And how about geographic distribution? What about the fossil record? How about the specialized niches within communities? What about geological concentrations of resources and indications of global events? How does it square with continental drift? Do the systematics indicate a universal bottleneck a couple thousand years ago?

Clearly none of it matters because of the Ararat anomaly, which represents a preponderance of evidence far beyond what mere science is capable of. I mean, look at the picture! If that's not proof, what is?

I haven't seen anyone claim anything about causation, only correlation. That's a function of the data. You seemed to protest initially to chezlaw's suggestion of a correlation, and now that correlation has been supported.

looking through the GSS link, they are meerly collecting raw data. fine. i never said i had issue with them.

as far as you guy is concerned. i looked at the link that he posted on where he got the data. a couple things are worth mentioning. first where he got his IQ data from was another study that was looking to see if there was a correlation between the oddness of a religion and IQ.

so even though he is trying to prove that biblical literalism, which in his mind is crazier, really goes against the original study that he pulled from.

so even though he used accurate data, he manipulated it in a way to prove his point.

originally i was speaking mainly of these types of studies in general. then we moved on to more specific examples.

and if you look at what i originally posted, i never contested the data, but in which the that was used to support an argument. the link that i showed did not disprove that there was a correlation, but that there are also things that are associated with these subjects that can be said to be the cause of the correlation.

it is not as cut and dry as people would like you to believe. hence my post above.

Actually, Noah's Ark was much LARGER in size than the ship you have shown in the first black and white photograph.
You can find the Ark's truly enormous dimensions in the Old Testament.

I LOL'd at that cartoon picture of the woodpecker poking holes in the Ark! Very clever.

Also research the 'Ararat Anomaly'. It is evidence of the actual remains of Noah's Ark sitting atop Mount Ararat just as the Bible has declared it to be.

Very interesting stuff.

now this has yet to be shown by these stats, but i still included it.

and my original question of proof concerning IQ and YEC, has yet to be shown. your link really had nothing to do with it.

YEC is synonymous with Biblical literalism. And the correlation with low education levels is well established.

i looked over the site. somewhat interesting. a couple of things to point out.

first, the accusation was in regards to low IQ and belief in YEC. you site shows a correlation between those that answer no to believing in evolution and lower education. Education and intelligence are not always synonymous. Why would you think that people that spend more time in the US education system would believe in evolution? could it be because it is indoctrinated on them? i lean towards yes.

secondly, you sight points out one of the inherent issues with a poll like this. wording.

do you not see this as a problem?

do you deny there is a CORRELATION between education and intelligence?

Well you would be wrong considering the top poll was from "1991-NOV-21", and i would assume that few, if any, of the poll participants were "indoctrinated" with the theory of evolution in their schooling.

Why would this be?

I mean, to assume biblical literalism is a good thing implies some shortfall in intelligent discourse.

Is this really a wise position to base your arguments on?

All it implies is that literalists consider the Bible as the be-all and end-all of any kind of debate. "But the Bible says so."

You seem more intelligent than most Christians, but yet just as muleheaded. You have yourself said you won't defend YEC.

Why is that, Jib? In the telling of the answer, you will see the shortfalls of your brothers in Christianity. Do you see why?

because the question purposes a false dichotomy. evolution does not have to be a take all or leave all theory. there are many christians like myself who subscribe to parts of evolution but not all. so i might just answer the question no, because if it is a take all or leave all, i will leave it. but that does not mean that i do not agree that some or even many aspects of evolution.

so the outcome of the study can be very far off from a true conclusion and does not really get to the heart of the matter.

i do not know about just as muleheaded. but you could call me very convicted.

Not yet. Like cosmology, it tries to get at the heart of the matter and its discoveries must be held as valid when they are made. It's a complex scenario and you cannot expect it to be known immediately. There isn't enough empirical data yet but the expectation is that there will be. The problem is there is a large body of people that willingly and knowingly discount any progress made because it's incomplete. That's the nature of science, it's just a puzzle to be figured out over time.

Semantics. I do concede that you and NotReady keep things interesting if I don't exactly agree with your positions that "this is obvious, let's assume and go from those obvious positions."

Then again I'm not a militant atheist and my moderation damns me to appreciating both positions on the matter and perhaps allows me to enjoy the debates that do become polarized. I find both sides rather silly, to be honest.

Knowledge accumulates over time. So to make concrete conclusions seems disingenuous to me even if I do understand the necessity of formulating a sure worldview on what one feels.

i couldnt stop laughing when i read this. i mean, come on it is obvious, right? knowing myself, i guarantee that i have been guilty of this more than once. it worked most of the time to, before i came here. i guess that is why i like it here, even though there are people that make me so mad i could punch a nun in the face. but thankfully it passes.

i agree. i am actually fairly open on many things. i have changed what i believe, as far as christianity, a good deal fairly lately. i have yet to see any good evidence to dissuade me against my belief that God exists yet though.

What if the nun likes it or it's in her worldview to get punched once in awhile? Is she really wrong?

See, I can never make the leap you and NR have made. I cannot logically deduce that this is creation instead of some massive random manifestation.

I just think the picture is far bigger than creationists or atheists make it out to be. I have a problem with the amount of suffering endured in this world. While I understand that on a larger scale it really is irrelevant and can be rectified, it shouldn't happen in the first place under a benevolent creation.

And if you can convince people that this is necessary without invoking the "We don't know why Goddidit" clause, you've made a pretty solid argument.

You can only take free will so far before you find individuals putting other individuals in positions that shouldn't happen under a God's purview. These aren't illusions because deplorable things happen on this planet.

Why does it?