Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[Revelation777]

In 1999, Dr. Stephen Taylor wrote,

The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master’s degree or above in a recognized field of science. In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.

And Project Steve just inducted its 1337th Steve to the project, what's your point?

As of 5/6/14
NCSE welcomes Steve #1337
Stefan Gerhold
Vienna Institute of Technology

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

[snip]

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

There are over twice as many scientists with the name Steve, or variations of it, than there are scientists willing to go on record as 6-day creationists.

If 1,337 Steves represent about 1% of the scientific community, then there are about 133,700 scientist of every name who agree with the Theory of Evolution.

Compared to 650.

Do you want to rethink your argument from popularity now?

And I want to see the facts and figures for how Russell Humphreys estimates his 10,000 figure, but even that is pointless if you're making an argument from popularity because you're still out numbered 13 to 1 if his estimate is accurate.

But I have a better idea: stop trying to prop up your argument with fallacious claims and start producing actual evidence for us to evaluate.

Oh, wait. You don't have any...

My name is Stephen and I am not part of this group. You'll been saying that numbers of people who believe something doesn't count for anything.

[Crossless2.0]

My name is Stephen and I am not part of this group. You'll been saying that numbers of people who believe something doesn't count for anything.

[Chas]

Who are you to question God?

Who are you to claim there is a god? Or to assert his characteristics?

[Rampant.A.I.]

And Project Steve just inducted its 1337th Steve to the project, what's your point?

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

There are over twice as many scientists with the name Steve, or variations of it, than there are scientists willing to go on record as 6-day creationists.

If 1,337 Steves represent about 1% of the scientific community, then there are about 133,700 scientist of every name who agree with the Theory of Evolution.

Compared to 650.

Do you want to rethink your argument from popularity now?

And I want to see the facts and figures for how Russell Humphreys estimates his 10,000 figure, but even that is pointless if you're making an argument from popularity because you're still out numbered 13 to 1 if his estimate is accurate.

But I have a better idea: stop trying to prop up your argument with fallacious claims and start producing actual evidence for us to evaluate.

Oh, wait. You don't have any... :thinking:

My name is Stephen and I am not part of this group. You'll been saying that numbers of people who believe something doesn't count for anything.

And on to argument #3...

[pocaracas]

You'll been saying that numbers of people who believe something doesn't count for anything.

No, it doesn't.
That's why it's called Argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

[Cato]

You'll been saying that numbers of people who believe something doesn't count for anything.

Because it doesn't!!! Science isn't settled by ballot and your emotions on the matter count for shit also. Millions of people believing in creationism doesn't give any credence to the position. Millions of people believing in creationism just proves there are millions of gullible idiots.

I don't care how rational or otherwise reasonable someone is; if people conclude that creationsim is a compelling explanation for our existence in the face of easily accesible fact to the contrary then those people are fucking idiots.

[The Valkyrie]

My name is Stephen and I am not part of this group. You'll been saying that numbers of people who believe something doesn't count for anything.

And on to argument #3...

You mean bullshit #3.

[Mister Agenda]

Where? Given that others are still asking you to do so, I highly doubt you've accounted for it. I doubt you've addressed it. I doubt you even *understand* what is being asked.

He posted a link in a reply to me. Basically, God is omnipotent, so God could have done it, and it doesn't have to make sense or be scientifically useful because God works in mysterious ways. Which isn't even a rebuttal to the contention that inherited retroviral insertions across species only make sense in the context of the theory of evolution.

---

Many many many reject abiogenesis.

You think argument ad populum is valid? Great: About twice as many people think Christianity is false as think it's true. Case closed.

[Jackalope]

Where? Given that others are still asking you to do so, I highly doubt you've accounted for it. I doubt you've addressed it. I doubt you even *understand* what is being asked.

He posted a link in a reply to me. Basically, God is omnipotent, so God could have done it, and it doesn't have to make sense or be scientifically useful because God works in mysterious ways. Which isn't even a rebuttal to the contention that inherited retroviral insertions across species only make sense in the context of the theory of evolution.

I suppose if you're willing to invoke magic, you can "justify" belief in anything.

[Mister Agenda]

Don't tell me what to do fuck face

Let's get along and show mutual respect mate.

It's disrespectful to presume it's your place to tell adults what language they may use. You haven't shown an ounce of respect to anyone here.

---

Why do you believe everyone who believes in God is an imbecilic moron? Is it possible, that someone who believes in no god is not intelligent?

There are plenty of people who believe in God who are quite brilliant. You just aren't one of them. You are a particular person, not Christianity incarnate. An insult to you is not an insult to all Christians.

---

I found something interesting that I would like to share with my skeptical atheist friends -

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

Group Creation Theistic Evolution Evolution
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

Why do you think this is news to us? Can you quote someone here who gave you different percentages? Although not all percentages are created equal: the more accomplished the scientist, as measured by membership in the American Academy of Science which advises the US government on scientific matters and is by invitation-only based on body of work, acceptance of unguided evolution is at 90%.

So you see that there are scientists who do believe in creation.

95% don't, and most of the ones who do aren't biologists. If you were consistently convinced by who has the numbers on their side, this would change your mind, but you're dishonest or stupid, so you will continue to use numbers arguments as 'evidence' you are right while rejecting any argument ad populum that isn't in your favor.

Also, note that the general public only 10% believe in evolution without God's intervention.

The general public isn't qualified to evaluate the evidence and have had their preachers working day and night to convince them science is false if it doesn't confirm their church's doctrines.

. If you visit this website they also have a list of scientists who embrace creation. This is wonderful news.

It's not news, and it's not wonderful, but it's understandable why hardly any of them are biologists...it's hard to work in the field of biology while rejecting the evidence in front of your face. There are more scientists named 'Steve' working in actual relevant fields than are on your list. I'd be surprised if you couldnt find as many who embrace astrology as embrace creationism.

He hath done all things well. Unfortunately, the destructiveness of sin has tainted His once perfect creation. So He sent a Savior!

Your supposed savior didn't do a thing about our haphazard 'design'.

---

ou guys have dismissed my argument so we now are on a tangent.

You didn't make an argument. You presented a quotemine. Do you not know what an argument looks like?

'Elminster the Fourth says cheese is the most sublime of foods' isn't an argument, just because you can tell that whoever is saying that probably likes cheese. Without context, it's just a somewhat random statement.

For what are you arguing? It can't be for the existence of God, because the theory of biological evolution is irrelevant to the existence of God, and no one can be stupid enough to make a seven point argument to prove God exists and not post ANYTHING relevant for the first two of the seven points and still be smart enough to spell at a third-grade level with the assistance of spell-check.

---

I am doing some online research and am excited because I came across a book that has 50 scientists that chose to believe in creation. I have not read this book but I want to order it. I know that this doesn't prove anything but you all threw me under the bus for quoting someone from the 1950's. So to me I am excited that there indeed are modern day scientists who side with the Creator.

There are what, a couple of million scientists in the USA?