Replies

"Regarding man vs corn do your own homework and study nucleotides."

Sorry, you're not even close to being correct. Humans and corn are not 3% different genetically. It's more like 33%. Just admit you made a mistake. Be an adult about it.

"Just as astrophysics and evolution are slowly beginning to be studied together in some instances, so should ID and evolution and physics."

But ID isn't science. It's central claim, the designer, is untestable as are the designer's alleged actions. ID is an old philosophical claim that was dropped by scientists about 150 years ago.

"I wonder how much time could be saved using Genesis as the template?"

None. Genesis was a horrible dead end for science.

"I like science and think the study of evolution is necessary, as well as the study of physics, all the sciences, especially the science of the Bible."

The Bible is not a science text. The less that a scientist relies on the Bible for their work, the better.

The Bible is not a science text. The less that a scientist relies on the Bible for their work, the better.

Other than archeology, I don't think any science has ever used the text of the bible as a source of scientific information. Well, I suppose Flood geologists do, but that's a classic dead end.

What science has pr oven, is that Genesis stands as a very reliable template so far. From, "Let there be light" to the order of species development. And most likely to the eventual discovery that life's building blocks are to be found in the molecules in the dust of the earth.

And I am not wrong about nucleotides, used to determine the difference between corn vs man vs chimp, nor am I wrong about the percentage difference between the two vs man, or how the scientific community dishonestly attempted to impress the masses with that 2% difference.