unsubscribe please.
At 08:46 AM 7/19/2002 +1000, RLW wrote:
>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.
-jack
---
