If we are all descended from Noah ...

Wow,Made my statement look pretty pale. That is a great way of putting what I believe. Where did you get that? Is there a source.I have not made it to all the threads, it takes time, to get through all of them.Laters------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Wow,

​

Made my statement look pretty pale. That is a great way of putting what I believe. Where did you get that? Is there a source.

​

I have not made it to all the threads, it takes time, to get through all of them.

​

Laters

​

---

It is a passage out of one of my favorite SF novels. "Butterfly and Hellflower", by Eluki Bes Shahar, 1993(?), published by DAW Books. It is a three in one book collection.http://www.sff.net/people/eluki/bib.htm[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-19-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Me:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
/B]

---

​

I am amazed! Does your church not follow ALL the the Divine-Inspired requirements for salvation? My friend, you have fallen victim to the blandishments of a false religion. Repent, and change your ways, lest you be sucked into the Eternal Damnation that surely awaits those equivocators who pick and choose at the Holy Words which God Himself has taught us. You are truly 'Error-Ridden' - on what basis do you presume to choose to ignore Holy Commandment?

​

WS: You apparently have little knowledge of the requirement for salvation in Christ. It is very simple, being a lifestyle of faith: belief in (upon) Jesus Christ as Son of God-Savior; repentance of sin (initially and continually, obeying the commands of Christ); public confession of belief (minimum) by submitting to water baptism, signifying what has occurred inwardly, being baptized into Christ by the Spirit. All of that is a matter of faith in the unseen God. The matter of repentance is even entirely of faith, since no man can do that of himself, requiring intervention from God, the power of the indwelling Spirit through Christ, which the law could not help us with.

​

If you refer to the Old Testament laws, those don't apply to Christians since they were fulfilled in Christ. We follow new commandments issued by Christ, which are actually the flip-side of the law, by analogy the two sides of a coin representing the same value, together, but opposite in position. The law is mostly prohibition and condemnation. The teachings of Christ present the corresponding postitive actions that are infinitely above prohibition, offering things to do, not majoring on what not to do.
While the Bible is truth, it reports many things that are true (things said, events, etc.), but not truth, such as the bad advice of Job's 'friends'. Even lies are reported in the Bible, issued from the mouths of actors in stories. In the case of many instructions within the Bible, it is stated they apply to some, but are not required, expressed this way: 1 Cor. 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

​

Some instructions are offered that MAY be carried out that people might be saved that otherwise might not be reached, such as when Paul took the Nazarite vow with the student priests. Those kinds of examples are not required of Christians, but are options should we be led to utilize. Proper Bible exegesis sorts out those things by studying entire contexts, and comparing similar teachings in other contexts within the Bible. Since most Christians don't apply themselves to that process, we have preachers and teachers who do, according to provision of the Lord in establishing those ministries and others.

​

quote:

---

[Bold]
WS: Contrarily, the more people become "educated" in the secular, the farther they seem to go away from God. Education has value, but too much of it results in exposure to unbelief and a washing away of subtle truths. Peole become distracted, mired down in the affairs of life, missing the quiet voice of the Spirit.

---

​

See? Even you understand the need to return to a simpler life, though you 'see through a glass, darkly'.
It is obvious that the culture of the ancient Middle-East produced a truer, more holy existence. Why else would God chose to reveal Himself to Man only at this time? We have been seduced by the devil ever since, and are falling into the Pit from which there will be no relief, only Everlasting Fire and Torture (see Revelations).WS: I don't advocate going backwards while the world moves on widening the gap of credibility. Christians are mandated by command of the Lord Jesus Christ to go into the world and evangelize people, making disciples of them. That requires minimal entry into appropriate technology for the sake of communication and opportunity, while not becoming an integral, inseparable part of the kosmos. We are not permitted to turn out backs on the world system, but to seek the salvation of those in bondage to it, while not becoming ensnared ourselves. Nobody in that system will know to abandon it and seek that "simpler" life without help from God, the news of which is delivered by preaching the gospel of Christ.That 'holy experience' was no doubt pristine in ancient times freshly related to the dramitic revelations and demonstrations of divinity. But the God of those things also promised the same experiences to all future generations, especially the last generation entering into the last days before the millinnial reign of Christ on earth.God revealed himself to the first man and to each generation thereafter. The Bible accounts for that interaction with few gaps in the several millennia. Those gaps are just not recorded, such as are concerning the Dark Ages, with no proof there was no revelation or interaction of God in those days.The time for Christ to reveal himself in his day was the first perfect time, made possible by the societal benefits of the settled Roman Empire. Travel was free and extensive, and people were free to pursue their agendas as long as they submitted to authority of Rome by not making trouble in their own country or against Rome. He came at a time the Jewish prophecies looked for him, and even the Maji had calculated the time. There are many reasons for the timing.As for your last statement, Christians don't believe that, except that rebels are deceived continually by the devil, and are hell bound, though salvation for them is in their mouths. They have only to believe and confess, repent of sin, and persevere to the end. Christians, and I mean those people in covenant with God through Christ in biblical terms (some precepts are in the OT mirrored in the NT, most are in the NT), are not in bondage to sin or the devil, and will not be harmed should they taste of the horror of the Tribulation of Revelation. Most believe they will be spared all of that, some hoping to be taken out in what they call the "Rapture", others believing they will be hidden while unrepentant sinners can't hide from the wrath to come. In any case, wrath from God is not for Christians who are judged already in this life, by our own submission to judge ourselves and agree with God's Word concerning our own wickedness and need of his salvation of grace through faith.[This message has been edited by Me, 09-18-2002][This message has been edited by Me, 09-18-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

That was just the first (not the only) poll I found in direct contradiction to your bogus numbers.

---

WS: We learned much about the pollsters during the last presidential election. The ones I trust are statistically sound, which tend to net similar results. The pollsters with clear agendas, and organizations that purchase polls in support of their agends, are not taken seriously here. It's wise to examine their methods, how they select targets, and how they construct questions. For instance, the incredible pollsters call making a short statement like "we are certain most good Americans like yourself would not wish to be part of slaughter of innocent animals, so would you say you are strongly against commercialization of animals for meat production, moderately against it,... or strongly in favor of the slaughter of innocent animals?" I responded to such a poll recently. I wish I had recorded it. Most people would not say they were in favor of that scenario, but upon hanging up would resume consuming meat. What the pollsters want is what they will likely get, in this case a majority of Americans 'moderately opposing commerical slughter houses', but in reality most do consume meat without regrets and don't support PETA.

quote:

---

You are in absolutely no position to speak for all Americans either by the way.

---

WS: I am not trying to do that, but can come closer to the average American sentiments than you can in Germany.

quote:

---

But then you will only accept polls that support your view and dismiss all others obviously. I guess that limits you to polling creationists as to whether they believe in creationism...

---

WS: Contrarily, I find many times those credible pollsters report bad news about Christians in America, such as the embarassing numbers about Bible reading among people claiming to be Christian. I do reject polls known to be biased. All polls are ordered and paid for by some group or individual, so it is necessary to examine the groups.
For instance, Barna was commissioned by a consortium of many Christian denominations tht are basically competing. Since the results both please and displeased every denomination, I can believe their poll was accurate, being unbiased, overall being a less than excellent report on the American Church collectively.Several secular pollsers have tackled the evolution/creation issue because it stimulates interest and business. The ones most trusted in America have consistently reported similar results, that America remains about equally divided over the issue, with a slight increase in desire for teaching both subjects. It appears to me they don't particularly want students learning one over another, but do think its time the student is prepared to discuss the issue intelligently, not blindsided by some one knowledgeable in both sides. Most Americans who think they believe in either one couldn't give two or three accurate reasons why, except to appeal to some authoritative source, such as "our old textbooks wouldn't be wrong, would they", or "I believe whatever the Bible says about it, whatever that is, I forgot". It's just something they quiclkly forget if they don't entertain it often in their post education years.I have read many articles about this problem, both from evolutionist sites, and creationist sites, deploring the lack of science knowledge among Americans. He pollsters have since begun asking people their education level, income and profession, revealing that the better educated do have more reasons for believing the way they do, but the split remains the same until those of academia are examined, where the majority believe in evolution and have many reasons for their belief. But keep in mind they are all averaged to conclude the nation is split slightly in favor of creation.[Fixed poor quoting technique. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-20-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Me:
Sorry - this is a field I know little about. I was intrigued by the reference to transportation!I think you might be wrong about Worship on the Sabbath - I think that not turning up to church still sends you to hell. But who decides which of the inerrant words of God can be ignored due to 'cultural' reasons? I would have thought that this drives a bit of a hole through fundamentalism?[/B][/QUOTE]WS: By transportation, I include everything concerning travel, such as on the Sabbath, and what sort of animals one may ride, etc. The Sabbath was a sign for the Hebrews concerning their own covenant. Christians have a new covenant as prophesied would come after the prophesied collapse of the old covenant. That is why Jesus, a Rabbi- BTW, knew it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath, and collect grain in passing on journey on the sabbath, eating food collected on that day of the week, since David did it with blessing while pursued by Saul, as recounted by Jesus. David and his band of warriors ate the shewbread reserved for priests to avoid perishing from hunger, given them by the priest. In the days of Jesus the Pharisees had made almost a new religion around the Sabbath, making it a burden on the people instead of a rest. The sabbath 'enhanced rules' got so bad the Jews couldn't respond to an invasion on the sabbath since they were forbidden to journey or work in sny way that day, allowing Jerusalem to be overrun without resistance, another example of error in doctrine concerning transportation on the sabbath. It didn't come from God. The sabbath he instituted for Israel was for the benefit of man, not for God.The Christian 'sabbath' has been Sunday since they worshipped on the day of the Resurrection, which could not possibly be Saturday. But staying out of Church has no bearing on going to hell. People in India have been converting to Christianity, but have no churches. They meet in fields under trees, or huts, sometimes in churches, and on days they can manage it, attempting to meet on Sundays if possible. It isn't a "works" thing, but faith. What matters is a clean heart in Christ.Paul decided most of the cultural pecularities by clear statements as to what is required, what is advisable, what is wise or unwise, what is not at all adhered to. All the apostles did meet at the council at Jerusalem early on to decide whether they would retain male circumcision, and other laws demanded by Jewish converts, that the Gentile beleivers should adhere to at least some of the major doctrines of the Jews. Peter and the others compromised in Acts 15 to command the Church to avoid fornication, strangled meat, and consuming blood as the pagans liked to do, out of respect for their Jewish brethren, who BTW were the sum and total of the Church the first 7 years after Pentecost. Nobody had a cow over that, being quite reasonable and in harmony with the teachings of Christ.[This message has been edited by Wordswordsman, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
As far as I'm concerned they either have to accept the entire bible as the literal inerrant word of their god and obey all of it, or not at all. There is no middle ground with something like this. There are far too many Cut&Paste Christians around who only follow the good parts and ignore all of the nasty bits.

---

WS: Since you are not part of that, your opinion is pointless, ey? If you were right, then I would have to carry this out concerning you if I could catch you in the field:
1 Kings 18:40
And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.Or, I might be forced to comply with 1 Kings 22:53
For he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done.and bow to Baal. Silly.Or maybe go kill some homosexuals in the gay bar downtown: Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.Or kill some incestuous/adulterous folks: Leviticus 20:11
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.But, I learned in the New Testament those laws were not possibly kept, seeing that lacking in one left the "lawkeeper" guilty of all. The law was given to define what sin was. Notice that God mercifully added the commandments of sacrifice to cover the lack of lawkeeping, finally supplying His own Son as the final sacrifice. Jesus came to introduce the love of God, making it possible for me to hate the sin, but minister with love to the sinner, no matter how sinful. I must administer the good news of Christ as well as warn of the far more hazardous ultimate end and punishment of unrepentant sinners, far more disastrous than being stoned to death in this life.Obviously there are many things in the Bible that were true events, and were the current commandments of God, and that were sometimes quoted lies necessary for a story to be told with understanding. No reasonable student of the Bible would want to keep the sayings of Job's friends, though some Christians have taken their words as instructions for life ignorantly until they figured it out or were told of the contradictions between their bad advice, and what God had to say about life.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002][/B][/QUOTE][Added missing close quote. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-20-2002]

Sniff, sniff??? That smell is really getting bad. Someone should see a doctor about that gas problem.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:The point about the Sabbath is that the OT specifies that the seventh day is the day of rest. This is Saturday, as reckoned by the Jews have been tracking it since before the rise of Christianity and upon whose religion Christianity is supposedly founded. Yet nowhere does the bible change the day of worship to Sunday. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe this change was made by the Romans when Christianity was adopted as state religion, to align the Christian holy day with certain pagan holy days.[/B][/QUOTE]WS: It was sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.Consider this:
Mark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.The Sabbath was past, Sunday was that day of the resurrection of Christ.Acts 20:7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.That same day was the pattern for believers to meet on, with some exceptions. In the first centuries some Christians kept both Saturday and Sunday, in respect of Judaism and their own lineage of the Jews/Israel/Judah. Constatine ended that by decree, being an improper compromise, Saturday having to do with the second day Jesus was in the tomb. There was nothing to celebrate about that.Some few Christian sects adhere to this day to a Saturday Sabbath, which is not harmful unless they teach a person has taken the mark of the beast by worshipping on Sunday. According to Paul there is no holy day or holy month in God's eyes.Col. 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:Read the context if in doubt...Every day is holy and should be appreciated before Him. It is simply custom, not by commandment, we worship on any one day. It has always been considerd better to have our own day. Many Christians still attend Jewish worship on Saturdays, church on Sunday, out of love for the Jews and a desire to demonstrate the love of Christ in a special way. But it is obviously beneficial for Christians to have at least one specific day a week universally agreed as the time for corporate worship without having to set days along the way. Most of the world conditions precludes random days because of the difficulty of getting out the word as to changes. Throngs of people all over the world are in the habit of journeying once weekly to churches or meetings near or more likely far away, every Sunday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Sniff, sniff??? That smell is really getting bad. Someone should see a doctor about that gas problem.

---

WS: Sounds like a real problem. First, try wiping your upper lip. Odors don't travel through etherspace, you know, so it obviously originates with you or someone around you in that room. Perish the thought, it could be gangrene gas leaking from your ears. It happens when organs, such as the brain, begins to die. Excess bitterness coupled with habitual unrepentant lying kills both body and soul. Better start praying for your health to be restored, and improve your personal care.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:

quote:

---

That was just the first (not the only) poll I found in direct contradiction to your bogus numbers.

---

​

WS: We learned much about the pollsters during the last presidential election. The ones I trust are statistically sound, which tend to net similar results.

---

Do personally have any background in statistics with which to evaluate what is or is not statistically sound? How do you know polls that net similar results are not affected by the same biases?The pollsters with clear agendas, and organizations that purchase polls in support of their agends, are not taken seriously here.So you would have to eliminate all polls by religious organizationsIt's wise to examine their methods, how they select targets, and how they construct questions. For instance, the incredible pollsters call making a short statement like "we are certain most good Americans like yourself would not wish to be part of slaughter of innocent animals, so would you say you are strongly against commercialization of animals for meat production, moderately against it,... or strongly in favor of the slaughter of innocent animals?" I responded to such a poll recently. I wish I had recorded it. Most people would not say they were in favor of that scenario, but upon hanging up would resume consuming meat. What the pollsters want is what they will likely get, in this case a majority of Americans 'moderately opposing commerical slughter houses', but in reality most do consume meat without regrets and don't support PETA.Actually, I don't completely disagree with what you say in this paragraph. When I see a poll that says 70% of Americans support this or that I think it is heavily dependent on how the question is phrased. And the whole point of my posting the poll results I found was to indicate that you can find polls that support whatever you want and that using google is hardly a way to research a subject.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are in absolutely no position to speak for all Americans either by the way.

---

​

WS: I am not trying to do that, but can come closer to the average American sentiments than you can in Germany.

---

I don't think that is necessarily accurate. Most Germans I meet are far better educated in history (including American) than most Americans. There is also far better news coverage of both U.S. and world events here. I come from New York and you are in Arizona...do you think you are a better judge of "American" sentiments in New York where I still have regular contact with a variety of people than me?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But then you will only accept polls that support your view and dismiss all others obviously. I guess that limits you to polling creationists as to whether they believe in creationism...

---

​

WS: Contrarily, I find many times those credible pollsters report bad news about Christians in America, such as the embarassing numbers about Bible reading among people claiming to be Christian. I do reject polls known to be biased.

---

What is your criteria for distinguishing biased versus unbiased polling and please be specific.All polls are ordered and paid for by some group or individual, so it is necessary to examine the groups.
For instance, Barna was commissioned by a consortium of many Christian denominations tht are basically competing. Since the results both please and displeased every denomination, I can believe their poll was accurate, being unbiased, overall being a less than excellent report on the American Church collectively.It is also formally possible that this was a political tactic in order to avoid showing preference for one denomination which would also obscure the truth.

quote:

---

Several secular pollsers have tackled the evolution/creation issue because it stimulates interest and business. The ones most trusted in America have consistently reported similar results, that America remains about equally divided over the issue, with a slight increase in desire for teaching both subjects.

---

Could you please list those polls? I would be interested in reading them and their methodology...also the state by state breakdowns, education level differences etc...just out of curiosity.

quote:

---

It appears to me they don't particularly want students learning one over another, but do think its time the student is prepared to discuss the issue intelligently, not blindsided by some one knowledgeable in both sides. Most Americans who think they believe in either one couldn't give two or three accurate reasons why, except to appeal to some authoritative source, such as "our old textbooks wouldn't be wrong, would they", or "I believe whatever the Bible says about it, whatever that is, I forgot".

---

I don't know anyone in paleontology or molecular biology who when asked to support evolution relies on a statement like "textbooks cannot be wrong". In fact due to budget constraints many science classrooms use incredibly outdated textbooks which are full of errors in all branches of science.It's just something they quiclkly forget if they don't entertain it often in their post education years.I for one will not be past my post education years until I die

quote:

---

I have read many articles about this problem, both from evolutionist sites, and creationist sites, deploring the lack of science knowledge among Americans.

---

You won't get any argument from me on the subject of lack of science education in America (and in many countries for that matter). Germans are better in terms of scientific education for example but better does not mean great either.

quote:

---

He pollsters have since begun asking people their education level, income and profession, revealing that the better educated do have more reasons for believing the way they do, but the split remains the same until those of academia are examined, where the majority believe in evolution and have many reasons for their belief. But keep in mind they are all averaged to conclude the nation is split slightly in favor of creation.

---

However, we don't have a system that uses the tyranny of the majority in making decisions (which is good for both you and me as would you want someone with a different religion to force theirs on you?) and science is not a democratic process of building a consensus.Cheers,
M[Fixed poor quoting technique. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:

quote:

---

That was just the first (not the only) poll I found in direct contradiction to your bogus numbers.

---

​

​

WS: We learned much about the pollsters during the last presidential election. The ones I trust are statistically sound, which tend to net similar results.

---

​

​

Do personally have any background in statistics with which to evaluate what is or is not statistically sound? How do you know polls that net similar results are not affected by the same biases?

---

WS: I had two statistics courses in college, elementary statistics, and intermediate statistics. But it isn't necessary to know anything about that application for this purpose. All the pollsters have been analyzed by statisticians who try to grade them according to their methods. That got really hot when the polls began to favor Bush over Gore, then some polls suddenly arose favoring Gore. Questioning that, it became evident some polls were manipulated out of desperation to win the race. Now, the more credible polls post the basis of their polls, providing the certified facts of how they collect their data. You have to be willing to subscribe to get that information now, starting off free.

quote:

---

The pollsters with clear agendas, and organizations that purchase polls in support of their agends, are not taken seriously here.

​

So you would have to eliminate all polls by religious organizations

---

WS: Not if they commission credible pollsters. The pollsters form the questions and conduct the survey to preserve their own credibility. If they mess up too much, people stop hiring them. The client may sumbit requests for answers to certain questions, but those questions are framed by the pollsters. However, leading questions are not proper, recognized by people like Gallup.

quote:

---

It's wise to examine their methods, how they select targets, and how they construct questions. For instance, the incredible pollsters call making a short statement like "we are certain most good Americans like yourself would not wish to be part of slaughter of innocent animals, so would you say you are strongly against commercialization of animals for meat production, moderately against it,... or strongly in favor of the slaughter of innocent animals?" I responded to such a poll recently. I wish I had recorded it. Most people would not say they were in favor of that scenario, but upon hanging up would resume consuming meat. What the pollsters want is what they will likely get, in this case a majority of Americans 'moderately opposing commerical slughter houses', but in reality most do consume meat without regrets and don't support PETA.

​

Actually, I don't completely disagree with what you say in this paragraph. When I see a poll that says 70% of Americans support this or that I think it is heavily dependent on how the question is phrased. And the whole point of my posting the poll results I found was to indicate that you can find polls that support whatever you want and that using google is hardly a way to research a subject.

---

WS: All you are likely to find on the internet (free) is reports on poll results, not actual data from the polls. But when organizations such as news agencies report the data, it is normally factual if the various organizations agree.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are in absolutely no position to speak for all Americans either by the way.

---

​

WS: I am not trying to do that, but can come closer to the average American sentiments than you can in Germany.

---

​

I don't think that is necessarily accurate. Most Germans I meet are far better educated in history (including American) than most Americans. There is also far better news coverage of both U.S. and world events here. I come from New York and you are in Arizona...do you think you are a better judge of "American" sentiments in New York where I still have regular contact with a variety of people than me?

---

WS: Unfortunately you are still not all that familiar with the USA. The 'AR' is for Arkansas, not Arizona ('AZ'). Now how can you be so certain Germans are more knowledgeable of American history? By what standard of comparison? As for your question, I've been in pretty good contact this year with New Yorkers by involvement in 911 discussion groups which are heavily represented by them, plus we view the frequent interviews and opinions of those people on tv.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But then you will only accept polls that support your view and dismiss all others obviously. I guess that limits you to polling creationists as to whether they believe in creationism...

---

​

WS: Contrarily, I find many times those credible pollsters report bad news about Christians in America, such as the embarassing numbers about Bible reading among people claiming to be Christian. I do reject polls known to be biased.

---

​

What is your criteria for distinguishing biased versus unbiased polling and please be specific.

---

WS: Randomness of the sample, size of sample, and lisings of the questions asked in the sample, mainly. I also consider the client. If it is an ABC TV interactive poll, I doubt it if the program caters to political liberal viewers (which is the norm for ABC), where relatively few conservatives would be aware of the poll. Naturally, the poll would reflect the liberal viewpoint. There are almost no conservative-led interactive polls in the news orgs, found mostly in paid programming.

quote:

---

All polls are ordered and paid for by some group or individual, so it is necessary to examine the groups. For instance, Barna was commissioned by a consortium of many Christian denominations tht are basically competing. Since the results both please and displeased every denomination, I can believe their poll was accurate, being unbiased, overall being a less than excellent report on the American Church collectively.

​

It is also formally possible that this was a political tactic in order to avoid showing preference for one denomination which would also obscure the truth.

---

WS: The churches accepted the results without complaint, good or bad towards them. Facts are facts. We needed to know what is going on. The questions were generic, understanding some people might interpret them through their own doctrinal understanding, giving interesting takes on a question like "Do you believe there is a God that intervenes in the affairs of todays' societies?"

quote:

---

quote:

---

Several secular pollsers have tackled the evolution/creation issue because it stimulates interest and business. The ones most trusted in America have consistently reported similar results, that America remains about equally divided over the issue, with a slight increase in desire for teaching both subjects.

---

​

Could you please list those polls? I would be interested in reading them and their methodology...also the state by state breakdowns, education level differences etc...just out of curiosity.

---

WS: Gallup, Zogby and Harris are good ones, but there are many more. Do a search on it yourself. Mot are run by political activists and newspapers which decidedly favor one political party. It's best to stick with those that don't take official sides in anything.
Here's an interesting article: ARIANNA ONLINE - Arianna Huffington

quote:

---

quote:

---

WS It appears to me they don't particularly want students learning one over another, but do think its time the student is prepared to discuss the issue intelligently, not blindsided by some one knowledgeable in both sides. Most Americans who think they believe in either one couldn't give two or three accurate reasons why, except to appeal to some authoritative source, such as "our old textbooks wouldn't be wrong, would they", or "I believe whatever the Bible says about it, whatever that is, I forgot".

---

​

I don't know anyone in paleontology or molecular biology who when asked to support evolution relies on a statement like "textbooks cannot be wrong". In fact due to budget constraints many science classrooms use incredibly outdated textbooks which are full of errors in all branches of science.

---

WS: I am talking about the average person who got a high school education who doesn't work in the sciences. Of course a professional like you list would have a strronger basis for belief in science theories.

quote:

---

It's just something they quiclkly forget if they don't entertain it often in their post education years.

​

I for one will not be past my post education years until I die

---

WS: Americans in general couldn't give a hoot over science, aiming only at landing a good paying job or one they enjoy doing. Few of those involve science, so the subject becomes more remote with time away from the classroom years.

quote:

---

quote:

---

WS I have read many articles about this problem, both from evolutionist sites, and creationist sites, deploring the lack of science knowledge among Americans.

---

​

You won't get any argument from me on the subject of lack of science education in America (and in many countries for that matter). Germans are better in terms of scientific education for example but better does not mean great either.

---

WS: The education is offered grandly, but it just doesn't stick unless you exercise the knowledge daily. Same goes for math. Kids learn math, but when they get behind the checkout stand register, they can't make change without a computer telling them the sum owed, and they really are at a loss if you supply 2 cents to avoid getting more pennies. To save a lot of confusion, it's best to let them give you excess pennies to avoid that glare of confusion. [Fixed poor quoting technique. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-20-2002]

My nose, my nose!!!!! What has this person been eating? Must be a lot of crap to be that bad.

quote:

---

Do personally have any background in statistics with which to evaluate what is or is not statistically sound? How do you know polls that net similar results are not affected by the same biases?

---

WS: I had two statistics courses in college, elementary statistics, and intermediate statistics. But it isn't necessary to know anything about that application for this purpose. All the pollsters have been analyzed by statisticians who try to grade them according to their methods. That got really hot when the polls began to favor Bush over Gore, then some polls suddenly arose favoring Gore. Questioning that, it became evident some polls were manipulated out of desperation to win the race. Now, the more credible polls post the basis of their polls, providing the certified facts of how they collect their data. You have to be willing to subscribe to get that information now, starting off free.However, if you have not personally analyzed the questions asked, the distribution of the populations to which the questions were asked, and the raw data, you cannot really know if the polls that you believe in are credible.The pollsters with clear agendas, and organizations that purchase polls in support of their agends, are not taken seriously here.

quote:

---

So you would have to eliminate all polls by religious organizations

---

WS: Not if they commission credible pollsters. The pollsters form the questions and conduct the survey to preserve their own credibility. If they mess up too much, people stop hiring them. The client may sumbit requests for answers to certain questions, but those questions are framed by the pollsters. However, leading questions are not proper, recognized by people like Gallup.There is no criteria by which to measure. If the polls change,even radically, the polling organization (say one that is biased) can say that it was just the results they got that day..as statistical anomaly. You would have to provide evidence of an organization losing its accreditation for "messing up".

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's wise to examine their methods, how they select targets, and how they construct questions. For instance, the incredible pollsters call making a short statement like "we are certain most good Americans like yourself would not wish to be part of slaughter of innocent animals, so would you say you are strongly against commercialization of animals for meat production, moderately against it,... or strongly in favor of the slaughter of innocent animals?" I responded to such a poll recently. I wish I had recorded it. Most people would not say they were in favor of that scenario, but upon hanging up would resume consuming meat. What the pollsters want is what they will likely get, in this case a majority of Americans 'moderately opposing commerical slughter houses', but in reality most do consume meat without regrets and don't support PETA.

​

Actually, I don't completely disagree with what you say in this paragraph. When I see a poll that says 70% of Americans support this or that I think it is heavily dependent on how the question is phrased. And the whole point of my posting the poll results I found was to indicate that you can find polls that support whatever you want and that using google is hardly a way to research a subject.

---

​

WS: All you are likely to find on the internet (free) is reports on poll results, not actual data from the polls. But when organizations such as news agencies report the data, it is normally factual if the various organizations agree.

---

Have you actually gone through every poll you find credible and done this?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are in absolutely no position to speak for all Americans either by the way.

---

​

WS: I am not trying to do that, but can come closer to the average American sentiments than you can in Germany.

---

​

I don't think that is necessarily accurate. Most Germans I meet are far better educated in history (including American) than most Americans. There is also far better news coverage of both U.S. and world events here. I come from New York and you are in Arizona...do you think you are a better judge of "American" sentiments in New York where I still have regular contact with a variety of people than me?

---

​

WS: Unfortunately you are still not all that familiar with the USA. The 'AR' is for Arkansas, not Arizona ('AZ').

---

Did not have your signature line in the response field and I don't keep your details in mind...I do have more important things to do than this sometimes believe it or not But yes, I admit I mislocated you.Now how can you be so certain Germans are more knowledgeable of American history? By what standard of comparison?Easy, ask them detailed questions about political events within the last century and they can state most of the relevant facts back to you. Most know who did what in which war in Europe. Most were keenly watching most major votes that would affect the US constitution. Every major magazine and newspaper dedicates significant space to American political issues. None of this is true in the US.As for your question, I've been in pretty good contact this year with New Yorkers by involvement in 911 discussion groups which are heavily represented by them, plus we view the frequent interviews and opinions of those people on tv.That is nice but I actually LIVED there until one month before September 11th. My landlady lost her son in law as he was a fireman killed that day. I think I have a better grasp of New York than you do. Just as certainly know more about Arkansas than I do as I have never been there.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But then you will only accept polls that support your view and dismiss all others obviously. I guess that limits you to polling creationists as to whether they believe in creationism...

---

​

WS: Contrarily, I find many times those credible pollsters report bad news about Christians in America, such as the embarassing numbers about Bible reading among people claiming to be Christian. I do reject polls known to be biased.

---

​

What is your criteria for distinguishing biased versus unbiased polling and please be specific.

---

​

WS: Randomness of the sample, size of sample, and lisings of the questions asked in the sample, mainly. I also consider the client.

---

Do you actually check ALL of these points for all polls?

quote:

---

If it is an ABC TV interactive poll, I doubt it if the program caters to political liberal viewers (which is the norm for ABC), where relatively few conservatives would be aware of the poll. Naturally, the poll would reflect the liberal viewpoint. There are almost no conservative-led interactive polls in the news orgs, found mostly in paid programming.

---

Hmmm I have heard some people claim that all American media is either liberal biased or conservative biased i.e. CNN was called either the Clinton news network or the christian news network....I think ALL tv reporting in the US is crap because it is done in soundbites with no depth with overly simplistic explanations.

quote:

---

quote:

---

All polls are ordered and paid for by some group or individual, so it is necessary to examine the groups. For instance, Barna was commissioned by a consortium of many Christian denominations tht are basically competing. Since the results both please and displeased every denomination, I can believe their poll was accurate, being unbiased, overall being a less than excellent report on the American Church collectively.

​

It is also formally possible that this was a political tactic in order to avoid showing preference for one denomination which would also obscure the truth.

---

​

WS: The churches accepted the results without complaint, good or bad towards them. Facts are facts. We needed to know what is going on. The questions were generic, understanding some people might interpret them through their own doctrinal understanding, giving interesting takes on a question like "Do you believe there is a God that intervenes in the affairs of todays' societies?"

---

that they accepted without complaint is not evidence of truth. And facts are not facts in this context. How many christian denominations would you expect to answer negatively to your example question by the way?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

WS Several secular pollsers have tackled the evolution/creation issue because it stimulates interest and business. The ones most trusted in America have consistently reported similar results, that America remains about equally divided over the issue, with a slight increase in desire for teaching both subjects.

---

​

Could you please list those polls? I would be interested in reading them and their methodology...also the state by state breakdowns, education level differences etc...just out of curiosity.

---

​

WS: Gallup, Zogby and Harris are good ones, but there are many more. Do a search on it yourself. Mot are run by political activists and newspapers which decidedly favor one political party. It's best to stick with those that don't take official sides in anything.
Here's an interesting article: ARIANNA ONLINE - Arianna Huffington

---

I'll take a look at it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

WS It appears to me they don't particularly want students learning one over another, but do think its time the student is prepared to discuss the issue intelligently, not blindsided by some one knowledgeable in both sides. Most Americans who think they believe in either one couldn't give two or three accurate reasons why, except to appeal to some authoritative source, such as "our old textbooks wouldn't be wrong, would they", or "I believe whatever the Bible says about it, whatever that is, I forgot".

---

​

I don't know anyone in paleontology or molecular biology who when asked to support evolution relies on a statement like "textbooks cannot be wrong". In fact due to budget constraints many science classrooms use incredibly outdated textbooks which are full of errors in all branches of science.

---

​

WS: I am talking about the average person who got a high school education who doesn't work in the sciences. Of course a professional like you list would have a strronger basis for belief in science theories.

---

However, you seem to think it is ok for the average person who got a high school education to dictate what is taught as science in the classroom in direct opposition to science and the scientific method.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's just something they quiclkly forget if they don't entertain it often in their post education years.

​

I for one will not be past my post education years until I die

---

​

WS: Americans in general couldn't give a hoot over science, aiming only at landing a good paying job or one they enjoy doing. Few of those involve science, so the subject becomes more remote with time away from the classroom years.

---

But for some reason when it comes to biology and especially evolution those same people suddenly feel they are experts on the subject when in fact they have no clue what the theory states or what the science is that supports it. It is opposition for oppostions sake rather than a rational response....I don't go to American Chemical Society meetings and protest the fall of the Bohr model because I think it somehow conflicts with my worldview.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

WS I have read many articles about this problem, both from evolutionist sites, and creationist sites, deploring the lack of science knowledge among Americans.

---

​

You won't get any argument from me on the subject of lack of science education in America (and in many countries for that matter). Germans are better in terms of scientific education for example but better does not mean great either.

---

​

WS: The education is offered grandly, but it just doesn't stick unless you exercise the knowledge daily. Same goes for math. Kids learn math, but when they get behind the checkout stand register, they can't make change without a computer telling them the sum owed, and they really are at a loss if you supply 2 cents to avoid getting more pennies. To save a lot of confusion, it's best to let them give you excess pennies to avoid that glare of confusion.

---

LOL!...but I can't laugh to hard...I am also of the generation that is overly dependent on technology...my handwriting has deteriorated to chicken scratch since I almost exclusively use a computer...oh well, progress Cheers,
M[Fixed poor quoting technique. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-20-2002]

I read through the arianna site...does not leave one with much reason to trust ANY poll unless you have access to the raw data does it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
I read through the arianna site...does not leave one with much reason to trust ANY poll unless you have access to the raw data does it?

---

I don't actually trust polls all that much when they state that everyone holds a certain opinion yet they have only asked maybe 1000 people. I tend to trust it more when they add "Of those asked".Also, when using stats one also must factor in the motives of those presenting them as well since depending on how they are collected stats can be used to show whatever a person may want to show.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-20-2002]