Welcome Guest ( Log In  ·  Register)



6 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > »  
Reply to this topicStart Poll
Creationism, lies or truth?
[ Standard ] · Linear+
polo_blue
post Jul 19 2011, 12:48 AM
Post #31


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 2,127

Submissions: None
Joined: 14-October 05

From: USA
Member No.: 20,125






if you look at the two theories, creationism is much more believable.

one is god made the earth in 7 days, the other is the world 'could' have been an organic soup 5 billion years ago and 'could' have had a huge lightning storm that 'could' have made primitive amino acids, then everything evolved from that.

which sounds more likely?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Jul 19 2011, 01:47 AM
Post #32


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441

Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






You have got to be kidding me...

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Jul 19 2011, 01:50 AM
Post #33


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(DoO_Quasar @ Jul 17 2011, 12:03 AM)
Current evolutionary theory can actually account for the fossil record as what appears to happen in the fossil record is that things stay basically the same for a long period of time and then change vastly in a short period of time and then stay the same again for a long time, and this process keeps repeating itself.

How currently evolutionary theory explains this, is that certain events in the history of the earth (usually temperature and climate changes) suddenly make an adaptation useful and all individuals within a species who have this adaptation survive and those who do not basically die out or at least the status quo is changed, and thus this is why change occurs so quickly and then stays this way for quite some time until another life-changing event occurs.

***very simplified account of how this theory works 11***
*



I don't want to punish you, but it is for your own good, and for the good of everyone on this site. :chinese:

So it begins. Bite the pillow, I’m going in dry. Let us define the terms of this debate. I am not taking offence with “descent with modification.” It is very clear that there is biological change over time, as any dog breeder will observe. Darwinian evolution, as you were undoubtedly taught in school by some uneducated so-called “teacher,” claims: that all life is descended from a common ancestor (fungus, humans and fruit flies), and is the result of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

The evidence you were taught in school, I will, debase with righteous fury:
1) The miller experiment, which your teacher has claimed “recreated organic compounds such as amino acids in an early-earth simulation.” Miller chose a hydrogen-rich atmosphere mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapour. In the 60s a geophysicist with the Carnegie institution demonstrated that this atmosphere was in direct contradiction with the evidence. In the 70s Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox confirmed that miller used the wrong mixture. This simulation was ridiculous, yet is hardcore atheist evidence.

The current best hypothesis (according to Jonathan Wells PhD, PhD), is that there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space (being the most rarefied of elements). The early environment likely consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapour. When origin-of-life scientists have replicated the experiment using an accurate atmosphere, they do not get amino acids or any compounds related to life, the “organic molecules” they are able to produce are actually formaldehyde and cyanide (technically organic molecules, but your teacher misrepresented this evidence, or was unaware 111). Furthermore, these abundant organic elements would have proved toxic to nascent life, embalming fluid as the origin of life, what a joke.

Ok, let’s say, for arguments sake, there was actually the possibility of amino acids on an early earth (the most basic chemical unit for cellular life), despite it being chemically impossible. To create a living cell, you would need the right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule. You would then need all the right kinds of proteins to form up perfectly. Imagine this, put a sterile, balanced salt solution into a test tube, then poke a hole into a single cell so that it’s contents leak into the solution. The test tube now has all of the molecules to create a living cell, much better than early earth could have done. Now make a living cell. Impossible. No biologist in his right mind would agree with this test, and yet the odds of it creating life are a great deal better than early earth doing so (which they assume happened). You cannot put humpty-dumpty together again. Even if you could accomplish the thousands of steps between the amino acids in the “miller tar,” which didn’t exist anyways, and the components you need for a living cell, all the enzymes, DNA, etc. you’re still immeasurably far from life. As to the origin of biological coding, the RNA first hypothesis falls immeasurably far from the mark, as it has been shown that even it could not exist by itself before cells were around to manufacture it.

2) Darwin’s tree of life. I am glad you have the wherewithal to acknowledge the theory of punctuated equilibrium (which is what you explained to me calling it something else). Remember that the theory of evolution is based upon the presumption that there is gradual change and divergence over time. Here is what the evidence demonstrates: life proceeded with no change for million (sometimes hundreds of millions of years), and then boom, its all there, perfectly evolved. The Cambrian explosion 540 million years ago for example. Until that point there were some jellyfish, sponges and worms. And then, with no predecessors in the fossil record there are arthropods (modern types are insects/crabs etc.), echinoderms (like starfish), chordates (animals with spinal cords). This is absolutely contrary to Darwin’s tree of life. These completely different organisms appear fully developed, with no ancestors, just like that. “The Cambrian explosion has uprooted Darwin’s tree,” (Dr. Dr. Wells). As for punctuated equilibrium, the Cambrian explosion is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record. Atheists say, “the bodies were too soft or something to be preserved,” I say son look, we have fossils of soft-bodied organisms preserved from the Precambrian age.

3) Haeckels embryos. In school you were probably lied to about the embryonic development of organisms. Basically, in the mid 19th century, drawings were made of embryos which showed them as indistinguishable (funny enough they were fake, some were actually duplicates because the scientist thought his idea didn’t need proof), these pictures of embryonic development are still used in American high schools and universities (almost 150 years later). Furthermore, the pictures they show you are misleading, they usually show 4 placental mammals, and salamanders instead of frogs (because frog embryos look nothing like us, but salamanders do). The examples you were shown were cherry picked and faked. In embryonic development, different organisms are most different in the very early cellular stage, and late in development (this is called the developmental hourglass). Embryonic development does not support common ancestry.

4) Homology. Basically, this is the argument that because of similar bone structure in, say, a human arm, a whales flipper, and a bats wing, this proves common ancestry and evolution. First off, this neither validates nor falsifies either evolution or creationism (notice how car designs by different companies share similar traits, even though a designer is clearly behind these). Most atheists will argue that homologous structures are the result of similar genes (inherited from common ancestors). This is rubbish, for example, eyes. Mice, octopuses and flies do not have common ancestors which would have had eyes (according to evolutionary theory), and yet, all rely on similar genes. This means that gene theory (as well as development pathways, which are basically the way organisms develop in the embryonic stage, for these three animals they are very different), does not explain homologous structures. If this is not the case, then all the evidence that scientists have used to link animals with homologous structures is undermined, and must be discredited.

5) Transitional forms: a quote will suffice. Taken from Michael denton, evolution, a theory in crisis
“the universal experience of paleontology…[is that] while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life…what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin [of species]. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.”

No “missing link” for any organism has been found, and yet we should be finding a clear line of organisms according to evolutionary theory.

NOTHING pisses me off more than the myth of human evolution. Given all of the evidence for “human evolution,” four different reconstructions were made in four different labs (unknown to them what exactly they were creating). One looked like a modern sub-Saharan African, one looked like a werewolf, another like a gorilla, another looked like a “beaked dinosaur.” This is the evidence that you uphold human evolution with? Let me lay down the law. “all the fossil evidence for human evolution between ten and five million years ago… can be fitted into a small box” (Dr. Dr. Wells + Icons of Evolution). Taking a line of fossils, probably unrelated, and claiming that they represent a lineage is not scientific, its more like a fairy tale as j4 said about Christianity and the Bible.

Anyways, evolution is retarded, and this is my rage post. If you want to debate me, you are going to be demolished. There is no hope for you or any atheist against me. There can be no victory. I can’t even comprehend how it is possible, in this day and age, with all we know about science, that anyone can be an atheist. It is a complete disgrace, and a failure of our education system, pure and simple. The age of atheism was born and should have ended in the 19th century. The fact that people can be so ignorant as to not believe in God and creationism is absolutely shameful. It indicates a lack of scientific and logical rigour which should characterize the youth of our day. I am ashamed that there is even one atheist in the western world. The fact that so many young people are believing in mythology painted to look like science from 150 years ago is flummoxing. If you are open-minded and have a rational brain it is impossible to argue against me.

I hope this discussion can progress to my area of personal expertise, that of the origin of the universe.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Jul 19 2011, 02:03 AM
Post #34


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441

Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






tl;dr so just skimmed. What is your source though before I even consider reading that? Brigham Young University? :blink:

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LoVe_Soup
post Jul 19 2011, 09:27 AM
Post #35


Colonel
Group Icon

Group: AoT Gosu
Posts: 1,826

Submissions: None
Joined: 19-September 05

Member No.: 19,609






QUOTE(Armycore @ Jul 19 2011, 06:50 AM)
it is impossible to argue against me.
*



Didn't read your whole post, nor would I be able to understand it anyway, but this pretty much sums it up. It is impossible to argue against creationists, since you can neither prove or disprove the existence of of a godly figure, thus the discussion shifts from theory to faith.

This post has been edited by LoVe_Soup: Jul 19 2011, 09:28 AM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Jul 19 2011, 11:34 AM
Post #36


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441

Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






Plus, it's not as if evolution could not take place under the existence of a divine being. If I were to believe in a superior being, it most certainly would be one who just watched as the universe unfolded. No such 'creationism' would exist, except that of existence itself. One would not be able to debunk a claim of science conflicting with religion as they would be one in the same.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Jul 19 2011, 01:09 PM
Post #37


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(LoVe_Soup @ Jul 19 2011, 08:27 AM)
QUOTE(Armycore @ Jul 19 2011, 06:50 AM)
it is impossible to argue against me.
*



Didn't read your whole post, nor would I be able to understand it anyway, but this pretty much sums it up. It is impossible to argue against creationists, since you can neither prove or disprove the existence of of a godly figure, thus the discussion shifts from theory to faith.
*



actually it is very easy to prove the existence of God using pure logic and philosophy. i will do this for you after work.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Jul 19 2011, 01:13 PM
Post #38


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(DoO_Quasar @ Jul 19 2011, 01:03 AM)
tl;dr so just skimmed. What is your source though before I even consider reading that? Brigham Young University? :blink:
*



In my initial post I demolished much of the traditional evidence for evolution, I also dealt with the origin of life. Seeing as this is a topic on evolution, I will reiterate my beef with evolution in a more succinct manner (not being exhausted helps my cause).

Evolutionary theory is defined as “life began with a common ancestor, and through the process of decent with modification, caused by natural selection and random mutation, blossomed into all current life.” If evolutionary theory is correct, the evidence should be as follows: one, the fossil record must reveal a host of transitory forms, through which a clear lineage can be traced; two, the fossil record must necessarily resemble a branching tree, meaning that the fossil record should undergo a change from disparity to diversity, with our current time as the most diverse; and three, by using the processes of natural selection and artificial mutation, scientists should be able to create new species in an equivalent generational gap.

Evolutionary theory has been falsified by all three of these measures, and thus, must be abandoned on a scientific basis

First, the fossil record does not reveal any of the transitory forms necessitated by evolution, none of them. We can no more find a link between dinosaurs and birds than we can between simians and man. To circumvent this intellectual dilemma, certain evolutionists have argued the following: the transitory forms are there but none of them are preserved in the fossil record and that the transitory forms appeared and disappeared too rapidly to be seen in the fossil record. Both of these are equally preposterous. Given that we have ample evidence to suggest the descendant organisms, it follows that we should have the transitory organisms existing within the same fossil beds, just in lower stratum. This is not the case. Next, it is impossible to uphold the theory of evolution by arguing the latter, as life should be constantly changing, we should have nothing but transitory forms (the ones that don’t exist). Others have argued that the organisms were there all along, but were unpreserved, this is obviously hokum, and needs no further rebuttal.

One would expect that almost all of the fossil evidence would be “transitory” forms, a kaleidoscope of ephemeral organisms, continuously morphing into new, and more advanced, creatures. This is not the case, what the fossil record reveals is that organisms remained unchanged for millions (sometimes hundreds of millions) of years, and at some point there was a spontaneous burst of life. This brings me to my second qualm.

Two, if evolutionary theory is correct, then it must be that organisms evolved slowly, over time as the result of natural selection and random mutation, and this should bare out in the fossil record. In fact, it does not. What the record shows is that, as I have said, life remains unchanged, and spontaneously erupts with creativity and diversity. For example, the Cambrian explosion (450 million years ago). Geological surveys show that there was no discernable abrupt change in temperature or sunlight at this time, and suddenly the diversity of life went from a few sorts of sponges, jellyfish and worms, to (with no predecessors) arthropods, echinoderms and chordates as well. The fossil record falsifies evolutionary theory in this way. The gradual changes we would expect are absent, whereas the sort of rapid divergence (which is impossible according to evolutionary theory) characteristic of creationism is present. I need not remind you of the lack of evidence for any sort of transitory forms, even at the time of divergence: all of the resulting organisms appear fully formed, with no ancestors, and then proceed to remain unchanged until the next spontaneous divergence.

Third, I stated that, if evolutionary theory is to be verified or falsified, then we should easily be able to replicate it giving our knowledge of the processes of divergence (natural selection and random mutation). Experiments have been conducted by calculating the hypothetical generational gap between organisms (ie the number of generations it took for them to evolve naturally, this can be calculated using retrograde mathematics). Using fruit flies, which have a very quick life span, it is possible to recreate the generational gap for larger animals such as mammals (we know how long ago they “separated” from their peers). Artificial selection and mutation exacerbated the projected rate of divergence. The results of these experiments? The processes by which evolution takes place do not work (even when arterially enhanced, and over much longer generational gaps). The fruit flies, were still fruit flies. Some were extremely damaged and crippled, and some were robust, but they were all fruit flies. No new species had been created using the methods by which we ascribe the bounty of life.

I hope you take the time to actually read this post, it is organised much more acceptably, and the writing is much more lucid.


This post has been edited by Armycore: Jul 19 2011, 01:57 PM

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Jul 19 2011, 01:51 PM
Post #39


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441

Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






Try refute Richard Dawkins. I dare you. But I am not atheist anyways, I am quite open-minded to what the reality of this existence may be. It is of my opinion that we are far from knowing the truth, and anyone claiming they know the truth is most likely even further from the truth than I am.

A good essay that is in support of the existence of god that I have shared on this forum before, if you care to read it: http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Jul 19 2011, 01:59 PM
Post #40


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(DoO_Quasar @ Jul 19 2011, 12:51 PM)
Try refute Richard Dawkins. I dare you. But I am not atheist anyways, I am quite open-minded to what the reality of this existence may be. It is of my opinion that we are far from knowing the truth, and anyone claiming they know the truth is most likely even further from the truth than I am.

A good essay that is in support of the existence of god that I have shared on this forum before, if you care to read it: http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm
*



dawkins is a complete idiot 111 he fabricates a great deal of his "evidence" and has been accused by numerous scientists of misconstruing and deliberatly misrepresenting evidence. he is a liar and a fraud who merely capitalized on a public whim. he commands 0 scientific respect.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Jul 19 2011, 02:19 PM
Post #41


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441

Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






I'm sure these are Christian scientists saying this because I have not heard this anywhere. I'd also completely confused if he were as discredited as you say he is, as he is one of the most frequently appearing intellectuals in modern debate. Also, his work on the gene-centred viewed of evolution is among the most critically acclaimed in modern zoology, and his creation of the field of mematics and the idea of the extended phenotype are indisputable genius. And it goes without saying that he's as intelligent as they come when he tops the list of top 100 British intellectuals, receiving twice as many votes as the #2. The man is a boss.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
4servant
post Jul 19 2011, 03:23 PM
Post #42


Lieutenant-General
Group Icon

Group: DOW I Expert
Posts: 3,034

Submissions: None
Joined: 2-July 06

From: Netherlands
Member No.: 89,239






The only evidence people bring for creatism is that there are some holes in the evolution theories. Not a single piece of scientific evidence of logical reasoning can be given for creatism. All it does is speculating on some holes and uncertainties there are on the evolution.
Luckely in the europe this debate isnt discussed as much simply because up to now there are no better explinations for the existance of live then darwins theory.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
[DoD]Quasar
post Jul 19 2011, 04:38 PM
Post #43


GOTW Reviewer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 14,441

Submissions: None
Joined: 12-June 08

From: St. Paul, MN, USA
Member No.: 66,835






+1

There cannot possibly be any 'evidence' for what is, in all intents and purposes, 'magic'.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
polo_blue
post Jul 19 2011, 11:26 PM
Post #44


Brigadier
Group Icon

Group: Silver VIP Member
Posts: 2,127

Submissions: None
Joined: 14-October 05

From: USA
Member No.: 20,125






have you ever even taken biology quasar? i did, and gave you a spark notes version of what the two best theories were at the time (i took biology almost 6 years ago).

how do you explain how the best scientists all eventually become religious? because they realize that evolution requires a ton of variables to be aligned perfectly for it to have happened. however, adaptation and evolution are two different things. adaptation is much more believable because everyone experiences it. think of moving from alaska to florida. the heat and humidity would be very unpleasant for you, but after a few weeks you adapt to your surroundings. same thing with elevation.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ArmyCore
post Jul 20 2011, 12:01 AM
Post #45


Field-Marshal
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8,068

Submissions: None
Joined: 4-August 08

Member No.: 68,380






QUOTE(Armycore @ Jul 19 2011, 12:13 PM)
QUOTE(DoO_Quasar @ Jul 19 2011, 01:03 AM)
tl;dr so just skimmed. What is your source though before I even consider reading that? Brigham Young University? :blink:
*



In my initial post I demolished much of the traditional evidence for evolution, I also dealt with the origin of life. Seeing as this is a topic on evolution, I will reiterate my beef with evolution in a more succinct manner (not being exhausted helps my cause).

Evolutionary theory is defined as “life began with a common ancestor, and through the process of decent with modification, caused by natural selection and random mutation, blossomed into all current life.” If evolutionary theory is correct, the evidence should be as follows: one, the fossil record must reveal a host of transitory forms, through which a clear lineage can be traced; two, the fossil record must necessarily resemble a branching tree, meaning that the fossil record should undergo a change from disparity to diversity, with our current time as the most diverse; and three, by using the processes of natural selection and artificial mutation, scientists should be able to create new species in an equivalent generational gap.

Evolutionary theory has been falsified by all three of these measures, and thus, must be abandoned on a scientific basis

First, the fossil record does not reveal any of the transitory forms necessitated by evolution, none of them. We can no more find a link between dinosaurs and birds than we can between simians and man. To circumvent this intellectual dilemma, certain evolutionists have argued the following: the transitory forms are there but none of them are preserved in the fossil record and that the transitory forms appeared and disappeared too rapidly to be seen in the fossil record. Both of these are equally preposterous. Given that we have ample evidence to suggest the descendant organisms, it follows that we should have the transitory organisms existing within the same fossil beds, just in lower stratum. This is not the case. Next, it is impossible to uphold the theory of evolution by arguing the latter, as life should be constantly changing, we should have nothing but transitory forms (the ones that don’t exist). Others have argued that the organisms were there all along, but were unpreserved, this is obviously hokum, and needs no further rebuttal.

One would expect that almost all of the fossil evidence would be “transitory” forms, a kaleidoscope of ephemeral organisms, continuously morphing into new, and more advanced, creatures. This is not the case, what the fossil record reveals is that organisms remained unchanged for millions (sometimes hundreds of millions) of years, and at some point there was a spontaneous burst of life. This brings me to my second qualm.

Two, if evolutionary theory is correct, then it must be that organisms evolved slowly, over time as the result of natural selection and random mutation, and this should bare out in the fossil record. In fact, it does not. What the record shows is that, as I have said, life remains unchanged, and spontaneously erupts with creativity and diversity. For example, the Cambrian explosion (450 million years ago). Geological surveys show that there was no discernable abrupt change in temperature or sunlight at this time, and suddenly the diversity of life went from a few sorts of sponges, jellyfish and worms, to (with no predecessors) arthropods, echinoderms and chordates as well. The fossil record falsifies evolutionary theory in this way. The gradual changes we would expect are absent, whereas the sort of rapid divergence (which is impossible according to evolutionary theory) characteristic of creationism is present. I need not remind you of the lack of evidence for any sort of transitory forms, even at the time of divergence: all of the resulting organisms appear fully formed, with no ancestors, and then proceed to remain unchanged until the next spontaneous divergence.

Third, I stated that, if evolutionary theory is to be verified or falsified, then we should easily be able to replicate it giving our knowledge of the processes of divergence (natural selection and random mutation). Experiments have been conducted by calculating the hypothetical generational gap between organisms (ie the number of generations it took for them to evolve naturally, this can be calculated using retrograde mathematics). Using fruit flies, which have a very quick life span, it is possible to recreate the generational gap for larger animals such as mammals (we know how long ago they “separated” from their peers). Artificial selection and mutation exacerbated the projected rate of divergence. The results of these experiments? The processes by which evolution takes place do not work (even when arterially enhanced, and over much longer generational gaps). The fruit flies, were still fruit flies. Some were extremely damaged and crippled, and some were robust, but they were all fruit flies. No new species had been created using the methods by which we ascribe the bounty of life.

I hope you take the time to actually read this post, it is organised much more acceptably, and the writing is much more lucid.
*



In the above post, I presented the conditions that evolutionary theory MUST meet in order to be credited. It failed all three of these conditions. The theory of evolution has actually been falsified. There is no debate here. Anyone that actually believes in evolution is illogical, and clings to the ramblings of a man who lived 150 years ago and spent his time drawing pictures of tropical birds and plants.

In the future, please refrain from avoiding the debate. This debate is about evolution vs creation. I have logically proven that evolution is not a viable theory. We are now free to look at creation as a possible theory. You must either refute me or agree with me, there can be no middle ground.

Grumpy is actually correct when he states that most PhD's are religious. In fact, there is an hourglass correlation between religion and education. Statistically, college grads are the most irreligious, but doctors are indistinguishable from regular folk. The reason for this is those with more advanced education understand more completely, and understand their lack of understanding more thoroughly.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicTopic Options
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
 




Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 02:23 PM
About Us  ·   Advertising  ·   Contact Us  ·   Terms of Use  ·   Privacy Policy