Setanta wrote:thunder_runner32 wrote:How is that any different anyways? If they believe in a deity, then wouldn't that logically mean he had some part in our existence?
This is a prime example of what "real life" intends with his deceitful attempt to create the impression of a controversy where none exists. The common Abrahamic theist believes that the cosmos were created by a god specifically for man, in order for the relationship between man and that god to have stage upon which to play out. Apart from the hilarious, childish conceit of such a thesis, it is this obvious assumption to which "real life" plays in his game here.
It is sufficient for him to create a false impression that: ". . . scientists did not think that naturalistic processes were suffcient to explain the origin of man."--in order to create the impression in the minds of credulous theists that these same scientists believe as they do, to wit, believe in a direct creation of man.
You are usually careful in exactly how you phrase things, "real life," it's an obvious part of your strategy--but you really slipped up with that line.
From the article
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
i.e. 40-45% did not
and
Quote:While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.
i.e. 40% "included God" means that did not take the 'naturalistic processes only' approach which was the whole point that Ros and I were discussing and which started this exchange.
The article is very clear about this.
Now, you can be equally clear is showing exactly where I stated or implied as you claimed:
Setanta falsely wrote:The first is to take figures which are alleged to indicate what number of practicing scientists believe in a deity, and assert that this same number purport a direct creation
There is nothing even approximating what you have stated. You have clearly mischaracterized my post, knowing that you did so.
So, if 55% believe that natural processes account for our origin, then what do we assume about the other 45%?
So let me get this straight.
98% of scientists believe that evolution is the process that created man.
40-45% of those that believe in evolution think it may have been guided by a supreme being in some fashion.
So.. 98% of scientists believe in evolution which means at most that 2% believe in creationism alone.
When I was young, taking my catechism classes, the Episcopalian priest told us that evolution was God's manner of creation. I wonder what % of religious leaders believe in evolution. I would bet it is higher than 50%.
Ive noticed that, despite protestations to thecontrary,real life has modified his stand quite a bit from when he walked on stage. His first arguments were waged to assert that Creationist phenom like a "worldwide flood' had indeed occured. Now his arguments have been pared down to whether theistic evolution isnt really a form of Creationism.
RL evolves too.
The member "real life" has not responded to the criticisms about the verfication of the credentials of the "scientists" referred to, nor of the specific disciplines in which any validly credentialed scientists practice their science. Therefore, "real life" has failed to demonstrate that it is true that any percentage of practicing scientists with genuine credentials in germane disciplines hold the view that: ". . . a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness . . . "--nor yet again that any scientists with genuine credentials in any discipline hold such a view.
The member "real life" is playing with terms and statistics. It is not to be axiomatically assumed that Mr. Potts' comments about "55%" taking a naturalistic view means that 40 to 45% take a view that a deity "guided" the process--it simply means that no more than 55% see the process as naturalistic from start to finish--it is a question of whether or not the people from the sample believed that man was the intended result, and says nothing of their views of the intervening process. Furthermore, that particular sample includes people who are not practicing scientists in the germane disciplines--so it is not any sort of statement to support a contention that there is any controversy on the topic among those who practice science in the disciplines concerned with evolutionary science.
More than that, "mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers" cannot reasonably be said to have the necessary educational credentials to make an informed statement about whether or not there is such a controversy in the community of those who do have such educational credentials. In the Big Birds pithy riposte: ". . . what dieticians and mechanical engineers might or might not think of an issue entirely contained within The Earth and Life Sciences is immaterial in the face of the fact that Over 99.8% of Earth and Life Scientists Endorse The Standard Evolutionary Model."
The surveys referred to do not support a contention that anything like 45% of genuinely credentialled, practicing scientists in all disciplines, let alone the earth and life sciences, believe that man is the product either of a direct creation, or a "guided" evolutionary process.
The member "real life" dances dangerously close to being forced to assert precisely what the answer to this alleged conundrum is in his own opinion--something which he has avoided throughout his participation here.
real life--hehehehehehehehAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee
you slay me . . .
dont pop a cork . I feel joy whenever we get someone to the trough to drink deeply of the "sacred spring"
as in "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing..."
farmerman wrote:Ive noticed that, despite protestations to thecontrary,real life has modified his stand quite a bit from when he walked on stage. His first arguments were waged to assert that Creationist phenom like a "worldwide flood' had indeed occured. Now his arguments have been pared down to whether theistic evolution isnt really a form of Creationism.
RL evolves too.
Thanks, JC . . . that was priceless . . .
well, I gotta tell ya set, that laugh of yours came off like Dr Dean. I dont think you need a closer with RL, hes broken down his credibility by hisself "REAL GOOD"
Set wrote:
The member "real life" has not responded to the criticisms about the verfication of the credentials of the "scientists" referred to, nor of the specific disciplines in which any validly credentialed scientists practice their science. Therefore, "real life" has failed to demonstrate that it is true that any percentage of practicing scientists with genuine credentials in germane disciplines hold the view that: ". . . a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness . . . "--nor yet again that any scientists with genuine credentials in any discipline hold such a view.
On christmas day, I went to sup with my younger brother and his side of the family, and we argued about that very same subject - I told him that 99.8 percent of biological and geological scientists believe in evolution. He continued to argue that scientists also support creationism, so I asked him to name them. He couldn't.
farmerman wrote:Ive noticed that, despite protestations to thecontrary,real life has modified his stand quite a bit from when he walked on stage. His first arguments were waged to assert that Creationist phenom like a "worldwide flood' had indeed occured. Now his arguments have been pared down to whether theistic evolution isnt really a form of Creationism.
RL evolves too.
Ha good one Farmerman.
No, my position hasn't changed, but I do recognize that not everybody holds my position.
Ros has consistently argued for a purely naturalistic approach as the only acceptable stance for a scientist.
I am simply pointing out that a large segment of US scientists do not share his view.
I am not saying that they therefore share mine.
Setanta wrote:The member "real life" has not responded to the criticisms about the verfication of the credentials of the "scientists" referred to, nor of the specific disciplines in which any validly credentialed scientists practice their science. Therefore, "real life" has failed to demonstrate that it is true that any percentage of practicing scientists with genuine credentials in germane disciplines hold the view that: ". . . a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness . . . "--nor yet again that any scientists with genuine credentials in any discipline hold such a view.
The member "real life" is playing with terms and statistics. It is not to be axiomatically assumed that Mr. Potts' comments about "55%" taking a naturalistic view means that 40 to 45% take a view that a deity "guided" the process--it simply means that no more than 55% see the process as naturalistic from start to finish--it is a question of whether or not the people from the sample believed that man was the intended result, and says nothing of their views of the intervening process. Furthermore, that particular sample includes people who are not practicing scientists in the germane disciplines--so it is not any sort of statement to support a contention that there is any controversy on the topic among those who practice science in the disciplines concerned with evolutionary science.
More than that, "mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers" cannot reasonably be said to have the necessary educational credentials to make an informed statement about whether or not there is such a controversy in the community of those who do have such educational credentials. In the Big Birds pithy riposte: ". . . what dieticians and mechanical engineers might or might not think of an issue entirely contained within The Earth and Life Sciences is immaterial in the face of the fact that Over 99.8% of Earth and Life Scientists Endorse The Standard Evolutionary Model."
The surveys referred to do not support a contention that anything like 45% of genuinely credentialled, practicing scientists in all disciplines, let alone the earth and life sciences, believe that man is the product either of a direct creation, or a "guided" evolutionary process.
The member "real life" dances dangerously close to being forced to assert precisely what the answer to this alleged conundrum is in his own opinion--something which he has avoided throughout his participation here.
real life--hehehehehehehehAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee
you slay me . . .
How funny that you refer to these scientists as "scientists", as if they were not truly.
The American Men and Women of Science, and also the science journal Nature apparently thought them to be sufficiently informed on this topic to solicit their opinion.
Of course you know better, they probably shoulda checked with you first. How dare they.
So are you ready to show proof for your statement:
Setanta purposely and incorrectly wrote:The first is to take figures which are alleged to indicate what number of practicing scientists believe in a deity, and assert that this same number purport a direct creation
Should be easy to prove, if it were true. (Hint *clears throat, speaks deeply into a tin can* : Force yourself to use the Search function, Skywalker.)
As i already pointed out, your assertion about "the origin of man" in reference to people who allegedly practice the germane disciplines can only refer to a direct creation.
When a journal solicits the opinions of its subscribers, it has no basis upon which to judge the validity of the credentials of those who send in the annual subscription fee. You continue to avoid the issue of whether or not the disciplines the members allegedly practice are germane to a judgement of the validity of a theory in life and earth sciences
Your attempt at satire is puerile and lame . . . we expect no less from you, "real life."
cicerone imposter wrote:Set wrote:
The member "real life" has not responded to the criticisms about the verfication of the credentials of the "scientists" referred to, nor of the specific disciplines in which any validly credentialed scientists practice their science. Therefore, "real life" has failed to demonstrate that it is true that any percentage of practicing scientists with genuine credentials in germane disciplines hold the view that: ". . . a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness . . . "--nor yet again that any scientists with genuine credentials in any discipline hold such a view.
On christmas day, I went to sup with my younger brother and his side of the family, and we argued about that very same subject - I told him that 99.8 percent of biological and geological scientists believe in evolution. He continued to argue that scientists also support creationism, so I asked him to name them. He couldn't.
Well good grief CI, why didn't you tell us sooner?
If your brother doesn't know there must not be an answer, right?
Guess we're done here. Anyone for a frosty malt?
Setanta wrote:As i already pointed out, your assertion about "the origin of man" in reference to people who allegedly practice the germane disciplines can only refer to a direct creation.
When a journal solicits the opinions of its subscribers, it has no basis upon which to judge the validity of the credentials of those who send in the annual subscription fee. You continue to avoid the issue of whether or not the disciplines the members allegedly practice are germane to a judgement of the validity of a theory in life and earth sciences
Your attempt at satire is puerile and lame . . . we expect no less from you, "real life."
The National Geographic article characterizes the respondents as "US scientists" , not as "subscribers to the journal
Nature, a point that you continue to mischaracterize.
Now if you think NG is being deceptive to benefit the PR of creationists--- well, I suppose you would have to take that up with National Geographic.
Keep wigglin' dude.
Nothing about what i've written either suggests or states that the National Geographic Society is playing fast and loose with the truth. The two points i have continued to make is that the credentials of the respondents are not confirmed, nor is the sample presented as representative of the germane disciplines, which is a question at the core of the false allegation that there is a "problem" with the data supporting a theory of evolution, that there is "controversy" which needs to be taught.
As for wiggling, i could not but cede the palm to the master wiggler, Dude.
Setanta wrote:Your attempt at satire is puerile and lame . . . we expect no less from you, "real life."
Er...no more surely? Or is this a case of could/couldn't care less? Yours sincerely, Confused, England.
And I wasnt calling you Shirley ok
OK . . . just jerkin' the boy's chain, there, Boss . . .
yeah you gave it a good yank....er oh dear sorry
but you are not are you?
btw is the term Yank actually offensive to mericans?
To some of them, Boss . . . the term Yankee is technically applicable only to New Yorkers, although it is generally applied to New Englanders these days. I have read (and cannot vouch for the accuracy) that it comes from Jan Kaese (might be misspelled), the Dutch for John Cheese, the Dutch equivalent of John Doe. New York was originally New Amsterdam, until James, Duke of York stole it, fair and square, from the Dutch.
Southerners might object to it, but given that they commonly get abused by Yankees in the first place, Southerners who commonly travel very far from home usually have developed a thick hide . . .
Origins
Original term comes from the Southern misconception of the Northern value system. It was a long held belief that New Englanders engaged in chronic mastubation (hence to "yank" ones member)and compulsive brothel frequenting.
Other origins of the term are disputed. One theory customarily held by persons not from New England claims that it originated from the Dutch in old New Amsterdam (today known as New York City) in the Mid-Atlantic States. It then was adopted by the British as a pejorative for (Northern) colonists. The origin might have been the phrase Jan Kees ("John Cornelius") (two very common Dutch names), which the English-speaking people picked up as "yankees", a word they used to refer to the Dutch.
The Dutch theory is somewhat confused. The settlers of New Amsterdam and the settlers of Massachusetts Bay were totally unconnected and did not come into contact until both communities were sufficiently dense to carry on trade up and down the East Coast. There is no reason why the British should call English settlers in a different location by a Dutch name when New Amsterdam was under Dutch jurisdiction and always had been. Moreover, New York has never been "Yankee" except in the world wars of modern times.
The prevalent theory in New England holds that it originated among a group of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on the East Coast of the United States. They were unable to pronounce the word "English", rendering it as "yengis" or "yengeese". This later was Anglicized to "Yankees".
This theory is widely held, as descendants of those same Native Americans are alive in Massachusetts, mainly as the Wampanoags and are vociferous about their origin and are fairly well publicized. They still know the basic core of their former language and are able to say that in it there is no "l" sound. Their ancestors would not have pronounced it, rendering English to "yengis".
In another theory, Indians who first learned of the English from the French may have borrowed the French language name "Anglais" and rendered it as something that approximated "Yankee" in their own phonetic system. One area in which French, French-allied Indians, and British-descended Americans would have come into contact was the area of frontier warfare conducted during the French and Indian War (1754-1763). This is more or less consistent with the areas in which other derivations of the word would postulate its first use. If this is the origin of the term Yankee, it may originally have had a pejorative, anti-American connotation similar to that of gringo, becoming adopted as a matter of pride by British-descended Americans who had fought on the frontier during the French and Indian War.
There are several other folk and humorous etymologies for the word.
One influence on the use of the term throughout the years has been the song Yankee Doodle, which was popular at the time of the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). Though the British intended to insult the colonials with the song, following the Battle of Concord, it was adopted by Americans as a proud retort and today is the state song of Connecticut.
An early use of the term outside the United States was in the creation of Sam Slick, the "Yankee Clockmaker", in a column in a newspaper in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1835. The character was a plain-talking American who served to mock both American and British North American customs of that era. The stories were published in a book titled The Clockmaker, in 1836. The book was popular in British North America, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
[edit]
The American Civil War
The use of the term was highly significant in the context of the American Civil War (1861 - 1865). It was used to refer to the soldiers and residents of the Northern United States including the Midwestern United States, Mid-Atlantic States, and New England. The term also referred to the border states and African American troops who fought for the Union. See also Carpetbagger.
