Is the criticism justifiable?

No you don't know my agenda. Why not ask me my agenda instead of backbiting me?

Whatever what?I tried to answer your first few questions on the origin of life, and came up against one that made no sense in the context.What does the colour and shape question mean in relation to abiogenesis?

All will be clear when I post the results. Also, I didn't say I see the criticisms only in this site. Go to others and you will see hatred and blind fury. I chose this as one of my sources so that I could get a wider range of answers than keeping to only one.It doesn't pay to jump to conclusions.

For OLV read "side of the debate". Will that clear the matter up? No, somebody's already questioned my use of the word debate. Try "origin of life and its ongoing existence".There now follows a detailed and therefor long posting to try to explain myself in part. I hope you can take it the nonantagonistc way I mean it, knowing that I wil still be criticised for doing so. Somebody will probably tell me off for saying criticise.The subject brings out a lot of emotion that is strong enough to influence thinking. It's impossible to allow for everything. Please be patient with me and allow for my imperfections.I chose to say Origin of Life because saying what the two sides of these debates are would have meant listing one of them first. I didn't want anyone to accuse me of bias so I picked a neutral expression. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I could have said origin of species but that might have made me look biased. "Belief of how we came to have all the wide variety of living organisms today" would have been better in one respect but very longwinded." I would also have been pilloried for calling it a belief not a fact. If I had said fact, somebody would have criticised me for being biased in accepting that the other side to theirs might be right. Believe me, some folk will be likely to do something like that. I've had to deal with it a lot.Ok ok, for Origin of Life Viewpoint or OLV read "the explanation/fact/certainty/theory/basis for belief or whatever similar or dissimilar wording/terminology/expression you may have for how the organisms in the world/universe appeared/came into being/originated/sprang forth."I wasn't being sarcastic/rude/nasty/flippant/snarky/picky/petty/victimising etc. I was just trying to explain myself without further misunderstandings. And there will still be those that miss the point in what I said this time and attack/criticise/overrule/question/distort/misunderstand. I tell you, however you say things in these sites, someone will take it the wrong way. Some will even willfully change what you say into something they can attack/whatever etc.If you can think up another way to say it that would never be misunderstood, I'll use it. Be warned, though: some folk will misunderstand anything. It's not very easy to allow for everything. Just look at the posting that trashed the whole survey because of one typo.Now I'll be wrong for saying something in that!

"What does the colour and shape question mean in relation to abiogenesis?"Some say that such variations indeed prove their "explanation for the beginning of life", whichever explanation that may be. I wanted to know how many did and who didn't.It's clear that folk have already made assumptions about what they think I'm researching. Maybe not you but I've already been criticised by them for making mistakes that they think I've made.

There isn't much of an "Origin of life" debate. Scientists understand that this is an unsettled question. There are hypotheses, and experiments to test the hypotheses. But there is no evidentiary basis for having a conclusion.There is vigorous debate at this site with respect to evolution vs creation as an explanation of the biological diversity we see. But there is little debate about the origin of life. That's why I thought that many of the questions in your survey were "just weird."

I'm sorry but do you have any actual evidence that anyone says stuff like that?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Try "origin of species". You said that might seem biased, so word it as "origin of the organisms we see around us", or something like that.That should be uncontroversial to both sides.

As far as the op goes, I don't know enough about the subject to take part in this survey, so I'll decline, thanks.

quote:

---

but would love to know how you differentiate between a debate, a discussion and an argument.

---

For me, a debate is a formal discussion that strives to avoid fallacies and uses a debating rules structure, such as those used in college competitions, a discussion are people who are talking about a subject and expressing their beliefs without a formal structure to it, and a argument is like Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch, and is sometimes very heated (as in "you, no you, no you!").Many times though, these elements do tend to become mixed.

Changes in colour and shape? They do? Well, certainly not me. Good luck, anyway, and I'm glad we've sorted out that "origin of life" refers only to life's very beginning as far as the scientific side of the debate is concerned, hence a lot of the confusion.

When I read in the opening post from Mignat that "I've been studying social science" I assumed that he was in a college program and that the survey would be based upon sound sociological and statistical principles. A brief look at the survey casts this assumption into doubt. I'm closing this thread while awaiting clarification from Mignat.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Mignat has evidently concluded his survey, and someone has kindly forwarded the results: Obviously not only are my suspicions confirmed that Mignat did not possess the necessary expertise to construct, conduct, analyze, and present results for a survey, he seems to have begun his efforts with some preformed opinions.I'll leave the thread open for discussion and comments, but no more surveys will be coordinated from this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thank you for reopening.Now, on to these so called "results".Some general comments:First of all, I guess we could have seen this coming, some of his questions had absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and of course, he clearly confused evolution with abiogenesis, something more prone to happen in the "creationist" camp.Secondly, I don't know how he came up with some of his results, there is no way he could've drawn some of these conclusions from the survey.Now, some comments on the mail he sent: You never asked for tests in favour of any worldview, meaning this conclusion is completely bogus. Both sides don't share acceptance of micro evolution. there are creationists that deny this. Why should something that is wrong be taught as fact? I don't believe you. I don't believe you again, mainly because there is no scientific data to support creationism. Also, this was supposed to be a study about tcriticism and what both sides thought of that, it had nothing to do with whether or not one worldview was true or not. You suck at surveying. No it isn't, and you cold never have drawn that conclusion from your survey, it is again complete bollocks. Congratulations, you came on here presenting yourself as objective, but you clearly weren't. Good show from the creationist side, once again. Are you happy you could fool some people into working with your survey, so you cold come to your preferred conclusion?Got somewhere where we can see the results in detail, including all the answers given? I'm not holding my breath for this one.

What, you mean a creationist has dishonestly tried to disguise his biases and prejudices as objective evidence-based science?Who'd have thought a creationist would ever do such a thing? It's almost unprecedented.

Hi Mignat,To climb the first rung of the ladder of reporting survey results you need to list all the questions, then for each question you need to report how many people answered each question, all the possible answers, and how many people gave each answer. This is usually broken down by both absolute numbers and percentages.--Percy