B
buffalo
Guest
Are peer-reviewed papers on ID suitable?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
There were several links to papers about chimps if you looked.No, because the link regarding the supposed 70% difference between humans and chimps
leads to a blog not on this forum. I ask what the blog’s source was for that particular entry,
and I was given a whole host of sources, but supporting the whole of that blog, not the par-
ticular entry I was asking about.
Hardly a fair comparison.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
I ask again: What do we believe in despite what evidence to the contrary?It describes humans in general.
There is the drug user that does not believe they have a problem.
There is the alcoholic that believes they can handle it.
There is the College professor that believes they have nothing more to learn.
Everyone to one degree or another is fooling themselves.
I am against the Creationists, and when I say “Creationists,” I speak of the "Kent Hovind"sI do not know if I am still there, but I would be curious to know who exactly is the group you are so set against?
in the world, the radical Creationists, the kind who are actively trying the prove the Bible as
100% literal, tear down evolution, and ostracize anyone who believes in evolution.
Again, pardon me for not recognizing your ambiguous position.You seem to have stuck yourself to an argument of creationists against evolution.
While neither seems defined well.
At one point you had been trying to categorize me as a creationist.
And what do you mean “stuck” and “While neither seems defined well.” ?
meltzerboy
New member
One-third of Americans reject ANYTHING though not necessarily the same one-third in all situations.NEW YORK (Reuters) - One-third of Americans reject the idea of evolution and Republicans have grown more skeptical about it, according to a poll released on Monday.
Sixty percent of Americans say that “humans and other living things have evolved over time,” the telephone survey by the Pew Research Center’s Religion and Public Life Project showed (Click pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/ for the full survey).
But 33 percent reject the idea of evolution, saying that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” Pew said in a statement.
news.yahoo.com/one-third-americans-reject-evolution-poll-shows-191426764.html
B
buffalo
Guest
Am I to understand you will not accept any research that has been done who is a creationist?I ask again: What do we believe in despite what evidence to the contrary?
I am against the Creationists, and when I say “Creationists,” I speak of the "Kent Hovind"s
in the world, the radical Creationists, the kind who are actively trying the prove the Bible as
100% literal, tear down evolution, and ostracize anyone who believes in evolution.
Again, pardon me for not recognizing your ambiguous position.
And what do you mean “stuck” and “While neither seems defined well.” ?
B
buffalo
Guest
As more of the problems with evo are brought to the public this number will go higher.One-third of Americans reject ANYTHING though not necessarily the same one-third in all situations.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
I just don’t think that if evolution was false then we should be finding all these forms differingThe God is a trickster argument is bogus. He is under no obligation to reveal everything to us. What we do observe we have to properly reason.
Suppose you were walking down the beach and saw only left footprints as far as you could see? Should you conclude a trickster at work?
Quantum mechanics is quite tricky but points to God.
in correlation to their geological time as though generations having been morphing over long
periods of time, assuming God does set things up to throw is off the scent.
You say quantum mechanics points to God? Why not evolution?
B
buffalo
Guest
Because it is pointed to the god of BUC (blind unguided chance).I just don’t think that if evolution was false then we should be finding all these forms differing
in correlation to their geological time as though generations having been morphing over long
periods of time, assuming God does set things up to throw is off the scent.
You say quantum mechanics points to God? Why not evolution?
meltzerboy
New member
And is that why many, if not most, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish theologians believe in evolution?Because it is pointed to the god of BUC (blind unguided chance).
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Still doesn’t answer. WHAT is the SOURCE for the PAGE you SENT me, specifically titled “Chimpanzee? - no more”?Scroll down for the reason resources. Most link to the original papers.
B
buffalo
Guest
Do you think they see it? Or they have had it shoved down their throat as fact so often?And is that why many, if not most, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish theologians believe in evolution?
They believe it because scientists told them and they do not question. It is faith.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Not by someone who has a literal interpretation of the Bible to protect.Am I to understand you will not accept any research that has been done who is a creationist?
Not saying I won’t accept what Creationists here on this forum will offer me, but
if what they are offering me comes from Creationist Studies, I do not accept it.
If a Creationists here has something to bring to the table which is accepted by
the community of REAL science, I may be interested in reading that.
B
buffalo
Guest
When you click on it it takes you here.Still doesn’t answer. WHAT is the SOURCE for the PAGE you SENT me, specifically titled “Chimpanzee? - no more”?
There are 5 more on the resource page. (you do the work)
B
buffalo
Guest
I don’t get it. Regardless of motivation if they stumble upon or find a truth why won’t you accept it? Is your implied claim that science has no a priori bias?Not by someone who has a literal interpretation of the Bible to protect.
Not saying I won’t accept what Creationists here on this forum will offer me, but
if what they are offering me comes from Creationist Studies, I do not accept it.
If a Creationists here has something to bring to the table which is accepted by
the community of REAL science, I may be interested in reading that.
E
edwest2
Guest
Unless theologians were included, this poll represents Americans. I’m still trying to figure out why it’s been turned into such a big deal over the years.And is that why many, if not most, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish theologians believe in evolution?
Peace,
Ed
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
No, that is your interpretation of what Evolution is about. As far as science sees, yes,Because it is pointed to the god of BUC (blind unguided chance).
it is in part by unguided chance, but more often than not probably, what we see as un-
guided chance may be God, because science doesn’t detect God, nor is it meant to.
It is the dumb people who impose the
atheistic implication on Evolution, not
the other way around.
meltzerboy
New member
There must be a way of reconciling evolution with Creation if people like Billy Graham, most Orthodox rabbis, and, I believe, many leaders in the Catholic Church accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. Otherwise, religious people would not believe in it no matter what scientists have said. The theory of evolution is taught in yeshivas and Catholic universities.Do you think they see it? Or they have had it shoved down their throat as fact so often?
They believe it because scientists told them and they do not question. It is faith.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you, buffalo for your posts. Here’s one more.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161809.htm
Peace,
Ed
sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161809.htm
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Ugh no - evolutionists all go with blind unguided chance. Right, science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is restricted by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. Is your claim that God set evolution up to unguided chance? Given these two choices I fall in the design camp. The mind of God much like an artist created and designed it. Design has purpose.No, that is your interpretation of what Evolution is about. As far as science sees, yes,
it is in part by unguided chance, but more often than not probably, what we see as un-
guided chance may be God, because science doesn’t detect God, nor is it meant to.
It is the dumb people who impose the
atheistic implication on Evolution, not
the other way around.
Are you serious? Most biologists are atheist.
B
buffalo
Guest
An argument from popularity?There must be a way of reconciling evolution with Creation if people like Billy Graham, most Orthodox rabbis, and, I believe, many leaders in the Catholic Church accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. Otherwise, religious people would not believe in it no matter what scientists have said. The theory of evolution is taught in yeshivas and Catholic universities.
Be careful here. The Catholic church does not support evolution without the hand of God. It accepts micro-evolution as most people do. Creative ability for novel features is the issue. (also Humani Generis with regard to polygenism)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.