Replies

“At present, the DNA sequence differences between these genomes clearly indicate a much lower level than 98 to 99 percent. In fact, one evolutionary study suggests it may be as low as 86 percent or less. In addition, the complex functional aspects of genes and their regulatory networks differ markedly between humans and chimps and play a more important role than DNA sequence by itself.

The DNA data, both structural and functional, clearly supports the concept of humans and chimps created as distinct separate kinds. Not only are humans and chimps genetically distinct, but only man has the innate capacity and obligation to worship his Creator.7”

Its interesting to see how these “scientists” at this site jump from one conclusion to a totally unrelated one.

EVEN IF the similarity between a human genome and a Chimpanzee genome is 86%, and they allege only one study says this without mentioning the study or its date, they immediately conclude that evolutionary theory is incorrect. Then then leap to ANOTHER unrelated conclusion - that Chimps and Humans have no connection evolutionarily.

They would have us believe that ALL the chemical, osteological, genetic, behavioral, etc. similarities between all living organism is a mere matter of chance and there is no biological connection between the bodies of humans and other living organisms. This flies in the face of simple logic.

They BASE these ideas on their own peculiar interpretation of a passage in Genesis which they chose to interpret as inferring that, since evolution itself is not mentioned, and since it states God created man out of the dust of the earth, evolution is impossible.

The only thing impossible about these people are their thought processes.

If you want to believe God did not use evolution to create man from lower beings because He didn't detail it in Genesis, be my guest. But like other people in the past who attacked things like the heliocentric theory of the solar system based on flawed and biased interpretations of scripture, the more data that is generated on the subject, the more flawed and unbelievable your claims are.

Evolution is a fact of science. Live with it. Instead of spinning your wheels on preposterous arguments like this one, you should in stead be arguing that the existence of evolution does NOT refute a belief in Divine Creation OR in the scriptures. Instead, evolution can be reconciled with scripture through a correct interpretation of what is essentially a theological and moral document - the Bible. The Bible is a document filled with allegory and symbolism to explain moral teachings and point the road towards eternal salvation - NOT a biology text.

==Then then leap to ANOTHER unrelated conclusion - that Chimps and Humans have no connection evolutionarily.

It is the Evos who leap to make the evolutionary connection, even though there are zero transitionals.

==They would have us believe that ALL the chemical, osteological, genetic, behavioral, etc. similarities between all living organism is a mere matter of chance and there is no biological connection between the bodies of humans and other living organisms.

Not at all. Creationists posit the far more obvious and plausible explanation, namely that all the similarities you mentioned are the product of a common designer rather than common descent.

==But like other people in the past who attacked things like the heliocentric theory of the solar system based on flawed and biased interpretations of scripture, the more data that is generated on the subject, the more flawed and unbelievable your claims are.

Wrong again. Galileo’s main enemies were the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic scientific establishment, not the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Catholic Church was quite friendly to heliocentrism. May I suggest you read the following before making similar comments in the future:

http://creation.com/the-galileo-affair-history-or-heroic-hagiography

This flies in the face of simple logic. Evolution is a fact of science.Will you please explain to me how "LOGIC" evolved in a darwinian, scientific, materialism world. Where is the gene for logic? Where is the gene for a theory which is derived from a biological system? You have examined the genome. It must be there. Remember, according to you, materialism is all that there is. How does brute matter evolve to consciousness? According to darwinists, the physical world is all that there is. Why can't the liver, spleen or pancreas provide for consciousness? Given your non-negotiable starting point, I will be interested in your answer. Will you explain why brute matter provides for sentience. How did that happen? In other words, how do you get something from nothing? HOw do you get consciouns, living, thinking, feeling, believing creatures from material which does not have that? That would be getting something from nothing. How do you get mind to squirt forth from mindless, dead , brute matter? If darwinism cannot account for rationality, then how is it they claim they are the arbitors of rationality? How does 'rational thought' come forth from covalent bonds of atoms? Remember, scientific materialism says all there is is matter/energy/time/space continuum. How can someone who believes that, who cannot possibly account "scientifically" for rational thought, lay claim to be the arbiter of rational thought and "simple logic" as you say? If you can not account for these things bay materialism you are faced with denying they exist. This leads me to another question....Why do you believe anything at all? If you cannot accout for logic or reason in a darwinian-only world why believe anything. Atoms and molecules don't reason...they react. Please enlighten us with your explainations.