Evolution and Creation

[emprworm]

And, for your convienience, here is a small list of people who all hold

PhD's in science and all reject evolution and believe in creation.

Agard, E. Theo

Allan, James

Armstrong, Harold

Arndt, Alexander

Austin, Steven

Barnes, Thomas

Batten, Don

Baumgardner, John

Bergman, Jerry

Boudreaux, Edward

Catchpoole, David

Chadwick, Arthur

Chaffin, Eugene

Chittick, Donald

Cimbala, John

Clausen, Ben

Cole, Sid

Cook, Melvin

Cumming, Ken

Cuozzo, Jack

Darrall, Nancy

Dewitt, David

DeYoung, Donald

Downes, Geoff

Eckel, Robert

Faulkner, Danny

Ford, Dwain

Frair, Wayne

Gentry, Robert

Giem, Paul

Gillen, Alan

Gish, Duane

Gitt, Werner

Gower, D.B.

Grebe, John

Grocott, Stephen

Hawke, George

Hollowell, Kelly

Holroyd, Edmond

Hosken, Bob

Howe, George

Humphreys, D. Russell

Javor, George

Jones, Arthur

Kaufmann, David

Kennedy, Elaine

Klotz, John

Koop, C. Everett

Korochkin, Leonid

Kramer, John

Lammerts, Walter

Lester, Lane

Livingston, David

Lopez, Raul

Marcus, John

Marsh, Frank

Mastropaolo, Joseph

McCombs, Charles

McIntosh, Andrew

McMullen, Tom

Meyer, Angela

Meyer, John

Mitchell, Colin

Morris, Henry

Morris, John

Mumma, Stanley

Parker, Gary

Peet, J. H. John

Rankin, John

Roth, Ariel

Rusch, Wilbert

Sarfati, Jonathan

Snelling, Andrew

Standish, Timothy

Taylor, Stephen

Thaxton, Charles

Thompson, Bert

Thomson, Ker

Vardiman, Larry

Veith, Walter

Walter, Jeremy

Wanser, Keith

Whitcomb, John

White, A.J.(Monty)

Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest

Wile, Jay

Williams, Emmett

Wise, Kurt

Wolfrom, Glen

Zuill, Henry

All of them scientists. All published. All have peer

review. All of them have PhD's. All living. How many PhD scientists do you know of that embrace evolution? And keep in mind, there really aren't that many PhD's out there. Most people do not get a PhD.

[emprworm]

HUMANS SHARE 98% OF THEIR GENETIC DNA WITH CHIMPANZEES.

yes, that is true. We also share 100% of our atomic particles with the hair ball that my cat threw up outside the other day. We share 100% of our atomic particles with the noxious gas cloud orbiting some lonely star in the Andromeda galaxy. Big deal. Everything in the entire universe is made up of the exact same things.

Why is this the case... because evolved from the same genetic background. It is impossible to have a human race as diverse as it is from only adam and eve.

Hardly. Similarity is a very poor argument for evolution. I can just as easy say that similarity means common designer. LIke a painter, you can always identify who a painter is based on his paintings. DaVinci has a particular style in his work that is common to all his work. Since ALL things in the universe are made up of the same particles, this points to a "fingerprint" of the same painter. The fingerprint of God. And besides, if similarity proves evolution, then I guess we came from a brick since a brick is 100% similar to us. You need better evidence if you are going to argue on grounds of similarity, which is a very weak argument.

[emprworm]

the feasibility of this has been examined on statistical grounds[1],[2],[3] and soundly rejected

lol you dont even know what you quoted. What he was saying is that the feasibility of genetic mutations according to evolution has been examined on statistical grounds and soundly rejected.

lol! :D

you're funny man

[DukeLeto]

HUMANS SHARE 98% OF THEIR GENETIC DNA WITH CHIMPANZEES.

yes, that is true. We also share 100% of our atomic particles with the hair ball that my cat threw up outside the other day. We share 100% of our atomic particles with the noxious gas cloud orbiting some lonely star in the Andromeda galaxy. Big deal. Everything in the entire universe is made up of the exact same things.

Um, wake up. Genetic DNA and atomic particles are VERY DIFFERENT. Perhaps if you knew anything about science, you would have known that, eh?

[Repoman]

It is not similarity i am arguing. It means that 98% of chimpanzee DNA is exactly the same as human and 2% is different than human DNA. Scietists recently toggled a couple of genes and the centipede only grew 6 legs(insects).

Do you relise how many people have PHD's??/ You have just been marketed a list of scientists who have PHD's without their majors listed. Show me a list of PHD's in science(biology)(genetics) that believe in the creationist therory.

Even if that list were all phd biologists it would account for .0001% of Phd scientists around the world. At least argue logically mate. Logically such diversity within the human race CANNOT come from 2 people, it is impossible. Why is incest illegal?? Because it causes birth defects.

[emprworm]

i'm wide awake Duke. The simple truth is this: All things in the universe are made up of precisly the same components. Perhaps if you knew anything about science, you would have known that, eh?

[emprworm]

Do you relise how many people have PHD's??/ You have just been marketed a list of scientists who have PHD's without their majors listed. Show me a list of PHD's in science(biology)(genetics) that believe in the creationist therory.

All of those PHDs were in a scientific field.

You want more scientists? You want brief BIO's? Fine, I'll do it. Why? Because I back up my statements with evidence. Now lets see if you do:

Even if that list were all phd biologists it would account for .0001% of Phd scientists around the world.

lol. I quoted precisely 93 scientists with Ph.d's If they represented .0001% of all scientists that would put the total amount of all PhD scientists who support evolution at 93,000,000 (93 million). I think you have some proof you need to come up with before you start spewing rhetoric like that. I'm gonna go to the store, and when I come back, lets see how many you ahve quoted. But since I'm a nice guy, all I ask for is 1000. I'll be quoting more creation PhD physicists and biologists and give their bio's when I get back.

At least argue logically mate. Logically such diversity within the human race CANNOT come from 2 people, it is impossible. Why is incest illegal?? Because it causes birth defects.

[Anathema]

I read the article through swiftly (I'll read it more thoroughly another time), and the general idea I get is that this man believes that evolution is not achieved by random changes, but by a built in search pattern to find the correct genome- very interesting article. But this does not reject evolution- just Darwinism, and does not support your claim- unless, you believe God designed this search pattern, but it's still evolution.

[Repoman]

Emp you just don't get it mate.

You can't just say something is wrong because of statistics. You have to justify which statistics and be certain of your statistical data before you can come to a conclusion.

what statistics???

It like saying i am wrong because of the numbers and then not giving me what numbers and how you used them. It is a child's argument. Next thing you will say it is because it just is.

[Edric O]

Genetic similarity is a stupid argument for evolution. There HAS TO BE great genetic similarity between animals, else they would not be able to eat each other! Genetic differences cause differences in the chemical makeup of the organism. If you want us to be genetically different from all other animals, then you'd have a very hard time getting us to eat something made of poisonous chemicals...

Having said that, why the hell can't we all just get along?

I'm a diehard christian, and a skeptical evolutionist. Religion and science are perfectly compatible.

[DukeLeto]

i'm wide awake Duke. The simple truth is this: All things in the universe are made up of precisly the same components. Perhaps if you knew anything about science, you would have known that, eh?

No duh. But that has nothing to do with Genetics, now does it? DNA is unique to each organism. Atomic elements are different than DNA. Maybe Edric's right. Maybe you really are clueless.

[Repoman]

Genetics is a exact science, we are not talking similarity here.

It is wrong to say we have similar DNA to a chimp.

We have exactly 98% of our DNA exactly the same as a chimp. The other 2% is completely different.

[Anathema]

True, but most of our DNA is latent. Any properties that do reach the surface are for the most part completely different from chimps. But it does suggest that we share common ancestors.

[emprworm]

No duh. But that has nothing to do with Genetics, now does it? DNA is unique to each organism. Atomic elements are different than DNA. Maybe Edric's right. Maybe you really are clueless.

Duke: If your mind could comprehend philosophical thought, you would not be repeating such poor logic.

I know DNA and atomic particles are different. Anyone with a 6th grade education probably knows that. I am using a scientific illustration to point out the fallacy of the non-sequitur in response to repomans argument of evolution based on similarity. Such logic is not scientific, as the atomic theory so adequately proves. Now, if you want to continue to formulate hypothesis based upon principles of similarity and them propogate them as factual, then you sure have the freedom to do that, just don't think you'll have any credibility.

And let Edric speak for himself. I dont remember him calling me clueless.

[emprworm]

Emp you just don't get it mate.

You can't just say something is wrong because of statistics. You have to justify which statistics and be certain of your statistical data before you can come to a conclusion.

what statistics???

It like saying i am wrong because of the numbers and then not giving me what numbers and how you used them. It is a child's argument. Next thing you will say it is because it just is.

Here is what I "get" Repoman. You are not a good scientist. A good scientist will analyze all the data and then formulate a conclusion after objecitvely taking into account all available data. An objective scientists filters his presuppositions THROUGH science and reason. You do the oppositte. You are filtering science through your presuppositions. You believe in evolution a priori and THEN you approach science. YOu just simply summarily dismiss all the scientists that are not only credible, but trained, educated and experienced just as much as any other scientist- yet you dismiss them summarily simply because they dont fit your a priori conclusions. You do not consider the counter evidence. You have dismissed it a priori

because it does not agree with your a priori presuppositions. THis is horrendeously bad science.

I am a creationsit who rejects evolution simply because i reviewed all the evidence. Unlike you, I actually READ both arguments. I read atheist books. I read atheist philosophy and science. I read Carl Sagan, Atkins, Pagels, Guth, Hawkings, Quentin Smith, H. Putthoff. I read these guys because I want to know what they say. I want to hear the evolutionsists perspective and read about their evidence. You do not do this. You are one sided. You conclude first, then interpret second. This is poor science.

[Edric O]

I don't appreciate it when people put words in my mouth.

Emprworm knows very well what he's talking about. I always found conversations with him to be very interesting.

Repoman, we also share exactly 50% of our DNA with bananas. Your point?

[The_Sadukar]

I don't know if any one has mentiond this before, but you know the concept of inbreed, right, then the way I see it, most of the thrid generation animals fom the arc would be freaks. so how come we have "normal" and operational animals today ???

[Anathema]

Repoman, we also share exactly 50% of our DNA with bananas. Your point?

Hehe I didn't know that one :).

[emprworm]

thanks, Edric. I have found that we differ on our system of government (but not on principles of freedom- just the implementation) but that is actually a minor point, and that we have agreement on the major points. At least that is the feeling I get.

[emprworm]

inbreeding problems only occurs in a corrupted gene pool. If you know the genetics behind inbreeding, it would be clear that the first humans inbred with no consequence at all. In fact, incest was not forbidden by God until the Law of Moses. Until then it was acceptable, and genetically it would be 100% viable.

Inbreeding causes genetic problems under the following conditions:

BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF INBREEDING

Every person has two sets of genes, there being some 130,000 pairs that specify how a person is put together and functions. Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other -- or perhaps someone's nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone's jaw is a little out of shape, color blindness, cancer genes, etc. -- and so on.

The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different mistakes in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones! (Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes, since these have been inherited from the same parents. Therefore, a brother and a sister are more likely to have similar mistakes in their genes. A child of a union between such siblings could inherit the same bad gene on the same gene pair from both, resulting in two bad copies of the gene and serious defects.

Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was "very good" (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect -- no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam -- Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God's approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18-20).12 (Also, there were plenty of people on the earth by then, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.)

[DjCiD]

i'm wide awake Duke. The simple truth is this: All things in the universe are made up of precisly the same components. Perhaps if you knew anything about science, you would have known that, eh?

heres an idea why we all have the same component makeup (DNA or what ever you wanna call it) becasue we were all made by the same creator. His finger prints are on us all, thats why we have similarities...

now i know this hasnt been proven but neither has evolution or any of them for that matter...

[Anathema]

However, any near decendants from the original couple will be geneticly similar. If the original father or mother had ANY genetic mistake, or that one of their children gets one as a result of mutation, the decendants will have them too. And because the first few generatiors are share many genes the risk is nonetheless higher then usual that one of them develops a genetic desease.

[emprworm]

as promised to Repoman, here are some more PhD scientists that believe in creation and reject evolution. I included a summary of their education. There are TONS more. I can do many, many, many more if you want me to.

Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry (ICR)

He has a B.S. in Chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California (Berkeley). He spent a total of 18 years in biochemical research; with Cornell University Medical College (NYC), with the Virus Laboratory, U of Cal-Berkley and and on the research staff of the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company (Michigan). He has published approximately 40 articles in scientific journals.

Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (ICR)

He has a B.S. in Biology/Chemistry with honors from Tufts University, a Masters in Biology from Harvard, and the Ph.D. in Biology with a major in Ecology and a minor in Biochemistry from Harvard University. He has been on the faculties at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse, and Western Wisconsin Technological Institute at La Crosse. Dr. Cumming is presently preparing a video which he made on a recent visit to the Galapagos Islands which discusses the diversity of species in relation to the traditional interpretation of speciation.

David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)

He has a B.S. in Biochemistry from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine. His professional memberships include the Society for Neuroscience and the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine.

Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics

He has a B.S. in Biology (highest honors) from Liberty University, a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Virginia, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Genomics from Clemson University. He served as Research Assistant Professor and Director of Bioinformatics from the year 1999 to 2000 and Adjunct Professor, Departments of Crop & Soil Sciences and Genetics from the year 2000 to 2001 at the Clemson University Genomics Institute. Dr. Wood is currently Adjunct Professor of Natural Sciences at Bryan College, Tennessee. He has published articles in secular journals like The American Journal of Human Genetics, Science, and Genome Research on biochemistry and genomics

David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology (Technical Advisory Board)

He has a B.A. in Biology from Mankato State University and a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from Brown University. Dr. Menton is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington U. School of Medicine. He was Associate Professor of Anatomy for over 30 years. He received the "Distinguished Service Teaching Award" in 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, named "Teacher of the Year" 1979 and was elected "Professor of the Year" in 1998 by the Class of 2000. He has also been Profiled in 'American Men and Women of Science - A Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences' for almost two decades.

Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology

He received a B.Sc.(Hons.) and a Ph.D. from Monash University in Australia. His fields were genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology. He completed his Post Doc training at Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Macreadie is a Principal Research Scientist of CSIRO Health Sciences and Nutrition and an Adjunct Professor of RMIT University. He has played key roles in identifying the structure and function of several mitochondrial genes. After joining Bimolecular Research Institute of Australia

[exatreide]

ahhh but empworm nothing in the universe is perfect.

btw....Why did god have to rest on the 7th day after creating earth? if god was perfect he wouldnt have had to...

A imperfect being can not create a perfect being.(holds up arms in defense, dont hurt me)

You never awsnerd the question about the ark though.

you just adressed inbreeding in general.

Who says that the animals entering the arc were perfect in the fist place?

Unless they were complety perfect(Which is imposible) withen in several generations the inbreeding would be come extrem.

[emprworm]

the gene pools of the animals on the arc were good enough such that deformities did not take place. Note that this has been observed even in modern day nature with endangered species. And God rested not because He was tired, but to set an example for man to follow. God is a good leader. Good leaders will get right out there and do things with their people.

A bad leader just sits back in his chair and says do this do that. The best generals are right there in the trenches with their people even if they dont have to. Thats how great of a leader God is.