Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: koan who wrote (27052)	9/3/2009 1:01:55 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) of 28931

I can't help it if you want to draw unwarranted conclusions from incomplete and or inaccurate information. BTW my background is in mud but it doesn't take a degree to spot spurious reasoning. "Those are very credible stats conducted by PEW research one of the most respected pollsters in the world. PEW is like Scripts research, highly resepcted (sic) by the scientific community." Which facts? Of course if anyone is at all familiar with Polls and the inherent bias that is built into virtually any "directed" question then it would be obvious that one would need to examine not only the questions themselves in context with all the other questions asked in the same setting but also even the inflection in the interviewers voice. What is that famous quote? "There are lies, Damn lies, and then there are Stats." To your assertions directly. Even if this stat.. "6% of scientists are Republican and 6% lean Republican, while 81% lean democratic." Is an accurate reflection of reality, your next step is where you broke through the guardrail and began your plummet into irrationality and statistical abuse. I think there must be a statistical abuse hotline somewhere. "The reason: Virtually all scientists believe in evolution (and other such facts) because evolution is a well proven fact. Like the world being round." Besides the fact that Darwinian evolution is not an established fact anywhere near the certainty of the roundness of the earth; That "reason" is pure unsubstantiated conjecture on your part: isn't it? You do try to bolster your argument but you do so by citing even more unsubstantiated "facts" "MOST Republicans/conservatives"? How many exactly? Is it 51 percent? where did you get this stat? "Most Democrats"? Again how many and where did you get this? Perhaps you are still quoting from the PEW poll but it is not clear. "So how can a scientist be a Republcan (sic) when they know their ideas are not factual or logical.?" You never established a link between being a Republican and a non belief in evolution. This is an abuse of both logic and statistics.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next