Actually a 'quadrosomy' of the 48TH (pair) and the 2nd (pair) to be exact 'TBRich' !!!

I stand corrected.

Honestly imo it gives non believers a way to fight God, and creation.

Have you watched any of his video's or even read his information - or are you relying on the opinion of somene you read on the net, who you know absolutely nothing about. I'm sure you did not reached this "informed" opinion by the extensive reasearch you've done.

Polly want a cracker?

Actually, I am sitting down. I am almost done reading Hitchens, g-d is not great. How come we don't talk about something with more substance, like is organized religion organized child abuse?

I find it difficult to believe that you can question the legitimacy of any scientist - reguardless of their world view. So.... Until you are in that position, how can you claim that "the scientific community accepts that the bibleical flod has been disproved through scientific fact"?

When someone is referred to, or refers to themselves as a "Christian Scientist" I do question their legitimacy as a scientist. Mainly because how are they going about their "theories"? As a Scientist? or as a Christian?
If the Scientist is referred to, or refers to themselves as a Scientist who happens to be(or who is) Christian, I don't have a problem with it.

For example, I don't have a problem with the Scientist in the youtube link that voileazur posted, not because I agree with his science(which I do) but because he keeps his science and his faith(he is christian, I believe) separate.

What I'm curious about is the animal that has all of the DNA from a Human AND a chimpanzee from which we evolved.

Where's that animal today? And if it went extinct - where's are fossils to corroberate this claim?

Why is Darwin needed to demonstrate that the biblical flood did not occur?

Let's revisit the argument.

Your premise is that there is scientific evidence to show that the biblical flood did not occur (though I've asked you to state it - but that's never going to happen) - AND that the "Scientific community accepts this as fact".

My point, is that only the scientific community that shares your wolrd view accepts this.

That's a select group of people. I claim that you are wrong. That there are numerous members of the "scientific community" who do not believe there is evidence to disprove the flood.

Now you want to "qualify" your terms of "Scientific community"?

Why am I not surprised.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Eljay,

Did you read my earlier reply to you?

Science counts on scientists to remain 'objective' throughout their scientific work.

That specifically requires scientists, each one of them, to be responsible not to let 'their World View' interfere with their objective scientific work.

When some forget that simple oath, they become fair targets for a serious conflict of interest: that would be mixing their 'biblical-exclusive' beliefs and religious interests, at the expense of their scientific objectivity!!!

Since a lot of 'scientists' claim dissent against evolution without ever being capable of demonstrating scientific 'disproof' to te scientific community as a whole (not us), that would be IMO, what would explain Krimsa's distrust of those 'bible-specific-compromised-scientists'.

Not a popularity contest, nor a proselytizing exercise, this scientific community. Unlike the church-faith, no-need-for-proof domain, science deals in HARD facts, not convincing strories.

I think "non-believers" (of the Bible) are simply looking for the truth since they find the Biblical account to be illogical and unscientific.

The story of creation has been pushed in our faces for a long time and when science declares something different... and it could be anything... it is the religious believers who are threatened, not the non-believers. They simply have facts and scientific theory to present in opposition to what the religions have been trying to get them to believe.

In either case, it has little to do with "God" (what every that is) it is only the Bible that is under question.

Oh do you mean that photo I have posted probably a dozen times of human transitional fossils that simply goes ignored by the apologetics?

You still have not answered the question of why we do in fact share 96% identical DNA with chimpanzee. Any day now you can muster some sort of rationalization for that one. You can find another animal today, like the possum perhaps, or the rat? Have you ever looked at a rat's hand close up? Look here



That is very close to the shape and design of a human hand, even down to the phalanges. Why don’t you take a blood sample from a domestic rat? They make wonderful pets. I have had several. Get back to me once you have those lab results in.

Why do we share such a close match with chimpanzee? Why are we members of the biological family Hominidae which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans?

There is a big difference between seeking truth and fighting truth. Well in that case then explain it using me JB. I went on a seeking mission......Now whether from the conscious or unconscious level God answered...What do you suppose I do....Not listen and believe the hog wash I was taught and believed in school...Darwin etc....or what you tell me.

Voile;

I've heard contrary information to that "fact".

There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different.

It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure.

At least this is what my research has shown.

As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable.

We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it.
For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view.

I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism.

So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories.
Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith....

Is it not?

Hmmm... I hope I have not misrepresented my point. When I refer to a "Christain Scientist", I am not refering to an Adherant of Mary Baker Eddy. I mean a scientist who is a christain.

I don't thik because one has a world view of believing in the bible that they can perform the job of a scientist any less than one who is an Atheist, and vice versa.

All a scientist can do is represent the facts or "scientific theory" as it were, and let the reader determine what that represents. The difficulty comes in the extrapolation back in time and what is presumed, based on the observations of today. That is where world view comes into play.

Yes I believe it is....and I have faith it is...

Why are you asking me? That is your list of "scientists." I am telling you that anyone you have on that list who supposedly disregards biological evolution can be discounted if they died before Darwin was born because there was no other theory at that point.



There is PLENTY and it had been presented time and time again on these threads. You just have selective visualization and you go blind when I post something you don’t want to see. Also, the argument is this statement that I made. "The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by the scientific community at large." That is what the argument originally was and you have yet to substantiate the inaccuracy of that claim.



Right and I tend to put a lot of weight on their opinions as many of them are actual biological scientists that hold PhDs in their selective fields.



Then prove it. All you have shown thus far is a copied and pasted list that we have demolished.



Degree holders and actual scientists who have attended accredited universities or are PhDs. Also those that have written peer reviewed papers and have been published. I would also have to verify their standing in the academic community. Not dentists and so forth.

Always remember that your truth is just that: Your truth.
It doesn't have to be everyone elses truth though.

We're in agreement here Voile.

But let's ask this question. If a scientist is examining a fossil and attempting to determine it's age, what difference does it make to this scientist if the flood is fact or fiction?

Plenty.

If there was in fact a world flood - uniformality goes right out the window, and accuracy is flawed due to the atmospheric and environmental effects that occured with this fossil. You can see where the final analysis is going to be quite varied. However - no matter what the scientist thinks about the flood - he is going to observe what he observes as to the chemical make-up of the fossil, and if possible - will map the DNA if it is not corrupted. More often than not - they are accurate at this, but in far too many circumstances - they extrapolate their findings into "theories" about just how old the fossil is.

What we end up with - is their extrapolation.

When you are told that a fossil is 10,000years old, do you know how they arrived at that number?
Most people don't care - they just take it for granted that they're not being lied to. If the science were explaimed to them - they wouldn't understand it in the first place. Yet - many do. Granted - usually just scientists. But there is much disagreement on the validity of dating methods because of the unproval parameters that are established in dating anything. They are educated guesses at best - because there's no way to go back into the past to get accurate dterminiations of environmental influences. It's the nature of the beast.

You do realize I am a degree holder myself from a 4 year institution? Bachelor of Science. And you?