To: furball4paws
Since most of the differences between chimps and C-men is in non-coding parts of the DNA, this stuff fits in quite nicely.It also supports the idea of outside manipulation. This is a good case for ID.
The Bible described this over 2,000 years ago, long before man created science.
To: concerned about politics
"It also supports the idea of outside manipulation. This is a good case for ID.
The Bible described this over 2,000 years ago, long before man created science"
If ID is what happened and the vehicle that caused it was the Biblical God, then how is ID different than creationism?
21 posted on
11/15/2005 9:37:48 AM PST by
adam_az
(It's the border, stupid!)
To: concerned about politics
This is a good case for ID.Everything is a good case for ID. That's the problem.
To: concerned about politics
It only fits in Creationism if you're willing to admit that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. So I guess that makes you an evolutionist. Welcome aboard the bandwagon.
25 posted on
11/15/2005 9:54:44 AM PST by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: concerned about politics
It also supports the idea of outside manipulation.How?
Specifically, how does the similarity of DNA support the idea of outside manipulation more than it does a common ancestor?
34 posted on
11/15/2005 10:34:27 AM PST by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: concerned about politics
It also supports the idea of outside manipulation. Do tell. What leads you to emit this bizarre statement?
36 posted on
11/15/2005 10:43:10 AM PST by
blowfish
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson