No, it does not. But I understand your need. Your theology is frightening.
:mock: 'fraidy-dog.
No, it does not. But I understand your need. Your theology is frightening.
Fortunately for us... Science is not about majority opinion...as evolutionists like to think.
(Usually, its the dead fish who go with the flow)
Science is about knowledge... seeking truth, even if that path leads to a creator God
Genetics DOES help confirm the truth found in God's Word.
I believe in and trust Jesus, I do NOT believe in nor trust the grossly exaggerated, self important writings of the people who conspired to kill Jesus. Old earth evolution has always been obvious to me.
Of course genetics helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
Jeffrey Tompkins PhD "Yet another study, this one published in the journal Nature, ( exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants) accessed even more extensive data and unintentionally confirmed the recent human history described in Genesis."
Dr. Robert Carter... Human genetics confirms the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwRqlFzZ0cU
Dr. Georgia Purdom (molecular biology) "One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson....He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago.”
In the beginning, God created...
Fortunately for us... Science is not about majority opinion...as evolutionists like to think.
In general, science works by consensus.
John Sanford: Genetic EntropyGenetics confirms a roughly 6000 year old universe? Citations to the literature please.
Wrong... You are talking about the evolutionist interpreting the results within their belief system of millions of years when the results indicated that 'protein-coding and deleterious SNVs' arose very recently.Barbarian said:In fact, the results suggest the opposite conclusion6days said:Of course genetics helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
Jeffrey Tompkins PhD "Yet another study, this one published in the journal Nature, ( exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants) accessed even more extensive data and unintentionally confirmed the recent human history described in Genesis."
Dr. Tompkins You mean? Would you agree that attacking the person, or trying to discredit their education, rather than attack their argument is ad hominem?Barbarian said:I notice that Jeffrey has, on Creationwiki, claimed that his degree is in Genetics, but his alma mater says it's in growing crops.
The "problem" is your lack of understanding of genetics, coupled with your rejection of "For in six days, the Lord created the heavens and the earth, and everything in them"Barbarian said:The problem is that there are many, many alleles for each human gene locus. If they all evolved by mutation, then there is not enough time on the creationist belief for all of them to have formed.6days said:Dr. Robert Carter... Human genetics confirms the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwRqlFzZ0cU
You are trying to read to fast again.... Dr. Purdom is discussing how genetics supports God's Word of the BIBLICAL Eve.Barbarian said:Georgia has another issue. "Mitochondrial Eve" wouldn't be the first woman.6days said:Dr. Georgia Purdom (molecular biology) "One of the most compelling genetic evidences for an original human couple created by God is mitochondrial DNA research done by creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson....He clearly shows that the common human female ancestor of us all (biblical Eve) lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago.”
Barbarian said:And you simply think that ad hominem is a logical argument?Dr. Sanford (peer reviewed published 80+ times) says that genetics proves evolution / common ancestry beliefs and helps confirm the truth of God's Word.6days said:And John Sanford thinks simple denial is O.K. as a scientific process...
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus... The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus....There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." - Michael Crichton
In the beginning, God created...
Haaa Funny...Ah, another quote mine.
Yes... that is what Dr. Ross attempts to show. But God tells us He created humans intelligent from the beginning.Dr Ross shows that while there were hominids developing, there is a huge explosion of creativity and intelligence about 30-40K ago that defies the existing trajectory of hominids. It is that which he believes is the 6 days of creation.
CREATION AND TIME
reasonstobelieve.com
Science ... workby consensus.
The consensus is changed by people — usually creationists — who reject the consensus. As usual, evolutionists are desperate to remain in the game and popularity is their major play.Until someone changes [the consensus].
Wake us up when you're willing to discuss the evidence. :yawn:How long do you think it will take, 6, until one of your boys overturns the current general consensus about:1. the age of the universe and age of the earth?2. the basics of evolution?3. the basics of radiometric dating?
The consensus is changed by people — usually creationists — who reject the consensus.
Can you give one example of a creationist who changed a consensus?
Except that peer review is generally how a scientific consensus or correction comes about, but being corrected by creationists however isn't.Science is the practice of testing ideas to falsify them. Consensus has no role to play.The consensus is changed by people — usually creationists — who reject the consensus. As usual, evolutionists are desperate to remain in the game and popularity is their major play.
You need to try reading slower.
You are turning into a Barbarian. He tells outright lies misrepresenting what others have said.
(Check the thread 'rapid adaptation'...that is the creationist model.)
Can you give one example of a creationist who changed a consensus?
:darwinsm: