Is evolution or creation science?

[Isaiah 6:8]

I don't understand all this fuss about the Chinese/Japanese discussion.

Last week I shared a table in a restaurant in Germany with a group of Asian people. Since they did not talk (I can distinguish the language) I asked them whether they were Chinese or Japanese. They laughed and told me they were Chinese. I did not have the impression they took my question as a racist question, even when I told them that it is difficult for Europeans to tell the difference.

They told me they cannot distinguish a German from a French, either.

I do not see any racist bias if two peoples look similar. Why should there be one? It is just a fact, that to an European they look very similar.

Is it racist to say that white people and black people look the same? No, in this case it is just silly.

Ciao

- viole

The comment made was not that it was hard to discern but that they were indistinguishable from each other. and so the thread does not get off topic, I will link back to the other thread where this is under discussion.

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index.php?/topic/146535-recognition-of-differential-physical-characteristics-of-nationalities/

[Exaeus]

I mean that that website has a bias to prove that Evolution and Christianity work together, and quoting a biased website to prove that what the website says is true does not work. It would be like saying quoting a Dog lovers website saying that cats lovers were in declined. You would not belive it because the source was biased.

Viole even admitted she thought she was quoting an unbiased source. That was the point.

Well, I copied an extract from the BioLogos website since the NPR article quoted BioLogos for the story. My intention was to show that the allegedly biased article wasn't misquoting its sources, since that's indeed what BioLogos says.

Other than that, I don't think your definition of bias is particularly useful. If an entity that expresses a POV one way or the other automatically means that the entity is biased in favor of its opinion, it'd be impossible to find unbiased stories anywhere. I'm not defending BioLogos here since I've never heard of them before, I just think that you need a stronger basis before accusing them of deliberate bias. They could be biased... but then again, they might just be less willing to discard scientific evidence than other theists, since genetics does indeed demonstrate that having the entire human race as we know it spawn from only one male-female pair is quite impossible.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I mean that that website has a bias to prove that Evolution and Christianity work together, and quoting a biased website to prove that what the website says is true does not work. It would be like saying quoting a Dog lovers website saying that cats lovers were in declined. You would not belive it because the source was biased.

Viole even admitted she thought she was quoting an unbiased source. That was the point.

Well, I copied an extract from the BioLogos website since the NPR article quoted BioLogos for the story. My intention was to show that the allegedly biased article wasn't misquoting its sources, since that's indeed what BioLogos says.

Other than that, I don't think your definition of bias is particularly useful. If an entity that expresses a POV one way or the other automatically means that the entity is biased in favor of its opinion, it'd be impossible to find unbiased stories anywhere. I'm not defending BioLogos here since I've never heard of them before, I just think that you need a stronger basis before accusing them of deliberate bias. They could be biased... but then again, they might just be less willing to discard scientific evidence than other theists, since genetics does indeed demonstrate that having the entire human race as we know it spawn from only one male-female pair is quite impossible.

NPR Chooses what stories to run, If a story fits there bias they will run it. That simple. Again it quoted a biased story from a website that had a clear bias on what they presented, as I read through the site. Again I'll get back to your full long post later, as well as D-9 I am only doing short replies as I did a long one and lost the whole thing and I am to tired right now to start again with the in depth replies.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I actually moved all the posts related to the nationality issue to get this thread back on track.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Knowing that creationists tend to not accept modern astronomy

Sorry I do not have the energy to retype the huge reply earlier, but I would be in staunch disagreement on this last comment. If you mean Cosmology, creation of the universe stuff, then yes, however regular astronomy, such and such object is at such and such place and behaves in such and such manner, is not under debate, at least that I know of.

[Isaiah 6:8]

As far as theism vs. atheism, I think that is a little outside the purview of the thread. Perhaps it is best to address the proposition in a new thread.

Fair enough, I will restrain.

I was just a bit irritated by the accusations that evolutionists try to push an atheist agenda (which would imply that the rest of science does that, too).

Ciao

- viole

Where was this ever made in this thread? This was never posted, and you came in and made an issue of something that was not said.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Well, I guess I have to do my homework, then. I have real problems believing this.

Are you American? How do you intend to keep your scientific leadership under these conditions? I ask because once you lose it, it will not be so easy to get it back (remember the Sputnik?).

Ciao

- viole

To quote starwars... "Stay on target.... Stay on target...."

Or in other words stay on topic.

Viole I'll start another thread, however I will only start it, likely not reply to much as I have way to many things to keep track of, however you are insinuating that if you are a creationist, you can not be a scientist and there fore science will fail. This is untrue, not based in fact or logic, and is a sniping remark and uncalled for. You know better.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Well, I guess I have to do my homework, then. I have real problems believing this.

Are you American? How do you intend to keep your scientific leadership under these conditions? I ask because once you lose it, it will not be so easy to get it back (remember the Sputnik?).

Ciao

- viole

We're good at making a profit, we hire a lot of immigrants [in the sciences]. I live near a medical center which is positioned in a rather small town. We have quite a bit of ethnic diversity for such a small area and it's due to the medical campus. My neighbor [when i live in apartments near the campus] was from South Africa but he lived previously in the UK. He came here because he can make more money as a Dr. When you look at the movers and shakers in the sciences they're not biblical fundamentalists. We have Dr. Francis Collins who's the head of the Human Genome project and a devout Christian, but he's not a biblical literalist. Keep in mind people will mock and bash science and scientists all day long but they'll turn around and embrace it as if it's the best thing since sliced bread...it's an odd thing to see.

Now there are plenty of folks who don't subscribe to this view but from my experience if you're in Texas, Alabama, Arkansas etc you're probably going to be interfacing with the young earth crowd more.

Please see this thread,

If it was not for "Biblical Fundamentalists" Science as you know it would not exist.

Okay, again, this subject is about IS evolution Science. I state it is not, and since you two are taking it off track I am going to close it until I can get back to the point. (it is my thread after all)