Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Diest TKO wrote:

I have a strong bias for facts...

Hi Deist:

I think the point that RL is making indicates that you (and everyone else) actually has a strong bias for biased facts.

xingu wrote:

But since there is no evidence that a Deity did guide evolution we have to accept that it was an all natural process without any outside aid.

Give us evidence that a God did guide evolution.

The point of the survey is that many scientists do NOT accept your assumption. And an assumption it is, whether you care to admit it or not.

They have access to the same evidence you do, and conclude that the evidence does NOT support the hyper-naturalism that you insist upon.

The survey to which he refers which turned up the 40% result (TCR will love this) was a self-selected sample of the subscribers to the magazine Nature. The definition of scientist included dieticians and sanitary engineers.

I can't believe that "real life" is .....

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

But since there is no evidence that a Deity did guide evolution we have to accept that it was an all natural process without any outside aid.

Give us evidence that a God did guide evolution.

The point of the survey is that many scientists do NOT accept your assumption. And an assumption it is, whether you care to admit it or not.

They have access to the same evidence you do, and conclude that the evidence does NOT support the hyper-naturalism that you insist upon.

Actually, real life, the point of the survey is that 95% don't buy your assumption that evolution did not occur.

But in your usual manner you change facts to make those that disagree with you seem to agree with you while claiming that anyone that believes in evolution set in motion by some supernatural being doesn't believe in natural laws.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

But since there is no evidence that a Deity did guide evolution we have to accept that it was an all natural process without any outside aid.

Give us evidence that a God did guide evolution.

The point of the survey is that many scientists do NOT accept your assumption. And an assumption it is, whether you care to admit it or not.

They have access to the same evidence you do, and conclude that the evidence does NOT support the hyper-naturalism that you insist upon.

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,

Quote:

Actually, real life, the point of the survey is that 95% don't buy your assumption that evolution did not occur.

The focus of the survey is on the question of naturalism vs. supernaturalism.

Far from hiding the fact that many of these are theistic evolutionists, I was the first one to point it out.

parados wrote:

But in your usual manner you change facts to make those that disagree with you seem to agree with you while claiming that anyone that believes in evolution set in motion by some supernatural being doesn't believe in natural laws.

What facts have I changed?

If a supernatural being set evolution in motion, then you do not have a purely naturalistic process, do you?

Where did I say anyone didn't 'believe in natural laws'?

Quit making things up.

If you want to dispute something I said, then make sure that I really said it.

real life wrote:

Several recent polls have shown that about 40% of scientists who believe in evolution do not believe that natural processes alone can account for the variety of life on Earth as we know it.

They are evolutionists, but still they do not think of evolution as a purely natural process that is capable of producing the type of life we have here today.

Straw man and red herring, tripe, poppycock and balderdash, both implied and outright falsehood; bullshit. Creationists/ID-iots persist in dragging up that absurd duplicity as though the polls referrenced mean something other than what they mean.

What shown is is that among the overall demographic designated by the poll designers as "Scientists", attitudes are not materially different from attitudes throughout the population as a whole - that and nothing more, nothing less. For purposes of the polls referenced, the term "Scientists" applies across the entire spectrum of academic and professional scientific disciplines, ranging from adaptive software engineering through zoologic park design. In those polls, a nutritionist's responses are weighted no differently than are a mechanical engineer's, a Master of Library Sciences' no differently from those of a genetic research specialist.

The fact of the matter is that the polls show that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process, and a mere 5% swallow the Creationist twaddle hook-line-and-sinker.

Quote:

(A)ccording to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science

55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man

Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40%...include God in the process.

Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed [with] the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years."

The survey ... asked ... the same Gallup Poll question posed to the public in 1982 and 1991. In the 1991 round, 40 percent of Americans said God "guided" evolution to create humans.

While this 40% is a middle ground of agreement between scientists and the public, there is a sharp polarization between the groups taking purely naturalistic or biblical views. While most scientists are atheistic about human origins, nearly half of Americans adhere to the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years." Forty-six percent of Americans agreed with this view of human origins in the 1991 Gallup poll. Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed.

The standard view in science is that modern-day Homo sapiens emerged 40,000 years ago and began to organize societies 10,000 years ago. The oldest humanlike ape is called Australopithecus, or "southern ape." It was found in Africa and is believed to date back 4 million years. Homo erectus developed 1.8 million years ago. Neanderthals roamed Europe and Asia beginning 100,000 years ago.

The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) in which 40 percent of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality. Both surveys were conducted by a reporter for the Washington Times and Edward J Larson, a historian of science at the University of Georgia. The report in Nature was based on a replication of a 1916 survey that scandalized Americans by finding that 45 percent of scientists were atheists and 15 percent were agnostics.

So, in proper, honest perspective, it becomes evident 95% of "Scientists" overall do not endorse the Creationist/ID-iot proposition, and that only around 40% of " ... scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality." Even at that, "Scientists", for the purposes of the cited polls, comprise a broad and undifferentiated demographic; "Science" encompasses far more than those disciplines directly relevant to the study of the origins and development of this planet and its biosphere - the "Earth and Life Sciences." Here, the picture is different - strikingly different:

Only 0.14% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems ...

There you have it; 99.86% of those relevantly credentialled in, legitimately working in, those who actually know what they're talking about when they talk about evolution, the legitimate authorities on the subject - 99.86% of them - reject the Creationist/Id-iot proposition.

From The University of California, Berkeley website Understanding Evolution:

Quote:

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time ...

The Creationist/ID-iot position is ludicrous, insupportable, dishonest, self-cancelling (through wholly internally referential rationalization), roundly dismissed by the vast majority of members belonging to the legitimate, accreditted, mainstream scientific and academic communities, and adherence to the fairytale-based cockamamie "Creationist/Intelligent Design Theory" betrays a paucity of intellectual honesty and achievement.

But then, its little wonder supermarket tabloids enjoy greater circulation than do scientific journals, or than do legitimate newspapers and periodicals, for that matter. The market for fiction, while insatiable, is fed quite easily. Non-fiction is a harder crop to grow, tougher to chew, and more work to digest, which, though it is more nourishing, is why it is embraced by a more selective, less easily satisfied demographic. As demonstrated, the Creationists/ID-iots are the ones given to innaccuracies, prevarications, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, red herrings, and straw men.

(KJV, Luke 6:44)

The fact of the matter is that the polls show that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process

The survey to which he refers which turned up the 40% result (TCR will love this) ....

There is no homework that i need to do. Even were your highly suspect claim that 40% of "scientists" believe

But it is doubtful as truth, because an adequate definition of what constitutes a "scientist" is not provided

Even if you now insist on referring to the AMWS survey,

it still constitutes a self-selected sample--there is no random, controlled, double-blind sample

you had to my knowledge always referred in the past to the Nature survey .......whether or not you provide a plausible definition of scientist for such a body as were surveyed in the Nature survey

(and that is the only source which i ever found in any material you linked,

when you bothered to link anything,

which was usually a poofism web site,

Loser.

Timber conceded my point.

The fact of the matter is that the polls show that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process, and a mere 5% swallow the Creationist twaddle hook-line-and-sinker.

Timber conceded my point that 40% of the scientists surveyed did in fact[/u] attribute a supernatural element to the creation.

timberlandko wrote:

The fact of the matter is that the polls show that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process, and a mere 5% swallow the Creationist twaddle hook-line-and-sinker.

real life wrote:

Timber conceded my point that 40% of the scientists surveyed did in fact[/u] attribute a supernatural element to the creation.

I think it was an out right lie about what timber had said.

timberlandko wrote:

The fact of the matter is that the polls show that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process, and a mere 5% swallow the Creationist twaddle hook-line-and-sinker.

real life wrote:

Timber conceded my point that 40% of the scientists surveyed did in fact[/u] attribute a supernatural element to the creation.

I think it was an out right lie about what timber had said.

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process

parados wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

The fact of the matter is that the polls show that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process, and a mere 5% swallow the Creationist twaddle hook-line-and-sinker.

real life wrote:

Timber conceded my point that 40% of the scientists surveyed did in fact[/u] attribute a supernatural element to the creation.

I think it was an out right lie about what timber had said.

I gave Timber the benefit of the doubt, rather than charge him with outright falsehood.

The actual answer chosen by 40% of scientists was:

parados wrote:

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process

You know this, because you are the one who provided the quote in post 3034310.

As you can see, the scientists agreed with the direct statement as I had substantially given it. There was no fudging 'may have' in the answer, as Timber's post rewords the answer in an incorrect fashion.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt since he did not carry on this point to dispute it any further, but with his tacit admission moved on to other points where he may have thought he could carry the day.

Whether Timber actually understood (I think Timber was smart enough to understand plain English) and agreed that the poll answer was a declarative statement (rather than a maybe) is really beside the point.

The point that you seek to avoid is that 40% of scientists surveyed DID NOT agree with your hyper-naturalism, but DID include the supernatural element in their view of origins.