Fact Theory Falacy

"And you can get new features in the organism that is formed by those genes. It's got nothing to do with forming a new chain of whatever length: the outcome is the new features in the organism, not a 'longer chain'."
--Yes I realize that,this wasn't my argument though, it was a simplified form of can you expand the length of the strand and add new nucleotides in the chain, thus changing it in this way. If so, then I think I need to read my bio book, I don't think I am equipt enough to debate this argument, with my very little biological knowledge on molecular levels. After I am done with Marine Geology if I don't put my face in another book I will read my biology book, its quite thick and seems to have good information. My interest is in too many fields, g whiz.--I believe that the nylon digesting bacteria was an example of this, I must say, I find it as one of the best examples I have been able to find and even ask for, it seems all of the other ones were debunked by logic. I applaud its inquiry.------------------

"Riddle me this
Why is it that all the greatest thinkers on this planet belive in things that directly contradict the word of god?"
--Unfortunatelly you can't even support your accusation."Are they possessed?"
--Nope."Are they stupid?"
--No, but someone that posted this message could be, ignorant mabye?"Are they missing something that you highly educated creationists know?"
--Mabye its more of, what you don't know? Support your accusations.
"What is it that made Einstein and Steven Hawking believe in evolution?"
--I'm not sure, but what about the other famous scientists who were creationists?"Riddle me this
riddle me that"
--Your in a new debate now, find a new style, it seems to have the wrong stamp all over it."can you pull a rabbit, out of your hat (yeah, you, the creationists! Can you answer that one without metioning Satan?)"
--Who mentioned Satan? Could it possibly be ignorance? You seriously need to quickly adjust to an 'intelligent' conversational debate and discussion, as I think your experience comes from something more along the lines of a yahoo chatroom.-----------------

"What famous scientists who were creationists (POST darwin, if you please, preferably in the last 50 years or so)?"
--This is a good book on the subject: In Six Days - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation - http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-117------------------

"i would still be able to sell the oil for a rediculous amount of money and still collect the ransom. its not like the entire world can go from gas to water in even a year."
--If oil source were depleted to that degree, naturally produced oil would be worth more than platinum. I don't really get the point of the argument, but oh well (shrugs).------------------

"i dont think there is a point"
--I think we strayed way out of the context of the intended usage of this thread, it seemed to start its backdrop way back towards post #3 of this thread!------------------

"I'll try again, since my last attempt failed. I didn't ask for a book about creationists who had some scientific qualifications. I asked WHAT famous scientists who were/are creationist (post darwin, preferably in the last 50 years)? Can you even supply ONE?"
--What are your requirnments for being 'famous'.------------------

"Would Arthur E. Wilder-Smith count? He had 3 Doctorates."
--Wow 3? Wasn't aware of that, in what areas? I plan on getting minimally 1, depending on my marital statis I'll shoot for 2 or 3. I don't know about you guys, but I love science. ------------------

"Oh boy. Find a dictionary. Open it to where it shows the definition of the word 'famous'. Bingo!"
--If thats the catagorial listing capability, you might want to add a good portion of the AiG and ICR Gang.------------------

"No TC - that's the infamous list! ;-)"
--Oh IC, so its a matter of opinion is it?------------------

"Ummm...no. Note the request asked for 'famous scientists'. People like Gish, Hovind, et. al. might well be famous, but they're not scientists."
--Refer to previous post, it seems you gave me a definition that simply states is 'well known'. By your logic, the word is extreamly flexible.------------------