Sounds good, untill you figure out that their family, drinking buddies, friends, schoolmates, co-workers and cash-donators are included by default.

i think that you should realize that you are hopelessly screwed. it looks like your only option is suicide. .... tough break.

[QUOTE=chezlaw;7218693]Its a sad cult of the stupid in the USA. There as a big danger of infection of the rest of the world via cultural imperialism QUOTE]


Yep, you are correct. Athiesm is indeed a sad cult of the stupid. Hopefully their 'infection on the world' will decrease soon.

It sucks to be called names doesn't it?

YAAAAAAAWN!! Yet ANOTHER tired, boring and biased thread attacking Creationism.
You Athiests really need to get over yourselves with your narrow minded propaganda.

[QUOTE=The_Outlaw;7221529] That would appear to the stupid as a relevent point but as we know its the young earth creationists who correlate with low intelligence.

You don't really have to attack creationism.

What is usually attacked is the silly notion that creationism is actually saying something, which it doesn't.

D: "zomg, a butterfly!"
U: "god made it"

C: "what is god?"
Y: "very few people know, and those who claim to know rarely agrees."

[QUOTE=chezlaw;7221597] Oh really? You sound like such a typical elitist.
To call people who disagree with you 'stupid' or 'lacking intelligence' only proves how little intelligence you have.
Arguing with a closed minded individual such as yourself will only serve to raise my blood pressure.
You are officially on my 'ignore list'.
Good day to you Sir.

[QUOTE=The_Outlaw;7221726] you did not actually counter his point.

as to why young earth creationists are dumb:

THERE IS ZOMG SO MUCH FRICKIN EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH IS WAY MORE THAN 10000 YEARS OLD JESUS GAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

also there is no empirical evidence that it is not. only evidence from old books. written by people who weren't even there anyway.

and like, so much of this evidence's validity is only debated by young earth creationists, who usually have no expertise in the field of determining the validity of this evidence anyway.

[QUOTE=chezlaw;7221597] that is just not true. believing the young earth creation theory has nothing to do with ignorance of science. people of extreme intelligence still believe this to be true.

it really has nothing to do with science. most intelligent people that believe this still cling to the fact that God could have accelerated the process and that things like light might not have always been constant. the reason that they make these assumptions is because they believe that if the universe is 14 billion years old, then that some how negates the bibles truthfulness. so it is more just faith on there behalf than lack of any knowledge. if God exists could he have made the earth 10,000 years ago and made it look like it is really old, yes.

with that said, i do not see a reason to believe this. if the earth and universe are as old as science says, it really has no effect on the bible or it's truthfulness. so i think that it is not a lack of scientific knowledge of these people, but a misunderstanding of the bible.

my point in that statement had nothing to do with you. i was merely pointing out that the data that they collected was not complete. who knows how accurate it was at all.

There is no longer any reason to counter any discussion with a person who decides to start calling people with an opposing viewpoint names like 'stupid' or 'lacking intelligence'.
It then immediatly ceases to bear any resemblance of an intelligent conversation between two mature individuals at that point and then simply becomes a childish tyrade between two opposing viewpoints.

hmm weird that my last post says im quoting chezlaw. im not ldo

its childish name calling accompanying valid points.

[QUOTE=Jibninjas;7222234] That's not my quote. I don't know how that showed up as my quote. Some mistake in qouting a post from someone else I guess. I apologize for the confusion. I actually do believe in Creationism.

what i meant was that , although i believe the account, i do not necessarily believe that every detail was included. so even though i believe that what it does say is what happened, i think that it is quite obvious that not all of the details of it were included. there are some people, probably the people that you are referring to, that might say that every detail is in the account and nothing can be added. that is why i believe it literal to some extent.

The point of the flood account was to inform of the situation. not to be a scientific account of what happened.

first off, their beliefs have no actual bearing on the bible. if they misunderstand, then that does not render the bible false.

my question to you, why would the bible need to address all points surrounding the flood?

yeah, the quoting seems to be all messed up this morning.

If someone must resort to name calling during a debate, then any point that they may have had is immediatly negated by their immaturity.
We are supposed to be adults here.

no. points do not get negated by accompanying immaturity.

points stand or fall based on how valid they are. accompanying immaturity is unfortunate, but irrelevant.

None of us are surprised by this.

Just to be clear:

You believe that the Earth is 6000-10,000 years old?
You believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth within the last 10,000 years?
You don't believe in the fossil record?
You believe that god made the Universe appear older in order to test our faith?

Goes without saying.

Statisticians can give it a good stab.

We're talking about the Gallup Poll, that's about as close to a random sample as we can get.

Don't do it, OP - otherwise the proportion of YECs in America will get even higher.

that is why i do not like statistics in this fashion. i think that it is too easy to skew the data to prove a point.

even if the data is somewhat accurate, i still think that it is irrelevant. peoples belief in young creationism really has nothing to do with science, but a believe that this particular issue is necessary to their believe in the bible and God.

oh, and the original comment was supposed to be cheeky

While they generally do good work, I don't think they're immune to statistical deviance.

If this is accurate, then wow. Grandpa Lemur was one ugly bastard anyway.