PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Lags World in ... Acceptance of Evolution



moblsv
08-12-2006, 07:42 AM
A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.

web page (http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060810_evo_rank.html)

SnakebyteXX
08-12-2006, 08:05 AM
I especially liked this part: [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> Politics and the Flat Earth

Politics is also contributing to America's widespread confusion about evolution, the researchers say. Major political parties in the United States are more willing to make opposition to evolution a prominent part of their campaigns to garner conservative votes—something that does not happen in Europe or Japan.

Miller says that it makes about as much sense for politicians to oppose evolution in their campaigns as it is for them to advocate that the Earth is flat and promise to pass legislation saying so if elected to office.

"You can pass any law you want but it won't change the shape of the Earth," Miller told LiveScience.

Fran Crimi
08-12-2006, 11:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.
<hr /></blockquote>


I don't know about you all, but I'm curious about the comparison study. How many people were surveyed? What were their ages, education, nationalities, religious beliefs? All these things and more make a difference.

When details of the study aren't provided, I become very skeptical of it's validity.

Fran

moblsv
08-12-2006, 01:04 PM
"The findings are detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science."

If it is scientific, it will have a methodology.

SnakebyteXX
08-12-2006, 03:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> How many people were surveyed?

When details of the study aren't provided, I become very skeptical of it's validity.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Fran, only guessing here but it looks like the total number of people surveyed in each country may be listed next to the country's name. 1484 for the US?

http://www.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg

moblsv
08-12-2006, 04:21 PM
the article itself requires membership or a fee. Here is a document of suppoting material

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/313/5788/765/DC1/1

Drop1
08-12-2006, 06:13 PM
How come they did not include Mexico,Central America,and South America? I suppose this should prove once and for all,the Country with the top nine universities of the top ten in the world,is really a bunch of morons. My opinion is they only talked to Born Again Christians,or other Bible thumpers,that think the world is a few thousand years old. America has a well documented history of bashing intellectuals,and now that we have launched the dregs of political power into the oval office,the study might be right.

Fran Crimi
08-13-2006, 07:44 AM
Those are ridiculous numbers and this is a ridiculous poll. First of all, the numbers are totally disproportionate. Cyprus does not have 1/3 the population of the U.S. Greece does not have over 2/3 the population of the U.S..

We live in a melting pot. You could poll 1400 people inside a church and you'll get similar answers. 1400 People do not represent a sample of this country. Who knows where those people polled came from.

The study is nonsense.

Fran

TennesseeJoe
08-13-2006, 10:23 AM
This confirms my belief that 79.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

moblsv
08-13-2006, 01:33 PM
ok, how about a very unscientific BD poll?

Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. T/F

Human beings were created by God as a whole person and did not evolve from earlier forms of life. T/F

----

and the questions used in the survey (yes, I got all ten without looking at the answers).

1. Ordinary tomatoes do not have genes, whereas genetically modified tomatoes do.

2. Genetically modified animals are always larger than ordinary animals.

3. Cloning is a form of reproduction in which offspring result from the union of sperm and egg.

4. Today it is not possible to transfer genes from humans to animals.

5. If someone eats a genetically modified fruit, there is a risk that a person’s genes might be modified too.

6. All plants and animals have DNA.

7. Today it is not possible to transfer genes from animals to plants.

8. Humans have somewhat less than half of the DNA in common with chimpanzees.

9.. It is possible to extract stem cells from human embryos without destroying the embryos.

10. All humans share exactly the same DNA.

moblsv
08-13-2006, 01:45 PM
In case it wasn't obvious, my answers:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr>Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. T/F

True

Human beings were created by God as a whole person and did not evolve from earlier forms of life. T/F

False
<hr /></blockquote>

Stretch
08-13-2006, 05:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> In case it wasn't obvious, my answers:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr>Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. T/F

True

Human beings were created by God as a whole person and did not evolve from earlier forms of life. T/F

False
<hr /></blockquote>

<hr /></blockquote>

LMFAO you can't be serious, are there actually people who think that we were "hatched" as it were by a higher power and just kind of slid into the picture as Modern Man? Damn, if that is the basis of thier "reasoning powers" me thinks all else spewing forth must be rendered invalid. It must be like a Cult thing. St. &lt;&lt; now i know where the flat earth society members flocked to &gt;&gt;

Drop1
08-13-2006, 09:34 PM
You can get any result you want to pay for. I like "pork...the other white meat".

nAz
08-14-2006, 09:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> ok, how about a very unscientific BD poll?

Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. T/F

Human beings were created by God as a whole person and did not evolve from earlier forms of life. T/F

----

and the questions used in the survey (yes, I got all ten without looking at the answers).

1. Ordinary tomatoes do not have genes, whereas genetically modified tomatoes do.

2. Genetically modified animals are always larger than ordinary animals.

3. Cloning is a form of reproduction in which offspring result from the union of sperm and egg.

4. Today it is not possible to transfer genes from humans to animals.

5. If someone eats a genetically modified fruit, there is a risk that a person’s genes might be modified too.

6. All plants and animals have DNA.

7. Today it is not possible to transfer genes from animals to plants.

8. Humans have somewhat less than half of the DNA in common with chimpanzees.

9.. It is possible to extract stem cells from human embryos without destroying the embryos.

10. All humans share exactly the same DNA.

<hr /></blockquote>

Bahahahahaaa im afraid to veiw the results!

Drop1
08-14-2006, 11:43 AM
Human beings are made in the image of God,chimpanzes are too. You see,when God made humans,he realized something was wrong,and in an effort to improve his creation,he made a chimpanze. Between the two,they are organ for organ,almost identical,and only one chromozone apart. God is the common ancestor of the two.

wolfdancer
08-14-2006, 02:51 PM
"These are the facts and they are irrefutable" ( A Few Good Men)...also Sister Mary Leo....who beat the truth into me with her "Sword of Gideon" pointer
-Man is only about 6000 yrs old, and since he was created in the image and likeness of God, he could not have descended from the apes, nor from the sea. - end of story.
God has med brown hair, blue eyes, fair complexion,is a liberal ( my economics teacher claimed Jesus and the Disciples were the first real communists) and according to the beliefs of my Mother, stood exactly 6 ft high, the only person known to be exactly 6 ft high (I think that is in the Dewey Bible). Have you ever seen an exactly 6 ft high liberal ape with blue eyes? I rest my case.
Sister Leo with her yardstick would have been the odds on favorite against a Jedi Knight armed only with a lightsabre.
She'd a stuck that thing where the light don't shine. And in her Nun Ninja robe, could sneak up on you, broad daylight, and get three well placed blows in before you even thought to raise up your arms in defense. Sister Mary Leo wasn't concerned with any Supreme Court rulings on corporal punishment, since she had the Supreme Being on her side
Good thing Sister Leo ain't reading this board....she'd track down all you evolutionary believing heathens.....and have you burn your blasphemous Darwin books....or else....

eg8r
08-15-2006, 07:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about you all, but I'm curious about the comparison study. How many people were surveyed? What were their ages, education, nationalities, religious beliefs? All these things and more make a difference. <hr /></blockquote> Fran, you should already know about the people on this board. If they can find a survey that suits their opinion, they don't want anyone to question the surveyors motives, validity, etc.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-19-2006, 06:26 AM
LMAO!!! You're a riot! Ouch...you reminded me of Sister Mariam Patrick, I think the BTK guy must have gotten some ideas from her!

Gayle in Md....was always Praying, quiet and obedient around Sister M.P.

Chopstick
08-19-2006, 06:39 AM
There is no theory of evolution. There is only a list of creatures that Chuck Norris allows to live. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

SPetty
08-21-2006, 08:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>If they can find a survey that suits their opinion, they don't want anyone to question the surveyors motives, validity, etc.<hr /></blockquote>From a survey in Men's Health magazine, Orlando is the angriest city in the U.S.

Survey Results (http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do?site=MensHealth&amp;channel=health&amp;category =metrogrades&amp;conitem=9ca8a9f3340dc010VgnVCM1000001 3281eac____&amp;page=0&amp;pageLocation=true&amp;print=true&amp;ur l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.menshealth.com%2Fcda%2Farticle. do%3Fsite%3DMensHealth%26channel%3Dhealth%26catego ry%3Dmetrogrades%26conitem%3D9ca8a9f3340dc010VgnVC M10000013281eac____%26page%3D0%26pageLocation%3Dtr ue)

eg8r
08-21-2006, 11:23 AM
Yup it is. I could tell 3 years ago when I moved back from Fort Worth. I don't think this is a coincidence either. During this same time span, Orlando has been voting very democratic. They go hand in hand. I personally think we need to build a wall up around Paramour and let them people kill each other off. If it was not for the innocent being affected I think they should just let the gangs fight each other till they all die off.

Kind of scary seeing all these tourists flocking to Orlando. Who would have thought the land of Mickey Mouse, home of gay days, would be the most angry city in America. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
08-21-2006, 01:21 PM
It all about the drugs. Gangs make their money thru drugs. If you can't stop the supply, IMO, the state should sell it for a $ a gram. This would make the gangs impotent.
The gangs are a bigger threat than a bunch of junkies who, with a rock-bottom price for gear- can now afford their habit without having to steal/ being a threat to the public.

BYW, if you have to live inside a gated community/self-imposed prison in order to feel safe , are you really free?




Q

Deeman3
08-21-2006, 01:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> It all about the drugs. Gangs make their money thru drugs. If you can't stop the supply, IMO, the state should sell it for a $ a gram. This would make the gangs impotent.
The gangs are a bigger threat than a bunch of junkies who, with a rock-bottom price for gear- can now afford their habit without having to steal/ being a threat to the public.

BYW, if you have to live inside a gated community/self-imposed prison in order to feel safe , are you really free?

<font color="blue"> Q, Don't I remember the drug park getting a little out of control in Holland while I was over there? Maybe I'm just remembering wrong. </font color>

DeeMan


Q <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
08-21-2006, 02:03 PM
Mob....as usual, you can trace it all back to The
"rub a dub, dub...three jerks in a tub" trio of Bush/Cheney/Cindi
From slate:
"President Bush used to be content to revel in his own ignorance. Now he wants to share it with America's schoolchildren.

I refer to his recent comments in favor of teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolution. "Both sides ought to be properly taught … so people can understand what the debate is about," Bush told a group of Texas newspaper reporters who interviewed him on Aug. 1. "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."
Click Here!

The president seems to view the conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design as something like the debate over Social Security reform. But this is not a disagreement with two reasonable points of view, let alone two equally valid ones. Intelligent design, which asserts that gaps in evolutionary science prove God must have had a role in creation, may be—as Bob Wright argues—creationism in camouflage. Or it may be—as William Saletan argues—a step in the creationist cave-in to evolution. But whatever it represents, intelligent design is a faith-based theory with no scientific validity or credibility.

If Bush had said schools should give equal time to the view that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, he'd have been laughed out of his office. The difference with evolution is that a large majority of Americans reject what scientists regard as equally well supported: that we're here because of random mutation and natural selection. According to the most recent Gallup poll on the subject (2004), 45 percent of Americans believe God created human beings in their present form 10,000 years ago, while another 38 percent believe that God directed the process of evolution. Only 13 percent accept the prevailing scientific view of evolution as an unguided, random process.

Being right and yet so unpopular presents an interesting problem for evolutionists. Their theory has won over the world scientific community but very few of the citizens of red-state America, who decide what gets taught in their own public schools. How can followers of Darwin prevent the propagation of ignorance in places like Kansas, whose board of education just voted to rewrite its biology curriculum to do what President Bush suggests?

Many biologists believe the answer is to present evolution as less menacing to religious belief than it really is. In much the same way that intelligent-design advocates try to assert that a creator must be compatible with evolution in order to shoehorn God into science classrooms, evolutionists claim Darwin is compatible with religion in order to keep God out. Don't worry, they insist, there's no conflict between evolution and religion—they simply belong to different realms. Evolution should be taught in the secular classroom, along with other hypotheses that can be verified or falsified. Intelligent design belongs in Sunday schools, with stuff that can't.

This was the soothing contention of the famed paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that science and religion were separate "magisteria," or domains of teaching. The theme appears frequently in statements by major scientific organizations and wherever fundamentalists try to force creationism or its descendents on local school boards. Here, for instance, is the official position of Kansas Citizens for Science, the group opposing the inclusion of intelligent design in the state's science curricula: "People of faith do not have to choose between science and religion. Science is neither anti-Christian nor anti-God. Science denies neither God nor creation. Science merely looks for natural evidence of how the universe got to its current state. If viewed theistically, science is not commenting on whether there was a creation, but could be viewed as trying to find out how it happened."

In a state like Kansas, where public opinion remains overwhelmingly hostile to evolution, one sees the political logic of this kind of tap-dance. But let's be serious: Evolutionary theory may not be incompatible with all forms of religious belief, but it surely does undercut the basic teachings and doctrines of the world's great religions (and most of its not-so-great ones as well). Look at this 1993 NORC survey: In the United States, 63 percent of the public believed in God and 35 percent believed in evolution. In Great Britain, by comparison, 24 percent of people believed in God and 77 percent believed in evolution. You can believe in both—but not many people do.

That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument. It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries. In reviewing The Origin of Species in 1860, Samuel Wilberforce, the bishop of Oxford, wrote that the religious view of man as a creature with free will was "utterly irreconcilable with the degrading notion of the brute origin of him who was created in the image of God." (The passage is quoted in Daniel C. Dennett's superb book Darwin's Dangerous Idea.)

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, the archbishop of Vienna, was saying nothing very different when he argued in a New York Times op-ed piece on July 7 that random evolution can't be harmonized with Catholic doctrine. To be sure, there are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and even Darwinists who call themselves Christians. But the acceptance of evolution diminishes religious belief in aggregate for a simple reason: It provides a better answer to the question of how we got here than religion does. Not a different answer, a better answer: more plausible, more logical, and supported by an enormous body of evidence. Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch.

So, what should evolutionists and their supporters say to parents who don't want their children to become atheists and who may even hold firm to the virgin birth and the parting of the Red Sea? That it's time for them to finally let go of their quaint superstitions? That Darwinists aren't trying to push people away from religion but recognize that teaching their views does tend to have that effect? Dennett notes that Darwin himself avoided exploring the issue of the ultimate origins of life in part to avoid upsetting his wife Emma's religious beliefs.

One possible avenue is to focus more strongly on the practical consequences of resisting scientific reality. In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs, can the U.S. afford—ethically or economically—to raise our children on fraudulent biology? But whatever tack they take, evolutionists should quit pretending their views are no threat to believers. This insults our intelligence, and the president is doing that already."

SnakebyteXX
08-21-2006, 02:56 PM
According to 'Polling Report.com' (http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm)

Qtec
08-22-2006, 03:54 AM
You will have to be more specific because I haven't a clue what you are reffering to.

The US has spent 5 billion in Columbia and the street price in the US for cocaine is still the same !

I would rather a junkie got his drugs free from the state than shoot someone in a robbery, when all he wanted was $20 for his next fix.

Q

DickLeonard
08-22-2006, 05:05 AM
Qtec drugs create a underground economy which funnels money to political parties to help keep drugs as the forbidden fruit. There is no logic to having crazed druggies kill for something that on the legit would cost $.25.

We spend $25,000 to house prisoners, I would love to know what % are there because of drugs.####

Deeman3
08-22-2006, 05:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> You will have to be more specific because I haven't a clue what you are reffering to. <font color="blue"> Told you my memory may not be perfect but I remember when living in Germany, Amsterdam had made a park free for any drug use. I just rememeber it seemed to backfire with every drugie in Europe going to the park and this, if I remember correctly, was a large problem for the Dutch government and people. </font color>

The US has spent 5 billion in Columbia and the street price in the US for cocaine is still the same ! <font color="blue"> I won't argue that our drug policy is a failure. I have come to the conclusion that drugs should not be regulated. The idiots are only killing themselves so let them do it.</font color>

I would rather a junkie got his drugs free from the state than shoot someone in a robbery, when all he wanted was $20 for his next fix. <font color="blue"> Exactly. If his "fix" was a buck or better yet free, he would probably not be hunting for victiims and would die rapidly with unlimited drug availability. </font color>

DeeMan

Q
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
08-22-2006, 08:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
BYW, if you have to live inside a gated community/self-imposed prison in order to feel safe , are you really free?
<hr /></blockquote> You obviously know nothing about gated communities. The gates are not put in to help people feel safe, they are added to raise property values. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
08-22-2006, 08:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I won't argue that our drug policy is a failure. I have come to the conclusion that drugs should not be regulated. The idiots are only killing themselves so let them do it. <hr /></blockquote> Exactly. If someone is dumb enough to take the drugs, I say we give them 5 times as much for the same price just so we can speed up the process.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-22-2006, 08:32 AM
Organized religion has always been the enemy of science, and the enemy of peace. The myth loving, righteous followers, unfortunately, also have short memories on lessons learned.

Gayle in Md.

Chopstick
08-22-2006, 09:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

I would rather a junkie got his drugs free from the state than shoot someone in a robbery, when all he wanted was $20 for his next fix. <font color="blue"> Exactly. If his "fix" was a buck or better yet free, he would probably not be hunting for victiims and would die rapidly with unlimited drug availability. </font color>

DeeMan

Q
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

If they got their drugs for free they would then kill you for your car, or house or anything else you had that they wanted. It is how those people are. A person who would never commit a crime or anything else to harm society would not be using drugs in the first place. Drugs didn't turn them into criminals. They were crimanals at heart to begin with.

wolfdancer
08-22-2006, 09:27 AM
Gayle, the simple reason for the disbelief seems to be that We have a large group of fundamentalist Christians, proportionally higher then the rest of the world.
Does the Bible discriminate against Women?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1877733024.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.gif

web page (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1877733024/002-8919530-0266446?v=glance&amp;n=283155)

wolfdancer
08-22-2006, 10:23 AM
no wonder the city is so angry....it's the conjunction of opposites there...
On one hand you have middle America visiting with their kids, hoping to have a good time....and then there are the residents, dyed-in-the-wool Right wingers,trying to figure out how much money the can extract from the tourists, while worried that these could be liberals, scouting the area, with plans to relocate, and ruin the demographics there. Imagine having to sit near one on a bus, or worse yet,in a restaurant

Gayle in MD
08-22-2006, 10:43 AM
Yes. The Bible discriminates against women, as does organized religion in general.

As for the Red States, they have the distinction of having played a huge role in electing the worst president in the history of this country. So much for their ability to make resonable, realistic judgements. Why would we expect them to be any more capable of realistic judgements regarding science? Seems to me those same folks who deny the theory of evolution, also still support in George Bush! What does that tell us?

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
08-22-2006, 12:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Organized religion has always been the enemy of science, and the enemy of peace. The myth loving, righteous followers, unfortunately, also have short memories on lessons learned.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science." [Darwin]

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." [Voltaire]

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism." [Einstein]

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." [Nietzsche]

"I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life – our desire to go on living … our dread of coming to an end." [Edison]

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." [Lincoln]

"Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?" [Arthur C. Clarke]

"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies." [Thomas Jefferson]

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile." [Kurt Vonnegut]

"Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race." [Bertrand Russell]

Gayle in MD
08-22-2006, 12:08 PM
Tap Tap Tap....

Thanks Snake, had read most of these, but this is a good list, I'm going to print these up.

Funny, when you think of it, fear, is the same method Bush used to get re-elected, and still the same tool being used by Republicans to this day!

It works, in the Red States! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif But not among us cowardly, evil liberals /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
08-22-2006, 03:05 PM
Gayle, here's a couple of links you might find interesting:

Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html) Gregory S. Paul

On the Paul Study:

"“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion … None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.” Within the United States “the strongly theistic, anti-evolution South and Midwest” have “markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the Northeast where … secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms”."

Better off without Him (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/10/11/better-off-without-him/#more-954)

cushioncrawler
08-22-2006, 05:24 PM
I allwayz thort that Oscar Wilde wrote.....
..... "Faith is an unshakeable belief in something you know to be untrue"....
But i karnt find it on the net.....

Qtec
08-22-2006, 11:27 PM
A desperate junkie will shoot you for your Mercedes and sell it for $40. Don't expect a strung out addict to behave or think rationally.

Are you saying that actors, country westery singers, lawyers, doctors and stokebrokers etc who are addicts were always criminaly minded?
The only difference between them and the junkie who robs you is that they can afford their drugs.

Q

eg8r
08-23-2006, 06:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. The Bible discriminates against women, as does organized religion in general.
<hr /></blockquote> No it does not. In very easy to understand words, it tells men to love their wives as Christ loved the church. This comes after God tells wives to submit to their husbands. This is one of the verses that feminists love to quote, but they never keep reading, which is why I posted the end before the beginning.

It would probably help if feminists would remove the hate from their eyes and read what is in the Bible. Gayle likes to trash all Christians for reading and believing the literal translations in the Bible (although very few do), however when it comes to her hate of men, she does the very same thing herself. It is hard to take anything she says seriously because every point she tries to make, it turns out she was doing the very same thing she accused the other person of doing.

eg8r

eg8r
08-23-2006, 06:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that actors, country westery singers, lawyers, doctors and stokebrokers etc who are addicts were always criminaly minded? <hr /></blockquote> You must be strung out yourself when you read this forum. He is not saying that all druggies are criminals. He is simply stating that if a drug addict is willing to act criminally while doped up, or to get a fix, then they would have done it without the drugs. Drugs don't make a criminal, criminals do.

eg8r

SPetty
08-23-2006, 10:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> I allwayz thort that Oscar Wilde wrote.....
..... "Faith is an unshakeable belief in something you know to be untrue"....
But i karnt find it on the net..... <hr /></blockquote>I could not find it either, but came across these other interesting quotes:

Faith and Doubt Quotes (http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/faith-and-doubt.html)

wolfdancer
08-23-2006, 10:40 AM
Fundamentalists would have us believe us that the biblical God is an all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving deity.
Samuel 15:2,3 ("Thus saith the LORD of hosts...Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling..."), Isaiah 13:15,16 ("Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished."), or Hosea 13:16 ("Samaria shall become desolate...they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."). The New Testament God ups the ante even further by consigning the vast majority of humanity to eternal torture for not accepting such contradictory, nonsensical, and morally repugnant stories.
From a book review on amazon.com ....

Gayle in MD
08-23-2006, 11:18 AM
Wow, SPetty has one quote in her post that describes the die hard Bush supporters to a T.

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle...It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous." -- Carl Sagan

Guess the Huffingtonpost's Bush Press conference video qualifies as evidence, ya think?! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Like it really matters which website has a video of Bush's Press Conference, and his self contradictory statments! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif BWA HA HA HA...
If it was on a liberal website, the actual video of Bush, isn't authentic! Every new station shows the President's press conferences, but Ed thinks the only correct showing is on Fox!
Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-23-2006, 12:47 PM
And what does this have to do with discriminating against women?

eg8r

moblsv
08-26-2006, 07:34 AM
Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: August 24, 2006

Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students.

Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.

If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless they declare another major, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Mr. Nassirian said students seeking the grants went first to their college registrar, who determined whether they were full-time students majoring in an eligible field.

“If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process,” he said.

That the omission occurred at all is worrying scientists concerned about threats to the teaching of evolution.

One of them, Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, said he learned about it from someone at the Department of Education, who got in touch with him after his essay on the necessity of teaching evolution appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 15. Dr. Krauss would not name his source, who he said was concerned about being publicly identified as having drawn attention to the matter.

An article about the issue was posted Tuesday on the Web site of The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Dr. Krauss said the omission would be “of great concern” if evolutionary biology had been singled out for removal, or if the change had been made without consulting with experts on biology. The grants are awarded under the National Smart Grant program, established this year by Congress. (Smart stands for Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent.)

The program provides $4,000 grants to third- or fourth-year, low-income students majoring in physical, life or computer sciences; mathematics; technology; engineering; or foreign languages deemed “critical” to national security.

The list of eligible majors (which is online at ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN0606A.pdf) is drawn from the Education Department’s “Classification of Instructional Programs,” or CIP (pronounced “sip”), a voluminous and detailed classification of courses of study, arranged in a numbered system of sections and subsections.

Part 26, biological and biomedical sciences, has a number of sections, each of which has one or more subsections. Subsection 13 is ecology, evolution, systematics and population biology. This subsection itself has 10 sub-subsections. One of them is 26.1303 — evolutionary biology, “the scientific study of the genetic, developmental, functional, and morphological patterns and processes, and theoretical principles; and the emergence and mutation of organisms over time.”

Though references to evolution appear in listings of other fields of biological study, the evolutionary biology sub-subsection is missing from a list of “fields of study” on the National Smart Grant list — there is an empty space between line 26.1302 (marine biology and biological oceanography) and line 26.1304 (aquatic biology/limnology).

Students cannot simply list something else on an application form, said Mr. Nassirian of the registrars’ association. “Your declared major maps to a CIP code,” he said.

Mr. Nassirian said people at the Education Department had described the omission as “a clerical mistake.” But it is “odd,” he said, because applying the subject codes “is a fairly mechanical task. It is not supposed to be the subject of any kind of deliberation.”

“I am not at all certain that the omission of this particular major is unintentional,” he added. “But I have to take them at their word.”

Scientists who knew about the omission also said they found the clerical explanation unconvincing, given the furor over challenges by the religious right to the teaching of evolution in public schools. “It’s just awfully coincidental,” said Steven W. Rissing, an evolutionary biologist at Ohio State University.

Jeremy Gunn, who directs the Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that if the change was not immediately reversed “we will certainly pursue this.”

Dr. Rissing said removing evolutionary biology from the list of acceptable majors would discourage students who needed the grants from pursuing the field, at a time when studies of how genes act and evolve are producing valuable insights into human health.

“This is not just some kind of nicety,” he said. “We are doing a terrible disservice to our students if this is yet another example of making sure science doesn’t offend anyone.”

Dr. Krauss of Case Western said he did not know what practical issues would arise from the omission of evolutionary biology from the list, given that students would still be eligible for grants if they declared a major in something else — biology, say.

“I am sure an enterprising student or program director could find a way to put themselves in another slot,” he said. “But why should they have to do that?”

Mr. Nassirian said he was not so sure. “Candidly, I don’t think most administrators know enough about this program” to help students overcome the apparent objection to evolutionary biology, he said. Undergraduates would be even less knowledgeable about the issue, he added.

Dr. Krauss said: “Removing that one major is not going to make the nation stupid, but if this really was removed, specifically removed, then I see it as part of a pattern to put ideology over knowledge. And, especially in the Department of Education, that should be abhorred.”

Qtec
08-27-2006, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Are you saying that actors, country westery singers, lawyers, doctors and stokebrokers etc who are addicts were always criminaly minded? <hr /></blockquote> You must be strung out yourself when you read this forum. He is not saying that all druggies are criminals. He is simply stating that if a drug addict is willing to act criminally while doped up, or to get a fix, then they would have done it without the drugs. Drugs don't make a criminal, criminals do.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Read any study about drug addicts and you will see that you are wrong. You obviously haven't had any sustained contact with people who are addicted to drugs. The nearest you probably get to danger/walking on the wild side, is going to McDonalds and asking them to "Super-size" you.
Ever had a junkie plead with you to tighten the shoe-lace tied around his arm because he can't find a vein?
Believe me when I say Mother Theresa, strung out on crack ,would steal your wallet in a heartbeat.
I have lived in cities all my life. I know that people who have lived in the country will have a different opinion than mine on certain issues, thats only natural, but don't ever think drug addiction is automatically a concious descision/choice or some sort of masochistic manifestation of character.
Did you know that the biggest consumer of drugs on the the planet is the US?
Did you know that the UK is about to be hit by a wave of cheap Afghan heroine- thanks to the HUGE increased opium cultivation there?



As to Criminal behaviour.
[ QUOTE ]
August 27, 2006
Whispers of Mergers Set Off Suspicious Trading
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
The boom in corporate mergers is creating concern that illicit trading ahead of deal announcements is becoming a systemic problem.

It is against the law to trade on inside information about an imminent merger, of course.

But an analysis of the nation’s biggest mergers over the last 12 months indicates that the securities of 41 percent of the companies receiving buyout bids exhibited abnormal and suspicious trading in the days and weeks before those deals became public. For those who bought shares during these periods of unusual trading, quick gains of as much as 40 percent were possible.

The study, conducted for The New York Times by Measuredmarkets Inc., an analytical research firm in Toronto, scrutinized mergers with a value of $1 billion or more that were announced in the 12-month period that ended in early July. The firm analyzed the price, the total number of shares traded and the number of individual trades in each stock during the weeks leading up to the announcement and looked for large deviations from trading patterns going back as far as four years.

<hr /></blockquote>

41%?
That would involve 1.000s of people, possibly many influential people, don't you think ? [ I guess I must have missed the Fox Special-
"Scandal on Wall St - GW's golf buddies steal zillions and f^#k millions.".
Maybe it just wasn't newsworthy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif ]

According to your theory, Ken Lay must have been criminaly minded from birth. How do you account for the fact that he was best buddies with GW? Doesn't that show a lack of judgement on GW's part?
Why did GW senior attend a disgraced criminal's funeral? To show support?
[think I I can understand it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif Just because KL corrupted the US Govt, induced black-outs across the US to pump up profits, cooked the books, bought/bribed accounting firms and encouraged his own workforce to invest every penny into a company that was going down the drain, doesn't make him a bad guy right?
1,000s have had their lives destroyed by Enron and Ken Lay but to the Bushes its ,

'hey he wasn't such a bad guy!'........Puke!

Atilla the Hun was more a man of the people than GW. GW couldn't give a monkey's. Just look at Katrina.
End of rant. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Q.......exasperated

wolfdancer
08-27-2006, 10:40 PM
There was supposed to be a link included in my last post.....I'm not smart enough to write anything like that....I wasn't included in intelligent design

Gayle in MD
08-28-2006, 06:40 AM
Q, you are so right. Anyone who thinks that criminality preceeds drug use, doen'st have a clue about addiction. People become the drug they use. Their addiction cancels out their conscience and their former values. I have seen this more than once.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-28-2006, 07:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You obviously haven't had any sustained contact with people who are addicted to drugs. <hr /></blockquote> Sure I have. Nearly every person I work with is addicted to something. Myself, I can hardly resist a Snickers bar. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Ever had a junkie plead with you to tighten the shoe-lace tied around his arm because he can't find a vein? <hr /></blockquote> No, I don't choose to associate with your buddies. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r