How to choose between creation and evolution.

[SolomonVII]

I don't know that study of evolution negates belief in some form of higher being sustaining the universe.
I do know that studying evolution, or geology, or astronomy, does negate believing in a 6000 year time line.

Christians do themselves a disservice by allowing the Biblical literalists to be the only ones who self-identify as Creationists.
God is our Creator.
Reductive science can disprove a 6000 year old universe, but it cannot even begin to measure the profundity of such a statement that "in the beginning God created the world".

 

[mark kennedy]

And like I said, people are free to insert a God where ever they like.

Thank you, I think I like him at the point of the origin of life.

 

[Kenny'sID]

With evolution there is no viable explanation of "first life" regardless of it's form. Something does not come from nothing.

Yet they will tell you first life doesn't matter/not part of the equation. IOW try to do away with what they cannot explain...their particular type science at it's best. lol

First life is what *does* matter.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nope, I accept the science so I dont need to. Its you who try to, and the way to do so is within peer-review. If you cant then your views can safely be dismissed.

Then dismiss it because your acceptance of science does not translate into actual knowledge of science.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not arguing with Francis Collins, I'm saying he never spoke substantively to the issue of comparative genomics. I have no idea why he came to the conclusions he did and unless or until he does speak to comparative genomics I consider his voice silent.

Clearly, you disagree with Collin's conclusions on the DNA evidence for evolution and thousands of other scientists.

I will ask again, why would anyone find your opinion compelling?

 

[VirOptimus]

Thank you, I think I like him at the point of the origin of life.

But thats a belief in metaphysics and inherently unscientific.

 

[mark kennedy]

Clearly, you disagree with Collin's conclusions on the DNA evidence for evolution and thousands of other scientists.

I will ask again, why would anyone find your opinion compelling?

To date I have yet to see him comment on comparative studies so why would I worry about what his conclusions are? I'm well aware of the comparative genomics evidence and it's anything but compelling.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then dismiss it because your acceptance of science does not translate into actual knowledge of science.

Oh, but it does, I know plenty of science.

And belive me, I have always dismissed your ”ideas”.

 

[mark kennedy]

But thats a belief in metaphysics and inherently unscientific.

Metaphysics includes science, it's not mutually exclusive with it. You throw out words and you haven't a clue what they mean. Curious, very curious indeed.

 

[pitabread]

Never really cared about chromosome fusions, a tag sequence in the middle of a chromosome doesn't impress me much. Especially when the protein coding genes on the various chromosomes are so different.

So was it an entirely different mark kennedy who wrote this post?

Did you know that apes have one more chromosome then humans do? Gee, I wonder why. The evolutionist will tell you that two chromosome somehow just combined into one, of course they have no clue how it happened.

You got a twin you never told us about?

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh, but it does, I know plenty of science.

Yet it is absent in your arguments.

And belive me, I have always dismissed your ”ideas”.

You dismissed them before you ever heard them because it's popular.

 

[VirOptimus]

Metaphysics includes science, it's not mutually exclusive with it. You throw out words and you haven't a clue what they mean. Curious, very curious indeed.

Are you serious? No, metaphysics are by its very definition unscientific.

Belive me, I am quite aware of the definitions.

 

[bhsmte]

Thank you, I think I like him at the point of the origin of life.

That's cool.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yet it is absent in your arguments.



You dismissed them before you ever heard them because it's popular.

I dismissed them because they are rubbish.

 

[mark kennedy]

So was it an entirely different mark kennedy who wrote this post?



You got a twin you never told us about?

Wow, that's going back a ways, 2005, no kidding. I remember I was challenged to address the chromosome comparisons, it was kind of interesting. I saw nothing all that compelling and it did nothing but get me more interested in genetics.

 

[mark kennedy]

I dismissed them because they are rubbish.

You must be the resident troll, I forgot how fun it was to spare with you guys.

 

[bhsmte]

To date I have yet to see him comment on comparative studies so why would I worry about what his conclusions are? I'm well aware of the comparative genomics evidence and it's anything but compelling.

Ok, you worry about Collin's conclusions and thousands of other well qualified scientists. Would this worry have anything to do with your personal faith beliefs?

Hypothetical; if you had a serious heart condition and you saw 10 different cardiologists and they all agreed your condition required surgery, but you had a friend who is a accountant who read up on your condition and they stated they didn't agree with the cardiologist's conclusion, who would you listen to?

 

[bhsmte]

Yet it is absent in your arguments.



You dismissed them before you ever heard them because it's popular.

Popular? Or maybe well evidenced?

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok, you worry about Collin's conclusions and thousands of other well qualified scientists. Would this worry have anything to do with your personal faith beliefs?

I don't worry, I just haven't seen it. As far as my personal faith, I could easily rearrange my theology to accommodate a Darwinian worldview. I just remain unconvinced and the fact that theistic evolutionists are incapable of work in doctrine doesn't help their case much.

Hypothetical; if you had a serious heart condition and you saw 10 different cardiologists and they all agreed your condition required surgery, but you had a friend who is a accountant who read up on your condition and they stated they didn't agree with the cardiologist's conclusion, who would you listen to?

It would all depend.

 

[mark kennedy]

Popular? Or maybe well evidenced?

You think his arguments are well evidenced? That's laughable, he is the resident troll who will do nothing but insult me through the course of the thread. There is always one.