real life wrote:hi parados,
I have consistently interpreted the results of the survey in much the same way as both Potts and Porter have.
Bull ****.. you have never told us where either of them said this...
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.
Please show us where either of them has said this. You can't. You won't even address your statement or try to defend it. You lie some more and run away when confronted with your lies.
Really? Oh.. so then you have? So you will now point to where Potts or Porter told us this survey shows that a large percentage of scientists think the universe can't be accounted for by natural process. I am eagerly awaiting for their quotes. I won't hold my breath while I wait.
Quote:
You want to guess what 'may have' been in the minds of the respondents. Go ahead and guess.
I see. But you are able to read the minds of all those that answered? What a load of crap from you. You accuse me of guessing, so where is your evidence that YOU are not guessing? I have read the question and made an assumption based on how I would answer it. You really shouldn't accuse others of guessing about what the respondents meant when you have been doing that more than anyone.
Quote:
But I'm basing my opinion on what they actually said.
No. you aren't .. See the quote from you above. It is NOT based on what is actually said. It is completely made up nonsense from you. You have retreated to what you now claim is "your opinion" and refuse to address the REST of your expressed opinion.
Quote:
45% of the respondents DID NOT take the naturalistic approach.
In your interpretation. We only have words from one of the evolutionists on one of answers. We don't know that any of them agree with your take on the 45%. It is a leap to make a claim that he meant what you said since we don't have the rest of his statement to the reporter. He could have just as easily said "and 40% take a naturalistic approach tempered by their religion." We just don't know. You however have made the claim that you are "consistent" with them while not knowing what he said about those 40%. What did you just say about guessing what is in the mind of a respondent? Oh.. that's right.. you get to guess. Different rules for you because your lies are just facts as you see them.
Quote:
40% of the respondents chose an ID position -- theistic evolution.
Something neither Potts or Porter said which shows your statement above to be a flat out lie. You have not shown that Potts or Porter view theistic evolution to be the same as ID. It is easy to find definitions that seperate the two.
Quote:Intelligent design asserts that body design is direct, while theistic evolution asserts that body design is indirect, although somehow guided by God under His authority.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/design.html
Theistic evolution - an alternative to ID.
I can live with it. Can you spend eternity paying for your lies? :wink:
Quote:
You want to pretend that no scientist could ever stray from the hyper-naturalism (all things MUST have a natural cause) that you espouse.
Really? Where did I say that? More of your lies since I have never said such a thing.
Quote:
You have been shown to be wrong about that but you are in denial.
You have shown nothing other than you think your lies are facts.
Quote:
Not very scientific behavior on your part.
Accuse me of lying as often as you wish.
When you can't defend your statements? When you deny you made your statements by stating you have consistently only used Potts and Porter conclusions then one of the above two MUST be lies? It isn't very "christian" of you to lie now is it?
Quote:
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).
And you have shown you are willing to ignore the plain English the question was written in and give it meaning that isn't expoused. Where did I say I disagreed with what the 2 evolutionists said? I disagree with your interpretation of what they said. But then you have shown consistently that you will take words and twist them in all kinds of convoluted ways to try to make them mean what you want them to.
Quote:
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.
Goodbye.. Don't let the door hit your slinking ass on the way out. I see no reason to let people forget what you said. It is so funny how you try to turn it around as if it was I that was avoiding statements. It's you that can't answer about what you said. It is you that keeps trying to change the topic to something else. It is you that has lied and lied and lied.
