The Differences Are Staggering

by | Sep 1, 2005 | Uncategorized

While the referenced report suggest that the DNA makeup between Chimpanzees and humans is 96 to 98 percent identical, the differences number in the millions. From the report: Still, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans, the federal genome institute says. It’s the differences Ôš”” some 40 million Ôš”” that attract the attention of scientists. So, we have found that chimps and humans share a large number of similar DNA traits. Impressive? Similar does not demand origin. Shouldn’t we expect living beings to possess a number of similar traits? Still waiting for the evidence of a living creature becoming another living...

Godcasting and the Loss of Community

by | Aug 29, 2005 | Uncategorized

A New York Times article precipitated this post from scholar Ben Witherington regarding the further promotion of personalized Christianity and the exclusion of a more community-based (I would say biblically based) Christianity. Both are good reads. HT: Justin...

Another Salvo From the NY Times

by | Aug 28, 2005 | Uncategorized

The New York Times prints another salvo in their quest to discredit the idea of a Creator and posit the fact that all exists by random evolutionary, chance mutations. Dr. Daniel C. Dennett engages in “the science” of evolution with the aim of discrediting any idea of Intelligent Design. What does Dr. Dennett know that you don’t? How many hours in the lab has he spent? Probably no more than any other non-scientist. Dr. Dennett is a professor of philosophy. Yet, he boldly states that scientists have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is the sole means and most rational explanation for the production of what exists today. What is Dr. Dennett’s scientific appeal? The eye. The eye once used to be binoculars, yet, through happenstance and thousands of years of chance mutations, it transformed into the eye. No, not really. Dr. Dennett suggests that one proof of monkeys becoming men is that the eye has become a better eye over time. Really? He should of used the binoculars analogy – it seems to fit the theory of evolution much better than an eye becoming a better eye. Is this the knockout punch for ID? “Show me the science” – not of parts becoming better parts, but creatures becoming DIFFERENT creatures. Fancy talk Dr. Dennett, but very poor...