Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Sad thing is, if wasn't a joke, it wouldn't be the craziest thing that was posted around here in the last few hours.
seems there is a 59% ignorance percentile here at FR....how sad.
If it can be, it will be.
You know the problem I have with that poll is the wording. It implies that creationalism is a "Science". If you say Yes then you are agreeing that it is a science. Kind of made it hard for me.
LoL! This is a joke, right?
I doubt it. Actually, it sounds pretty tame compared to a lot of what I've read on FR.
I wish we'd avoid the whole subject, and teach science, not history. It's not like high schoolers are going right into jobs as molecular biologists. Teach the esoteric stuff in college where it's not forced on our children.
But that choice wasn't in the poll, so I guess if we are GOING to teach history, might was well teach competing history as well. Evolutionists can't PROVE that God didn't make everything look just like they see it as part of his creation, so there na na na.
Polls are meaningless, but spinning them when they are likely to go the "wrong" way is just sad.
Polls are meaningless, but spinning them when they are likely to go the "wrong" way is just sad.
So questioning whether or not a poll's results are on the up and up when a previous poll on the same subject taken by the same site was exposed as completely corrupted is 'spinning'? And why do you care if you think 'Polls are meaningless'? It sounds like you're the one trying to spin, spin, spin.
No. Someone has it. Maybe he'll see your question and post it.
Well you say the previous poll was completely corrupted by people who circumvented the system, but then you say somehow we could identify who circumvented the system, "adjust" for their malfeasance, and suddenly get the answer you wanted from the poll.
So yes, that sounds like pre-spinning to me. Whether or not it really happened, it just sounds like spinning to me.
Polls are meaningless, and arguing with a person who said polls are meaningless and then tried to spin the polls by remarking on how sad it was to try to spin a meaningless poll is sad.
Ok, if the irony is lost, saying the poll can be rigged and explaining that this is why your site is losing presupposes that winning or losing has any meaning in a poll that can be rigged. Saying that there are ways to "ascertain" the rigging in such a way as to acheive the "correct" outcome suggests that every other poll ever done on FR was meaningless, since so far as I can remember no other poll has been "de-freeped".
But for some reason, the pro-evolution people were so concerned about this ONE poll over the hundred of other polls done on FR that for this ONE poll they went through some rigorous process of "de-freeping" to ensure that the results were "correct", using I am certain some well-known scientific method to acheive the desired outcome, not just waving their hands to get to where they want like the anti-evolutionists claim evolutionist do all the time when they find things that don't fit their preconceived notions.
I'm sorry, it was just really funny. Even if it really happened, it was just funny that in a thread about a poll about creation/evolution, where the creationists are people who believe the evolutionist ignore evidence that doesn't agree with their expectations, and twist the data around to "prove" they are right, you were saying that the poll data which showed one thing was clearly wrong, and twisted the data around so that it would come out right.
It was simply very ironic and funny, and those who don't take FR polls all that seriously have got to laugh whether they are on the one side, the other side, or somewhere in between.
No, we should teach science in science classes, and history in history classes.
And for high school, with only so many hours in the day and days in the year, you could stick with recorded history. It's not like the kids spend half their time sitting around looking for MORE things to learn.
I'm being too rigid because of time constraints. I don't mind brief discussions of the common scientific accepted history of the world stuff, big bang amoeba etc. etc., but don't cram it down kid's throats, don't require them to believe it to pass the course, and don't get preachy about it or ridicule them for their religious beliefs.
We'd all get along much better if the schools weren't trying to indoctrinate students into the world of secularism.
You are babbling.
FREEP this poll!
And you Christian Folks have been pushing your agenda for 1600 years. In that time there has not been one scientific or medical advancement achieved that was based on Faith.
Did this thread start out in the Smokey Backroom?
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
[Last revised 8/27/06]
Yes. I figured if I put it in "news" it would probably get moved, and this place seemed as good as any.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.