Summations Only

I think there is a serious disconnect between the evidence and the conclusion, but I can't prove it.

Thank you for supplying this classical example of Darwinist delusion.Firstly, the theory that HIVS/AIDS is an zoonosis that originated in chimps is not a proven fact. Secondly, believing that the virus came from a chimp does help scientists find a cure. Thirdly, even if the chimp-man transmission theory is true, the theory that humans and chimps share a common ancestor doesn't assist scientists in dealing with AIDS. You only think it does ... because you have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to think only in terms of the useless myth of evolution. You're too deluded to see that the theory that all life shares a common ancestor is useless to applied science.------------------------------------------------Similarly, if the discovery of genetic similarities between pigs and humans helped in developing flu vaccine, this is irrelevant to the theory that all life shares a common ancestor. A team of creationists could hypothetically have made the very same discovery and developed the very same vaccine!

I understand certain aspects of evolutionary science and can see certain flaws in its arguments - as witnessed by my text, #392, for example. But there are other arguments that evolutionists make that I can't enter into, as I don't have the expertise to understand the argument and hence, make a judgement. But having come to the conclusion that ToE is the greatest fraud in the history of science, I strongly suspect that all their arguments are flawed - but I can't prove it.

Creationism doesn't need to "produce its own science". In contrast, Atheism does need to produce its own science, because it needs a Godless creation story to make atheists feel "fulfilled" - as High Priest Dawkins says. Darwinism is a product of the psychological needs of atheists, and certainly not a product of scientific necessity. Darwinism is Scientism, and Scientism is the religion of atheism.Applied biology doesn't need Creationism or Darwinism. It only needs scientific facts pertaining to the here and now; not useless stories about how life got here. However, evo-fanatics have the utmost trouble accepting that their beloved theory (and "fact") is scientific irrelevance - on the contrary, they delude themselves that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biology. What a joke that is. Darwinism is joke science.

Is that what I was trying to do? I was trying to demonstrate that the theory that all life shares a common ancestor is irrelevant in the fight against HIV/AIDS and in the development of the swine vaccine.Taq, now is an excellent chance to help deliver Dredge from the darkness of his pathetic ignorance. Please explain how the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor has proven useful in the treatment of HIV/AIDS and in developing swine flu vaccine. This should be a piece'a'cake for someone of your intelligence and learning.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

"... whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it" - Jesus (Mark 10:15).

This is where the the "Peleg" theory (Genesis 10:25, 1Chronicles 1:19) comes into its own: From the six days of creation until about 750 years after the Flood, all land was gathered in one huge continent. Thus all the creatures from the ark were able to migrate to wherever they migrated to in 750 years. Then God divided this monolithic land mass into its present fragmented arrangement.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Point taken.

And if memory serves, there is a small, mouse-size marsupial that exists in Africa.

Of course not - creation is a miracle; miracles can't be explained.

The miracle of creation cannot be explained with science, but this doesn't mean it didn't happen or that there is no evidence of creation.A child doesn't understand how man managed to walk on the moon - does this mean it didn't happen?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

In post #392 RAZD claimed that the theory that humans and apes have a common ancestor "was useful in finding vaccines for HIV". I asked him to explain how - no answer was forthcoming. So maybe you can explain it to me.-----------------------As for your previous posts that you keep mentioning, I've already told you that I'm not qualified to comment on them.

Really. Ok, there are similarities. So what? These similarities exist whether one is an evolutionist, a creationist, a Hindu, a Scientologist or a Freemason. In other words, the existence of the genetic similarities between humans and pigs is independent of the theory that humans and chimps have a common ancestor ... and the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. Therefore, I suspect that you are mistaken - the theory of common descent was a complete irrelevance in developing swine flu vaccine.

Since 1981 you've been looking for evidence of creation and you've not yet found any? What would that evidence look like?

I see anecdotal evidence of creation every day - a beautiful woman, for example! But scientifically speaking, there is irreducible complexity, for starters.