In that case, it's not merely a presumption. Common descent is part of the theory of evolution.

not according to our works

but according to his own design

and the grace bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before time began,

but now made manifest

through the appearance of our savior Christ Jesus,

who destroyed death and brought life and immortality

to light through the Gospel,

The scribe said to him, “Well said, teacher.

You are right in saying,

He is One and there is no other than he.

And to love him with all your heart,

with all your understanding,

with all your strength,

and to love your neighbor as yourself

is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

And when Jesus saw that he answered with understanding,

Let's have a look at it:

<And a creation prediction:

<Nevertheless, there does appear to be worthwhile evidence from this genome comparison to corroborate that Neandertals interbred with other peoples--just as the creation science model would predict. >>

FIRST QUESTION: Is this a prediction?

No. As with your earlier efforts, this appears to be another *after the fact* prediction. Someone waits until an event has occurred, and then says "my model would have predicted that!". For good reason, most people are not impressed with such "predictions".

But lets put that aside for a moment and pretend that some creation scientist -- well before the Neanderthal genome project began -- predicted that Neanderthals would be found to have interbred with other peoples based on the creation model. That way, we can move on to the next questions...

SECOND QUESTION: Would this "prediction" have any falsification value?

In other words, is the creation model really *dependent* on Neanderthal interbreeding? If we found that Neanderthals didn't interbreed, would that discredit the creation model? Would a majority of creation scientists been willing to bet the credibility of the creation model on evidence of Neanderthal interbreeding?

I think the answer to all these questions is "no".

THIRD QUESTION: Would this "prediction" have any affirmation value?

In other words, does it predict something that would be unexpected *unless* the creation model were true? Does it rule out any competing models (such as evolution)?

Again, the answer is "no".

Recently, there was a NOVA episode discussing three scientists working independently. (Transcript of show: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transc...)

Here they are:

== #1 The climatologist

He drills long tubes of ice from Greenland. The ice there is formed by years and years of snowfall, with the lower layers compressed by the weight of the upper layers.

- DATING: In these ice tubes, he can see the annual layers and thus know how old each layer is.

- PURPOSE: The point is that snow captures information about the chemical content of the atmosphere at the time, and this chemical content is preserved in the ice tubes.

- FINDING: For most years, the chemical content doesn't change much, but for layers about <75,000 years> ago, there is a sharp spike in the presence of sulphuric acid.

== #2 The geologist

He drills long tubes of earth from deep in the ocean. There, layers of sediment, including shells of ocean creatures.

- DATING: These ocean cores also can be dated by counting layers.

- PURPOSE: The shells in these layers contain oxygen absorbed from the seawater. The oxygen can be analyzed to see how much of it is the "light" oxygen isotope 16, and how much is the "heavy" oxygen isotope 18. More abundant heavy oxygen indicates colder water, hence a colder climate.

- FINDING: The light-to-heavy oxygen ratio doesn't change much from year to year, but beginning about <75,000 years> ago, the ocean temperatures drop 3-5 degrees C.

== #3 The vulcanologist

He collects and categorizes samples of volcanic ash from all over the world.

- DATING: Using a method based on the known decay rate of Uranium-238 (which is always present in volcanic magma), he can determine the date of an ash sample.

- PURPOSE: Given a sample of volcanic ash, he can examine its chemical properties and amazingly, tell you which volcano it came from (if it's a known volcano). It turns out that volcanic ash has sort of a DNA signature.

- FINDING: In 1990, he comes across some mysterious ash samples. They are mysterious because they were found in places thousands of miles apart. Typical volcanic eruptions send ash only a few hundred miles away. They are also mysterious because this ash comes from no known volcano. He determines that this ash is about <75,000 years> old.

== PUTTING IT TOGETHER

The independent work of these 3 scientists points to massive volcanic eruption about 75,000 years ago on a scale way beyond all known eruptions. Mount St. Helens and Krakatoa are almost nothing in comparison. This volcano pumped huge amounts of sulphuric acid into the atmosphere and created a prolonged drop in worldwide temperatures resulting in colder ocean temperatures.

They began looking for the volcano that produce this ash. After years of searching, he notices that the findings of matching samples increases as he gets closer to southeast Asia.

Finally, in 1994, he gets a sample from the shores of Lake Toba in the Indonesian island of Sumatra. Toba is a vast lake about 60 miles long and 20 miles wide, 1600 ft deep, with an island in the middle. (Photo: http://www.indonesiatraveling.com/I...). The ash from around this lake matched with the mysterious sample.

It turns out that Lake Toba is actually the caldera of an ancient volcano. After the eruption, the magma chamber below was emptied, and the land slumped to into it, creating a huge crater that eventually filled with rainwater, creating the lake. The island appeared later as a result of the magma chamber refilling.

== CONCLUSION

All of this calls the young earth hypothesis (that the earth is only ~10,000 years old) into question. What might you conclude?

1. God created the layers of ice in Greenland, the layers of sediment in the ocean, and the radioactive decay in the ash to create the appearance of age. Not only that, he (for some reason) made it all suggest a supervolcano eruption at Lake Toba 75,000 years ago, even though it never happened.

2. These scientists have nothing better to do that get involved in a massive conspiracy to produce evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years. They do this to give people an excuse to not believe the Bible.

3. The young earth hypothesis, and thus your interpretation of Genesis, is wrong.

so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus,

together with eternal glory.

This saying is trustworthy:

If we have died with him

we shall also live with him;

if we persevere

we shall also reign with him.

But if we deny him

he will deny us.

If we are unfaithful

he remains faithful,

for he cannot deny himself.

Remind people of these things

and charge them before God to stop disputing about words.

This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen.

Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to God,

a workman who causes no disgrace,

Unlike <OCF>, I'm an agnostic when it comes to dating. Jewish scholars in the First Century, working with the same Scriptures we use, came up with a different date for the age of the earth. Certainly they were not influenced by Darwinism! They placed the date about 2,000 years earlier than Archbishop Ussher's 4,004 B.C. If it doesn't seem much to you, it's still a pretty hefty percentage.

I will fight for Biblical inerrancy, but not for any mortal's inerrancy when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Genesis does not tell us, for instance, how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. Since sin and death had not yet come into the world, they might have been in the Garden for... thousands of years? Millions? We don't know. Adam's age is only give post-Expulsion. We are also not told what God was doing in the rest of the Earth outside the Garden, all that time.

At the same time, if you read books on geology or paleontology written in the 1920s, you'll find, for instance, the Cretaceous Period dated at 10 million years B.P. They're always changing the dating, and they'll change it again, just wait and see. As hard as it is to interpret Scripture, it's equally hard to interpret Nature!

You're welcome. I thought it was a fascinating show, and I think science in general is fascinating. Yes, scientists do love their work, which makes it inconceivable to me that, instead of doing science, they spend their time deliberately developing lies. It saddens me a bit that some Christians miss out on the wonders of science because they think it's anti-Bible.

<Unlike <OCF>, I'm an agnostic when it comes to dating. Jewish scholars in the First Century, working with the same Scriptures we use, came up with a different date for the age of the earth. Certainly they were not influenced by Darwinism! They placed the date about 2,000 years earlier than Archbishop Ussher's 4,004 B.C. If it doesn't seem much to you, it's still a pretty hefty percentage.>

One first century rabbi named Nechunya ben Hakana figured that the universe was about 15.3 billion years old. Another rabbi, Nahmanides, who lived 800 years ago, though the universe began as something smaller than a mustard seed, expanded, coalesced into matter and became the universe we see today.

Of course, these might have been lucky guesses that happen to agree largely with modern theory. But it does at least show that there are different ways to interpret, and that ancient scholars did not feel the need to date the universe based on counting generations recorded in the Bible.

<I will fight for Biblical inerrancy, but not for any mortal's inerrancy when it comes to interpreting Scripture.>

That has been one of my main arguments with <OhioChessFan>. He believes that the original scripture (which we don't have) was inerrant. I think he believes that copying is subject to error, translation is subject to error, and interpretation is subject to error. And yet, he effectively regards his *interpretation* of a *translation* of a *copied* original as being inerrant!

<At the same time, if you read books on geology or paleontology written in the 1920s, you'll find, for instance, the Cretaceous Period dated at 10 million years B.P. They're always changing the dating, and they'll change it again, just wait and see. As hard as it is to interpret Scripture, it's equally hard to interpret Nature!>

Yes, it can be hard to interpret scripture -- particularly parts that deal with very complex things, like creation. If God did use natural processes to bring the universe and life into being, would he be obligated to give Moses an explanation of how it happened? Or, might he just summarize the creation process from a perspective that is beyond our earthly notions of time and space, and start the discussion of life from a point in time that he deems relevant?

because you know from whom you learned it,

and that from infancy you have known the sacred Scriptures,

which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation

through faith in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching,

for refutation, for correction,

and for training in righteousness,

so that one who belongs to God may be competent,

Your inconsistency on this is staggering. Once again, if the scientists have to change their position, hurray, hurray, for the paragons of humanity, the scientists. If the creationists change, they have to shamefacedly crawl away from their previous position in abject humiliation. I don't expect you to agree with me that you have a terrible bias on this, but that's how I see it.>

I think you are (again) misrepresenting my position.

If someone (whether a creationist or scientist) changes his views based on better information, that *itself* is no cause for shame.

However, suppose that before changing his views, this person for a long time sticks dogmatically to his view *despite* better information. Not only that, he accuses those who provide the better information of being liars and calls those who accept the better information as fools. In that case, isn't it understandable that this person would feel some shame?

And yet, even in that case, it is more honorable to admit fault, apologise to those wrongly accused, accept the better view and move on rather than continue sticking with the wrong view and making false accusations.

Hmmm, this is another thing you do...

When we discussed this very matter a week or so ago, it ended with:

<May-27-10 OhioChessFan: <YouRang: In the same manner, the theory of evolution explains complex life emerging from simpler forms of life -- and that theory doesn't care how simple life first appeared. The theory of evolution would apply if God spoke simple life into existence, and it would apply if simple life emerged by some (as yet unexplained) natural process from things that we consider to be non-life.>

OCF: Okay, I have a handle on what you meant on that one. Let me think about it a while.>

Now you come back with the same claim that evolution depends on abiogenesis, oblivious to the previous discussion.

You seem intent on being befuddled. I don't believe that I've been inconsistent in how I've represented my views of science, but if you think otherwise, show me where and I'll explain.

<OhioChessFan: And "I'll think about it" means apparently, "Yes, YouRang, you are completely correct." >

No, but apparently with you, "I'll think about it" means "I'll ignore it.".

<OhioChessFan: But I guess I'll go search all your charges against religion/creationists and make sure you couch those all in terms of denying even though they had better information. I'm guessing we'll find that isn't what happened. >

<Now you come back with the same claim that evolution depends on abiogenesis, oblivious to the previous discussion. >