here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
The data call for some revision of the estimated genetic similarity between
us and our closest relatives. Previously, human and chimp genetic sequences
were quoted as being nearly 99% identical, with a difference of only a few
DNA's letters. In fact, the similarity may be as low as 94-95%.
Seems clear to me. Over 150 million estimated bp differences
here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
the vast majority of biological science graduates agree with the standard model of evolution, even if they are deists .
The fact is, in this country students, by law, are exposed only to one side (in this country any attempt to present the other side will result in termination if it becomes widely known, as has been well documented in the literature). Criticism of Darwinism is not officially allowed. So we would expect that they would buy into the party line. The amazing thing is that so many students graduate with biology degrees and do not buy into the party line All I was exposed to in college was Darwinism in biology after biology class (I have completed probably over 45 classes in the field or closely related areas, so this is not a narrow survey)
here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
Jerry, it is the theories and the facts that matter. Not the paradigm or ideology that the person putting forth that theory holds
It sure would be nice if this was true but it is, in fact, very far from true as any history of science text brings out. Ideology is critical even in science (and often especially in science).Why doesn't talk origins publish anything on the other side? Nothing!
here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
Well, I think some of the people you describe as “mainline graduate degreed (sic) creationists” are actually fairly comprehensively debunked on Talk Origins, amongst other websites.
I strongly disagree. I have read much of this material and it has only strengthened my conclusions (and in fact is a major source of the reasons for my conclusions) . Aside from the endless name calling, their case breaks down when examined carefully. A true believer will not be convinced no matter what the evidence. You love to use sic when one makes a mistake don't you. You used it, something like 3 time in your response. I should do the same when you make a mistake but I do not respond in that way.
here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
According to Mirriam Webster ‘lie’ means;
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
By this definition, many Darwinists are clearly liars but we rarely use this inflammatory term. The Darwinists are usually the ones that use fighting words such as this.
here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
On the same logic, if you were to change the group from “Americans” to “graduates in the biological sciences” (i.e. those who know the most about the subject and are thus qualified to form a considered opinion), then Creationism would be completely discredited, as the vast majority of biological science graduates agree with the standard model of evolution, even if they are deists.
Not really. Most of the biology teachers around here that I have talked to about the issue tell me that they are creationists, and all of the full time biology professors at my college are in this camp, as are many other faculty there. In the world, it is estimated that about 100,000 professional biologists are creationists of some type. I personally know several hundred, all with Ph.Ds in the sciences, and many more working on their Ph.D. This, in spite of the fact that in this country at least it is unlikely that an out of the closet creationist will get tenure (I know of only one that has). Many are denied degrees and awards (see my book The Criterion).
here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
Jerry, you said;
Now we are down from 99.8% all the way to 94-95%. A lot of Darwinists now look very foolish.
This does nothing to disprove the standard model of evolution.
I never said that it disproves it, but it sure creates problems for it.
This does nothing to disprove that chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor a few million years ago.
This difference is a whopping 150 million base pairs, a huge difference by any standard and creates a gap that is very difficult to bridge.
I doubt you can give me one example of a peer-reviewed article where the previous high figure was specified as any other than an interim figure that was the best approximation we had until full sequences were available, and a more accurate figure was determinable .
It was "common knowledge" in the literature and rarely stated in the qualifying terms that you used above. I will look for some articles today at the medical school.
everyone knows the smugness that jw's have.
"everyone is going to die except us because we only have the truth.
" do you think that ex-witnesses continue this same smugness once they get out and realize what really is the truth?
In response to when he was online someone looked up the college that gave him his PHD and the info on the school was kinda--- how can i say this--- questionable- but hey if it floats his boat
my Ph.D. is from Wayne State University in Detroit, MI. Wayne is a state University and was founded around the middle 1800's. It is fully accredited. Also, do you people realize the Hell one goes through as a Witness who went on to graduate school??? It is not fun. I should do a paper on this. Graduate students are not as bad a adulterers but very close (and worse in the minds of some). I understand that this has changes in the past 10 years or so.
everyone knows the smugness that jw's have.
"everyone is going to die except us because we only have the truth.
" do you think that ex-witnesses continue this same smugness once they get out and realize what really is the truth?
My response to for his logic-twisting creationist bent
is one valid example please??? This statement is name calling. Why are so many on here so opposed to the idea that there may be a God who has had a role in the universe? How is arguing for this idea logic-twisting creationist bent?
here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.
it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .
Wonderful Jerry, now you have free time to post red herrings (you've proved nothing by your last post and imply you have)
Red herring?? The claim that humans and some primates are genetically almost identical now seems to be totally wrong. Genetically, huge differences exist and more are being discovered all the time. Hardly a red herring. No one ever thought that we would see the gaps now seen.
Maybe you will grace us with actually responding to the numerous issues you have failed to address in the post My response to Gerhard Besier that you started.
I am working on it.
If you remember, you said you felt it was unfair that evolutionists had a bad reputation for lying, etc., and then when I gave you loads of examples where this was clearly a deserved reputation, you were suddenly too busy
Can you give one documented example of a mainline graduate degreed creationist that has been proven to have lied, using the legal definition of lying? And I am not talking about claims make by talk origins (this group has little credibility with me. They exist to slam those in any way possible that they disagree with. Have they ever published anything favorable about a single creationist? They have not that I could find) Remember about 90% of Americans are creationists of some type. Are you saying these 90% are all liars but the 5 to 10% atheists are the only honest people around?? Your examples of lies are hardly anything close but more like you disagree with what they claim to be true. This is hardly a lie but, at best, a disagreement.
