Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And in passing, Buffalo’s favourite organisation - The Design Institute, puts emphasis on the number of peer reviewed papers that that they have had published. Perhaps published by tenured professors with qualifications as long as your arm in the required fields of expertise written in recognised universities or the well funded labs in the biology departments of recognised organisations.

Almost 20% of them were written by the unqualified, pseudo-scientist with delusions of grandeur who bangs them out on his kitchen table in here:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Freddy said:
And in passing, Buffalo’s favourite organisation - The Design Institute, puts emphasis on the number of peer reviewed papers that that they have had published. Perhaps published by tenured professors with qualifications as long as your arm in the required fields of expertise written in recognised universities or the well funded labs in the biology departments of recognised organisations.

Almost 20% of them were written by the unqualified, pseudo-scientist with delusions of grandeur who bangs them out on his kitchen table in here:
Click to expand...
This could explain why Buffalo was so disparaging of peer review way back on the thread. He follows some of the charlatans who get past the review… 😉
 
Allyson said:
40.png
Freddy:
(he apparently qualified as a vet)
Click to expand...
Went to find his CV, and found this interesting David Abel. (No relation?)

https://david-abel.github.io/david_abel_cv.pdf
Click to expand...
Nah. Different guy I believe. His list of publications doesn’t match. And for some reason I can’t link to that list. If you Google Davild L Abel you’ll find it.
 
Freddy said:
Nah. Different guy I believe. His list of publications doesn’t match. And for some reason I can’t link to that list. If you Google Davild L Abel you’ll find it.
Click to expand...
Yeah…so so different, and I am fascinated. My inner nerd was geeking out. LOL

I did find his Academia.edu site…not so impressive with that lonely department of one. lol
 
Looks like the debate is over.

Yes @freddy the entire foundation of macro-evolution is built on long ages, No matter the findings they will adjust it to fit the long ages need,

Hang on folks there is much more to come. And it is not going to help keep the evo train going. Time will tell. We can easily identify the ones who will go down with the ship.

What is true will still be true no matter if you believe it or not. The hallmark of good debate is to challenge the argument. When the debate takes a turn to ad hominems it is over.
 
buffalo said:
Yes @freddy the entire foundation of macro-evolution is built on long ages…
Click to expand...
Indeed. And we don’t have to bother to find the evidence to show you. The people who you rely on for your arguments do that themselves. You do a great job proving your own beliefs to be completely wrong all by yourself. You do all the work for us.

But if you rely on these guys so much, maybe you’d like to tighten up your estimate of the age of the earth. And perhaps clarify how long life has been around. And readjust your position on speciation and man’s ancestory. You’ll find the links that will give you all this information in one of your posts upstream.

Let us know how you get on. And might I suggest that you actually read the articles to which you link before you link them? It might save yet more embarrasment.
 
buffalo said:
When the debate takes a turn to ad hominems it is over.
Click to expand...
Ad hominems have been flying around the thread for a while: that has not stopped the debate.

However, analyzing the bona fides of a source is not ad hominem per se. You are welcome to feel uncomfortable about what is being said about a source. Your reaction says much in itself.

If your share shakey sources, then you know that they will be called out. Do not be so sensitive to that fact the next time.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The hallmark of good debate is to challenge the argument.
Click to expand...
And you’ve posted arguments that rely on billions of years for the age of the planet and millions of years in relation to man’s existence on it. Ed won’t be happy. He thinks it all took place over the last 6,000 years.

If the debate continues then we’ll watch in bemused amusement while you argue against that which you have already posted as arguments in support of your position.
 
buffalo said:
The hallmark of good debate is to challenge the argument. When the debate takes a turn to ad hominems it is over.
Click to expand...
Of course it has gone to “ad hominems.” You post hour long videos and will not even say what arguments you think should be challenged. Most of the time we watch or read your sources, and we think they disprove your position.

In the absence of arguments to challenge, we resort to attacking.
 
I am watching uncivilized behavior here. And the same tools used by propagandists are being used, like mocking people. If anyone thinks they are civilized then they should be civil to others.

Evolution is turning out to be fake. Like a driverless car going along a freeway, a mindless alleged process has to take the correct series of exists all of the time, always. Intelligent Design is the more rational choice. The Catholic Church is open to it. And I suggest those reading visit a site called Uncommon Descent. https://uncommondescent.com/
 
Is this a record ,1490 replies, but it is an alphabet soup? I am amazed people can think the cosmos is about 6000 years old.
 
NoelFitz said:
Is this a record ,1490 replies, but it is an alphabet soup?
Click to expand...
I did sort the threads one day to look for the longest, and it was 10,000 comments (apparently the Max before auto closing). It was also about the same general subject matter. I had thought the thread was going to die on its own after about comment 400 when the initial discussion was dying down…
NoelFitz said:
I am amazed people can think the cosmos is about 6000 years old.
Click to expand...
Same here. It defies logic.
 
gama232 said:
I am watching uncivilized behavior here. And the same tools used by propagandists are being used, like mocking people. If anyone thinks they are civilized then they should be civil to others.
Click to expand...
gama232 said:
attacking is rational?
Click to expand...
The problem with the internet is that you lose the human connection of tone and facial expression, so it is easier to read ill intent into a person’s posts. However, where someone is being asked (repeatedly) to provide their thoughts on the sources they present, and they keep not doing that. The next best things is to analyze the source material.
gama232 said:
Evolution is turning out to be fake. Like a driverless car going along a freeway, a mindless alleged process has to take the correct series of exists all of the time, always. Intelligent Design is the more rational choice. The Catholic Church is open to it. And I suggest those reading visit a site called Uncommon Descent. https://uncommondescent.com/
Click to expand...
Evolution is not fake. We are learning more as we go, but that is not the same as being debunked or being fake. The real question is why do you feel that your faith is threatened by the idea of evolution? I am not asking this question to get an answer that is repeating Church teaching. I want you to tell me your intellectual and emotional process for feeling threatened by evolution. It certainly seems like you are feeling threatened because you often resort to mantras when asked direct and simple questions.
 
“threatened”? That is your assumption. “feel” does not apply either. These assumptions are just that. I post about what I believe. Concerning this thread, it is clear that Church teaching is being manipulated.
 
gama232 said:
Concerning this thread, it is clear that Church teaching is being manipulated.
Click to expand...
Concerning this thread, it is clear that some people interpret Church teaching differently from yourself. Unless your name is Francis and you are posting from Rome (hope the cold gets better soon) they are perfectly entitled to disagree with you.
 
I don’t mind disagreement. What I do mind are attempts to manipulate papal encyclicals and other documents to say something that they don’t mean.
 
gama232 said:
Bishop Barron? Not at all. He appears to be speaking only for himself and does not cite relevant Church documents. Quoting him adds no credibility to this discussion.
Click to expand...
He’s not representative of Church Teachings…

Lately he’s reported to have wondered if Satan shall not go to hell. .

In other words - it appears he ranks shoulder to shoulder with dissidence

_
 
gama232 said:
I don’t mind disagreement. What I do mind are attempts to manipulate papal encyclicals and other documents to say something that they don’t mean.
Click to expand...
This bothers all of us. We think that is what you do, you think it is what we do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top