Christianity and Creationism are NOT the Same Thing
-
gourlegr — 16 years ago(June 19, 2009 02:58 PM)
Darwinism cannot explain why chromosomal mutants would have an incentive to inbreed or why chromosomal mutants would have such genetic ability.
At this clip, Ken Miller explains how the fact humans have two less chromosomes than the other great apes actually verifies evolution. I'm not sure it's what you're looking for, but it's solid evidence for common ancestry.
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.John 8:32 -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(June 19, 2009 04:03 PM)
What human chromosome 2 proves is that there were 48 human chromosomes and that we are descended from two that were altered to 46.
Evolutionists have known for 10 years that there is something unnatural about the fusion:
"When new staining techniques revealed the structure of human chromosome 2, however, what was revealed was a fusion that was neither Robertsonian nor centric. For human chromosome 2, the tips of the short arms of two acrocentric chromosomes were broken off. The 2 short arms then fused together. This resulted in a chromosome with 2 centromeres, one of which is suppressed."
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan99.html
More recently it has been shown that the genes in chromosome 2 were human at the time of fusion:
"At the site of fusion, there is approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B PRIOR to the fusion event."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project -
skiop — 16 years ago(October 26, 2009 04:41 PM)
Indeed. Spencer Tracy was alluding to this when he was questioning Frederic March. "You've never read it, so how do you know it's incompatible." Then the other guy on the state's side objected to him reading from The Origin of Species that would clarify that God and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive.
-
sccitylhh — 14 years ago(September 04, 2011 12:05 PM)
Religion as presented by The Bible contains absolutely NO modern science (i.e. information ascertained using the scientific method), because, naturally, it was compiled before the scientific revolution. However, you have to have blinders on not to see that it doesn't make scientific claims, as in the formation of the cosmos and life and the virgin birth of certain people. These are clearly claims being made about cosmology, abiogenesis, parthenogenesis, etc Some religious folks will use the metaphorical argument for explaining this away and then in the next breath point to another part of the book as literally true and to be followed. It just doesn't work that way. The Bible has no footnotes explaining the lens in which its passages are to be interpreted through. The individual cherry picks which text to explain in a certain way using a reasoning faculty that is outside of the scope of their book, and therefore should make them pause. Unfortunately it just doesn't happen that often.
There's absolutely no evidence that any scientific claim made by The Bible or any other holy book is true in the empirical sense, and any attempt to square the book with modern science only exemplifies the elasticity and nebulous nature of religious scripture, not the veracity of the claim.