Which Religion is the One True Religion?

That may have been runner's point, rl, but in point of fact the assertion is not borne out by the facts.

Quote:

... The fact of the matter is that the data from which that erroneous assertion is wrongly developed 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 ...

To assert 45% of scientists are "on your side" when merely 5% endorse your point of view and 40% take a middle ground, essentially granting the possibility of the existence of a deity while affirming the natural process of evolution, both cosmic and local, is silly. That religionists would take such a tack is at once unsurprising and illuminative; it plainly demonstrates how the religionist gathers the straw from which to build his arguments. Once again, your protestation serves admirably to confirm my point. Thanks.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

That may have been runner's point, rl, but in point of fact the assertion is not borne out by the facts.

Quote:
... The fact of the matter is that the data from which that erroneous assertion is wrongly developed 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 ...

To assert 45% of scientists are "on your side" when merely 5% endorse your point of view and 40% take a middle ground, essentially granting the possibility of the existence of a deity while affirming the natural process of evolution, both cosmic and local, is silly. That religionists would take such a tack is at once unsurprising and illuminative; it plainly demonstrates how the religionist gathers the straw from which to build his arguments. Once again, your protestation serves admirably to confirm my point. Thanks.

Where did I say they were "on my side" ? You mischaracterize my post.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Where did I say they were "on my side" ? You mischaracterize my post.

How so? The assertion addressed was runner's statement that "45% of scientists believe our existence must be attributed to intelligence, a position endorsed and defended by you in your offering, "... the figures you cite only verified Runner's point. 45% of the scientists did NOT follow the party line that ONLY naturalistic causes could account for the origin of man."

The data presented allow for no assumption that any more than 5% of all scientists surveyed support Creationism/ID, while pointing out specifically that " ... Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems ... ". That 99.85% those scientists most directly involved with the study of origins, those actually working in the fields of the earth and life sciences, reject the Creationist/ID position is the fact. The assertion that 45% of scientists believe the universe requires a creator/designer is an assertion devoid of support, either direct or inferential.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
Where did I say they were "on my side" ? You mischaracterize my post.

How so? The assertion addressed was runner's statement that "45% of scientists believe our existence must be attributed to intelligence, a position endorsed and defended by you in your offering, "... the figures you cite only verified Runner's point. 45% of the scientists did NOT follow the party line that ONLY naturalistic causes could account for the origin of man."

The data presented allow for no assumption that any more than 5% of all scientists surveyed support Creationism/ID, while pointing out specifically that " ... Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems ... ". That 99.85% those scientists most directly involved with the study of origins, those actually working in the fields of the earth and life sciences, reject the Creationist/ID position is the fact. The assertion that 45% of scientists believe the universe requires a creator/designer is an assertion devoid of support, either direct or inferential.

How so, you ask? When you quote "on my side" and I did not say "on my side".

Your post includes:

Quote:

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

These could be what may be termed 'theistic evolutionists'. Including God would be the attribution to intelligence, right?

And it cites an additional 5% that 'agreed [with] the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years." '

40 + 5 = 45

(It might help if you read the article before you post it next time, Timber.)

0 Replies

Doubt there's much that will help you and yours, rl - you're stuck in fairytale land.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Doubt there's much that will help you and yours, rl - you're stuck in fairytale land.

Now THERE'S a substantive reply.

Well, Timber, I was quoting from the figures that yourself provided in your post, so whose fairytale am I reciting?

I know you have a hard time dealing with the fact that 45% of the men and women of science represented in this data do NOT share your naturalistic bias. But that's the way the ball bounces. They don't agree with you. Maybe they understand something you don't.

No doubt even more difficult for you is this from your article:

Quote:

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

These apparently are not Deists, but Theists. Yeah, I know. These 40% of scientists must be stuck in fairytale land too. Right?

Like I said, next time read the thing before you post it to keep from embarrassing yourself when you contradict what you have posted.

0 Replies

No problem here with reading comprehension, rl - no matter how you try to spin it, there is no way to draw from the data presented the conclusion that 45% of scientists endorse creationisim/ID. Quite pertinent, however, is the finding that 99.85% of those in the life and earth sciences do not endorse creationism/ID.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

No problem here with reading comprehension, rl - no matter how you try to spin it, there is no way to draw from the data presented the conclusion that 45% of scientists endorse creationisim/ID. Quite pertinent, however, is the finding that 99.85% of those in the life and earth sciences do not endorse creationism/ID.

Your continual Clintonesque attempts to twist the verbiage in this post are simply pathetic. You are too bright to effectively play dumb, so the only conclusion that can be surmised is a willful attempt to obscure the facts that are under discussion.

Neither Runner, nor I, asserted that 45% of the scientists surveyed supported creationism or ID.

What the data that you cited said is that only 55% of the scientists surveyed thought that purely naturalistic forces could account for human origins. The other 45% believed that God was involved either through direct creation (5%) or through directing the process of evolution (40%).

Thus 45% of the scientists surveyed indicated their position was that human origin was attributable to intelligence in one of several ways and NOT due to naturalistic processes/ blind chance.

Your attempt to buffalo the crowd might work well at a Hillary fundraiser, but not in this forum.

0 Replies

Come on, guys and goils, just because 45% or 5% of scientiets believe in god, they can't prove it. It's only a guess on their part, and I'm sure the majority of them would admit it's a guess.

0 Replies

Bravo real life.

0 Replies

Quote:

Once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of their scientific studies, they no longer are free to follow where the data leads; they cease being a scientist ...

hmmmmmmmm.........I assume you'll say it's okay for them to base all their interpretations in the assumption of evolution though.

0 Replies

Not evolution; science.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not evolution; science.

So are you saying there is a difference? Maybe you've been listening after all, CI.

0 Replies

Evolution is a theory about the development of species. Science is the method by which evolution can be can be studied through systemized knowledge derived from observation.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Evolution is a theory about the development of species. Science is the method by which evolution can be can be studied through systemized knowledge derived from observation.

I see. When has a scientist observed the development of one creature from another?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Evolution is a theory about the development of species. Science is the method by which evolution can be can be studied through systemized knowledge derived from observation.

I see. When has a scientist observed the development of one creature from another?

He kind of lost me with the observation thing.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

real life wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Evolution is a theory about the development of species. Science is the method by which evolution can be can be studied through systemized knowledge derived from observation.

I see. When has a scientist observed the development of one creature from another?

He kind of lost me with the observation thing.

I think he may have been talking about this type of observation. :wink:

Intrepid wrote:

Only a fool would totally discount evolutionary processes since the evidence is there to be seen.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1597859#1597859

0 Replies

mesquite,
If you had bothered to read rather than use my words in an attempt to discredit me, you would see that I am taking about the end results as being seen. I NEVER said or agreed with the observation of the process.

0 Replies

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

0 Replies

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know