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

IMO, you're focusing in on variations of DNA, when you should be focusing on the wonderful complexity of DNA. As we are learning about cells and DNA, we are finding out how wonderfully complex these, once thought quite simple, really are. They are designed in such a complex manner that the odds are impossible that they could assemble themselves into what they are by evolutionary chance senarios.Consider this: Hydrogen and oxygen are volatile agents of combustion, but the same are the only ingredients of water which douses combustion. The designer/creator of these must've had a chuckle, thinking about folks like you when he designed it all so mindbogglingly inexplicable.

quote:

---

Science works like this: An observation is made that makes someone inductively derive a hypothesis. They basically go ?hmmm, I wonder if this larger idea I have explains the observation X?? They then go on to make predictions, data that should be discovered if the hypothesis is indeed true. This is how a hypothesis is tested, by means of the predictions it makes. So, any data, like the existence of transitional forms, possessing characters between later taxa in the fossil record is perfectly valid, logical, evidence of evolution.

---

IMO, much better to do the geometry thing rather than to begin theorizing up ideas with the unknown. Better to assemble the known and work to determine the unknown from that. IMO, there ought to be billions of observable transitionary fossils to warrant a move toward TOE.BTW, I listened to a study on the odds of DNA existing without intelligent design and it is impossible. I don't remember the details, but the this's n that's of the formation of DNA all must be timed by exact senarios with odds beyond anything possible.

quote:

---

: buz:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO, there ought to be billions of observable transitionary fossils to warrant a move toward TOE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Pamboli:
Why?

---

Why not, since there's so many of the present forms. The more mobile and intelligent the creature, the fewer fossils, simply because more of these were more likely to seek high ground or float on debris, if the disaster were a flood, so as not to be suddenly buried to become fossilized. Sudden burial and fossilization on such a massive scale as is observed implies a flood.

quote:

---

Science works like this: An observation is made that makes someone inductively derive a hypothesis. They basically go ?hmmm, I wonder if this larger idea I have explains the observation X?? They then go on to make predictions, data that should be discovered if the hypothesis is indeed true.

---

This kind of thinking, imo is what leads evolutionists rediculous extremes like constructing an alleged ape-man transitionary from a tooth or a jawbone. Wouldn't it be more scientific and sensible to observe and consider the impossible odds of so many billions of random formations of complex things like dna, cells, human brains and trees to say "Hmmm, the odds here are highly indicative that some intelligent entity had to do all this?"

Mark: What about the thousands of other fossil hominid bones?Buz:
1. But how many alleged hominid bones comprise a total or near total hominid at a single site?
2. How many at a single site which comprise a complete or near complete entity have been proven to, in fact, be hominid?Can you furnish documentation to either of the above?

quote:

---

What was the odds of DNA occurring naturally that is actually a position theorised in science?

---

"Theorized" odds? That sounds quite guessy. Shouldn't odds be mathmatically calculated determinations?I saw the math on it but all I remember is that it was impossible odds.The following statement which is broader in scope does not show the math, but the statements, imo, make sense.

quote:

---

Random Chance Odds

​

The odds of random chance generating an ecologically unique environment essential to produce and sustain organic life on Planet Earth is mathematically less likely than 6-billion blindfolded humans simultaneously solving a Rubik cube puzzle---three times in a row.

​

Protein’s Left-handed Building Blocks

​

Proteins use “left-handed” building blocks. DNA & RNA use only “right-handed” building blocks. Natural forms come in a 50-50 mixture. Evolutionism offers no “scientific” explanation for the cause or the process.

---

creationdigest - informations les plus rcentes et jour

quote:

---

What evidence, in and of itself, devoid of interpretive bias, indicates a miraculous creation event no more than 10,000 years ago?

---

Imo, all so called evidence, both claimed by creationists and evolutionists is not in and of itself, devoid of interpretive bias.The more complex we find things like cells and DNA to be, the more the creationist can observe the evidence and conclude that these didn't assmble and progress without intelligent design. Too many timely senarios are required for everything to happen by accident.