Could any creationist explain the DNA-differences from a sudden creation?

quote:

---

And when it comes to complexity, DNA isn't all that snazzy. The individual nucleotides are middling-fancy molecules, all right, but there are only four of them in long, monotonous chains. Not even remotely as complex as the proteins they code for.

---

The operative word here is "code", which the largest supercomputers in the world have not been able to decipher.But then again, those supercomputers aren't all that snazzy either since they rely on a mere binary code occurring in long monotonous chains of zeros and ones.

quote:

---

This is why, the next time TOE comes into a court room, it will be a long and drawn out case, because TOE cannot stand in a court of law. And if TOE cannot stand in a court of law by objectivity, then it does not stand outside of a court of law by objectivity to those who have no emotional attatchment to it.

---

Absolutely correct. Funny thing is, all legitimate scientific theories CAN be established in a court of law. ToE cannot. Unfortunately, ToE won't submit itself to objective inquiry in a court of law (never has btw), so you will need a legal theory alleging a cause of action to get yourself there. In the United States, the time is ripe for a constitutional challenge to the teaching of evolution in public schools since it directly contradicts the creationist religions in gross violation of the 1st amendment. This issue has never been visited upon the courts.But if you really want to have some fun, ask an evolutionist to define "evidence"!! Their attempts at responding will only demonstrate how subjective the alleged evidence for evolution is.ToE does claim to have some meager circumstantial evidence, however, but it falls far short of excluding every other reasonable hypothesis of creation. Indeed, ToE has neither circumstantial nor direct evidence for abiogenesis and, more important, there is ZERO direct evidence for macroevolution (the evos just love that word!). So what makes their assumption of abiogenesis more valid than the next? I submit it is for most the a priori commitment to atheism or agnosticism. No human being is bias free, especially those who have built their whole careers on the evolution canard.The biggest problem with the alleged circumstantial evidence for evolution is that it is not relevant at all, only conditionally relevant (if that). Problem is, ToE can't provide either direct or circumstantial evidence of the conditions! Therefore, one must conclude that the whole theory is irrelevant to science and has been utterly worthless to mankind; it certainly has had no relevant application ever to any meaningful advancement of real science.Anyway, have fun. I'm gonna get the popcorn.

[This off-topic post has been moved to Message 26 of the Zephan: What is Evidence? thread. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 03-29-2003]

Hey Mark,Predictions about the past aren't predictions at all, they are, as Phos indicated, assumptions. Phylogeny itself is an assumption, not a prediction. The predictions of evolution have never panned out and evos weasil out of this all the time by saying evolution is just special to science and it need not be demonstrated in real time or predict something meaningful about the future. See Fruit Fly experiments. They always remained flies, did they not?Just thought I'd help steer you back on course! Back to my popcorn now.