Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Lethe]

Why do evolutionists not like this superior method?

Are you referring to restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis? You do realize RFLP has become largely obsolete.

Do you have any idea how much difference this actually is?

Obviously considering humans are 99.9% identical to one another on a genetic level.

The similarities between humans and chimps were not calculated by the Human Genome Project, since a fully sequenced chimp genome has yet to be produced.

The Chimpanzee Genome Project began in what, 2002? The Human Genome Project began in 1984, it's not a surprise it hasn't been completed yet. Though it has been developing more quickly than the former, the first is usually the hardest.

It was rather done by the very controversial method of DNA hybridization.

As well as analysis of chromosomal structure, and while DNA-DNA hybridization has in fact been criticized for potential inaccuracy in regards to incredibly closely related species (humans and chimps being the relevant example), until the chimpanzee genome is sequenced in it's entirety, hybridization is, at the moment, one of the most accurate methods for determining genetic similarity.

Even using very liberal estimates of mutation rates, and assuming that mutations always add meaningful information (which they never do) the human/chimp common ancestor would have had to still live billions of years ago.

The average rate of human mutation per generation has been calculated to be 2.5 x 10^-8, though, as a creationist, you'll no doubt take issue with this, as it did use comparative analysis of human and chimpanzee DNA.

Yet Evolutionists believe it lived 5 million years ago.

This estimate is based on the molecular clock, which in term is based on the fossil record and known rates of molecular change. Scientists didn't just pull the number out of their ass.

You actually believe this garbage?

I know right? To think I'm actually using my free time to argue over the internet.

To think, you get on Christians for believing in a faith based system, I don’t have enough faith to believe in something this absurd.

If you think scientists have a complete and utter trust and "faith" in their colleagues' work, you're deeply mistaken. They get off on proving one another wrong. Scientific theories and principles aren't based in faith, they're based in evidence.

No, this was in response to the claim you made that genome research helped to support Darwinian Evolution; it did not. They had to destroy the tree of life and try to rebuild it. Something does not support a model very well if it destroys it.

Except the phylogenetic tree being proverbially uprooted by new findings doesn't discredit evolution. If anything, it's made the tree more precise, and with more precise placement and measurements comes more precise results. So of course the HGP has helped evolution, or rather it's helped build a better understanding of evolutionary biology, which, while you may not accept, has been vital for progress within the field.

According to Darwinian Evolution the fossil record should show a historical timeline of life on Earth. It should show the gradual evolution of animals from simple to the complex. It was long thought that this is what we saw when we saw amoebas at the bottom of the tree and humans towards the top since amoebas look very simple and humans look very complex. However when we examine their DNA, many amoebas are just as complex (some even more complex) at the DNA level as humans are. Since DNA is what Evolution actually has to “work with”, this shows that the fossil record actually does not move from simple to complex.

Except modern day amoeba have been evolving as well. Our common ancestor with amoeba would be near the roots, sure, but amoeba aren't exempt from evolution. You mentioned bacteria in a later post, and if you'll note, bacteria are highly adaptive.

Religion- –noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. (dictionary.com)

Darwinism falls under all three of these definitions.

Since the phrase "beliefs and practices" is present in the two latter definitions, I'm afraid it doesn't. As accepting evolution doesn't entail any rites or rituals. As to the first definition, even lobbing off the inapplicable "esp." addendum, evolution doesn't concern the universe, that's the realm of cosmology. But even if the word were changed to the phrase "life on Earth", evolution doesn't concern the cause (that's abiogenesis), or the purpose outside of functionality. What it does is explain the nature of life, which isn't enough to warrant a religion by any definition.

I can always just quote my buddy Michael Ruse (Atheist) again…

Yeah, a philosopher and tone troll. Not impressed. I suspect he may have been S.E. Cupp's inspiration...

You are wrong about the burden of proof; Atheism has always been defined as the affirmation of the non existence of God.

Using your same dictionary source...

Atheism:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

“Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’

-Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (The most widely used Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Except atheism isn't a stance on a philosophical concept, but a theological concept.