N
niceatheist
Guest
The paper uses a poor statistical method to demonstrate an a priori point. It’s bad math and bad science
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.
H
Hope1960
Guest
Posters are always dragging out biased, creationist stuff but they complain that secular science is biased.Tell you what: You keep your study done by the creationists at the various creationist organizations, and I’ll stick with Nature, the Smithsonian, and Scientific American.
B
buffalo
Guest
Really? Matching areas that are the same. Nonsense.The paper uses a poor statistical method to demonstrate an a priori point. It’s bad math and bad science
B
buffalo
Guest
Secular science is absolutely biased by its own admission. It cannot let the Divine Foot in the Door. Remember? Everything in biology is in the light of evolution. Remember? Secular science has removed the formal and final causes from its investigations. Remember?Posters are always dragging out biased, creationist stuff but they complain that secular science is biased.
Secular science has a very narrow and limited say about the workings of the universe.
However, as time goes on we are seeing secular science catching up. You must be aware by now the top evo’s are having real issues with evolution and are looking for alternatives.
H
Hope1960
Guest
So is creationism, although they rarely, if ever, admit to it… When I ask questions on topics such as these, I want current, unbiased, secular, scientific information.Secular science is absolutely biased by its own admission.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Where exactly will you get unbiased secular scientific information since I just described the bias it has?So is creationism. When I ask questions on topics such as these, I want current, unbiased, secular, scientific information.
H
Hope1960
Guest
Where do you get unbiased creationist scientific information?Where exactly will you get unbiased secular scientific information since I just described the bias it has?
B
buffalo
Guest
To get to the truth put them both together and let the challenges fine tune the science.Where do you get unbiased creationist scientific information?
You cannot reject truth no matter the source. You can reject faulty human reasoning conclusions. It takes some work. One must admit, secular science has propagandized very well.
E
edwest
Guest
Definitely…
H
Hope1960
Guest
Once again, so has creationist science.One must admit, secular science has propagandized very well.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I’m going to acknowledge the futility of this discussion and bow out. But before I do, a few poll results:
Gallup, May 2017: In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low 38% of US adults believe God created man in his present form in the last 10,000 years or so. This is an all-time low, down from 44% in the 80’s and 46-47% in the last 25 years. When you analyze it by educational level, you get 48% with high school or less, and only 21% with graduate degrees. 37% of Catholics and 50% of Protestants believe in the creationist view.
Pew Research in 2017 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/ had some other interesting statistics. Only 66% of Americans believe that scientists generally agree about evolution; in fact (am I allowed to use this word in 2018?) 98% of scientists connected to the Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science believe that man evolved over time. When people belonging to different religions were asked if humans and other living things always existed in their present form, Jehovah’s Witnesses scored the highest–74%; then Evangelicals, 57%; then Mormons, 52%; then black Protestants, 45%; then Muslims, 41%. Lowest were Buddhists, 13%; Jews, 16% (!); Hindus, 17%. Catholics came in at 29%, almost the same as mainline Protestants, 30%.
Newman Univesity (UK?) asked the same question (men and creatures created by God and have always existed in their present form) of Brits and Canadians https://sciencereligionspectrum.org...ase-results-of-major-new-survey-on-evolution/
British agreeing: 9%; Canadians, 15% (remember the US was at 38%.) Other polls have shown Germans at 12%. Iran, by the way, teaches evolution only from grade 5 up.
Well, as Mulder used to say, “The truth is out there.” I’m out!
Gallup, May 2017: In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low 38% of US adults believe God created man in his present form in the last 10,000 years or so. This is an all-time low, down from 44% in the 80’s and 46-47% in the last 25 years. When you analyze it by educational level, you get 48% with high school or less, and only 21% with graduate degrees. 37% of Catholics and 50% of Protestants believe in the creationist view.
Pew Research in 2017 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/10/darwin-day/ had some other interesting statistics. Only 66% of Americans believe that scientists generally agree about evolution; in fact (am I allowed to use this word in 2018?) 98% of scientists connected to the Amer. Assoc. for the Advancement of Science believe that man evolved over time. When people belonging to different religions were asked if humans and other living things always existed in their present form, Jehovah’s Witnesses scored the highest–74%; then Evangelicals, 57%; then Mormons, 52%; then black Protestants, 45%; then Muslims, 41%. Lowest were Buddhists, 13%; Jews, 16% (!); Hindus, 17%. Catholics came in at 29%, almost the same as mainline Protestants, 30%.
Newman Univesity (UK?) asked the same question (men and creatures created by God and have always existed in their present form) of Brits and Canadians https://sciencereligionspectrum.org...ase-results-of-major-new-survey-on-evolution/
British agreeing: 9%; Canadians, 15% (remember the US was at 38%.) Other polls have shown Germans at 12%. Iran, by the way, teaches evolution only from grade 5 up.
Well, as Mulder used to say, “The truth is out there.” I’m out!
E
edwest
Guest
That is the part that cannot be acknowledged
H
Hope1960
Guest
Hmmmmm. Seems to me that the better one’s educated the less likely they are to be creationists.Gallup, May 2017: https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx 38% of US adults believe God created man in his present form in the last 10,000 years or so. This is an all-time low, down from 44% in the 80’s and 46-47% in the last 25 years. When you analyze it by educational level, you get 48% with high school or less, and only 21% with graduate degrees. 37% of Catholics and 50% of Protestants believe in the creationist view.
B
buffalo
Guest
How many in America do you think are propangandized by what you call creation science? Over and over here and in other places the very first thing that happens is it is labeled and libeled. It cannot even be brought up in secular public school biology class. Two different standards apply here. Evolution is not empirical and if we were serious about science class only emprical science would be taught. The rest would go into philosophy class. No one has the guts to challenge this indoctrinization.Once again, so has creationist science.
B
buffalo
Guest
My point exaclty. and they pay big $$$$ for it too.Hmmmmm. Seems to me that the better one’s educated the less likely they are to be creationists.
E
edwest
Guest
That is where elaborate, and not so elaborate, storytelling comes in. And the dating. We were off by 20 million or 50 million years. If that keeps up, soon they will run out of backward time and have living things when the earth was totally molten. Or the dating is wrong.
E
edwest
Guest
Uh… you do.
F
FredBloggs
Guest
Taken as a whole., evolutionary theory is empirical; it has evidence from multiple scientific arenas; it makes predictions; it proposes experiments.Evolution is not empirical and if we were serious about science class only emprical science would be taught.
It is not complete. There are disagreements around the fringes. That does not make it wrong, or unempirical. The Theory has been challenged many times since Darwin (and Wallace) first proposed it. These challenges have refined and strengthened the Theory.
Not one single piece of evidence discovered has ever proved the Theory fundamentally wrong, but creationists like to point to minor corrections and new discoveries, and pretend that it throws the whole thing into doubt. This is a bit like discovering that it was an orange, not an apple, that Newton saw falling from a tree, and claiming that therefore the Theory of Gravity is wrong.
R
rom
Guest
Micro-evolution , or any theory behind it, is empirical. It is a legitimate scientific theory, and is supported by empirical evidence. But this is micro-evolution, conceived simply as any genetic change in an interbreeding population over time.Taken as a whole., evolutionary theory is empirical; it has evidence from multiple scientific arenas; it makes predictions; it proposes experiments.
But Macro-evolution , or any theory that proposes to explain the descent of all living organisms from a single living cell, or that proposes to explain the emergence of species that are more complex than its parent species , is neither empirical nor supported by empirical evidence.
Just so you know, I am off and on on this thread because I have other duties. But post your reactions / responses anyway and I will get back to it as soon as I can.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
Evolution does not do that and the interpretation of the evidence is flawed to the point where the Church, not science, has the complete answer. Drug discovery is still trial and error. Evolution provides no guidance.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.