"GodEvolved" <nospam at spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns924CF021D77DEnospamcom at 198.164.200.20...
>angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk (Angilion) wrote in
> news:3d333c95.21227708 at news.freeserve.net:
>> > On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:18:30 GMT, "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
> >>news:ce660175.0207141147.10aa9d8 at posting.google.com...> >>> John Knight wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >>> >But to the rest of the normal people in the country, namely the 91%
> >>> >who reject this "theory" of evolution,
> >>>
> >>> Do you have a cite for this claim? (A non-subjective one)
> >>
> >>Well, it's a bit difficult to come up with a "non-subjective" cite for
> >>public opinion, as public opinion is precisely that--subjective.
> >>
> >>The Gallup Poll, where it has its serious credibility problems, shows
> >>that only 9% of Americans accept the "theory of evolution" as its been
> >>historically defined:
> >>http://christianparty.net/gallupcreation.htm> >
> > Well, the sample size is large enough (1000) *if* it was a random
> > selection from across the whole of the USA, and it does show that
> > only 9% of the people questioned believe that God had *no part*
> > in the development of humanity.
>> "chrstianparty.net" "random selection". ?
>
"What's wrong with this picture" is that you failed to note that
christianparty.net didn't conduct this poll. As unreliable and biased as
the Gallup Organization is, this was THEIR poll, not christianparty.net's.
Why would you have such a low opinion of Americans that you would even
believe that as many as 9% of them fell for this "theory" of evolution fairy
tale in the first place?
> >
> > It is evidence that most people in the USA do not believe in the
> > theory of evolution. It is not evidence that the theory of evolution
> > is wrong, nor is it evidence that the theory of creationism is right.
> > There cannot be any evidence of the latter, by definition, as it
> > is a matter of faith.
> >
> > As an aside, why do you believe that all known forms of dating
> > material are wildly incorrect? If humanity is only 3000 or 6000
> > years old (both figures are given on the above website), all the
> > dating of all human remains or human-created items older
> > than 3000?6000? years must be wrong. Or are you arguing that
> > there were people on Earth before humans?
>> God is tricky. I should know. He only plants false evidence to test our
> faith in Him, you know. I wonder: do the Creationists believe that God is
> similar to a perjurer who plants false evidence to convict an innocent man
> in order to test the intelligence of the Prosecutors?
>
What God did was make "evolutionists" STUPID enough that they would "think"
that they have "evidence" to support all sorts of wild claims, while He made
91% of Americans SMART enough to flat out reject those claims.
I know. I know. Barbie Doll told you "math is so hard". But it obviously
wasn't so hard for most Americans that they were incapable of accomplishing
the logical assessment necessary to *reject* Darwin's "theory" as sheer
feminazi psychobabble [read: Darwin was a child in a man's body
http://christianparty.net/darwin.htm ].
John Knight
