RL, its amazing. If you had just kept your mouth shut you'd have done yourself well. What I said was I was wrong in saying that you were lying, given the information that you posted.
One of the things I have to understand in my work is surveys (how not to ask leading questions, etc.), to get objective results. The point I made about non respondents is a well know fact. It is always taken into account, which is why you always state your rate of response.
But I even went so far as to point out that given a reasonable scenario (that most - not all -- non respondents would answer negatively) it would still give a percentage (according to this survey) that I felt you could have felt was a "large percentage".
I wasn't "massaging numbers" I was pointing out that EVEN with these assumptions; you could have come to that conclusion. I was conceding from your viewpoint the data could be interpreted as you said. Rather than that you were just lying again.
You are so used to getting to a post to just try to spin things you didn't even take the time to understand what I was saying. If you hadn't said any more you could have actually come across for once as providing information that your were sincerely interpreting as supporting your view. Your most recent post shows this was not the case and you were NOT representing the survey results properly.
Parados, with more of a history of smelling you out, picked this up right away. I, more concerned that I was wrongly accusing you of lying, missed it.
Unfortunately for you, you had to open up your mouth. And now it is clear you are NOT properly interpreting the information you are just back to your spin. As Parados pointed out by giving the exact questions and as it said in the article, there is nowhere it can be said that these respondents said that "Science DID NOT support a strictly naturalistic view of origins".
Response 1 says: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." They weren't asked if science supported this they were asked if that was their belief.
It was a question of their personal beliefs NOT their understanding of science.
THAT would REALLY be news; if any but a very small percentage was saying that the scientific method can be shown to support ANYTHING BUT a naturalistic view. Even more so since no one has EVER published evidence of this in a peer-reviewed journal.
I can understand you and B.D. not understanding that science, being based on man-made axioms, is totally incapable of anything but a naturalistic explanation. It would be inconceivable to me that people in the field could take that view. Math can model the ineffable? So what IS the Hamiltonian for God anyway?
So I tried to play fair when I felt I was wrong but it turns out you were being your same old self. Now I can go back to pointing out to the others, from time to time, that you and B.D. purport to KNOW science so well but RUN from my questions. And they can ask themselves why two people who know more than experts in every field of science can't answer some simple questions from a poster on a web site. But they already know the answer to that question, we all do, don't we; day 37 and counting.
The phony weekend wishes were predictable. And you don't "talk to me" you use every conceivable method to make sure that will never happen. Just like no one will ever be fooled by your usual tangent so you don't have to answer anyone's questions.
You smoked him right out again PARADOS!
