On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, John Knight wrote:
>> "RLW" <zzwindol at uqconnect.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.4.30.0207171219130.13802-100000 at fox.uq.net.au...
> > If 49% of people believe in 'divinely guided' evolution, then they could
> > not be said to reject evolutionary theory outright, so his 91% figure is
> > not correct. It's a minor point anyway. Feminazis are not the same as
> > evolutionists and I doubt either group think humans and blue whales
> > are identical. All it proves is that John Knight likes to mix and
> > match his statistics.
> >
> > Rowena.
> >
> >
>> It's really easy to confuse you with facts, isn't it, Rowena?
I'm not the confused one.
> You skipped over a key step, which may be why you arrived at the wrong
> conclusion.
>> ONLY 9% of those polled responded that they believe in the "theory" of
> evolution, as defined by the "evolutionists" themselves, and by nobody else.
>> ONLY 4% said that they had "no opinion", and you cannot include them as
> "evolutionists", can you?
No, of course not. But you can't also say that they "reject
evolutionary theory" or that they believe humans have a unique role on the
Earth.
> And the 40% who you conveniently ignored believe "God guided this process",
> which is exactly the opposite of what "evolutionists" themselves preach from
> the rafters.
No, Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about God. As your survey
shows, it is possible to be both an Evolutionist and religious.
Nevertheless, your original statement was:
"To feminazis, there's no difference between blue whales and humans,
because they both "evolved" from the same "common ancestor", so it
must somehow make sense to them to make such a suggestion."
THEN you said:
"to the rest of the normal people in the country, namely the 91% who
reject this "theory" of evolution..."
If 40 % of people believe that "Human beings have developed over millions
of years from LESS ADVANCED FORMS OF LIFE but God guided this process"
then they almost certainly believe blue whales and humans have a common
ancestor. Therefore, you used the incorrect statistic (91%) to support
your case.
> The simple fact that the words "developed over millions of
> years" were thrown in was enough to throw you off, wasn't it?
>> Isn't the original statement correct, as is?: "91% [] reject this 'theory'
> of evolution".
In the context of what you wrote, no it isn't correct. Yet again you
are shown to misapply basic statistics, which I have noticed is not a new
trick for you.
Rowena.
