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

So let's examine some of the things YOU have said about the survey real life and compare them to your "benefit of the doubt" in Timber's understanding.

real life wrote:

Surveys of scientists find that a fairly large percentage state that natural processes alone are NOT sufficient to account for the universe as we see it and for the complex life forms that we see all around us.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3034173#3034173
Interesting thing about that statement real life. It in no way reflects the survey about the origins of man. Man is not the universe nor is he the complex life forms we see all around us.

real life wrote:

What the respondents said was that science DID NOT support a strictly naturalistic view of origins.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3034852#3034852
An interesting take on the answer but I see no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt on this attempt to change the meaning. The respondents said NOTHING about what science did or didn't support. They only answered their personal beliefs on a single question.

real life wrote:

If 40% of scientists believe God guided evolution, then they are NOT saying there is a naturalistic explanation.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3035785#3035785

Then here you change the "point" of the survey yet again..

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.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3037917#3037917

I liked this statement shortly after the one above

real life wrote:

You do realize that I am not saying that God guided a process of evolution, don't you?

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3039819#3039819
It would mean the point of the survey was scientists do NOT accept YOUR assumption real life since 95% think evolution occurred.

You then said this about the survey..

real life wrote:

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

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3044379#3044379

It seems you don't have a clue what the survey was even about real life. You have done nothing but make up **** and then pretend it is true. Where I come from, we call it lying.

0 Replies

But to throw a little more fuel on the fire to light up real life's "inaccuracies, prevarications, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, red herrings, and straw men."
(to use a phrase Timber used)

This is the entire question asked by Gallup in its 1982 poll which was used in the survey real life trotted out and has consistently mischaracterized.

Quote:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

I did not underline "no part". It is that way in the question.

Suddenly it seems that Timber doesn't need to be given the "benefit of the doubt". He was completely accurate. Anyone that felt there "may have been a deistic role" in the process would most like answer #1 since #2 precludes God completely. That means that 40% includes those that are unsure if God exists or not and unsure if he had any hand in evolution.

I think we can all rest assured real life will not be embarrassed by this revelation but will continue to entertain us with his

"inaccuracies, prevarications, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, red herrings, and straw men." copyright Timberlandko Jan 7, 2007

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL goes back into the looking glass where truth is lie and lies are just commited by others.

YOU know RL, youre not doing so well . If you are a firm believer in Creation "science" then your frequent trips out of the realms of reality are duly noted by your correspondents.

Well, fm, you know if you don't agree that Timber conceded my point , then you have two choices:

a) Timber didn't understand the article

b) Timber deliberately mischaracterized the article

I don't think either of these are likely, but which one do you choose?

0 Replies

There is a third option to which I subscribe. Youre the one with a Reading Comprehension Skills Deficit Syndrome.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

There is a third option to which I subscribe. Youre the one with a Reading Comprehension Skills Deficit Syndrome.

The article says 40% of scientists (as represented by Members of American Men and Women of Science) agreed with the statement:

Quote:

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

This would make them theistic evolutionists.

Basically , theirs is an ID position. They do NOT think evolution was a purely naturalistic process, but was done by an Intelligent Designer of some description.

Do you agree that this is what the poll indicates?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
RL goes back into the looking glass where truth is lie and lies are just commited by others.

YOU know RL, youre not doing so well . If you are a firm believer in Creation "science" then your frequent trips out of the realms of reality are duly noted by your correspondents.

Well, fm, you know if you don't agree that Timber conceded my point , then you have two choices:

a) Timber didn't understand the article

As has been shown it was YOU that didn't understand the question asked or Timber's statement. "May have" by Timber does not equate to your statement mischaracterizing what Timber said.

Quote:

b) Timber deliberately mischaracterized the article

As has been shown, it was YOU that misccharacterized the article. Picking the answer that does not preclude God does NOT equate to being convinced God DID have a hand. See this post to see your other mischaracterizations of the article. I'll let others decide if you mischaracterized it deliberately.

Quote:

I don't think either of these are likely, but which one do you choose?

What you think is or isn't likely isn't really relevent. Others only need to read your and Timber's statements and compare them to the question asked. Timber was correct. You are wrong.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
There is a third option to which I subscribe. Youre the one with a Reading Comprehension Skills Deficit Syndrome.

The article says 40% of scientists (as represented by Members of American Men and Women of Science) agreed with the statement:

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

This would make them theistic evolutionists.

Basically , theirs is an ID position. They do NOT think evolution was a purely naturalistic process, but was done by an Intelligent Designer of some description.

Wrong. We know for a FACT that they all don't think that. The article specifically quotes two respondents:

Quote:

One said, "God created the universe and principles of energy and matter, which then guided subsequent evolution." The other said God did not guide the process "but did create the conditions that allowed the process to take place."

Quote:

Do you agree that this is what the poll indicates?

No, it doesn't indicate that at all since you are avoiding the REST of the question. This IS an example of "quote mining" on your part. You ignore the rest of the question to take out one answer and try to give it meaning beyond what the question asked. The question does NOT ask which of these do you absolutely believe. It asks which of the statements come closest to what you believe. For you to now claim there is no fudge factor is another of your many
"inaccuracies, prevarications, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, red herrings, and straw men." copyright Timberlandko Jan 7, 2007

Are you deliberately mischaracterizing the question real? At this point I can only conclude you most likely are.

0 Replies

Again, this is not solely 'my' view of what the survey means.

Evolutionists quoted in the article interpreted it the same way.

from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

Quote:

"I am surprised to find that so many are theistic evolutionists" Duncan Porter, a Virginia Tech botanist and Darwin scholar, said in an interview.

Here we see Dr Porter characterizes these as 'theistic evolutionists', just as I did.

Another, which we have discussed previously:

Quote:

Rick Potts, director of human origins at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said it is not unusual to find religious beliefs in any community including scientists.

But "I'm happy to see that 55% are taking a naturalistic approach," he said

Dr Potts says that 55% of the respondents took a naturalistic approach. What did he mean by this? That 45% DID NOT take a naturalistic approach.

Fortunately , I was able to contact these evolutionists prior to the article and brainwash them with my interpretation. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Let's all pretend that real life actually is addressing the
"inaccuracies, prevarications, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, red herrings, and straw men." copyright Timberlandko Jan 7, 2007 of his that have been pointed out in the previous posts.

"theistic evolutionists" doesn't defend how you changed what Timber said.
Rick Potts quote doesn't defend how you changed what Timber said.

Neither statement defends your varied explanations of what the "point" of the survey was.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Again, this is not solely 'my' view of what the survey means.

Sure and find me one statement that even comes close to this view of what the survey means.

real life wrote:

Surveys of scientists find that a fairly large percentage state that natural processes alone are NOT sufficient to account for the universe as we see it and for the complex life forms that we see all around us.

or this one

Quote:

The point of the survey is that many scientists do NOT accept your assumption.

Then we have this mischaracterization.

real life wrote:

What the respondents said was that science DID NOT support a strictly naturalistic view of origins.

vs what was actually said by ONE person, who we aren't even sure was a respondent, not the plural persons that you claimed real life.

Quote:

But "I'm happy to see that 55% are taking a naturalistic approach," he said

You are making stuff up again real life.

Your quote mining, lies, bull ****, etc are really apparent here real life. Even you have to see it.

0 Replies

Let's just cut to the chase, parados.

Do you agree that 40% of the respondents of the survey chose an answer that can fairly be characterized as consistent with theistic evolution ?

(Hint: Dr Porter interpreted the results in just that way.)

Is theistic evolution the same as naturalism?

Quote:

Naturalism

a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/naturalism

The reason I ask is that , earlier you seemed to have some confusion on this point:

parados wrote:

God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

0 Replies

Hey, RL. Parodos is right. There, that settles it.

By the way, RL, what makes the New Post symbol turn orange. I see alot of new posts that still have the blues. After that last comment of mine (above), you don't have to answer that if you don't want to. It just seems that too many "educated" folk have been lied to in our universities, and have swallowed it hookline and sinker, and down they go. Everything in existence has a supernatural significance, because God is supernatural and has created and controls it all, on scientific principles.

Street

0 Replies

onthestreet wrote:

It just seems that too many "educated" folk have been lied to in our universities, and have swallowed it hookline and sinker, and down they go.

The phrase is "hook, line, and sinker."

How's that for educated?

0 Replies

onthestreet wrote:

Hey, RL. Parodos is right. There, that settles it.

I'm sure he would agree.

onthestreet wrote:

By the way, RL, what makes the New Post symbol turn orange.

I think that if a post is new since the last time you logged in, it will be orange.

0 Replies

Sometime eventually we are supposed to hear or see evidence to support creationism.

When?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Well, we've recently been over this. But since you want to act as though we haven't:

There is very good evidence that matter exists. Agreed?

Scientific law precludes the possibility that matter was created by any natural process. Agreed?

Therefore (by definition) , matter was created by a 'supernatural' process or event.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Let's just cut to the chase, parados.

OK.. you have lied repeatedly. When shown your lies you refuse to acknowledge them. There is nothing else to talk about at this point.

Quote:

Do you agree that 40% of the respondents of the survey chose an answer that can fairly be characterized as consistent with theistic evolution ?

I see. .So we should just pretend this is the only thing you ever said? What nonsense from you. You claimed the survey showed many things. Now you are retreating to the one thing you think you can defend. Why won't you deal with the other lies you told? Embarrassed? God told you to ignore your lies?

Just because the answer can be fairly characterized as consistent with theistic evolution doesn't mean that those that gave that answer did not think God may have guided the process. You are now waffling badly from your claim earlier that Timber was wrong with his words but instead he agreed with you. It seems you are now agreeing with Timber and admitting your statement was wrong. Why don't you just come out and say you were wrong? Are you so small that you can't admit it? Pride, my child, is a horrible sin according to your God.

Quote:

(Hint: Dr Porter interpreted the results in just that way.)

Is theistic evolution the same as naturalism?

Quote:
Naturalism

a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/naturalism

The reason I ask is that , earlier you seemed to have some confusion on this point:

parados wrote:
God guiding a natural process doesn't mean the process is no longer natural.

I see you won't address your lies but instead try to quote mine a meaning to my statement that isn't there so you can make me the issue instead of your inaccuracies, prevarications, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, red herrings, and straw men.

God guiding a process doesn't mean it has supernatural "significance." You seem to think God guides your life and lies but I wouldn't consider you to have any supernatural significance. I doubt the God of the bible would consider you significant either other than you are so willing to break his commandment about bearing false witness.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Well, we've recently been over this. But since you want to act as though we haven't:

There is very good evidence that matter exists. Agreed?

Scientific law precludes the possibility that matter was created by any natural process. Agreed?

Therefore (by definition) , matter was created by a 'supernatural' process or event.

But you believe there is no such thing as scientific law real life. Your circular argument is just that.. circular..

And instead of addressing your lies you now attempt to change the subject again.. You are so pathetic. How do you live with yourself? By believing you wil be rewarded in another life for lying? You really should go read your bible.

0 Replies

hi parados,

I have consistently interpreted the results of the survey in much the same way as both Potts and Porter have.

You have not.

You want to guess what 'may have' been in the minds of the respondents. Go ahead and guess.

But I'm basing my opinion on what they actually said.

45% of the respondents DID NOT take the naturalistic approach.

40% of the respondents chose an ID position -- theistic evolution.

Live with it.

You want to pretend that no scientist could ever stray from the hyper-naturalism (all things MUST have a natural cause) that you espouse.

You have been shown to be wrong about that but you are in denial.

Not very scientific behavior on your part.

Accuse me of lying as often as you wish.

You have shown that you are simply willing to ignore the plain English that the article was written in, as well as the expressed opinions of two credentialed evolutionists (because they strayed from the reservation and dared disagree with you).

You can huff and puff 'there is nothing further to talk about at this point'. It sounds like you're preparing to slink away until we forget about what you said.

Go ahead. See ya later.

0 Replies

onthestreet wrote:

Hey, RL. Parodos is right. There, that settles it.

Either logic exists or it doesn't. Either real life can defend his statements as true or he can't. So far he has run away from them as fast as he can. I keep trying to give him the oppurtunity to show us how they are true but he won't do it. It won't be settled until real life can actually talk about what he said. I am not settling anything. Real life is running away from it. Denial even worse than Peter.

Quote:

By the way, RL, what makes the New Post symbol turn orange. I see alot of new posts that still have the blues. After that last comment of mine (above), you don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

The post is normally orange if you haven't seen viewed it since the latest post. The post will turn blue after some time even if you haven't viewed it or if A2k resets itself.

Quote:

It just seems that too many "educated" folk have been lied to in our universities, and have swallowed it hookline and sinker, and down they go. Everything in existence has a supernatural significance, because God is supernatural and has created and controls it all, on scientific principles.

Street

Education is a process that never ends. Of course if you want to believe God created your brain so you could not use it, that is your god given right, but most religious people think they should use what God gave them.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know