Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#52
#52
Septic said:
I'll try not sound patronizing, but the sample size is irrelevant given the calculations made for the margin of error/confidence interval.

The math works out to there only needing to be 1,067 sampled citizens out of a population of 313,000,000 to equate to a margin of error of 3% using a 95% confidence level. 1,979 citizens must be sampled to increase that confidence to 99%.

Source: Statistics

In other words, you don't need to poll every citizen to get a reasonably accurate representation of the population as a whole. While certainly, more is better and will result in a higher confidence - the outcome wouldn't likely be statistically significant.
Click to expand...

Not taken as patronizing. I haven't had Statistics since freshman college in 97 at UT. Definitely one of the classes I hardly had use for nor one I enjoyed. I do recall confidence level being just a conventional number to use in the calculations..such as lets assume if we do this 100 times 95% will be the same..then plug that number into your statistical equation. Since its still just a guesstimate its still..a guess.

My problem with small sample sizes that no matter what the math says you are still limited in scope to what the big picture is. In this poll they are trying to draw a conclusion that massive amounts of Republicans are accepting Baby Jebus creation over evolution. You are absolutely limited in making huge generalizations. God I hated Statistics..

Would you agree with a poll exactly like this but instead of creationism versus evolution it was wiener tattoo or grundle tattoo? And then that poll was then enforced by the government on 330,000,000 people? Yeah..I'd like a bigger sample size please.

I like statistics with hard facts and not generalizations..like crime stats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
Orange_Crush said:
Evolution can not explain how life began.
Click to expand...

Right, but no one can, not even the most holy pastor in the world. The pastor's inability to explain how life began does not discredit other positions he takes. Science's inability to explain how life began does not discredit evolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#56
#56
I spent my middle school/high school years in Tennessee and I can remember taking earth science and biology and we studied Darwin and evolution and no one ever, EVER, had a problem with it. I was going to church back then as well but I never looked at the Old Testament as carved in stone..but more as a metaphorical parable. As I delved further into my study of science and history in college I learned that a lot of the old testament is really just hand me down Sumerian stories. Adam, Cain and Able..all Sumerian legends. Abraham and Noah as well. Most came from Ur and Uruk, commonly known as the first true city-states in history. I never had a problem accepting evolution. Again I am not overly religious but I am a Republican.

In fact I dont know any Republicans my age who don't think like I do. If you look at the poll analysis the glaring stat I see is that most of the evolution talk is from the older segment. The education part varies slightly but in no way does it prove that only uneducated idiots believe in evolution. In fact its 50% or higher for the 3 levels they chose. What else is interesting is that when looking at race black and White Protestant are pretty similar on the creationism train. However as we all know that 99% of those blacks vote democrat.

So what am I getting at? I am saying that the numbers increase because the older people get they realize A.) Voting Democrat was stupid why did I waste my vote and B.) I best start believing in Jesus because my days are numbered. These older folks came from a more religious time then us young(er) people. I've never met a irreligious old person before to be honest..I think when most people accept that their twilight hour is approaching they tend to get on the Zombie Christ bus. Which is fine with me, I'm not a liberalcommiefascist so I don't care about it.
 
#59
#59
tim said:
Darwinism is like a liberal "go to". Always has been, always will.
Click to expand...

like bigot, racist, I have no recollection, I was on vacation, he did it, she did it, not my fault, I didn't know, you didn't build that!, Unprecedented, me, I, me, I, responsibility?
 
#60
#60
FLVOL_79 said:
like bigot, racist, I have no recollection, I was on vacation, he did it, she did it, not my fault, I didn't know, you didn't build that!, Unprecedented, me, I, me, I, responsibility?
Click to expand...

And Bush's fault. Yes, it is predictable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#61
#61
FLVOL_79 said:
My problem with small sample sizes that no matter what the math says you are still limited in scope to what the big picture is.
Click to expand...
I'm not following your train of thought. The calculations (confidence interval and %'s) account for the sampling size. At very specific numbers, an increase in sample size are statistically irrelevant.

FLVOL_79 said:
In this poll they are trying to draw a conclusion that massive amounts of Republicans are accepting Baby Jebus creation over evolution. You are absolutely limited in making huge generalizations.
Click to expand...

They aren't drawing any conclusions, PEW asked questions and they were answered. The results of the survey were positioned next to previous findings -the differences were then quantified. All polling methods are technically, generalizations. Otherwise you would have to sample 100% of the population in order to not carry that label, that's simply not reasonable.

FLVOL_79 said:
Would you agree with a poll exactly like this but instead of creationism versus evolution it was wiener tattoo or grundle tattoo? And then that poll was then enforced by the government on 330,000,000 people? Yeah..I'd like a bigger sample size please.
Click to expand...

LOL, you lost me after grundle tattoo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
Septic said:
I'm not following your train of thought. The calculations (confidence interval and %'s) account for the sampling size. At very specific numbers, an increase in sample size are statistically irrelevant.



They aren't drawing any conclusions, PEW asked questions and they were answered. The results of the survey were positioned next to previous findings -the differences were then quantified. All polling methods are technically, generalizations. Otherwise you would have to sample 100% of the population in order to not carry that label, that's simply not reasonable.



LOL, you lost me after grundle tattoo.
Click to expand...
God this makes my head hurt! I am trying to remember statistics class. What I am saying is from my alcohol induced hazy memory was that confidence levels weren't based on anything but an educated guess..like they used 95% but could have easily used 50%. If there is a stone cold way to get those numbers then I stand corrected. :good!:

Grundle Tat would hurt like a beeyotch :eek:lol:
 
#67
#67
So, from what I can tell about this topic, which has nothing to do with Obama, democrats, or anything in that area at all, immediately turns into bashing "liberals" whenever it shouldn't even be a point of discussion, really with no logical explanation.

I'm starting to see how this forum works. It has nothing to do with facts of either side, it's simply who makes the most witty comments that rarely focus on the actual subject matter and who gets the most likes (which, seeing as this is a UT forum and mostly based in the south, heavily leans to the republican side).

Even college kids don't make fun of each other or belittle beliefs when they talk about subjects like this, but I highly doubt in a face to face environment many people here would either, and again, at least those "kids" can stay on topic.

(cue the people who don't like this post making witty retorts that focus less on the actual subject and more on terrible punch lines about their opinion of my political stance, which will then get a few likes despite not being that good of a joke or a completely false observation.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#70
#70
Daloth said:
So, from what I can tell about this topic, which has nothing to do with Obama, democrats, or anything in that area at all, immediately turns into bashing "liberals" whenever it shouldn't even be a point of discussion, really with no logical explanation.

I'm starting to see how this forum works. It has nothing to do with facts of either side, it's simply who makes the most witty comments that rarely focus on the actual subject matter and who gets the most likes (which, seeing as this is a UT forum and mostly based in the south, heavily leans to the republican side).

Even college kids don't make fun of each other or belittle beliefs when they talk about subjects like this, but I highly doubt in a face to face environment many people here would either, and again, at least those "kids" can stay on topic.

(cue the people who don't like this post making witty retorts that focus less on the actual subject and more on terrible punch lines about their opinion of my political stance, which will then get a few likes despite not being that good of a joke or a completely false observation.)
Click to expand...

Did not read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#72
#72
Daloth said:
So, from what I can tell about this topic, which has nothing to do with Obama, democrats, or anything in that area at all, immediately turns into bashing "liberals" whenever it shouldn't even be a point of discussion, really with no logical explanation.

I'm starting to see how this forum works. It has nothing to do with facts of either side, it's simply who makes the most witty comments that rarely focus on the actual subject matter and who gets the most likes (which, seeing as this is a UT forum and mostly based in the south, heavily leans to the republican side).

Even college kids don't make fun of each other or belittle beliefs when they talk about subjects like this, but I highly doubt in a face to face environment many people here would either, and again, at least those "kids" can stay on topic.

(cue the people who don't like this post making witty retorts that focus less on the actual subject and more on terrible punch lines about their opinion of my political stance, which will then get a few likes despite not being that good of a joke or a completely false observation.)
Click to expand...

The poll was about Republicans & Democrats.

And there are a lot of posts about people expressing their scientific beliefs and religious beliefs with little to no proselytizing.

This is the Politics forum. Maybe you can find some of those college kids you are talking about to help explain to you what that is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#75
#75
Velo Vol said:
Creation does not explain how God began.
Click to expand...

That is a nonsensical statement-- similar to "Creation can't explain a three sided circle."

And edit:

I wasn't bagging on Darwinian evolution. The theory wasn't created to explain the beginning of life.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top