Posts by Danny

Global warming to stone US kidneys

Kidney stones

Well I done did lived in tha South mah whole life and I aint never had no kidney stone. Even when it was pert near 100 degrees I aint got stoned up. Caught a round a buckshot in mah liver back in 42' tho.

Cardiff 'copter coppers give chase to UFO

reply to min

"...what them creationist folk will have to say if the american with the 'hellfire' suggestion had his way, and this (very obviously UFO, since no one knew what it was) thing got shot down and them ale-yuns wriggled out of the wreckage. another hoax perhaps?

just remember that what we seem to understand about the physics of the universe is infantile...

but then again, what WOULD the creationists say?? lol." - min

Hmmmm, that's funny because I wonder what evolutionaries would say if we do not find life on Mars. We're spending billions of dollars looking for life there. Many scientists believe that Mars was once covered by water even though it is very dry now (compared to Earth). Yet, these same people balk at a global flood here on Earth even though a large percentage of the Earth's surface is covered by water, there are massive features carved by water all over the earth, and there are billions of dead things deposited by water found all over the Earth. Just wondering though.

Biologists track down elusive lungless frog

evolution proven?

so bogsheet, by your arguments, evolution is a proven fact, (and what was the name of the scientific study that proved it?) I believe in "completely foundless non-scientific fairy-tales" because I don't use random chance to explain how the universe miraculously appeared from nothing, (I guess Einstein and Newton were idiots huh, and definitely not scientists) Genesis was written 2000 years ago, (maybe 4000 is closer but who's counting right?), and ancient people were imbeciles because they did not have the glorious gift of science. (So science is a recent invention? You are such a genius! Why didn't I see it before! Um wait, science has been around since the first person asked "why", never mind. Oh, and you also said...

"For people nowadays there is no such excuse."

But check this out...

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20 (emphasis mine)

You can call me unscientific all you want but some of the greatest scientific minds of all time believed in God the creator. In fact, they felt that science explained how God operated in the natural world. It is only recently that the high priests of evolution have tried to squash all opposing views and declare that anything other than a completely natural explanation means that you are in no way scientific.

I don't subscribe to your religion.

Not evolution but adaptation

Being that there is a severe lack of of ID or creationist's viewpoint here- I would have to point out that this is not evolution at all. Unless you can prove that genetic information was gained there is now way you can call this molecules-to-man evolution whether it is backwards or forward. It is more likely that genetic information has been lost in this species. Unless you have not noticed a loss of genetic information works against the idea of evolution. See finches, cave spiders, and fruit flies for examples of a loss of genetic information leading to adaptation. You guys have it backwards. Genetic information is being lost, not created. God created all life but it is slowly eroding genetically since the fall. See Genesis. Let the blasting away begin! And sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors. After all I am American and a creationist so I am basically at caveman level by evolutionary standards.

Fundy dunderheads make monkey of monkey man

2 Things

1st

This is a documentary about ID not creationism. I know that in your zeal to promote meaningless in the universe you lump them into one group but this is not correct. They actually have very different views and one movement is not based on the other despite what the media reports that this is so.

2nd

Dawkins is not the only to be deceived. Bill Maher snuck into the creation museum before it opened.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2007/02/07/hbos-bill-maher-and-the-plot-to-deceive-aig/

US teacher fired for non-literal bible reading

back at david

"Then there is God leaving false clues like dinosaurs and geology."

Ummm. false clues? We have the same clues, just different interpretations, you use a view based on long ages and uniformitarianism. I have a view based on a catastrophic flood that caused all of the geological formations that we see today and wiped out nearly all life (including dinos). We all have same facts just different presuppositions.

Title

"Current thinking by scientists is that our universe is part of a multi-verse"

hmmmmmm...

I challenge you to find the least shred of evidence for this. This assumption would be completely based on faith because there is no way to prove it.

"My memory at the ripe old age of 29 gets a little patchy but the bible says that Adam and Eve are exiled from the garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit. If creationism is right, can somebody tell me where it is then cos it'll be a hell of (or should that be heavenly) holiday destination."

You are correct about Adam and Eve! However after they were exiled God forbade them to enter it again. God placed an angel in charge of keeping people out of Eden. The Bible does not say what happened to Eden after that but it does say that the Earth was deluged and destroyed so it would be a reasonable assumption that Eden was destroyed as well. You can find all of this in about the first 11 chapters of Genesis if you want to refresh your memory.

not right...

Here is a shocker - I believe Genesis literally but I also don't believe that the prof should have been fired. We supposedly have free speech here. He has a right to express his views, especially outside of the classroom, which is when he called Genesis a fairy tale. Even in the classroom he should have the right as long as he qualifies that it is his opinion. I have no problem when people share their opinions on origins, or science, or anything else, as long as they are willing to treat me with the same respect when I voice mine.

Oh, and you guess you get tripped up on the talking snake bit like I get tripped up on the universe suddenly appearing out of no where from nothing. hmmmmm. Sounds a little unbelieveable huh? Well, you may say that you have never seen a talking snake. So, I have never seen a universe spontaniously appear from nothing.

Chinese tuck into Texas turtles

A word from Texas...

OK, I am all for protecting the turtles from getting wiped out. BUT, these things are everywhere around here. My family keeps a number of tanks stocked with catfish and bass and other fish here on my grandparent’s farm. The turtles take over our tanks and reproduce like mad. It's almost like you could walk across the pond just by stepping on turtle backs. I seriously doubt they are in danger just yet. Besides, if we run out there is always the endless supply of water moccasins.

Cheers to the Chinese!

Speedy evolution saves blue moon butterflies

Local flood leads to incest

Ian,

So you are saying that Genesis teaches a local flood. The following is from Genesis (my emphasis added)

"For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the ENTIRE heavens were covered. The waters rose and COVERED the MOUNTAINS to a depth of more than TWENTY FEET. EVERY living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, ALL the creatures that swarm over the earth, and ALL mankind. EVERYTHING on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. EVERY living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. ONLY Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." Genesis 7:18 - 23

The text is pretty clear about the extent of the flood. If you refuse to belive the text, that is your own problem. You are making yourself look silly by saying Genesis teaches a local flood however. You are simply trying to stick your uniformitarianism where it can never fit.

On the other hand, Peter has a very well written response with valid objections.

Peter,

You bring up a valid point with very real objections. Basically, you are asking a very commonly asked question: "Where did Cain get his wife?"

I wish I had all day to comment on this but unfortunately my time is short. Here is a link to AiG dealing with this very issue. It should answer all your questions on this subject. I apologize for not taking the time to type it all out here, but as you said, I don't want to spend all week doing this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

Thanks for a reply with intelligence that actually deals with my points and does not resort to name calling.

Danny

floored

"The scriptures do not need to be interpreted at all, for God is well able to say exactly what He means. They need simply to be read as the writer intended them to be read, then believed and obeyed. Morris's words, while sincere, are simplistic."

Sounds good to me. Maybe you missed this:

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." 2 Peter 3:3-6

If you missed that I’ll add this:

"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all." Luke 17:26

BTW, the above is Jesus speaking. If you don't believe the words of Jesus himself then who will you believe? Ross? You just called the ark that God told Noah to build an impossibility. Your argument is not with me but with the Lord himself.

Danny

Response

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." 2 Peter 3:3-6

Of all the responses, Ian's cuts the deepest. I don't expect any less than the responses that I received from the rest of you. But Ian's own beliefs are in contradiction. Ian, consider the following from H.G. Wells:

"If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed like a house of cards."

You cannot take away the history of Genesis without destroying the message of the gospel.

I am all too familiar with Dr. Hugh Ross. I suggest you read Refuting Compromise by Jonathan Sarfati. I read it and it totally challenged the way I view scripture. Please don’t give up on the history of the Bible to allow for man’s fallible, materialistic, and humanistic interpretation of the “facts”.

Danny

To no name provided aka "strawman"

You are putting words in my mouth, you said:

"According to your reasoning, there is no place for sciences such as geology, astronomy, or even sociology and linguistics, to the extent that they are heavily based on observations of the present effects of events that occurred in the past, and less amenable to free experimentation."

But this is not according to my reasoning. This is a STRAWMAN argument that you have constructed. Geology is a study of the physical and chemical history of the earth. I believe geology is very important. My point is that in interpreting scientific facts you are doing so according to biases.

You also said:

"The funny thing is that everybody who affirms that the world was created a few thousands years ago, is also making a very strong statement against a huge amount of observations across many scientific disciplines, from physics to chemistry to astronomy to geology. Those people are free to believe what they want, but they should be aware that they are negating not only the "theory of evolution" but also most of the current state of knowledge across many scientific disciplines."

But what is really funny is that you are negating about 90% or better of the scientific evidence that the earth is young. Here is a collection of articles on this issue:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Also, you said I probably never wondered how a computer worked but this is an IT professional website. I am an IT professional (Although, I usually deal with why computers don't work). This is just another strawman. And since, as you admit, evolution cannot be recreated in a lab or observed, you might want to look at some of the evidence against it.

Your last paragraph is one big strawman. I never said evolution is not a science. So basically, in conclusion, you spent five paragraphs putting words in my mouth and then disputing those false arguments.

Danny

To J

J,

Your appeal to authority does not impress me. I have a brain and I use it. I have every right to provide links to Answers in Genesis to support my view. For someone who claims to have a PhD, it is childish to resort to name calling. You have not made any counter points to anything I have said. BTW, evolution is a PHILOSOPHICAL science because it is not observable or repeatable, but based on a pre-suppositional belief system. If you have done some sort of experiment to prove molecules-to-man evolution then we would all like to know. I look at the same facts as you but I interpret them according to my prior beliefs, as you do.

Childish, utterly childish. Is name calling the best you guys can do?

And why don't you guys provide a CLEAR definition of what evolution is. Your definition switching is ridiculous. I am referring to the GTE (general theory of evolution). Molecules-to-man evolution is what I am disputing.

Keep your PhD. I want someone to respond to my ARGUMENTS. I could care less about you personal opinions on my intelligence. At least I can craft counter points.

(I swear, sometimes I feel like Neo in the Matrix battling agent Smith with one arm while I am getting bored thinking about something completely different)

Danny

To Niel,

I would love to answer that! Kiwi's are a descendant of a bird that was on the ark. This bird may have had the ability to fly or it may have gotten to New Zealand by a floating debris island. (Don't tell me I can't use that argument because I here the debris island argument from evolutionists a lot. After the flood there could have been debris in the oceans or from other natural disasters or naturally occurring circumstances.)

Anyway, through natural selection and adaptation to its environment the Kiwi no long resembles any other currently living bird so scientists call it a new "species".

Humans are (were) flightless, how did they get to New Zealand?

The problem with Noah's ark is that if that story were true we would find millions of dead things buried in layers all across the globe... oh wait, that is what we find!

Here is link to answer all of your questions regarding Noah and the Ark:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp

Danny

To Mr. Dotes

You said...

""Surely it's useless to point out there's a definite difference between evolution and speciation"

It certainly is pointless. The religious nutters think (and I use the term "think" in the most charitable way possible) that "intelligent design" is scientific; ergo, they wouldn't recognize real science it if jumped up and bit them on the nose.

Personally, I think all those people who think religion should rule in the real world should go live in Iran, where religion *does* rule in the real world.

Trying to explain scientific fact to the religious is about us useful as teaching kelp to drive, and about as much fun as masturbating with a cheese grater."

But you believe that everything formed from nothing for no reason at all through natural processes. I think I have far less faith than you. Just because YOU disagree with it does not mean it is not science. Anyway, I am not a religious person. I don't practice ceremonies or rituals. I just believe in the God that created heaven and earth.

Danny

re @ Danny

No name,

All this sounds technical but you are missing the point. For example, you say horses and donkeys can interbreed because they are only a few thousand generations apart. But you believe this because you have a presuppositional belief in evolution. You believe this not because the facts compel you to but because you are compelled by your biases to interpret facts in that way. I start with the presupposition that the Bible is correct. I interpret the facts upon that bias and I say donkeys and horses can interbreed because they shared a common ancestor with more genetic variety than either have horses or donkeys have now.

I am sorry to say this because you seem like a smart person but the following is rubbish:

"The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system entropy will always go up. Life becoming more organised is a decrease in entropy, but the cost of that order is increased entropy in the form of heat expenditure, turning organised matter into less organised energy."

First of all, we are not dealing with a closed system. Secondly:

"The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed."

(Quote from the link provided in the above post)

Also, name calling is childish. You may think that I am an IDiot but I don't even subscribe to the ID movement because, while they have some good arguments, they also have many contradictions. I suggest taking some time to learn the difference between a Biblical creationists and an ID person. It is frustrating to always be associated with them.

Also, a refrigerator does not lower entropy. The food inside does not become more complex. The refrigerator only slows the breaking down of the food. And it does not even do that well, as anyone who eats takeout a week later can tell you.

You are also missing the point with the programming language. A language cannot create itself from nothing or from chaos. (back to thermodynamics, this is a fundamental principle of the universe, I just don't see how you guys miss this)

Also you said,

"Evolution is a massive computer program and our genetic structure actually uses reflection to modify itself, so that while the program is running it actually also has a chance of rewriting small parts of itself (mutation)"

A mutation is a copying error. Errors in a programing language lead to errors in the execution of the software. Some mutations are harmless, many are destructive or imparing. Very few are beneficial. Mutations cannot build a primordial soup into a human. It goes against the natural laws of the way the universe opperates.

Every generation that reproduces is passing on more and more errors in the genetic code. There are processes in place that catch and repair errors but many still make it through if there are similar errors on the same place in the sequence. We are winding down, not up. We are moving from order to disorder. This is how the universe operates.

Danny

Rob goes bananas?

Rob,

Selective breeding in bananas would cause a decrease in genetic information. So I am not sure if you are trying to use this as an argument for evolution. Seems kind of silly if you are.

Highly selective breeding in dogs create mutant creatures like poodles. The problem for evolutionists is that they have a loss of genetic information. The only way to regain useful genetic information would be to interbreed with another type of dog.

Danny

nutural selection

Since when does evolution own the rights to natural selection? I say again, as I always do- this in no way supports molecules-to-man evolution! Random mutations could never account for enough gain in genetic information to go from "primordial soup" to humans. Every time this claim is made in the news lately they are shocked at how fast evolution is occurring. But natural selection almost always causes a decrease in genetic information. You are working genetics the wrong way. We started with great diversity of genetic information and we are working our way toward less variety of genetic possibilities. As IT professionals you should know better. Non-information cannot give rise to information. Genetic information is almost like a programming language. To say that information created itself out of nothing is ludicrous. It goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics anyway.

Link for Thermodynamics:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp

Link for why you don't own the rights to natural selection and it really supports my position anyway:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp

Good day

Danny

Winning the (propaganda) war on cancer

Outstanding!

As someone who has had cancer in the past and may face it again, I have to say this is an excellent article. I wish every article in the Science section of the Reg were this well written. Thank you Thomas!

Creationists open biblical history museum

worth responding to...

. , now here is a post worth responding to. You said, "Adaption and Natural Selection are the drivers for evolution. Eventually resulting in species change as an inevitable result of multiple changes. So, there's no problem to go from molecules to man given sufficient time."

Then you said, "Natural Selection doesn't have to increase the amount of genetic information. As far as I am aware no one claims it does. Mutation adds information..."

So we are both claiming that natural selection supports our opposing theories. The difference is that I believe we started with more information and are slowly ending up with less. You believe (if I may make the assumption) that life started with no information and eventually mutations led to the genetic information we have today. First of all, information can not come from non-information but I suppose that is another debate. The biggest difference between us is our belief in mutations ability to add useful genetic information. Certainly, mutations have been observed, but most are not helpful to an organism. There are few (and I stress few) situations where you could argue that a mutation has been helpful. But, as far as a mechanism to progress from a single celled organism to a human that seems like a stretch. Either way, natural selection and speciation are not exclusive to evolution and do not conflict with my view.

My qualifications?

Fon, where are anyones qualifications that are posting here? Do you need them just because I don't agree with your position? First of all, if read my previous posts I have addressed the misinformation concerning Galileo. Go on, have a look:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp

Maybe I should explain the basics of how to debate a point with someone. I make statement such as the above about natural selection, and then you make a rebuttal. Simply saying that I don't know the basics does not refute my argument.

and

"As many authors have said, this tiny planet is just a tiny dot, going round a tiny boring sun, in an insignificant outer part of the universe, that no-one really visits, like some of the deepest deserts on earth, where no-one would expect to find anything remotely interesting..."

I find that a planet that is just the right distance from its star with just the right size moon and the exact tilt to be fairly interesting. Looks like were an oasis in a desert.

Lions, Tigers, and the Pope, Oh my!

To Pascal Monett,

I'm not Catholic and the Pope is not God.

To the rest of you who say that evolution has been observed today you are mistaken. Adadptaion and natural selection can be observed but this does not support molecules to man evolution. Neo-Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution requires genetic information to be added. According to evolutionary thinking, increases in genetic information over time, usually through mutations, leads to new species. However, Darwin's finches do not support this definition of evolution. In fact, they work against it. The finches that recently made headlines have been observed to have shorter beaks and this change has occurred over a very short period of time. The problem is that natural selection does not lead to an increase in genetic information, it leads to a decrease. Organisms that have the ability to adapt to their environment do so by genetic variety. In other words, they already have the genetic information available to make the necessary change. Once an organism adapts to an environment it may lose its genetic ability to change back to its original form. This can be seen in places where a species adapts to the point where it no longer interbreeds with the species it branched off from.

A loss of genetic information works against the idea of evolution. Take dogs for example. All dogs are descended from a wolf-type animal. There are thousands of types of dogs today. The problem for evolutionists is that they are all still dogs. Many breeds that people spend hundreds of dollars for today have serious health problems because they do no not have the genetic variety that their ancestors possessed. This explains why mutts are generally hardier than a pure breed. They have regained some of their genetic information that was lost to specialized breeding.

Natural selection and the loss of genetic information fits better with the biblical idea of the created “kinds”.

"And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:24-25

Response to Question

Blain,

In response to Galileo:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp

In response to nasty bugs:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0216bird_flu.asp

Jesus at Creation?

Steven, it must have been a while. Try reading the book of John again. All things were created through God's Son. It was not until later that He took the form of a man to redeem his creation.

To many others who have responded, there is only a couple of creationists posts here. I am curious. Which ones are intolerant? Hmmmm... Looks like were not the ones not tolerating beliefs here. This looks like a double standard.

Many “experts” today who do not believe in a universal standard of truth or morals suggest that we ought to tolerate everyone's beliefs. “But 'ought' implies a moral absolute that toleration is good.”- Sarfati

Danny takes one on the cheek...

Rob,

God already left a message but it's not on your phone. I appreciate a good sense of humor but seriously I hope that you will take the time to read the Bible if you have not already. When all of the joking is over there is still a inescapable truth. Now, if you will excuse me I am late for my flat earth society meeting. <--- Sarcasm tag!

To Hugh_Pym and Nev

Hugh_Pym

I am glad you checked out the site. Believing in the Bible as the final authority is the whole point. Yes, I read all of the posts but I would only bother responding to those posts that are not an open attack as opposed reasoned response.

Nev

"What so "scientific" about interpreting data"

Need I say more?

Rob,

Thanks for the reply. Actually, you can meet him. His name is Jesus...

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9

Enoch?

The book of Enoch, while it is an enjoyable read is not verifiable for the time period for which it is supposed to have been written. It was very interesting however.

Wise in your own eyes...

Most of you assume that evolution is true because you presuppose in your own mind that naturalism can explain origins. This is false. You can make many wild guesses but you were not there. Creationists interpret scientific data according to the Bible because we have the Word of someone who was there. It is not science that disagrees with the Bible. It is evolutionary thought that disagrees with the Bible. You interpret the same data creationists interpret, only according to your own naturalistic bias. Either you believe the Bible or you don't. But acting like you are so mentally superior to creationists because they believe the Word of God is childish. To those of you who have not evolved past the point of having an open mind, try checking out www.answersingenesis.org

Danny

Orange doles out an IOU to Christian pareidolians

Re: Re: Re: Why oh Why

John 15:18 NIV

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."

-Jesus

Top scientists list favourite gizmos

You are all wrong!

The indoor flush toilet...

Is an artificial eye close to reality?

Blind see colors by touch?

Here is a simple experiment. I did this many times as a kid with a near 100% success rate.

Get a Nerf brand football (american football) that has one side black and the other side any other color. (Mine was black and bright orange. I'm sure they still sell them.) Keep the football away from any intense lightsource such as sunlight coming in through a window. This will make ensure that it has a uniform temperature and one side is not over-heated. Close your eyes and hold the football in your hand turning it over and over until you have no idea which is the black side. Keeping your eyes closed turn the ball more slowly and feel the temperature of the ball with your finger tips. After some practice you can sense a very slight difference in temperature between the two colors. The warmer side is the black side. I could guess it nearly every time. I guess I was pretty board in those days. Try it before you knock it.

Danny

What is a Cro-Magnon man?

incontrovertible fact?

Actually, I reject both ideas and I also reject that evoltuion is a proven fact. If you have a "proof" of evolution I would like to see it. (I realize that it is hard to debate in the comments section of an online article)

I believe in the history of the Bible and that God created the universe and all life in 6 literal days. I would love to debate with you but I am warry of posting my email address in an article that is viewable by the entire world.

A fact?

In response to Matthew,

You pre-suppose that evoltuion is true because you have a prior commitment to materialism. Evolution has not been proven as a fact and it is absurd to say that it has. Just because a view is widely held does not mean that it is fact. Basically what you are saying is that you have decided that evolution must be true so you are going to interpret any facts you find accordingly. If you believe that the earth is millions of years old then why can c14 be found in diamond samples all over the world? I find evolution harder to belive than creationism. Evolution says that the information in our DNA resulted from natural processes but natural processes have never been shown to produce information. Information cannot be produced from non-information, just like life is not observed to come from non-life.

Nonsense?

"...established theory is not a mere exercise in supposition but is our best knowledge, based on all the evidence available to us and on sound logic. It does not help to offer our own deeply-felt convictions as "fact"."

I do not see how evolution could be offered as the best interpretation of the evidence. The "facts" show that life does not come from non-life and information does not come from non-information. Evolution claims both of these. Evolutionists hang on to their beliefs despite the fact that repeatable observational science contradicts them.

Why does natural selection take so long to get results?

Evidence please?

David,

Thank you for your comments. I especially like the red vs. blue argument. I'll have to remember that one. If red changed to blue then it would no longer be red. Being an artist, I can relate to this. The fact is that red can never be changed to blue no matter what colors you add because they are both primary colors! But thanks for playing.

Colors are not why I'm posting a reply comment though. I am posting a reply because you said that if I "take a look at the fossil and DNA patterns of - interestingly - birds, you find that at one time they were, in fact, dinosaurs" I have yet to see these "patterns" in fossils or DNA. Could you provide the evidence for these?

You also said, "At some point, they changed quite a bit, stopped being dinosaurs, and were birds. I'm oversimplifying for expediency's sake, but that's the basic idea."

That's a wonderful idea, but please do elaborate. It seems like nothing more than a hypothesis to me. At what point did dinos become birds? Where is an example of a scale transitioning into a feather? When they are found in the fossil record they are found in their current, moddern form.

Lastly, please do not associate me with ID. I know who my creator is. Thanks for the intelligent reply!

Danny

One kind to another?

Natural selection through changes in an environment can lead to changes in an organism. That is why we see so many different species around the globe. However, natural selection has never been shown to change an organism from one type to another. The yeast mentioned in this article is still yeast. A bird can adapt to a new environment and get a label as a new species of bird. But, it is still a bird. The genetic information for it to adapt was already present. Do not place your faith in natural selection. It may help an organism survive in a new environment but it will never prove 'goo to you' evolution.

What's this 'scotomisation' in The Da Vinci Code?

Kind of like...

Kinda like seeing an entire walking whale from a peice of skull fragment??? Maybe scotomisation affects evoltuionaries worse than the rest of us?