Common ancestor or common Creator?

[Hal P]

I've just come across one of the best discussions of this online, but it's on Youtube and I'm aware that we aren't allowed to link to that site. However, if I am allowed to direct people to it, go to youtube and search "Dennis Venema - Human Genomics: Vestiges of Eden or Skeletons in the Closet?"

There are 5 parts to it, and it is quite well presented and easy to understand. Venema is a geneticist, developmental biologist and a professor at an evangelical university.

[MorningGlory]

I've just come across one of the best discussions of this online, but it's on Youtube and I'm aware that we aren't allowed to link to that site. However, if I am allowed to direct people to it, go to youtube and search "Dennis Venema - Human Genomics: Vestiges of Eden or Skeletons in the Closet?"

There are 5 parts to it, and it is quite well presented and easy to understand. Venema is a geneticist, developmental biologist and a professor at an evangelical university.

I will be checking this out, Hal.

[Hal P]

Incidentally, Dennis Venema is also involved in a current online discussion on a Christian theology blog - http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009...e-of-evolution/ . Maybe people could go there to discuss some of the scientific and theological issues around this topic, or maybe we could get him to come here so that you could talk to him. I'm sure he'd enjoy being told that accepting evolution means he isn't a Christian.

[ConScience]

I've just come across one of the best discussions of this online, but it's on Youtube and I'm aware that we aren't allowed to link to that site. However, if I am allowed to direct people to it, go to youtube and search "Dennis Venema - Human Genomics: Vestiges of Eden or Skeletons in the Closet?"

There are 5 parts to it, and it is quite well presented and easy to understand. Venema is a geneticist, developmental biologist and a professor at an evangelical university.

Thanks, Hal P!

[ConScience]

I'm just curious (REALLY, I'm not being sarcastic!):

Do people here accept genetic evidence? For instance, if someone were on trial, would people accept genetic evidence of proof?

If not, let's not bother trying to get Venema involved. But if you would accept the evidence in court, let's go for it!

[MorningGlory]

I'm just curious (REALLY, I'm not being sarcastic!):

Do people here accept genetic evidence? For instance, if someone were on trial, would people accept genetic evidence of proof?

If not, let's not bother trying to get Venema involved. But if you would accept the evidence in court, let's go for it!

If you're talking DNA as a means of nearly unarguable identification....I believe in that. It's been proven over and over again.

[MorningGlory]

Essentially, yes. I and others have asked repeatedly for the most basic of premises from which to work from - that you define what would be evidence both for and against instantaneous creation as a superior theory than common descent. To date none of you have been willing to provide this, instead you demand answers and then dismiss them as "a neat design" or "God just did it because He liked it" non-answers. If you can't understand what would be

This is NOT true; I have asked you point blank several times, in THIS thread, to provide your proof and told you what needed that proof. So far.....no answer from you.

[ConScience]

I'm just curious (REALLY, I'm not being sarcastic!):

Do people here accept genetic evidence? For instance, if someone were on trial, would people accept genetic evidence of proof?

If not, let's not bother trying to get Venema involved. But if you would accept the evidence in court, let's go for it!

Present your evidence - please, try not to put us to sleep with Darwinian myth and circularity - "the genetic evidence proves ape-to-man evolution becuase Darwinists say the genetic evidence proves ape-to-man evolution". And please note - homology can raise questions of relationship but homology cannot answer those questions - i.e., homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other

[ConScience]

LOL - is that your evidence?

No, it isn't evidence. It's encouragement for you to put your point of view. I'm here to learn as much as you are.

But the difference is I WILL go and read and think about what you say, and question my knowledge and reasoning.

Whereas I seriously doubt that you will do the same.

If I have misjudged you, I apologize.

Meanwhile, if the mods will just leave my post in place ... here is a link for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

PLEASE send me one in return putting you point of view. I'm interested and I genuinely want to know.

Thanks.

[CSLewis]

Essentially, yes. I and others have asked repeatedly for the most basic of premises from which to work from - that you define what would be evidence both for and against instantaneous creation as a superior theory than common descent. To date none of you have been willing to provide this, instead you demand answers and then dismiss them as "a neat design" or "God just did it because He liked it" non-answers. If you can't understand what would be

This is NOT true; I have asked you point blank several times, in THIS thread, to provide your proof and told you what needed that proof. So far.....no answer from you.

Ok - science doesn't have proofs - that is mathematics and logic- science uses evidence - the evidences of evolution are found in the fossil record

Starting with the hypothesis if evolution is true and common descent happened the fossil record would record a timeline that is consistent and it does - not only do we not find horses in the Precambrian period the excavation of dinosaur coprolite provides not a seed or a bone of a mammal

Secondly is the closeness of DNA and genetic material of closely related species and how DNA within species are very similar genus a little less and family and order even further away

evolution is continuing to happen today as we see in dog breeds and even in human anatomy (the pinky toe us getting smaller) and is even used in the lab when creating new medicines to fight the ever mutating viruses and bacteria.

No evidence exists for a six day creation that isn't easily refuted by specialists in the field. 99 percent of biologist and geologists reject this idea for good reason - and many of the ones who don't find the religious fanatics pocket books easy pickings for selling books DVDs and making speeches all around the bible circuit.