No, junk dna doesn't make sure dna replication is safe, that's not it's purpose. There are markers in the dna that will make sure it get's replicated correctly, but that's not the junk dna. I don't think the real purpose of the junk dna is known, but it does seem to indicate that it once could have been usefull dna and now just doesn't has a real purpose anymore. But with the right mutations, it can get usefull again, but yes I'm not sure if this was witnessed yet inside a laboratory.

Quote:

---

The problem is in a lazy designer. Well, if chimps and humans already have similar DNA, it stands to reason that much of their 'true' junk dna will be generated to be similar (even with a creator).

---

This argument seems to almost(?) contradict your 'degeneration' or 'downfall evolution' theory a bit don't you think? You seem to say that this human junk dna must be kinda the same as chimps, well if that's the case, why do you skip the possibility of a more direct relation between both species? (Sorry if I misunderstood something here.) If something is 98% the same (junk dna included), then don't you think it's enough similar to conclude both things are related?
Personally I wouldn't be very surprised if the junk dna is not really the same, that junk dna should be parts becomming inactive after a certain evolutionary step. Maybe the junk dna will be the same, when both species been through the same stage of evolution, but it would only prove their direct relation. You said it yourself, that you doubt certain evolutionary changes can happen more than 1 time.

I'm also quite sure the junk dna between different species of humans or monkeys is different too. Why exactly would you expect it to be similar?

Quote:

---

That's BS. Evolutionists (not scientists, so technically you may be right) guarantee we were evolved, they guarantee the universe is an accident, they guarantee life is an accident. There's a whole lot of guaranteeing going on.

---

I'm not sure which evolutionists claim to be able to guarantee that stuff, but I would definately not claim to be perfectly right. Like I said, scientists don't give guarantees, any scientist doing that nevertheless, is a bad scientist not being open enough for a different model. A theory, when not 100000% proven (which almost can't be), can not give guarantees.
I know some evolutionists probably kinda sunk into that swamp of believing only their own 'scientific' words, but you've got similar stuff going on at the religious side, I don't take those serious (for clarity; both evolutionists like that, or those extreme religious people denying any other possibility)..

Quote:

---

It really comes from a misunderstanding of the Biblical God. God has a set of parameters which He Himself has imposed upon Himself. In order for His integrity to remain intact, He would never be able to violate these parameters. So in a sense, God Himself lives under the subjection to a set of rules. It seems hard to imagine or conceive of God being subject to rules, but it is Biblically proven through statements such as "It is impossible for God to lie"

---

Thanks for this explanation. But God get's parameters just to be able to evade my kind of questions, again I doubt the biblical content. I'm not saying God can't be limited, he is a God afterall, so he could very well be anything you like.
My problem is still the source off such claims. Old news or not, I don't think a lot of these arguments against the biblical god have be succesfully defended at all, but that's not really this thread's topic. On the other hand, God is a very central thing when it comes to your creation theory, so ...

Quote:

---

This situation seems to undermine natural selection in that if these sequences are indeed useless, why wouldnt they have been selected out? The law of conservation in evolution weeds out useless machinations. This is easily observable in bee colonies where workers are executed when their usefulness has ended. It is a very efficient natural system seen all throughout nature.

---

They are selected out, there's just still traces/parts left off dna that once had a function. Dna information doesn't simply dissappear when it becomes defect. Genetic information that's neutral or positive, will stay, I think this junk dna is quite neutral.

Cheers