Summations Only

Can you give me a Dredge-simple example, please? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box (I think).

A trivial sermantic misunderstanding like this is hardly going to alter my views about evolution.

I reiterate ... this is way off topic.

Dredge's fragile, egg-shell mind is beginning to over-heat.

It comes as no surprise all that you can't give me an example.

You forgot to mention the widdle ol' fact that "common ancestry" is an assumption.
Here's how it goes:
The fact that the DNA system is common to all living things is used by Darwinists as evidence of common ancestry. Cytochrome c performs a similar role in cellular respiration in many different organisms, and this fact is also used as evidence of common ancestry. Fair enough, but such facts can also be used as evidence of a Creator who decided to use the same biological machinery in lots of different creatures.
So when an evolutionary biologist says something like "based on common ancestry", what he is really saying is, "it is assumed by the Darwinist paradigm to be based on common ancestry".
Furthermore, the assumption of common ancestry is not what is useful in biology - it is the facts that led to the assumption that are useful in biology.Of course, the science of Darwinism - which is inherently dishonest and deceitful - would have us believe that common ancestry is not only an undeniable and demonstrable fact, but that it is eminently useful in applied biology. I'd love a dollar for every biology student who has been brainwashed into believing this mendacious cult nonsense.You can't fool all of the people all of the time.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age there are educated adults who believe that dead matter can somehow produce life. Superstition will never die.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I've already told you. Why you no listen to Dredge? The facts that led to to the assumption/conclusion of common ancestry produced the results. I was thinking of inviting you to my birthday party, but now I having second thoughts, as you keep calling me bad names and for no good reason. I've stated elsewhere that evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of a Creator. However, millions of years of evolution is incompatible with the Bible. My "creationist handlers" go by the name of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who speak the truth. You would do well to listen to them.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Yes, since I'm a creationist, that's what I meant; sorry I didn't make myself clear. Certainly that would be possible, if God is omnipotent ... in which case, anything is possible. However, the Bible clearly indicates it didn't happen that way. For example, consider the quote you supplied:
Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." It says God formed "man" from the dust of the ground and the "man" became a living soul; it doesn't say God formed a unicellular bug from the dust of the ground and the unicellular bug became a living soul.

Pressie, Pressie, Pressie, you're getting nowhere playing such petty semantic games. Whether it's an assumption or a conclusion, the same argument applies. It's not the assumption/conclusion of common ancestry that produced the results, it's the facts that led to the assumption/conclusion that produced the results. I could offer a creationists assumption/conclusion based on exactly the same facts, but that would prove as irrelevant to producing the results as the Darwinist assumption/conclusion of common ancestry. Try and think outside the box of Darwinist indoctrination you have been living in for the last several decades.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Er ... no; I can't see the logic error here. This must mean you are much smarter than I am.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

An irrelevant point of semantics, as I've already pointed out in post #991.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Read the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible.

Believing that life can come from nothing but dead dirt - without an iota of scientific evidence and when science itself suggests it's impossible - is the very definition of superstition. Such a belief is in fact just as scientifically-retarded the spontaneous generation superstitions of the nineteenth century. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

In which case, science is a poor arbiter of truth. Man (read: science) is no more "the measure of all things" than earthworms are.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.