a link for it. so if it makes you happy i'll retract the original statement about the "world" whatever it was, for now since it's unimportant. i believe my original point was that there are more people that believe in evolution world-wide than there are christians, which is certainly the case. you can conservatively imply somewhere between 1/2 a billion and a billion evolution believers just from the general areas represented in the chart, and most other countries in the world have at least a sizeable portion of their populations receiving the same science education taught in the countries listed in the chart. this started because you have the gross misconception that evolution is some sort of fringe belief, and i am trying to show just how ignorant that is. and the chart by the way is directly from an article in 'science' magazine, a very prestigious publication. dawkins had nothing to do with it.

As Lois said that doesn't really mean anything.And you yourself have shown that the word evolution doesn't mean what others think it means, it has a variety of meanings, giving the end result of your 'belief' that half the world believes in it, less value.If there is such a thing as value.Heck I believe in evolution, micro evolution. Not interspecies evolution though. So do I believe in evolution? or not?

[Balloon guy 158]

Exactly. He just says that it's so unlikely that it's ridiculous for people to believe in god with 100% certainty. Big difference.

I am waiting for the math that proves how unlikely God is.The math on the improbabilty of sponteneous life forming from nothing was pretty high. What with the hundred of amino acids, proteins, and other cool things needed. Randomly formed and mixed at room temperature with a lighting bolt for energy. Oh and timed to coincide with a hospitable environment with oxygen (that kills many of the needed parts)I look forward to the equation placed on God's probability.I'm sure it will be based on deep science and hard values, with no bias, just pure science.

[Balloon guy 158]

Lol...you'd think that I would've learned whose facts I can trust around here.For the record, BG, Dawkins stated that the alien seeding thing is in the realm of possibility for the creation of life on this planet, not that it's what he actually believes happened.

Just saw the movie, Expelled. What little Dickie said was he believed some form of intelligence probably helped.I guess the ID people were right?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I am waiting for the math that proves how unlikely God is.The math on the improbabilty of sponteneous life forming from nothing was pretty high. What with the hundred of amino acids, proteins, and other cool things needed. Randomly formed and mixed at room temperature with a lighting bolt for energy. Oh and timed to coincide with a hospitable environment with oxygen (that kills many of the needed parts)I look forward to the equation placed on God's probability.I'm sure it will be based on deep science and hard values, with no bias, just pure science.

It's not about god being improbable. Obviously it's impossible to put "odds" on whether or not there is a god. Rather, the idea is that inserting a god to explain the unexplainable becomes more and more unnecessary as we understand the universe better and better. As we get closer and closer to the ultimate truth, the role of god becomes more and more limited.

[crowTrobot 2]

Just saw the movie, Expelled. What little Dickie said was he believed some form of intelligence probably helped.I guess the ID people were right?

then they edited or used a quote out of context because he has stated the opposite (improbable) in every book he's ever written on the subject. this happens all the time to him.

[crowTrobot 2]

The math on the improbabilty of sponteneous life forming from nothing was pretty high. What with the hundred of amino acids, proteins, and other cool things needed. Randomly formed and mixed at room temperature with a lighting bolt for energy. Oh and timed to coincide with a hospitable environment with oxygen (that kills many of the needed parts)

creationist propaganda - nobody believes the building blocks of life could have "randomly formed and mixed" into complex cells. we don't know how improbable abiogenesis is because we don't understand the processes that might have been involved. it could well have been some self-organizational mechanical process similar to natural selection building from very simple pre-life to complex cells over gradual incremental steps taking a billion years (or more if it happened elsewhere than earth).

am waiting for the math that proves how unlikely God is.

then write up an equation for how unlikely pink unicorns are. insert god for pink unicorn. the amounts of evidence for and against are about the same for both (assuming you'll only settle for a personal intervening god and not a deistic disinterested version).