Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
You didn't notice that Hannah had DNA that unmistakenly identified her as a descendant of yours? And that your DNA unmistakenly identified you as a descendant of your parents? And so on...
|
What? What about my previous post would make you think I DIDN'T get those facts? LOL!!!!! Of course I get that.
Quote:
|
...until we look at Hannah's DNA and that of a chimpanzee and find that she and the chimp have the same unmistakable markers showing a common descent - the same kinds of pattern that shows she's your daughter shows she (and you and I) and chimpanzees are descended from the same parents.
|
Similar
patterns do not show common descent
necessarily.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/DNA.asp
Do you know how patently impossible it is for a species with 23 pairs of chromosomes to mutate or evolve from a species with 24? More importantly, do you have any data that supports any process similar to this miraculous claim being reproduced in a lab?
Quote:
|
And how do you get "evolution = no God"?
|
I never said that evolution=no God.
I believe that evolution=a stupid theory that scientists have just accepted as true and go about all their research with that in mind. It creates a skewed result. Objectivity is good. Of course, I am not objective, because I view everything through the glass that God created the world.
I do believe that some evolutionary theories are false simply on the basis that they contradict scripture. It is possible to skew facts in such a way to support evolution, and in such a way that they contradict scripture, but if those facts were lined out simply and logically, they would do neither.
Quote:
|
With all due respect, to insist upon a worldview that simply isn't real and then to blame that view upon a 200 year old tradition of Bible Fundamentalism and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of impiety isn't just unfair - it's frankly delusional.
|
I'm not delusional. Did I blame a view on a 200 year old tradition of Bible Fundamentalism, or did you do that? You realize that evolution is a relatively new concept, too, right?
And I didn't accuse anyone of impiety. I'm saying that if you don't accept scripture at face value, and I do, then our views can't help but be different, as well as our line of reasoning. Much like speaking to someone who doesn't believe in God. Unless you start with faith in a divinity at the very least, there is no good foundation for discussion.
Quote:
|
Every geneticist who looks at the same DNA molecules that you say you've looked at "sees" biological evolution and sees the DNA as unmistakable proof of this fact. And they do so at some personal risk - but there it is.
|
Pelathais...tsk, tsk, tsk. Your first statement alone is unscientific in nature. It's known as a "universal negative." You cannot equivocally state that "every geneticist" does anything of the sort, because you simply have not read the studies of, nor observed or made contact with every geneticist.
How is the existence of DNA, which is basically just a set of instructions for each organism, "unmistakable proof" of the "fact" of biological evolution?
And there is NO personal risk for geneticists to support evolution. The personal risk is there for those who reject it.