)O( Hytegia )O(
New Member
This is a response in a discussion I was formulating... And I needed to make a scale here for how I was viewing it - so I decided upon the following terms:
It will be graded with truthful and realistic statements in Italics, and negative, biased assumptions in bold. Double points are for a doubled-up assertion or fact. Let's see how the scoreing goes along with the actual facts of the matter.
-1 point.
-1 point >The Pew Survey revealed that those scientists who were Deist, or believed in some higher diety, outnumbered those who do not believe in either a higher power or a divine entity. It is not a majority, but there are higher percentage of them in the scientific community than there are in the non-scientific community. (ref) Since 95% of Scientists accept that the evidence points towards Evolution, then a conclusion can be drawn that nearly half of these scientists are religious like the rest of the world. (ref)
+1 point >Congradulations. It noted that Scientists aren't Atheists - it also didn't annote that a majority of the religious ones hold a definate religion, such as Christianity or Islam, but I'll let it slide.
+1 point >Good job. A correct description of the Scientific mindset. You sit down at the table, are explained the evidence, and you weight out the explenations for the Evidence... And then you follow it. The direction just happens to be towards Evolution.
+1 point >Also correct. Many Evolutionary Scientists agree that Evolution does not require a higher being to manage it.
-1 point >Ouch. That statement implies that Science's job is to also take assumptions and include metaphysical, "non-natural" magic and miracles into account...
+1 point >Yay! A fact! Charles Darwin did not originate the idea of Evolution - he did, however, find evidence for the mechanism of Evolution via natural selection.
-1 point >Impling that the faith of the originator of an idea holds merit as to the evidence placed forth regarding the idea.
-3 points >Science doesn't care about what you believe. Faith is not a mechanism required to follow the evidence. (x3)
-1 point >It's not a debate ("alternate explenation")
-1 point >Tossing out the actual statistics of scientists and the goal for the explenation of natural origins of life, and placing instead "their motives are lies. The Bible says so."
-3 points >The plank in your own eye. If you read through the Bible (Proverbs), comparing and contrasting the actions of fools and the wise, you will see that the actions of many of the people at the forefront of Creationism (NephilimFree, etc.) are, as the Bible describes them, fools. They will hail complete scientific and academic failures and losses as successes, and their only existence is to parade around like morons. The sole purpose of their existence is to get attention from scientists, no matter what light it is, and then say "Hey! The Scientist gave me attention! We're on the same level!" (x3)
-1 point >Asking Science to assume the Bible over the millions of other religions and creation stories out there who make the same claim - that the (assumed) Creation is evidence of an (assumed) Creator into their calculations without corroborating evidence or data.
-1 point >Assuming that all Scientists are Atheist with confomation biases against God. The data shows otherwise.
-3 points >Misrepresenting the Scientific Method (x3)
-1 point > No alternate Theories with supporting Evidence have been offered to be examined or considered. Astronomical Assumption.
>Not a point deduction - just a reiteration of the point that only Creationists and non-scientists use the term "Creationist." This is an old move that was designed to imply as if there's some split between scientists, and that this is a scientific controversy. It's not any more of a scientific controversy any more than the Heliocentric model of our Solar System or the Theory of Gravity. You will never see any Scientists referring to themselves as "Evolutionist" more than you will see them calling themselves "Heliocentrists" or "Flat-Earthest".
-3 points >Misrepresenting the Scientific Method (x3)
-5 points >Implying that there's a Debate. (x5)
-1 point >Implying Creation is considered in a posative manner before examination of evidence to be turned down. All Theories are false in the examination of evidence.
-1 point >There's been no evidence ever presented for a Theory of Creation - not even a model, or upon an agreeable timescale, by anyone advocating "Creationism" in any manner to be tested. All holes in Evidence are boiled down to Miracles and Magic.
-1 point >Science does not care what your Faith is for you to reap the benefits from it. You need to be a member of that religion to reap from that religion - you can reap the benefits of science, regardless of whatever faith (or lack of it) you are.
+1 point >It is the only testable and verifyable theory presented for the evidence given. No other theory is actually given that fits the evidence. (Not of Origin)
-1 point >Narrow is not illogical. We do not allow Biblical Creation into scientific calculations for the same reason we do not allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster's account of Creation (or Zeus, if you don't get the joke) or think that the sun isn't dragged across the sky every day by an invisible man with a rope. It is not illogical to avoid leaping to conclusions and ignoring all the evidence we have gathered, nor is it illogical to follow the evidence where it leads us, and draw our conclusions off of that.
-1 Point >You are only accountable to this Creator in few religions - mainly the Abrahamic ones.
-1 Point >Science doesn't care what you believe, or your assumptions.
-2 Points >Insinuating that we must automatically assume that there is a Creator, and all others false, instead of simply assuming ALL THINGS false and following the Evidence. (x2)
-1 Point >this is not a Debate. There has been no solid "Creation Theory" nor evidence compiled to support it... The Evidence points towards variation of life towards natural selection. And Evolution does not speak as to the Origin of Life, or anything else.
-1 Point >Atheism is not a Religion. It's a lack of religion. And Evolution is not mutually exclusive of all religions, just because you take it to be exclusive of the writer's.
+1 point >In the Bible, you are told to listen to God. Yes.
-1 point >You don't need to believe in the Scientific method or it's theories to reap from it's benefits.
-1 point >Opinion.
-1 point >Utilizing the verse above and the data, nearly half of the Scientists that accept the Theory of Evolution hold a religious faith. Quite a few may even be Christians, just as you are... Plus, it's just a bickering ad hominem remark.
----------------------------------
Point Summary:
+8 in Factual and Truthful statements
-47 in Flaws, Mistatements, and assumptions
Total score: -39
My main concerns are math, and the explenations I give.
It will be graded with truthful and realistic statements in Italics, and negative, biased assumptions in bold. Double points are for a doubled-up assertion or fact. Let's see how the scoreing goes along with the actual facts of the matter.
>There is no debate in the Scientific arena regarding this. There hasn't been for 150 years (minus the Peer-Review stage).
-1 point.
-1 point >Implying that there is a debate about this amoungst scientists. 5% vs. 95% (and that is in EVERY field of science - not the ones actually having to do with Biology or Life Sciences) is not a controversy. (ref)
-1 point >The Pew Survey revealed that those scientists who were Deist, or believed in some higher diety, outnumbered those who do not believe in either a higher power or a divine entity. It is not a majority, but there are higher percentage of them in the scientific community than there are in the non-scientific community. (ref) Since 95% of Scientists accept that the evidence points towards Evolution, then a conclusion can be drawn that nearly half of these scientists are religious like the rest of the world. (ref)
+1 point >Congradulations. It noted that Scientists aren't Atheists - it also didn't annote that a majority of the religious ones hold a definate religion, such as Christianity or Islam, but I'll let it slide.
+1 point >Good job. A correct description of the Scientific mindset. You sit down at the table, are explained the evidence, and you weight out the explenations for the Evidence... And then you follow it. The direction just happens to be towards Evolution.
+1 point >Also correct. Many Evolutionary Scientists agree that Evolution does not require a higher being to manage it.
-1 point >Ouch. That statement implies that Science's job is to also take assumptions and include metaphysical, "non-natural" magic and miracles into account...
-1 point >Implying that the Science and the fruits of it's acheivements matter what you believe, and that Evolution only exists as a paradigm to Atheism.
+1 point >Yay! A fact! Charles Darwin did not originate the idea of Evolution - he did, however, find evidence for the mechanism of Evolution via natural selection.
-1 point >Impling that the faith of the originator of an idea holds merit as to the evidence placed forth regarding the idea.
-3 points >Science doesn't care about what you believe. Faith is not a mechanism required to follow the evidence. (x3)
-1 point >It's not a debate ("alternate explenation")
-1 point >Tossing out the actual statistics of scientists and the goal for the explenation of natural origins of life, and placing instead "their motives are lies. The Bible says so."
+1 point >Good. The Bible does say this.
-3 points >The plank in your own eye. If you read through the Bible (Proverbs), comparing and contrasting the actions of fools and the wise, you will see that the actions of many of the people at the forefront of Creationism (NephilimFree, etc.) are, as the Bible describes them, fools. They will hail complete scientific and academic failures and losses as successes, and their only existence is to parade around like morons. The sole purpose of their existence is to get attention from scientists, no matter what light it is, and then say "Hey! The Scientist gave me attention! We're on the same level!" (x3)
-1 point >Asking Science to assume the Bible over the millions of other religions and creation stories out there who make the same claim - that the (assumed) Creation is evidence of an (assumed) Creator into their calculations without corroborating evidence or data.
-1 point >Assuming that all Scientists are Atheist with confomation biases against God. The data shows otherwise.
-1 point > You can only give scientific examination to evidence that's actually there. No evidence has been presented, nor an actual theory in whole, of any "Creation Theory" to be examined more than an astronomical assumption.
-3 points >Misrepresenting the Scientific Method (x3)
-1 point > No alternate Theories with supporting Evidence have been offered to be examined or considered. Astronomical Assumption.
>Not a point deduction - just a reiteration of the point that only Creationists and non-scientists use the term "Creationist." This is an old move that was designed to imply as if there's some split between scientists, and that this is a scientific controversy. It's not any more of a scientific controversy any more than the Heliocentric model of our Solar System or the Theory of Gravity. You will never see any Scientists referring to themselves as "Evolutionist" more than you will see them calling themselves "Heliocentrists" or "Flat-Earthest".
-6 point >Changing the Subject. Evolution does not speak to the Origin of Life, the Universe, or ANYTHING - Evolution is the Variation of Life by Natural Selection. (x6)
-3 points >Misrepresenting the Scientific Method (x3)
-5 points >Implying that there's a Debate. (x5)
-1 point >Implying Creation is considered in a posative manner before examination of evidence to be turned down. All Theories are false in the examination of evidence.
-1 point >There's been no evidence ever presented for a Theory of Creation - not even a model, or upon an agreeable timescale, by anyone advocating "Creationism" in any manner to be tested. All holes in Evidence are boiled down to Miracles and Magic.
-1 point >Science does not care what your Faith is for you to reap the benefits from it. You need to be a member of that religion to reap from that religion - you can reap the benefits of science, regardless of whatever faith (or lack of it) you are.
+1 point >It is the only testable and verifyable theory presented for the evidence given. No other theory is actually given that fits the evidence. (Not of Origin)
-1 point >Narrow is not illogical. We do not allow Biblical Creation into scientific calculations for the same reason we do not allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster's account of Creation (or Zeus, if you don't get the joke) or think that the sun isn't dragged across the sky every day by an invisible man with a rope. It is not illogical to avoid leaping to conclusions and ignoring all the evidence we have gathered, nor is it illogical to follow the evidence where it leads us, and draw our conclusions off of that.
+1 Point >Yes. If Creation is True, then there is a Creator....
-1 Point >You are only accountable to this Creator in few religions - mainly the Abrahamic ones.
-1 Point >Science doesn't care what you believe, or your assumptions.
-2 Points >Insinuating that we must automatically assume that there is a Creator, and all others false, instead of simply assuming ALL THINGS false and following the Evidence. (x2)
-1 Point >this is not a Debate. There has been no solid "Creation Theory" nor evidence compiled to support it... The Evidence points towards variation of life towards natural selection. And Evolution does not speak as to the Origin of Life, or anything else.
-1 Point >Atheism is not a Religion. It's a lack of religion. And Evolution is not mutually exclusive of all religions, just because you take it to be exclusive of the writer's.
+1 point >In the Bible, you are told to listen to God. Yes.
-1 point >You don't need to believe in the Scientific method or it's theories to reap from it's benefits.
-1 point >Opinion.
-1 point >Utilizing the verse above and the data, nearly half of the Scientists that accept the Theory of Evolution hold a religious faith. Quite a few may even be Christians, just as you are... Plus, it's just a bickering ad hominem remark.
----------------------------------
Point Summary:
+8 in Factual and Truthful statements
-47 in Flaws, Mistatements, and assumptions
Total score: -39
My main concerns are math, and the explenations I give.
