Yes, that is true based on 1995 and 2002 stats by the NY Times. Sorry, but 45% of Scientists DON'T accept Darwinian Evolution.Mechanical Bliss said:
take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, that is true based on 1995 and 2002 stats by the NY Times. Sorry, but 45% of Scientists DON'T accept Darwinian Evolution.Mechanical Bliss said:Uh, I did look before I made my post. I even refreshed the page.
I did it again, and still I see the claim in question: 45% of Scientists don't accept Darwinian Evolution
So you lied when you said: "Actually if you looked you wouldn't see them anymore."tkster said:Yes, that is true based on 1995 and 2002 stats by the NY Times. Sorry, but 45% of Scientists DON'T accept Darwinian Evolution.
take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)
No, did you look? Does it not say 45% don't accept Darwinian evolution? Of course, there ya' go.Mechanical Bliss said:So you lied when you said: "Actually if you looked you wouldn't see them anymore."
Why haven't you disputed the opening post? Jet Black presented his case that you misrepresented the study in question. You have done nothing but first lie and now remain in denial. Show us the facts as Jet Black as done.
Why do you persist in lying?tkster said:No, did you look? Does it not say 45% don't accept Darwinian evolution? Of course, there ya' go.
take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)
Argument One: Evolution is universally accepted by scientists.
This is a lie. According to the New York Times, 45% of American scientists don't accept Darwinian Evolution.
no, it does not say that 45% do not accept dawinian evolution. it says that about 5% believe in a literal creation, 50% believe in theistic evolution (which includes darwinian evolution) and 45% believe in non theistic evolution. can you actually provide a reference for your allegation?tkster said:No, did you look? Does it not say 45% don't accept Darwinian evolution? Of course, there ya' go.
take care,
tk (http://www.skeptictimes.com/)
clearky an informed skeptic judgement. heh. I was reading through the newsletters and so on, the whole writing style is atrocious. I was intending to turn this thread into a thread of errors, but the whole thing is just so dire that it is easier for people to look for themselves.Arikay said:On a side note, has anyone seen his article on theistic evolutionists?
Its page it titled "morons" and goes on to judge the faith of other christians, so I don't expect to see any honesty coming out of him, but maybe he will surprise us.
it needs to be bigger, and in red and bold:USincognito said:Can I post a short message in giant letters to get my point acoss? I'm sorry if it bugs anyone but...
Will you all stop quoting his typed in "sig line" spam?
All you're doing is giving him, hoaxster trying to make creationists look bad, or the read deal, free publicity.
Data said:Still hasn't fixed his logo.
I think that sets the standard for his entire website, really
I think so too, bu I am not sure he really wants to relate his site to carbon based fire deposits.USincognito said:I can think of two letters that are missing from that logo.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?