Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Free Republic Poll on Evolution
Free Republic ^ | 22 September 2006 | Vanity

Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 1,621-1,636 next last
To: caffe

r/no/know/


781 posted on 09/25/2006 6:11:45 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

How about parents knock some sense into their little darlings so when they get to school they have enough discipline to sit down and do their work?

From listening to some of the rationalizes for including religious teaching in science class, you'd thing children were raised in creche by the government.


782 posted on 09/25/2006 6:13:37 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: All
Latest Poll Results

Almost 200 more votes have come in since my last update; but the percentages are pretty much as I reported earlier. Prior FR polls typically receive around 6,000 votes before they're ended. This one now has 3,205 votes, so it seems unlikely that the trend will change very much.

I'm ignoring un-registered voters. They're not freepers, and they seem remarkably opinionated. Their rate of "undecided" or "pass" votes is about half that of freepers, and all of the difference in decisiveness shows up in their percentage of "Yes" votes. An interesting pattern. Aside from that, we know that freepers can only vote once.

Therefore, the important votes are from registered freepers, and in particular, those who have expressed an opinion on the poll question, so I'm also ignoring their votes for "undecided" or "pass." Freepers with an opinion have voted as follows:

Yes (put creationism in science class) 999 votes
No (keep creationism out of science class) 563 votes
Total freeper votes (excluding "undecided" or "pass") 1,562
Percentage voting "No" is 36.0%
783 posted on 09/25/2006 6:14:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and that's what liberals do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
That's a red herring.

Red herring is good, especially pickled.

784 posted on 09/25/2006 6:15:05 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
How about parents knock some sense into their little darlings so when they get to school they have enough discipline to sit down and do their work?

Pretty radical idea that, LC! ;)

From listening to some of the rationalizes for including religious teaching in science class, you'd thing children were raised in creche by the government

Quit makins sense, darn it! We HAVE to blame The Gummit else we have to take the blame ourselves!

785 posted on 09/25/2006 6:16:09 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Have you checked to see if we have any CR/ID Pole Pounders?


786 posted on 09/25/2006 6:17:40 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
No one says science has all the answers. That's a red herring.

You’ve heard of Dick Dawkins? PZ Myers?

787 posted on 09/25/2006 6:18:50 PM PDT by Heartlander (I'm a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I keep wondering why life science class has to talk about biblical creation. Are people going to want to talk about Noah's flood in earth science? What happened to Sunday school?


788 posted on 09/25/2006 6:19:17 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: jerri
"Gene mutation does not prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt."

Just what do you think evolution is? Mutation provides the variation and selection provides the change in frequency.

These have been observed.

Or are you talking about some particular tenet of the Synthetic Theory of Evolution?

789 posted on 09/25/2006 6:21:20 PM PDT by b_sharp (Objectivity? Objectivity? We don't need no stinkin' objectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
I keep wondering why life science class has to talk about biblical creation. Are people going to want to talk about Noah's flood in earth science? What happened to Sunday school?

I think they are looking for weekday school to be Sunday school. Again, easier to get the State to teach religion than it is to do it yourself.

790 posted on 09/25/2006 6:22:02 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Have you checked to see if we have any CR/ID Pole Pounders?

Oh dear!

791 posted on 09/25/2006 6:22:35 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and that's what liberals do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Well it happened to the last Poll.

OOps -- I mis-spelled Poll. But it passed Spell Check!


792 posted on 09/25/2006 6:23:52 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Insultification is the polar opposite of Niceosity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
There are ‘scientists’ such as William Provine, David Barash, Stephen Pinker, Jacob Weisberg, Sam Harris, and a many other people who use evolution to tear apart Judeo-Christian beliefs and replace them with atheistic beliefs from science. Where is the cry from the scientific community about this mixing of religion and politics?
793 posted on 09/25/2006 6:26:36 PM PDT by Heartlander (I'm a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

You are trying to distract the debate away from my point. The topic of this thread is not about loud-mouths like Richard Dawkins. My opinion is that Dawkins is wrong. But so what? This thread is partly about the negative perception that kooks who believe in UFOs, magical mystery petroleum, and newage healing are going to give the modern conservative movement. Look at all the crazy carp on this thread. FR is a pretty high-profile site. Junk like this is just going to reinforce the (mistaken I hope) perception that Republicans are anti-science.

According to the poll, one out of every three freepers believes science education is fine the way it is. Biology in life science class, and geology in earth science class. On FR in general and on this thread in particular, people who think like I do have been characterized as nazis, commies, Al Qaida terrorists, idolators, etc.

What are the possible effects of alienating a third of the potential voting base?

No one says science contains all the answers to life, and the purpose of our existance.


794 posted on 09/25/2006 6:26:41 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Interesting blog. Never seen it before. My sense is that it, and your posts, are laced with not a small amount of hyperbole. No one is trying to "tear apart Judeo-Christian beliefs" as you say. This strikes me as mildly paranoid.


795 posted on 09/25/2006 6:33:19 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

No, bioflavinoids are not'added' except by God. They are in the fruits, and the only vitamin C that is effective is made from real fruit, not synthesized.

Attempts are now being made to symthesize many of the bioflavinoids, and that is a stupid mistake.


796 posted on 09/25/2006 6:34:14 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: jerri
"So, the Big Bang "Theory" has been proven as fact?"

What the heck does the BB have to do with biological evolution, which is what Dawkins was talking about?

But yes, the BB has a fair bit of evidence that it is correct. The BB and Abiogenisis really have little to do with the study of how organisms speciate.

797 posted on 09/25/2006 6:35:04 PM PDT by b_sharp (Objectivity? Objectivity? We don't need no stinkin' objectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

My attitude is, if the creationists had not sought to become a target by science, by targeting science, this would not have happened.

If the creationists had left their religious dogma in church, instead of trying to get it taught in a science class, we wouldn't be having this debate, and the Creationists wouldn't feel like they are being persecuted by scientists.

When a religious dogma is pounded politically into a science class, science can and will fight back, because to have dogma replace evidence and the scientific method, is to destroy science, and dumb down our kids to the point of lunacy.

Creationists wish to quit being persecuted, perhaps they ought to quit persecuting?


798 posted on 09/25/2006 6:39:09 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
This thread is partly about the negative perception that kooks who believe in UFOs, magical mystery petroleum, and newage healing are going to give the modern conservative movement. Look at all the crazy carp on this thread. FR is a pretty high-profile site. Junk like this is just going to reinforce the (mistaken I hope) perception that Republicans are anti-science.

Do you believe human consciousness ultimately comes from mindlessness?

God the Creator and Lord of the Universe, which is the work of his goodness and wisdom; and Man, made in His image, who is to hallow his week-day labors by the blessedness of Sabbath-rest -- such are the teachings of the Creation chapter. It's purpose is to reveal these teachings to the children of man -- and not to serve as a text book of astronomy, geology, or anthropology. Its object is not to teach scientific facts; but to proclaim highest religious truths respecting God, Man, and the Universe. The "conflict" between the fundamental realities of Religion and the established facts of Science, is seen to be unreal as the soon as Religion and Science each recognizes the true border of its domain.
-- British Orthodox Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz (1872-1946)
From your homepage

No one says science contains all the answers to life, and the purpose of our existance.

I posted articles and statements from scientists that think otherwise…

799 posted on 09/25/2006 6:41:14 PM PDT by Heartlander (I'm a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd

800?


800 posted on 09/25/2006 6:41:48 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 1,621-1,636 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson