Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hans Blaster" data-source="post: 76453233" data-attributes="member: 396028"><p>The reference in <em>Science</em> is a *book review*.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl8547" target="_blank">AAAS</a></p><p></p><p>It is relatively friendly and evenhanded. I'm sure the editors would have no problems finding someone who could have written a more biting review, but they chose not to. </p><p></p><p>I do find myself sympathetic to Criag's timeline (if not his A&E claim) of several hundred thousand years before the splitting of Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Africans for the definition of "Human" since when the groups met again after a half-million years of separation, they promptly mated with each other.</p><p></p><p>I don't think the editors of <em>Science</em> are particularly "thrilled" about theistic evolution. Theistic evolution isn't science, it's divine intervention that *looks* like natural processes. It would not be welcome in the research section of the journal.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hans Blaster, post: 76453233, member: 396028"] The reference in [I]Science[/I] is a *book review*. [URL="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl8547"]AAAS[/URL] It is relatively friendly and evenhanded. I'm sure the editors would have no problems finding someone who could have written a more biting review, but they chose not to. I do find myself sympathetic to Criag's timeline (if not his A&E claim) of several hundred thousand years before the splitting of Denisovans, Neanderthals, and Africans for the definition of "Human" since when the groups met again after a half-million years of separation, they promptly mated with each other. I don't think the editors of [I]Science[/I] are particularly "thrilled" about theistic evolution. Theistic evolution isn't science, it's divine intervention that *looks* like natural processes. It would not be welcome in the research section of the journal. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration
Top
Bottom