Debate: Is there God?
Side: No

Hey I figured it out, if I threaten to leave the debate you make actual claims!No matter on which angle you look at, there are still more scientist who believes than those who dont.This shows you keep misrepresenting what I say or do not understand what I am saying. You are arguing against points I am not making in the last rebuttal again. Here is some links to you claiming that by your poll there is more religious scientists now than in Darwin's time, and then claim the wording could not be responsible for the different numbers. I am not saying there is more atheist scientists than before, I am refuting there are more religious scientists (percentage wise as that is what we have to work with)than before. Your points keep moving it seems...http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/IsthereGod#arg543228Me More religious scientists now than Darwins time? Not by the link you gave...it stated the percentage is roughly the same. (should have ended here as the poll actually says this!)You >In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.>According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do nothttp://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Is thereGod#arg543512Me The polls you have shown have much different wording when compared.You I cant see much differences. There are still more religious scientists today than there were a few decades years agoI then showed you polls that differentiate between the wordings as they do matter and even account for the roughly 10 % difference in the wordings! I can link these to to show you but really it is just a few rebuttals up from this one. I have outlined this several times for you but you still keep avoiding my claims and seem to make up your own claims for me. This happens so frequently I am beginning to doubt it is by accident.Me I have always been on the side that I have not seen any evidence of god existing.You Indeed, you started with a neutral view but your new argument:Me "You have used this claim before against great weight of evidence that your claims were wrong, like in your claim of the Lady of Guadalupe earlier in this thread."You Challenges mine as saying that there is an evidence that God does not exists and the Guadalupe is a hoax. Or have I misunderstood?It only challenges that the lady of Guadalupe is legitimately a miracle. It makes no claims of a god existing or not but just says this is not the proof you say it is. Again this is you reading more into what is written than really is. I have outlines several places you have done this throughout this whole debate!But the problem here is how you act like explaining a process can disprove an intelligent being. Same as above, my claim is that ID is not scientific as well as evolution explaining how we got here without a deity needed, not that it disproves a god or not.  You consistently misrepresent my stances, misrepresent your sources stances, avoid any refutations I make or others make (unless you are constructing a straw man as I shown above). Heck I can quote your...'refutations'... to people like Lil Misfit if want to prove this even further. really though I already know this is fruitless as you are either mistaken, dishonest or experiencing dissonance.100% now I am out of this debate. No take backsies, crossed fingers etc. Oh, and your claim that there are more religious scientists than atheistic ones? Ad populum as well as an appeal to false authority (too vague a group to see their reasoning as to why).Good day ma'am ;P