hopefully you are now fully embarrassed by your own admission that your claim of 99%... your well off that false claim now by your own admissions ( and what is the difference between 100s and 1000) 100s can certainly be 500 800 or 10 hundred (that's a thousand if you were trying to count)
Wow, you really have no shame, do you?
My claim of 99% was perfectly justified. Your claim that I misrepresented you, on the other hand, has been shown to be a fabrication. I will deal with these separately.
Hundreds not Thousands
Given you oscillate between hundreds and thousands as you find convenient, I went to the web site:
There are about 45 names per page, and 28 pages, so that would be 1200 to 1300 scientists. So your claim of thousands was, as usual, wrong. heaven forbid you should actually check this stuff before you spout it as fact. Not that you will acknowledge that - too much pride again.
Whereas when I said hundreds, that was in perfect agreement with their own claim on that web site:
"Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names."
So once again I was right, and you were wrong.
Not only biologists
It is worth pointing out that a lot of people on that list are not biologists. A lot of chemists, a lot of physicists, a lot computer scientists, a lot of engineers, etc. I can see "senior scientist" and "staff scientist", which could be anything. These people are not experts in biology.
Why should I think someone with a Ph.D. in chemistry knows more about evolutionary biology than I do?
The fact is that creationists have to spread the net wide to bulk up the numbers. Every non-biologist on that list is an appeal to authority fallacy.
99% of biologists accept evolution
So what about that figure of 99%?
According to
here there were 7.8 million full-time equivalent researchers in 2013
So of that 7,800,000, only 1300 have signed the "Dissert from Darwinism". That is less than 0.02%! Looks like I was overly generous with my figure of 99%. It should be 99.983% of scientists accept evolution.
Another way to estimate this is with
Project Steve. Project Steve has 1457 signatories. About 1% of the population is called Steve (or a derived name), so 1457 signatories is equivalent to 145,700 people altogether, which is over 100 times greater than those signing the "Dissert from Darwinism".
So it turns out my figure of 99% is full justified.
But Project Steve is restricted not just to people called Steve, but to biologists only.
That is, all the signatories know what they are talking about when it comes to evolutionary biology. So quite different to the list of random scientists you have. There is no appeal to authority fallacy here.
Why does it matter?
At the ends of the day, Martin, this is important because you are rationalising your beliefs on what the experts say - but you are ignoring what 99% of them say.
You
said earlier.
Sure, you probably put a bit of faith in gravity.... since you don't fully understand it (nobody here fully does) and science has to deal in theory about it.... but it is so so far above the theory of evolution that you wish and hope to proclaim as "effectively proven" when you can't even prove were dogs came from... nor humans...nor dolphins... nor cows... nor giraffes ..you have to at least admit that you are relying on a broken fossil record and just so stories of how it really works even though there are so so many missing links and gaps and unexplained complexities about the massive and purely un-darwinian appearance of life forms in the CE. (yeah... lol 'effectively proven'... maybe in your agenda mind).... so so many leading scientist would disagree with you.... and i'd tend to pick their thinking vs yours.
So yes, Martin, hundreds of scientists,
some of whom are biologists, disagree with me.
But tens of thousands of scientists,
all of whom are biologists and so properly understand evolution, agree with me, and they disagree with you.
I would tend to pick the thinking of the tens of thousands of biologists. Of course, when I agree with tens of thousands of biologists you rationalise that away with:
you have fallen into the 'just because many folks think it so..." fallacy...
In your world, if less than 1% of biologists say it, that is a reason to think it is true. It over 99% do, then agreeing with them is a fallacy. And that really goes to show the extent to which creationists will twist reality to fit what they
want to be true. Which I guess brings us to...
If you are right, why pretend?
I also want to re-emphasise the chicanery that you have engaged in, because really it highlights what creationism is all about.
Here is your false accusation of misrepresentation again:
wrong again.. my post clearly stated Thousands (not 100) but maybe you did not read it ... figures...
do you often misrepresent other's posts? if so why do you misrepresent what others clearly post?
An accusation you clearly know is wrong, given you later said.
still running from something? you bet I once posted 'hudreds" but I also posted thousands and my link showed thousands...
How do you justify that to yourself Martin? Are you aware how these things damage your reputation?
On a broader note, I have to wonder why this is so very common with creationists. I am sure at heart you are an honest person, however, you are stuck here trying to argue the case for something you passionately believe is true, but you are hopeless floundering because at the end of the day creationism is just pure bunk and you clearly do not have sufficient background in science to realise that. Nevertheless, that still does not excuse this sort of behaviour.
Creationists have a bad reputation; a lot of scientists just assume they are all charlatans. you seem to be doing your utmost to reinforce that view, and I really do not get why. Do you think other creationist are impressed when you make them look bad? do you think this dishonesty looks good to God? What is it, Martin?
