- Mar 26, 2018
- 1,080
- 280
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Except that bears aren't more bipedal than apes.
More denial when faced with the truth.
Now, will you just admit apes never became bipedal?
Upvote
0
Except that bears aren't more bipedal than apes.
What they gathered or what we have as evidence isn't the issue. It's atheists' presuppositions versus the creationists' presuppositions. Maybe the reality is we reach our conclusions using the same data based on our presuppositions.
More denial when faced with the truth.
Now, will you just admit apes never became bipedal?
You're wasting your breath. Bond doesn't want to talk with or about Christians who don't "believe the Bible" in exactly the same way he does.People like Lyell weren't atheists. Whatever his Christian presuppositions, it didn't prevent him from evaluating the evidence of the natural world and developing the idea of uniformitarianism and 'freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses'. He looked to the evidence.
atheists' presuppositions versus the creationists' presuppositions.
There are various accounts, but the Wikipedia article is concise:Where do you get this from?
Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[36] However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[37][38][17] Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[39]
Because that would be incorrect.Haha. You said it. I didn't. Why don't we just tell students that there is no evidence or scientific experiment backing up evolution and that true science happens on these forums today.
Yep - my mistake, it was Michael Behe, the other leading 'scientist'.Furthermore, you are wrong Dembski didn't say it.
The difference is?The bottom line is I argue creation science and the Bible. Not ID.
Interesting that the article you quote is from a Discovery Institute publication - the very people behind the ID (creation science in disguise, for the 'Wedge' strategy).It appears creation science has falsified ToE as it could not have happened as we find things out of place in the fossil evidence and lack of transitional ones.
To me and creation scientists it is. It is something for the atheist scientists to explain, but I can see you're in denial. I mean our apes today do not walk upright. If your theory was valid, then they would. I even said bears are more bipedal.
Mostly, evolutionists do not have a rational explanation when they are faced with the evidence. They just deny it as you have. Thus, science does not back up evolution.
I imagine this and other sources, with a bit of quick reading, will find sourcing that he did indeed emphasize the scientific element and any religious interpretations were after the fact by people thoroughly unqualified to make those declarations, including the PopeWhere do you get this from?
What teachers say to students is not some arbitrary whim they dream up .. they are accountable for how they teach ... that's why.Haha. You said it. I didn't. Why don't we just tell students that there is no evidence or scientific experiment backing up evolution and that true science happens on these forums today.
Demonstrate the objective test (and results) that so-called 'creation science' has produced, which somehow falsifies the principle of Evolution.jamesbond007 said:It appears creation science has falsified ToE as it could not have happened as we find things out of place in the fossil evidence and lack of transitional ones.
There is no need to believe any scientific theory. The consistency of test results are all that matters.jamesbond007 said:I would say ToE is more like astrology based on whether one believes in it or not.
Again .. you conflate belief-driven thinking with scientific, objective thinking.What they gathered or what we have as evidence isn't the issue. It's atheists' presuppositions versus the creationists' presuppositions. Maybe the reality is we reach our conclusions using the same data based on our presuppositions.
The Jesuits are considered to be the intellectual arm of the Catholic Church.I imagine this and other sources, with a bit of quick reading, will find sourcing that he did indeed emphasize the scientific element and any religious interpretations were after the fact by people thoroughly unqualified to make those declarations, including the Pope
Faith and the Expanding Universe of Georges Lemaître
People like Lyell weren't atheists. Whatever his Christian presuppositions, it didn't prevent him from evaluating the evidence of the natural world and developing the idea of uniformitarianism and 'freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses'. He looked to the evidence.
Again .. you conflate belief-driven thinking with scientific, objective thinking.
Science requires no initial preconceived believed-in assumptions .. nada .. zilch.
This is because beliefs, (which by testable definition, are notions held to be true out of preference, that do not follow from objective tests and are not beholden to the rules of logic), are quarantined, (and thereby neutralised), at every stage of some theory's testing process (Evolution included).
Just about everyone in the scientfically thinking community has encountered their own undistinguished beliefs because these eventually become blatantly obvious and the choice/discipline of intellectual honesty calls for them to be ejected before proceeding.
Gorillas standing on two legs.
Chimp standing and walking on two legs.
Orangutan walking on two legs.
Do you even actually try to make and attempt and learn?
And apes did become bipedal. Humans are apes.
These two groups are not equivalent.
They sure aren't. The creationists outnumber the atheists and are much more richer and more powerful. Will anyone care if an atheist dies and ends up in the Lake of Fire? I doubt it because they aren't aware of the dangers and negativity of ending up there. People are free to choose their own fate.
As for the rest, I agree. If I was a scientist, then I just don't bring up my religion and creation science. It's the one big drawback I suppose that they aren't allowed to express their real thoughts and participate in peer review. Thus, I rather be the engineer type which I am. Then it doesn't matter if I spout out my thoughts on creation science, but it usually never gets to the point. We just respect each others religion and not bring it up.
However, as a scientist it would be hard to work on something I didn't believe in except to show more evidence for a hypothesis and make a fake scientific argument for it.
No, humans are not apes. The are intelligent beings.
The Jesuits are considered to be the intellectual arm of the Catholic Church.
One of the smartest people I have ever encountered was a Jesuit priest/physicist who was able to convince the Vatican to convert a dilapidated medieval church in Italy into a shelter for battered women.
Lemaître was part of a long line of Jesuits who have made contributions to science.
List of Jesuit scientists