Teen birth rates highest in bible belt

[fisher]

Dude, it was a conclusion about something speculative. It's still speculative. I said "My guess is that religion might be a consequence of poverty, and that teen pregnacy might also be the result of poverty. Now, I do happen to think some of this feeds on itself. Don't you think it's possible that unwanted pregnancy could be a partial cause of poverty? [Edit] I notice at the end you came to basically the same conclusion that I did. " Note the words denoting speculation, uncertainty, partial agreement are in bold.

Might I also add Are you for real?? I honestly don't see how you could even drive yourself to the store. It is sad that I have to break down a paragraph like this just for the sake of your comprehension. I'm not getting paid for this. Perhaps you should have attended school the other day when Obama made his speech. Quit while you're not too far behind so you don't embarrass yourself any more. It's no wonder Republicans have such strange interpretations of our current administration's proposals and policies.

And what is the definition of conclusion (your word)? Lets see--1. the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached, or 2. final decision. The word you used was conclusion which denotes finality, not speculation. I guess you've come up with a some new phrasiology the fits well with the liberal MO--speculative conclusions.


Stop dodging and weaving and ignoring the key premise. Your "facts" that were put into an excel spreadsheet and you tried to pass off as linear regression analysis were non sensical. Back them up with data that supports your assertions (the positive statements you made without support or reason). Put your money where your mouth is.

Just for starters--and this should be easy for someone of your apparent intellect--Show us how you came to the assertion that "There appears to be an inverse correlation between religiousness and personal income."

I countered your spreadsheet data with several key factors that show your assertion based on two totally disparate sets of data points is worthless.

Do you still think that their is a correlation between religiousity and personal income (put in plain english, religious people make less than non religious people) based on your spreadsheet? If so, what data are you using to back your assertion? And, remember, personal income in the statistics you were looking at is an average of all people including those that work and those that don't.

 

[LuciferSam]

And what is the definition of conclusion (your word)? Lets see--1. the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached, or 2. final decision. The word you used was conclusion which denotes finality, not speculation. I guess you've come up with a some new phrasiology the fits well with the liberal MO--speculative conclusions.


Stop dodging and weaving and ignoring the key premise. Your "facts" that were put into an excel spreadsheet and you tried to pass off as linear regression analysis were non sensical. Back them up with data that supports your assertions (the positive statements you made without support or reason). Put your money where your mouth is.

Just for starters--and this should be easy for someone of your apparent intellect--Show us how you came to the assertion that "There appears to be an inverse correlation between religiousness and personal income."

I countered your spreadsheet data with several key factors that show your assertion based on two totally disparate sets of data points is worthless.

Do you still think that their is a correlation between religiousity and personal income (put in plain english, religious people make less than non religious people) based on your spreadsheet? If so, what data are you using to back your assertion? And, remember, personal income in the statistics you were looking at is an average of all people including those that work and those that don't.

That's not true at all. One can reach a conclusion about the likelihood of something (weapons of mass destruction). One can reach a conclusion and later find out he was actually wrong. How final is that? A jury verdict is an example (or weapons of mass destruction). I can conclude that there appears to be a correlation between religion and poverty based on the numbers I'm given, but conclude that there is no apparent evidence that religion is the cause of teen sex. This doesn't mean I conclude religion doesn't cause teen sex, It just means I conclude I don't have evidence at this time. Actually if this were the case I'd have gotten involved with the Church back in my teens.

 

[LuciferSam]

I conclude that heavy churchgoers are more likely to lose their virginity in a church than non-churchgoers.

 

[poppy]

Puhleeze--

I am asking Lucifer to back up his data and assertions which are not statistially relevant. He used irrelevant data comparisons in an attempt to put down religious folks. It was an ill conceived attempt to disguise garbage in and garbage out of an excel spreadsheet as statistics.

Would you put together a chart, graph, spreedsheet or whatever using the varibles you feel are relevant and have been omitted and include teens who are sexually active and post it? As I have said this not something I know how to do but I'm curious what it would reveal. This would also put this argument to rest, prove Lucifer wrong and make your point.

 

[fisher]

Would you put together a chart, graph, spreedsheet or whatever using the varibles you feel are relevant and have been omitted and include teens who are sexually active and post it? As I have said this not something I know how to do but I'm curious what it would reveal. This would also put this argument to rest, prove Lucifer wrong and make your point.

I have drawn no conclusion or made any assertions other than Lucifer and Bob and the author used bad data to come to their conclusions and therefore the assertions are worthless. I pointed to other data that makes the lame attempt at linear regression analysis worthless.

The data they used comes from two different studies using seveal different methods of collection and measurement and does not support these assertions--

"There appears to be an inverse correlation between religiousness and personal income. "

"There appears to be a correlation between religion and teen pregnacy"

I challenged him to come up with better data to support his assertions and he could not. I am not trying to prove that religious people are more or less sexually active or poverty stricken.

If I were to try to test the theory that religious people made more or less money or were more or less sexually active than non religious people, I would take a poll and ask the same people questions regarding religiousity and income. I would not take data from a religiousity poll and scatter it against personal income data that averages people that work and DO NOT WORK in the marketplace.

A man with a stay at home wife could make $90k a year but in Lucifers data the man and wife both make $45k. Compare this to the double earning non religious couple that makes $45k apiece. Which of these three income earners makes more money, the religious or non religious folks?

Lucifers data cannot be used to come to any of the assertions made because the data doesn't even address his contention.

However, I'm willing to start with a sample of three. Me, Bob and Lucifer to see who potentially got pregnant or got someone pregnant or could have done one of these things due to sexual promiscuity in their teen years and who has more income. But, it might not be a fair comparison because I have been told that us southern, religious, racist, conservative hicks are dumb, poor sex fiends.

 

[poppy]

I have drawn no conclusion or made any assertions other than Lucifer and Bob and the author used bad data to come to their conclusions and therefore the assertions are worthless. I pointed to other data that makes the lame attempt at linear regression analysis worthless.

The data they used comes from two different studies using seveal different methods of collection and measurement and does not support these assertions--

"There appears to be an inverse correlation between religiousness and personal income. "

"There appears to be a correlation between religion and teen pregnacy"

I challenged him to come up with better data to support his assertions and he could not. I am not trying to prove that religious people are more or less sexually active or poverty stricken.

If I were to try to test the theory that religious people made more or less money or were more or less sexually active than non religious people, I would take a poll and ask the same people questions regarding religiousity and income. I would not take data from a religiousity poll and scatter it against personal income data that averages people that work and DO NOT WORK in the marketplace.

A man with a stay at home wife could make $90k a year but in Lucifers data the man and wife both make $45k. Compare this to the double earning non religious couple that makes $45k apiece. Which of these three income earners makes more money, the religious or non religious folks?

Lucifers data cannot be used to come to any of the assertions made because the data doesn't even address his contention.

However, I'm willing to start with a sample of three. Me, Bob and Lucifer to see who potentially got pregnant or got someone pregnant or could have done one of these things due to sexual promiscuity in their teen years and who has more income. But, it might not be a fair comparison because I have been told that us southern, religious, racist, conservative hicks are dumb, poor sex fiends.

I'm going to take that as a no and thank you for your time.

 

[Miss Kitty]

I'm going to take that as a no and thank you for your time.

Now, if we can just get all these teenagers to do the same, we'd be cooking with gas. ;-)

 

[poppy]

Now, if we can just get all these teenagers to do the same, we'd be cooking with gas. ;-)

Humm--I wonder if that's possible? :scratch:
-
-
-
-
-
Nah, will never happen unless the parents are there every second.

 

[LuciferSam]

II have been told that us southern, religious, racist, conservative hicks are dumb, poor sex fiends.

Brace yourself, because there's another characteristic you can throw into the mix. I just found state obesity rankings for 2008. I plotted them vs. religiosity. For you detail oriented types, the correlation coefficient (r value) is .66. Anyone can find this just by using Excel's correl() function between 2 columns of numbers. The number of states used is 49. Wyoming was unavailable. This makes for 47 degrees of freedom. The critical r value for this number of degrees of freedom to obtain 99% confidence level in the r value is only .372, so the r value of .66 is well in excess. The table Critical Values of the Correlation Coefficient doesn't have an entry for 47 degrees of freedom, so I had to use 45. For 47 degrees of freedom, the critical value would have been even lower, further strengthening the case for a correlation. My firm conclusion is that there is an obvious correlation between obesity and religiosity in a given state based on the available data. The obesity study can be found here:Fattest States 2008: The CalorieLab United States of Obesity Rankings (Obesity by State). Remember, correlation is not causation. Your personal destiny is not controlled by these observations.

 

[Lynnie]

No lie, I heard on the news yesterday that MA had one of the highest. I thought about looking for this thread, but was too tired.