People like this shouldn't be doctors...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**mattyrm**

Palindrome wrote:
generalgrog wrote:

No it's not when you look at his original statement..in fact he said 4% don't believe in evolution and of those..."virtually none are from life sciences" I did a quick calculation and a little over 25% of that list are from the life sciences fields.
GG

Which is still virtually none.

Why do you even bother?

GG is a dyed in young earth Creationist/Scientific conspiracy theorist. There is no point at all in even entering into a debate with him. He/they have literally zero credibility. You don't NEED to refute him, because the facts, common sense, and everyone who matters doesn't agree with him, they agree with you.

His bizarre theory is as ridiculous as the flat earth theory, and I don't see anyone worrying about refuting their claims.

It is painfully obvious that they are desperate to make the facts tally with their Religious books, they will never achieve that aim because almost everything they say is utterly utterly false. You can never make a lie transform into the truth no matter how much you try to spin it.

And taking the time to write a short list of "scientists" on dakka dakka in an attempt to give some validation to his laughable claims.. well.. come on. Thats just flat out ridiculous. Does this gak actually work on anyone over the age of 12?

**Palindrome**

dogma wrote:

And you're arguing from authority.

LOL, seriously?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Most scientists are creationists, very few scientists are Young Earth creationists.

I'll just leave this here.Wikipedia I know but come on....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Creationist_disputes_over_the_scientific_support_for_evolution

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

Why do you even bother?

You never know, he may see the light one day.

**Testify**

Finding a random person in the world and belittling their opinions...isn't that basically flamebait?

**Bran Dawri**

From an internet board? Unlikely.

**dogma**

Palindrome wrote:

LOL, seriously?

Yes, he's making an argument from authority. You might do well to look that up.

Also, don't be aggressive if you can't back up your aggression.

Palindrome wrote:

I'll just leave this here.Wikipedia I know but come on....

Being a creationist doesn't mean being a Young Earth creationist.

If you believe in an Abrahamic God, then you're a creationist of some description.

**Palindrome**

dogma wrote:

Yes, he's making an argument from authority. You might do well to look that up.
.

No he is not. His argument is fatally flawed, much like the arguments for creationism.

**Squigsquasher**

He isn't disputing that the argument is flawed.

In fact he is saying that it is flawed.

An argument from authority, AKA the "because I said so" argument is fundamentally flawed.

**Palindrome**

Everyday is a school day.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Avatar 720 wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
The UK is far less biblical if everyone sensible in the US wants to return to the motherland

I've actually considered a move to Australia, but gun laws in the various commonwealth nations are very unfortunate to a man in my line of work.

Haven't you seen those shows about Australia's border control? Nobody gets into Australia. Nobody.

Avatar, used to be people from your country used to send people from my country to Australia in bulk XD

**AgeOfEgos**

generalgrog wrote:

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

*Long List of names*

Is that the Discovery Institute list? Without Googling the names, I'm assuming so. If so, a couple of things;

1. The question asked was not "Do you believe in evolution or creation?". The Discovery Institute list statement was "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". I believe in evolution as much as I believe in the theory of gravity--yet I still think we should encourage careful examination of the evidence--because that's what scientists do. Link to Discovery Site;

http://www.discovery.org/a/1555

2. Many of the names on the list were not critical of Darwinism as the advertisements often claim, the credentials often affiliated with the individual are not where they work--but were they attended as an undergrad, some of the signatories stated they were misled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

I have no interest in debating creationism v. evolution anymore than I do Zeus induced lightning v. crystal/water static discharge. However, willfully misleading documents that attempt to discredit real science (IE the Discovery Institute and persons that advertise this list as a counter to evolution-----not you) deserves scorn.

**mattyrm**

AgeOfEgos wrote:
generalgrog wrote:

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

*Long List of names*

Is that the Discovery Institute list? Without Googling the names, I'm assuming so. If so, a couple of things;

1. The question asked was not "Do you believe in evolution or creation?". The Discovery Institute list statement was "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". I believe in evolution as much as I believe in the theory of gravity--yet I still think we should encourage careful examination of the evidence--because that's what scientists do. Link to Discovery Site;

http://www.discovery.org/a/1555

2. Many of the names on the list were not critical of Darwinism as the advertisements often claim, the credentials often affiliated with the individual are not where they work--but were they attended as an undergrad, some of the signatories stated they were misled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

I have no interest in debating creationism v. evolution anymore than I do Zeus induced lightning v. crystal/water static discharge. However, willfully misleading documents that attempt to discredit real science (IE the Discovery Institute and persons that advertise this list as a counter to evolution-----not you) deserves scorn.

Thats why I said there is no need to respond to them.. They (Young earthers) are unbelievably dishonest.

Its called lying for Jesus.

**Kilkrazy**

generalgrog wrote:
Seaward wrote:
generalgrog wrote:

Here is a list of ill informed/delusional fools..virtually none of them work in life sciences....wait a minute....virtually none?...See bolded list below.

Now, would you like a list of scientists of all stripes who do believe in evolution? Because we can essentially go through every research institute, university, think tank, research firm, and whatever else you care to name in this nation, grab every scientist, and just cross the names you wrote off the list.

You're not going to win the, "We're credible with our creationist/young earth tripe!" argument by trotting out a pathetically small list of names. One in five Americans think we staged the moon landing. The fact that there's a lot of misinformed, outright wrong people doesn't lend any credibility at all to the wrong notion. See: politics.

You are arguing from ad-populum.

All I was doing was responding to palindromes erroneus statement regarding life scientists that believe in creation as "virtually none" If he had said small number I wouldn't have had an issue with his misleading statement.

GG

Presumably it is relative. There must be many thousands of qualified biologists in the USA. A couple of hundred of them would be a negligible proportion.

**Testify**

"A couple of hundred" out of "many thousands" is 10% dude. That's not negligable

**Ahtman**

Another congressman, state this time, is under fire from his own party for some things he wrote in a book. Article

He basically reiterates the old 'White (Congress)Man's Burden' attitude that slavery was really blessing, and that there is a conspiracy between liberals and Muslims to take over the USA. He also believes that liberals and Muslims alike want to " take over the entire world through violent, bloody, revolution" and that it his job to do "whatever I can to defend, protect and preserve our Christian heritage." He also intimates, of course, that Pres Obama is a Muslim Communist.

**Kovnik Obama**

Squigsquasher wrote:
He isn't disputing that the argument is flawed.

In fact he is saying that it is flawed.

An argument from authority, AKA the "because I said so" argument is fundamentally flawed.

Only if it is used in deduction. In induction, almost all sophism can be valid.

**Kilkrazy**

Testify wrote:
"A couple of hundred" out of "many thousands" is 10% dude. That's not negligable

It is within the statistical margin of error.

Unless you don't believe in set theory.

**MeanGreenStompa**

mattyrm wrote:
Bloke has an MD and doesn't "believe" in embryology!? I'm glad the mother fether isn't my missus doctor!

Seriously, this stuff really annoys me now. Its poisoned my military service as well, because for example, I was proud and pleased when I was selected to form the advance party sent into Iraq a couple of months before the war started, I was happy to go back on OIF 4 a couple of years later as well. I trusted the upper echelons like any good soldier does, and figured I was doing my duty for a good reason.

And then I found out a few years later that the real reason we went is because Bush Is a half mad deluded lunatic who thought God told him to invade Iraq during a candid conversation.

I thought we were invading for a sensible reason, and I figured I had something in common with Mr Bush because we both have no tolerance for Islam. But the my lack of tolerance is because I have a lack of tolerance for all Religion and Theocracy, I think that it is the anathema to true freedom which causes suffering and misery for millions.

The reason Bush had no tolerance for Islam is because he wants to replace it with his own almost as intolerant version, hardcore Christianity!

35 -40% of Americans are no better than Iranians or Pakistanis. They would be more than happy to live in a Religious Theocracy as long as it was their Religion, they would be more than happy to see gays locked up and abortions made illegal.

Land of the free indeed.

It's often interesting to me,given how we are often at opposites regarding politics, to see how much we agree on beyond the partisan.

Science is bloody great and I am sick and tired of having to mend my language and tread on eggshells for the fear of upsetting the superstitious from reading their futures in chicken entrails or talking to the great invisible rabbit about how they'd like tomorrow to be sunny because they want to have a picnic or how the voice only they can hear is telling them to invade an oil-rich [Mod Edit - who knew that what would sneak through?] in the sand.

**mattyrm**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

It's often interesting to me,given how we are often at opposites regarding politics, to see how much we agree on beyond the partisan.

Science is bloody great and I am sick and tired of having to mend my language and tread on eggshells for the fear of upsetting the superstitious from reading their futures in chicken entrails or talking to the great invisible rabbit about how they'd like tomorrow to be sunny because they want to have a picnic or how the voice only they can hear is telling them to invade an oil-rich [x] in the sand.

Indeed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect that, but I am most definitely not one of the people who thinks that superstition is harmless. Have you seen how many kids In Britain suffer because of people believing in stupid gak? Every year kids get killed by people from African nations who believe in voodoo and demons and all kinds of stupid gak. This is why the older I get, the more intolerant of it I have become, because I think ignorance and superstition have real devastating consequences for people. It breaks my heart when I read about a child being killed or an Albino getting murdered or some other nonsense just because people believe in ridiculous gak, it basically gives people a motive to commit murder! And surely we want to keep that to a minimum right?

Even actual harmless fun annoys me.. I think I'm just a miserable fether! Like for example I hate "ghost walks" because I think they actually lend credence to stupidity. I saw a radio poll that said 40% of people believe in ghosts for example. I even get pissed off with horoscopes, because thats just my opinion, I think anything and everything that has to do with superstition is a part of a wider problem that has real ramifications.

**feeder**

mattyrm wrote:

Even actual harmless fun annoys me.. I think I'm just a miserable fether! Like for example I hate "ghost walks" because I think they actually lend credence to stupidity. I saw a radio poll that said 40% of people believe in ghosts for example. I even get pissed off with horoscopes, because thats just my opinion, I think anything and everything that has to do with superstition is a part of a wider problem that has real ramifications.

I like ghost walks, they are a good way to get to see parts of old and often private estates one wouldn't otherwise get access to. I just tune out the theatrical guide and geek out on the history of the place.

**MeanGreenStompa**

mattyrm wrote:

Even actual harmless fun annoys me.. I think I'm just a miserable fether! Like for example I hate "ghost walks" because I think they actually lend credence to stupidity. I saw a radio poll that said 40% of people believe in ghosts for example.

I just hate them because they are all that infests the scyfy channel these days, instead of an interesting scifi show like farscape or battlestar, we get a big pile of gak with arseholes jumping at noises and filmed in 'nightsight' camera so they all have spooky eyes. It fills me with bile.

**generalgrog**

dogma wrote:

And you're arguing from authority.

Sorry but where did I use the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy?

It's funny that people think I am arguing for creationism here. I am only pointing out palindromes fallacy of stating that, out of creation believing scientists, "virtually none" are from the life sciences field. That's what he said and that was misleading. He didn't say "out of all scientists "virtually none" were from the life sciences field"

25% is not a statistically insignificant number.

GG

**Kanluwen**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
mattyrm wrote:

Even actual harmless fun annoys me.. I think I'm just a miserable fether! Like for example I hate "ghost walks" because I think they actually lend credence to stupidity. I saw a radio poll that said 40% of people believe in ghosts for example.

I just hate them because they are all that infests the scyfy channel these days, instead of an interesting scifi show like farscape or battlestar, we get a big pile of gak with arseholes jumping at noises and filmed in 'nightsight' camera so they all have spooky eyes. It fills me with bile.

Then I'd suggest you stop watching SyFy on Wednesday/Tuesday(the nights where they show such things) and watch on Friday/Monday when they show the things you want.

Alphas, Warehouse 13, and Haven all "fit the bill" for what you like.

SyFy has however stated that shows like Face/Off, Ghost Hunters, Destination Truth, etc...they're all huge draws to the network. A season of Destination Truth, even with all the travel costs and the like for Josh Gates and his team, makes its money back tenfold and pays for a season of Warehouse 13.

**Kovnik Obama**

Stop it Kan, you are making me miss those days of the student strike when I could spend the entire afternoon watching SyFy shows.

**d-usa**

Blah,

I'm a creationist by definition. I believe that God made it happen, but I don't believe in any form of young earth anti-evolution creationism. I don't think there is any conflict in thinking "this universe is ancient, God created it. Look evolution, that's an interesting process, I wonder if God used that process to create life."

I imagine that a majority of Christians fall in a similar category.

**Palindrome**

generalgrog wrote:

25% is not a statistically insignificant number.

GG

Indeed its not, but you are going to need a better dataset for me to take that figure seriously. One of the guys on that list has been dead for 33 years.

**ShumaGorath**

generalgrog wrote:
Palindrome wrote:

A very small number of scientists are creationists, I think something like 4% of scientists don't believe in evolution. None of these (or virtually none) will work in the life sciences.

The fact that such an ill informed/delusional fool is actually on a government science commitee speaks volumes about how useful these commitees actually are.

Here is a list of ill informed/delusional fools..virtually none of them work in life sciences....wait a minute....virtually none?...See bolded list below.

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Dr. Kenneth W. Funk, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. William F. Kane, (Civil) Geotechnical Engineering
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John G. Leslie, Biochemist, Physician, Archaeologist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, Physician
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Kenneth Royal, Psychometrics
Dr. Joachim Scheven, Palaeontologist
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
George S. Smith, M.S., Chemistry
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Gordon Wilson, Environmental Science and Public Policy
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

GG

You know there are 7 billion people on earth right? I could probably find that many scientists that still think the earth is flat.

**mattyrm**

Palindrome wrote:
generalgrog wrote:

25% is not a statistically insignificant number.

GG

Indeed its not, but you are going to need a better dataset for me to take that figure seriously. One of the guys on that list has been dead for 33 years.

It is absolutely nowhere near that number. That list he published is full of lies as well, half of the people on it either aren't actual scientists or DO agree with the obvious fact of evolution.

As I said, its all lies, half truths and misrepresentations. I guarantee a fair number of the blokes on that list would be outraged to find their names on it, the fethers that write that gak are lying scumbags who peddle misinformation because they think they can buy their way into paradise by lying for Jesus.

**ShumaGorath**

Palindrome wrote:
generalgrog wrote:

25% is not a statistically insignificant number.

GG

Indeed its not, but you are going to need a better dataset for me to take that figure seriously. One of the guys on that list has been dead for 33 years.

**d-usa**

Please stop the "lying for Jesus" gak, I am sorry if Christians have given you crap and I wish I could apologize for them.

But you can believe in science and still think God has something to do with it. People just hear "creationist" and assume young-earth-creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just because I have been waiting for an excuse to post this picture:

**Peregrine**

d-usa wrote:
Please stop the "lying for Jesus" gak, I am sorry if Christians have given you crap and I wish I could apologize for them.

But you can believe in science and still think God has something to do with it. People just hear "creationist" and assume young-earth-creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

"Lying for Jesus" doesn't mean "believing in some form of divine involvement", it refers to the dishonesty of certain creationists (usually either young-earth or intelligent design). For example, getting diploma mill "degrees" in biology so they can claim better credentials on their book covers, blatantly lying about the existence of transitional fossils, taking quotes out of context (for example, Darwin's "what use is half an eye" is a popular one, but it's actually the start of a paragraph where Darwin explains how it could have evolved), etc. On the rare occasion that they admit the dishonesty they claim that it's ok, because anything that brings people to Jesus is morally good, even lying.