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
Is There a 'Middle Ground' Author?
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="Tinker Grey" data-source="post: 60745223" data-attributes="member: 671"><p>I suppose that makes more sense.</p><p></p><p>But this "discussion ground" belongs to the scientists. These are the folks that dicuss why a particular fossil may or may not be a good example of a transitional. The creationist only gets around to denying the validity of a transitional <em>after</em> the scientists have already discussed the pros and cons and then decided it is a good example of a transitional.</p><p></p><p>IME, the creationist denies what has already been through the "discussion/middle ground." They are denying what is no longer really up for discussion.</p><p></p><p>Of course, the scientists could be wrong. Some new information may come to light that will cause some particular finding to be re-evaluated. But my point here is that the sort of discussion you are looking for takes place among scientists.</p><p></p><p>By the time such discussion gets to a forum like this, except maybe when we are discussing a news report about something like FTL neutrinos, it's already over.</p><p></p><p>YMMV</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tinker Grey, post: 60745223, member: 671"] I suppose that makes more sense. But this "discussion ground" belongs to the scientists. These are the folks that dicuss why a particular fossil may or may not be a good example of a transitional. The creationist only gets around to denying the validity of a transitional [I]after[/I] the scientists have already discussed the pros and cons and then decided it is a good example of a transitional. IME, the creationist denies what has already been through the "discussion/middle ground." They are denying what is no longer really up for discussion. Of course, the scientists could be wrong. Some new information may come to light that will cause some particular finding to be re-evaluated. But my point here is that the sort of discussion you are looking for takes place among scientists. By the time such discussion gets to a forum like this, except maybe when we are discussing a news report about something like FTL neutrinos, it's already over. YMMV [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Is There a 'Middle Ground' Author?
Top
Bottom