Re: Majority of scientists in US believe in god

On May 15, 5:05 pm, Peter Pan <peterpan666...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 15, 11:58 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On May 15, 4:42 pm, Peter Pan <peterpan55...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 15, 10:59 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 15, 3:17 pm, Peter Pan <peterpan55...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 14, 2:16 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 14 May 2007 07:35:33 -0700, Peter Pan <peterpan55...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 13, 4:36 pm, Free Lunch <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13 May 2007 12:44:41 -0700, in talk.origins
Peter Pan <peterpan55...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<1179085481.172878.43...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

On May 12, 3:34 pm, "A.Carlson" <amca...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12 May 2007 09:04:00 -0700, Peter Pan <peterpan666...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 12, 11:53 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 12, 4:47 pm, Peter Pan <peterpan666...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 12, 11:42 am, Slimebot McGoo <oldert...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 12 May 2007 08:14:14 -0700, Peter Pan <peterpan55...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Proofs:

1. 91% of americans believe in god.
2. Scientists come from all walks of life

Aside from your horribly bad logic there are at least a couple of
questions or issue directly related to this.

1. What is your definition of science - IE are we talking about
people who might have been exposed to science, perhaps even with a
relevant degree, or are we talking about working scientists.

I think engineers could be considered scientists

Most engineers are well enough educated in science to engage in science
if they choose, but engineering itself is not science.

as well as computer science people etc.

"If they put 'science' in the name of the discipline, it's not science."

Comp Sci is mostly an interplay of math and engineering.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths
systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the
mathematical sciences. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/engineering

"the art or science of making practical application of the knowledge
of pure sciences, as physics or chemistry, as in the construction of
engines, bridges, buildings, mines, ships, and chemical plants. "

Looks like it is applied science and the people who do that
would be scientists.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist

"A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially
a natural or physical science. "

Yes, 'Proof through semantics' is one of the many bogus methods
utilized by desperate Creationists.

Sorry, lexiconographers are well paid.

Possibly, but lexicographers aren't.
Which is completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument, of course.

RF- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, engineers are scientists.

I'm sorry, is this some sort of competition to see how many false and
irrelevant responses you can post on a thread?

I suggest that you educate yourself. If you won't, it's your loss.

RF

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths
systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the
mathematical sciences. "

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/engineering

"the art or science of making practical application of the knowledge
of pure sciences, as physics or chemistry, as in the construction of
engines, bridges, buildings, mines, ships, and chemical plants. "

Looks like it is applied science and the people who do that
would be scientists.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially
a natural or physical science. "




Why do you think these quotations support your assertion that
engineers are scientists?
They don't.
In any case, so freaking what? You started this thread with a
mathematically incompent and factually incorrect assertion about the
religions convictions of scientists from which you have made no point
of any substance whatsoever.
I can only conclude that I am correct in thinking that you are trying
to extend the thread for as long as possible by irrelvant and inane
posts. In other words, you are a troll.

RF


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why does creationism persist in the USA?
    ... fundementalist churches of the USA and why they support creationism. ... Education, specifially science education, would I expect to be a major ... level scientists and research due to continued funding at the elite ... Whatever "health and vigor" Evolutionism enjoys is also caused by God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... Because the line between life and non-life is blurred, ... deduction from the evidence is deduction from the evidence - i.e. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: WHICH SCIENCE OR SCIENTISTS CAN YOU TRUST?
    ... Which Science or Scientists Can You Trust? ... convinced they were poisoned; but two Government enquiries ... Industry and British Nuclear Fuels think it is ...
    (sci.chem)