US ambassador killed over a film

[kandrathe]

No, I'm sorry, I really do. I can keep linking stuff, but in your desire to want to prove me wrong, you are just going to keep on going through and finding your own reasons why you can't look at it objectively. The Ads, or One of the polls that they used in an article with over 70 citations points at something that you just don't agree with, and as such, the whole thing is a sham, because you don't want it to.

No, what I'm saying is that I know religious people of many faiths, and Christianity in particular very well. Even then, mostly, even the most ardent literalist isn't against most science or the scientific method. They are against some specific science that contradicts their beliefs. For those that are strict adherents to the literal truth of their book (Koran, or Bible, or Torah), i.e. the fundamentalists, they don't even go there - in their view they don't even bother to make up stuff, they just defer to it being a mystery.

70+ sources, and you found one that you don't like. SHOCKER!

No, I investigate the wiki articles sources -- Here is a link to that particular question in better context -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republ...onism.aspx

What is more interesting is how there has been very little movement over 26 years. By extrapolation then, this "Them" of Young Earth Creationists turns out to be between 43% and 47% of Americans who chose option 3 of the three choices. So let me ask you... Did the moon 1) coalesce from solar debris with the earth, 2) result from a large body impact to the earth, or 3) fly by and get captured by the earths gravitation? Does it describe the complexity of the possible cosmological explanations? Not even close. What would a phone survey of 1500 people reveal to you?

How would you square it with this poll question? http://www.gallup.com/poll/19558/paranor...-some.aspx

I objected to the notion that a single Gallup poll question can be used to explain peoples complexity of positions on the topic of science and creation. I do data research and analysis. I create surveys, and understand their VAST limitations. Usually, the answers just lead to more, and better questions.

A whois report is a pretty terrible judge of what someone or something stands for really...

That is your opinion. When I see the root domain like that, I get suspicious.

Young Earth Creationist = Them. ... And if it falls under "the umbrella" of Young Earth Creationist, then I'm sorry, their views stand directly in defiance of observed science. Of course their views are going to vary. They aren't robots, they are human beings. But, If they fit the definition of a Young Earth Creationist (And I'm not talking Old Earth Creationists, or Divine Directed Evolutionists, I'm talking about YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS They oppose science.

Ok. Are you trying to convince me that 43% and 47% of Americans are actively opposed to science?

YOU SAID That they don't oppose Science. I refuted your point.

I don't see it that way. I think your brush is way too broad, which is what I attempted to make clear originally.

Rationalizing why they do it, doesn't make the point change.

I'm not rationalizing why they do it... I'm saying Kentucky isn't Manhattan. I'm sure I could find a municipality in California that has legalized nudity. What's it got to do with the price of tea in China?

Here is the State of Kentucky DOE science curriculum requirements -- http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instruct...l/Science/

How are they anti-science?

... I'm critical of their practices. I'm critical of the man interjected BS that they pass off as doctrine. I'm critical of the whack jobs that are just as extremist as those in other religions. ...

These are your opinions and prejudices. I'm not just talking about just your words. Around this place, you'd think any non-atheist is a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, idiot. Your invective just adds to the cacophony of prejudice and over generalization.

If you tell me that the Christian Church doesn't have a subset of believers who are Young Earth Creationists who oppose the teaching of science. Again, I'm going to tell you that I don't agree with you, and I'm going to give you examples.

There was a subset of the Christian Church that believed Aliens were coming back for them, and that in order to evacuate the planet to board the space ship trailing the comet Hale-Bop they need to all commit ritual suicide. I'm sure there are a subset of the 43-47% of Americans you call YEC who are real activist troublemakers, especially when it comes to text books and evolution, but it doesn't mean the vast preponderance of Christians are anti-science.

In fact, according to this poll, http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/s...-religion/

Over 50% of scientists believe in God or a higher power. Probably not (openly at least) those in the fields of evolutionary biology.

If you tell me that the Christian Church's Denominations don't engage in the practice of Proof Texting scripture as a way of setting Doctrine. Again, I'm going to tell you that I don't agree with you, and I'm going to give you examples.

As evidenced weekly on the Lounge, we all can be guilty of taking things out of context, such as that question within the Gallup poll.

But here is my example.

Yes, that is far too complex a topic to get into in this thread. Suffice it to say, I understand it. My example is more basic to the obscenity of conspicuous wealth, and the lack of charity. To the fundamental calling of "Christians" to follow in his example. I would say it's the rare Christian who is "Christian" in deed and creed.

This is the method of proof texting that I speak about. This is my frustration.

Which is not that common in my experience, but then again, I'm in the ivory tower of higher ed. That kind of intellectual dishonesty, poor sourcing, and out of context interpretation just doesn't fly in any discipline. Which is why, perhaps, I've landed here. I'm more comfortable where people deal in lucid, rational discussions.