Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[quote name='AdultLink']But isn't this the same retarded argument people were giving me for this entire coversation? Sicne I was defending something that cannot be proved (God), I am an idiot? Yet the people who came to post in this topic, acting like they were using logic, and cannot prove that a Darwin film would or would not sell, were telling me I was the idiot here?

Interesting...[/QUOTE]

It is understandable to guess why a film about evolution would do terribly using common sense. Religion does not equal evolution.

And I know that America was not founded on Christian values. But I'm talking about today, compared to other developed countries.

The problem with god is that there is NO evidence. It is merely a cop-out because we don't understand something.
 
I'm going to try another example. Say we were to release a movie promoting the bombing of Hiroshima. Would it do well in Japan? I doubt it. Yes, it's an opinion, but an educated one.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely.
 
[quote name='DrMunkee']It is understandable to guess why a film about evolution would do terribly using common sense. Religion does not equal evolution.

And I know that America was not founded on Christian values. But I'm talking about today, compared to other developed countries.

The problem with god is that there is NO evidence. It is merely a cop-out because we don't understand something.[/QUOTE]

Yet films about murder would sell well?

What about movies and tv shows of adultery?

If the christian nation doesn't care about the 10 commandments why would they care about evolution?

Doesn't make sense, must be because I'm not intelligent enough. Why don't some of the more 'brilliant' minds here 'enlighten' me?
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Yet films about murder would sell well?

What about movies and tv shows of adultery?

If the christian nation doesn't care about the 10 commandments why would they care about evolution?

Doesn't make sense, must be because I'm not intelligent enough. Why don't some of the more 'brilliant' minds here 'enlighten' me?[/QUOTE]

Because this movie about evolution is a true story that challenges the very legitimacy of any religion.

You can watch a movie about murder, believe that it really happened, say that murder is wrong, and move on.

But something that tells you that your very existence has no significant meaning? You try to sell that.
 
With so many flawed arguments based on heresay, limited polls, and assumptions made by people, I'm surprised all of you haven't turned on me yet with your 'logic'.
 
[quote name='DrMunkee']Because this movie about evolution is a true story that challenges the very legitimacy of any religion.

You can watch a movie about murder, believe that it really happened, say that murder is wrong, and move on.

But something that tells you that your very existence has no significant meaning? You try to sell that.[/QUOTE]

isn't that what alot of movies and games do nowadays anyway? Maybe it's not based totally on reality, but how can you make that assumption when so much sells based on it already?
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Btw, when you speak of the gallup poll, isn't that also a flawed argument to begin with? Mainly because it doesn't poll all 300 million people in the US?

Isn't it about as flawed as say, the poll from gamers in Seattle saying that gamers are depressed, overweight, and 35?

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/study-games-are-depressing-or-are-they-/1346074[/QUOTE]

Sure, it's flawed. All survey's are. Your never going to be 100% accurate.

If you're waiting for perfection, you're never going to get anywhere in life.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Again, you may want to actually have a mind of your own first. If this was such a christian nation you wouldn't have porn as number 1 sellers, shows like Sex and the city, the sopranos, advocating sex, drugs, murder, as number 1 hits.

All that had to happen for you to come up with your assumptions was a web link. I guess you ignored everything else that sells excellently eh?[/QUOTE]

I don't know when I argued this was or wasn't a christian nation. I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that I don't have a mind of my own.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Can you explain?
 
[quote name='IRHari']I don't know when I argued this was or wasn't a christian nation. I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that I don't have a mind of my own.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Can you explain?[/QUOTE]

I'm arguing every point anybody in the topic makes. I spare no point from an argument. Does that make a bit more sense about me?

I was a kid who wore calculator watches and was on debates teams. I'm an INTJ if you are through with calling me an idiot.

The point of my argument wasn't christianity, the point was 1 upping people on an argument.
 
Alright. I think we've reached a point where we are running circles around our arguments, as is typical with any online debate.

Good show, mates!
 
[quote name='IRHari']I don't know when I argued this was or wasn't a christian nation. I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that I don't have a mind of my own.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Can you explain?[/QUOTE]

Remember this is the guy who thinks all polls are flawed because they do not ask every single person in the entire country.

I swear it gets to the point around here where the half the time the only response is "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY".
 
[quote name='DrMunkee']Haha. This heat is turned on, baby![/QUOTE]

My non sequitur was in response to this:

[quote name='AdultLink']Btw, when you speak of the gallup poll, isn't that also a flawed argument to begin with? Mainly because it doesn't poll all 300 million people in the US?

Isn't it about as flawed as say, the poll from gamers in Seattle saying that gamers are depressed, overweight, and 35?

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/study-games-are-depressing-or-are-they-/1346074[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to bother explaining sampling techniques, representativeness, and levels of generalizability.

I can't be arsed to deal with level of flippant disregard of knowledge. Where's that fucker from the mormonism thread who got all snug in his or her knickers because I said I can't fucking deal with people who can't battle against scientific knowledge yet insist on doing so anyway? He needs to be here to witness precisely what level of knuckleheadedness I'm talking about.

Adultlink can bugger off with that nonsense. I'm going to have some peanut butter crackers. I think it's a far better use of my time.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']I'm arguing every point anybody in the topic makes. I spare no point from an argument. Does that make a bit more sense about me?

I was a kid who wore calculator watches and was on debates teams. I'm an INTJ if you are through with calling me an idiot.

The point of my argument wasn't christianity, the point was 1 upping people on an argument.[/QUOTE]

Never called you an idiot. It's unfortunate you found out you were an INTJ but never bothered to find out what a 'poll' is. Is your solution to poll all the people in the U.S.? Until then, every single poll ever is not credible?
 
I'm not even going to bother going into the religious side of the debate. But those of you who really want to see this movie know you can just import it, right?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']My non sequitur was in response to this:



I'm not going to bother explaining sampling techniques, representativeness, and levels of generalizability.

I can't be arsed to deal with level of flippant disregard of knowledge. Where's that fucker from the mormonism thread who got all snug in his or her knickers because I said I can't fucking deal with people who can't battle against scientific knowledge yet insist on doing so anyway? He needs to be here to witness precisely what level of knuckleheadedness I'm talking about.

Adultlink can bugger off with that nonsense. I'm going to have some peanut butter crackers. I think it's a far better use of my time.[/QUOTE]

Well first you would have to know scientific knowledge to speak of it.

The scientific method goes by questioning, doing research and hypothesis, experimenting and coming up with an idea. If you can't do good research on an entire country then you have missed large steps and shouldn't be clamining that you know about the country or you know about science.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Never called you an idiot. It's unfortunate you found out you were an INTJ but never bothered to find out what a 'poll' is. Is your solution to poll all the people in the U.S.? Until then, every single poll ever is not credible?[/QUOTE]

It gives a generalized idea, but unless you have a poll of the entire country, you should not be making an assumption on how things sell.

Now if you had even a poll with 50% or 30% of the people, perhaps... but still, if your going to judge an entire country you need alot more evidence then a few people.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']
Now if you had even a poll with 50% or 30% of the people, perhaps... [/QUOTE]

Are you aware that this is absolutely impossible?
 
[quote name='Strell']Are you aware that this is absolutely impossible?[/QUOTE]

Yes I am. But that again is the problem with assumptions of a country.

The main issue with all of this is the free market (Or whatever you call it today, free as long as it's not music/movies/internet providers?). You can never do a perfect analysis, so it's a gamble. If your product is good, or has good press and noobs (Apple, Bose, Monster cables), it sells.

Sometimes sellers over estimate the market, afterall, wasn't it Capitol Records that passed up the Beatles?

There has been alot of examples of markets passing up things that they feel were too risky, and ended up selling great. And alot of things that seemed a surefire hit and failed.

That's the point.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']Yes I am. But that again is the problem with assumptions of a country.[/QUOTE]

So you agree it's impossible, but then you go on to say that Gallup Poll - an entity who specializes in polling and surveys - is not representative of a group of people in the nation, and so their findings are little more than assumptions?

Where's the cut off? What's your criteria for a poll that works versus doesn't? I'd love to bring up the whole "what makes you think you know more than a company that's been doing it for a few decades," but I have a feeling you'll just shrug it off as a personal attack or something.

You get to call out studies if they aren't performed well. But I'm going to guess GP knows a thing or two about it, since it's in their company name and all.
 
[quote name='Strell']So you agree it's impossible, but then you go on to say that Gallup Poll - an entity who specializes in polling and surveys - is not representative of a group of people in the nation, and so their findings are little more than assumptions?

Where's the cut off? What's your criteria for a poll that works versus doesn't? I'd love to bring up the whole "what makes you think you know more than a company that's been doing it for a few decades," but I have a feeling you'll just shrug it off as a personal attack or something.

You get to call out studies if they aren't performed well. But I'm going to guess GP knows a thing or two about it, since it's in their company name and all.[/QUOTE]

All of this goes back to my example of Capitol Record shrugging off The Beatles.

You can never take a perfect poll of a country, which is again why people who sell on the free market cross their fingers and hope for the best.

Unless of course you need to pay the FCC to become a monopoly, or sue your users for 100's of thousands of dollars... At that point you could dictate your users and destroy a free market...
 
OMG Strell you're so full of hate! I know you still have to respond to my superior logic but I am an NRDC and I used to wear bow ties and emo glasses when I was a kid.

And by the way you're assuming the Gallup poll people actually know what they're doing! Keep making those 'assumptions' based on no facts!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']random samples are just lucky.[/QUOTE]

Random samples are exactly what they say: RANDOM. It could be a decent representation, or it could be people who don't represent the country.
 
[quote name='IRHari']OMG Strell you're so full of hate! I know you still have to respond to my superior logic but I am an NRDC and I used to wear bow ties and emo glasses when I was a kid.

And by the way you're assuming the Gallup poll people actually know what they're doing! Keep making those 'assumptions' based on no facts![/QUOTE]

It's not that people do or do not know what their doing, it's a limited poll which does not faithfully represent the entire country, and any serious poll maker would tell you that.
 
What does Capitol Records even have to do with polling? A couple sweaty dudes sat around and listened to the Beatles demo and said, "Nah. Sounds too much like X." What polls are you talking about, AdultLink? You make no sense.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']All of this goes back to my example of Capitol Record shrugging off The Beatles.[/quote]

You need to stop comparing religious doctrine versus business decisions. That is an extraordinarily gigantic case of apples versus oranges.

Further, you really need to stop saying this especially when their wikipedia page says that yes, they did initially pass, but then exercised their option, thereby helping bring Beatlemania into the states.

So really you're using a decision that got overturned by the company itself when they realized just what they were dealing with, which is something I tend to think of as smart. But this destroys your whole argument.

You can never take a perfect poll of a country, which is again why people who sell on the free market cross their fingers and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

This sounds like "well it can't be perfect so we'd better not do it." Which is a terrible way of thinking.

Unless of course you need to pay the FCC to become a monopoly, or sue your users for 100's of thousands of dollars... At that point you could dictate your users and destroy a free market...
Click to expand...

Oh god. No. No no no no no. Now we're just hopping into another discussion altogether.

[quote name='DarkNessBear']Wow, I really thought creationism was out of style. There still can't be complete idiots like that can there? Oh yea, this is America.[/QUOTE]

What's stupid about this is that you're mad about an idealogy built upon what you'd consider close-mindedness. And then you turn right around and do the same.

But you've always been special so I'm not sure why I'm bringing this up.
 
Hey, show us an explanation thats more in depth then 'God did it' and we'll gladly hear it along with any evidence you may have.
 
Jesus fucking Christ this thread just got even worse. You don't even try AdultLink...

As for "both sides" - science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, there are only problems when people try to use religious faith to explain physical phenomena that are already scientifically understood (and for the ones not understood, it's only a matter of time). It's pretty much just the literalists that do that, they don't have enough faith to have faith, they need everything written out for them, concrete and unchangeable. Science threatens their faith because their faith is entirely based on an old book they need to take literally or else it has no meaning for them, they cannot accept uncertainty.

Aside from that, there's no conflict between a god, or some supernatural being, and science, since science only observes the natural. You obviously can't disprove something that's intentionally untestable, so science cannot have any impact on it.

And god dammit AdultLink, do you really think that people are so different that a well-designed poll can't accurately depict overall opinions? It doesn't matter if you poll 10 people or 10 million when they all think the same way.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Jesus fucking Christ this thread just got even worse. You don't even try AdultLink...

As for "both sides" - science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, there are only problems when people try to use religious faith to explain physical phenomena that are already scientifically understood (and for the ones not understood, it's only a matter of time). It's pretty much just the literalists that do that, they don't have enough faith to have faith, they need everything written out for them, concrete and unchangeable. Science threatens their faith because their faith is entirely based on an old book they need to take literally or else it has no meaning for them, they cannot accept uncertainty.

Aside from that, there's no conflict between a god, or some supernatural being, and science, since science only observes the natural. You obviously can't disprove something that's intentionally untestable, so science cannot have any impact on it.

And god dammit AdultLink, do you really think that people are so different that a well-designed poll can't accurately depict overall opinions? It doesn't matter if you poll 10 people or 10 million when they all think the same way.[/QUOTE]

Religion has nothing to do with a god. It is about control.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Both sides seem to be very close-minded. I don't think that will ever change. Religion and science will probably never reconcile.[/QUOTE]
It's reconciled pretty well between my ears. ;)

But in all seriousness, I disagree. I think on a long enough timeline both the spiritual and the scientific will start to meet. It's inevitable in my mind.

[quote name='IRHari']Hey, show us an explanation thats more in depth then 'God did it' and we'll gladly hear it along with any evidence you may have.[/QUOTE]
For me, the "evidence" part is highly relative and where most arguments stem from. Many people feel they have had spiritual experiences which is the foundation for their beliefs. Those spiritual experiences is their evidence. And because of the nature of the experiences, they can't be reproduced in a lab for others to scrutinize. That's where everyone deviates - some people consider that a valid experience to base belief on, others don't consider any belief valid without it being reproducible and provable to everyone elses five physical senses.

[quote name='SpazX']Jesus fucking Christ this thread just got even worse. You don't even try AdultLink...

As for "both sides" - science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, there are only problems when people try to use religious faith to explain physical phenomena that are already scientifically understood (and for the ones not understood, it's only a matter of time). It's pretty much just the literalists that do that, they don't have enough faith to have faith, they need everything written out for them, concrete and unchangeable. Science threatens their faith because their faith is entirely based on an old book they need to take literally or else it has no meaning for them, they cannot accept uncertainty.

Aside from that, there's no conflict between a god, or some supernatural being, and science, since science only observes the natural. You obviously can't disprove something that's intentionally untestable, so science cannot have any impact on it.

And god dammit AdultLink, do you really think that people are so different that a well-designed poll can't accurately depict overall opinions? It doesn't matter if you poll 10 people or 10 million when they all think the same way.[/QUOTE]

Spot on, spazx.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Jesus fucking Christ this thread just got even worse. You don't even try AdultLink...

As for "both sides" - science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, there are only problems when people try to use religious faith to explain physical phenomena that are already scientifically understood (and for the ones not understood, it's only a matter of time). It's pretty much just the literalists that do that, they don't have enough faith to have faith, they need everything written out for them, concrete and unchangeable. Science threatens their faith because their faith is entirely based on an old book they need to take literally or else it has no meaning for them, they cannot accept uncertainty.

Aside from that, there's no conflict between a god, or some supernatural being, and science, since science only observes the natural. You obviously can't disprove something that's intentionally untestable, so science cannot have any impact on it.

And god dammit AdultLink, do you really think that people are so different that a well-designed poll can't accurately depict overall opinions? It doesn't matter if you poll 10 people or 10 million when they all think the same way.[/QUOTE]

Then you agree that gamers are depressed, overweight, and 35?

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/study-games-are-depressing-or-are-they-/1346074

It's funny that you clowns are arguing science while defending such non scientific polls. There are polls that give a wide range of different views.

As of the moment, the Gallup poll has the president at 52% approval:

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Yet the rasmussen polls has the president at 34% approval:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Is this an accurate depiction now? I mean you only have a difference of 18%, that's not large right?
 
It should be common sense that if you make a random poll, you could end up polling anyone. Polls like this are generally skewed to begin with, it only makes it worse when alternative polls give far different results.
 
A grade that tells me that there is a signifigant difference in majority apporval and majority disapproval, esp. when the majority disapproval is 34%.

I enjoy the constant shit flinging though. Perhaps you guys would be better off in a zoo?
 
Both of those polls are right, they're just using different means of polling.

Before you complain, yes it is possible for both of them to be right.
 
[quote name='AdultLink']A grade that tells me that there is a signifigant difference in majority apporval and majority disapproval, esp. when the majority disapproval is 34%.

I enjoy the constant shit flinging though. Perhaps you guys would be better off in a zoo?[/QUOTE]

I'll ask a little differently. What grade did you earn in your statistics course?

Here are a few example answers: "A", "B", "C", "D", "F", "I", "W" and "I didn't take one".
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Both of those polls are right, they're just using different means of polling.

Before you complain, yes it is possible for both of them to be right.[/QUOTE]

So if one poll was to say that a majority believed in evolution and one said a majority didn't, and both used different methods of polling, then are they both right too?

Because again, this topic is based on somebody saying that America is too religious for a movie about Darwin, and basing it on gallup polls...
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'll ask a little differently. What grade did you earn in your statistics course?

Here are a few example answers: "A", "B", "C", "D", "F", "I", "W" and "I didn't take one".[/QUOTE]

Nobody asks for things like this without an ulterior motive. The topic is about Darwin and evolution and you are asking about me?

Well fine, I'll humour you. I just finished college math with a B+, at year round schooling. I finished all of my grades for part a of the summer semester in 8 weeks instead of 16 and I have 8 weeks off.

Yes, this is correct. I finished all of my work for semester a and semester b in semester a.
 
If you sample more republicans then democrats (as Rasmussen has been accused of before) then you're probably going to see a lower approval rating.
 
[quote name='IRHari']If you sample more republicans then democrats (as Rasmussen has been accused of before) then you're probably going to see a lower approval rating.[/QUOTE]

And yet again, people based their assumptions on a film about Darwin not selling well due to a poll. If polls that sample different sources give different results, then why the hell are you even continuing this discussion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top