And you are...? I'm trying to look outside the box. You're refusing to think there could be anything but a box.

I never said there wasn't evidence that it wasn't 13.6B years old. You're being hypocritical.

how does a 13.6B year old universe, or universe at all for that matter fit in w/ the bible?  I thought you were a creationist, don't tell me you've switched to ID. 

What, did you think that they talked to every single person? No, they took a sample of the population. Now the questions are:

A) Who did they talk to? This is the sampling population.

pretty sure this is all public record.  See # of people graduating a class/year- # of people starting the year= # of people that dropped out. 

B) What are the controls on the sampling? These rules define how the sampling is conducted and results are compiled.

public record again. 

C) What ages are invovled? This goes back to the sampling population. If you sample only old people in the south and only young adults in the west, you'll definitely skew the results (because higher education wasn't as available to are oldest members of society).

HIGHER EDUCATION??? Are you kidding me???

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 9TH GRADE HERE!!! 

And finally you forgot the most important point: Corellation != Causation. If all this sounds scientific, it should. Because it is.

 No, it's not.  Keep trying. 

Game. Set. Match.

agreed.

Jason, your right no one is saying brainwashing in churches does not happen.  I'm just saying that it at least as prevelent, if not more, in Universities.

BTW... 8Days... that link is pretty freakin funny.  Who needs enemies to make fun of you when your allies are doing a good enough job.

Actually, 8DaysDazed, as somebody who has a Ph.D. in a field largely focused on statistical testing and experimental design, I have to disagree with you and say that Jason's questions about the study ARE scientific--the basic sorts of questions anyone in my field would ask when looking at a study like this.  You're simply replying that "it's all in the public records."

Unfortunately, plenty of studies are presented publicly that have used faulty research methods, or where the results have been presented in a manner that is out of context and misrepresenting the data given the purpose and methodology of the original study. I'm not saying this is or isn't the case here, but the questions are valid ones, and the only answer you've posted is "go look at the public records." Have you done so yourself?  Given that you're the one posting the study and standing by it as fact, I'd hope that you have and could therefore answer those questions.

Even if the study's methodology is sound, Jason's point about causality is very true--and entirely scientific.  A negative correlation between education and religious beliefs would not determine direction of causality--i.e., it wouldn't prove that higher education leads one to cast away religion.  Here are a couple of other possible, competing explanations of the same findings:

1)  High degrees of religion lead people not to pursue higher levels of education (again, just one possible alternate explanation of the same data, as opposed to something I'm proposing to be true).

2)  The finding is spurious--neither one is causing the other, but both are related to/caused by some third, common factor.  (E.g., maybe a rural lifestyle?  Perhaps in a smaller, rural community people are more likely to attend religious services together, and also to continue jobs that have run in the family for generations and do not require high levels of formal education?)  In a scenario like this, the data pattern would hold without religion and education impacting each other in any way.

It's not to say that what you're saying is impossible 8DaysDazed, but it wouldn't be proven definitively by this study, even if the methodology is sound. 

Jason--when you talk about setting up 'controls,' I assume you're using the term to refer to the rules/strategy used for sampling, rather than a control group (i.e., 'placebo group' that would be used in a fully experimental design, which doesn't seem relevant to this type of study)?  I think this is what you're saying, but just want to clarify.

 I think I made my points Flanders.  

The fact is that you posted the study to support a point you wanted to prove.  Therefore the responsibility to know whether or not the methodology of that study supports your point lies on your shoulders, and not ours.  What are the "obvious reasons" anyway?  Did you simply assume that both of us are "too religious" to actually look at the study objectively?  If that's the case I hate to shatter your argument, but I'm actually very much an agnostic as opposed to a "believer."  I was actually one of the adamant voices on this forum against prayer during city council meetings (particularly towards a particular denomination).

However, I'm also someone who gets his hackles up when one person makes a quite valid argument based purely on scientific method (as Jason did, which is obvious to anyone with a working understanding of scientific method), and the other person says "actually your arguments are not scientific, and if you want to know whether the study I just posted involves sound methodology, look it up yourself because I don't want to bother, and didn't bother to look at whether the study's methodology supports my arguments before posting it as fact."  

Frankly, it's pretty ironic that you are so adamant about science over religion given your complete disregard of scientific method here--and the fact that you seem to lack even a basic understanding of what it entails.  That's not a scientific attitude; it's blind faith towards anything labeled 'science'--whether it is sound or not.