Quote:

The point of the post is that there are scientists that believe in creation. This means that the two are not mutually exclusive or that religion and science are at odds with each other and this was the point of my lists



Not religion and science. Only creationism and science. When I estimate that there are about 6 million scientists in the world (10 scientists per 10,000 people), your list means that about 0.001% scientists and engineers believe in creationism. Thats even well below the usual 2% whacko rate.

Quote:

Actually, no. This is not correct. You would need to know at least the original amount of energy put into the stone (the original velocity of the stone). Without knowing this you cannot accurately determine the starting place of the stone's throw. For example, if a kid throws a stone and you only see it just before it hits the ground (i.e. at the point where the force of gravity is overtaking the inertia of the stone) or if someone fired the stone from a sling shot (more initial inertia) and you see it at the point just before it hits the ground then you are only seeing the stone (in both cases) with approx. the same amount of energy. You cannot therefore know from how far the stone was thrown or shot. There are just too many variables in this situation.



Hmm. A stone hitting the ground at position (x,y) and speed vector (vx,vy,vz) was thrown from the starting position (x-2vx*vz/g,y-2vy*vz/g), neglecting the air friction.

Quote:

For generation after generation the same type of bird nests in the same way without deviation. This observation would indicate that birds did not all begin nesting on the ground and then evolve into tree nesting animals. Instead, this observation would lend itself to the idea that a Robin has always built its nest in the same manner.



The Robin, yes. But one of his evolutionary predecessors, probably not.

The fact that you can't observe the back side of the moon does not mean that the back side of the moon does not exist.

Quote:

I am sure you have heard the old phrase, "You can't get something from nothing!" How can a mutation (and a random one at that) add information that was not there before?



As a kid I owned an electronics experiments kit, consisting of a number of components like transistors, capacitors, batteries, lights, a loudspeaker, and so on. The components were placed in plastic cubes with magnetic contacts along the edges, so you could build all sorts of electronic devices by just placing the cubes together in the form of the desired circuit.

I noticed that when shuffling the cubes so that they fell together in a random order, mostly nothing happened, but sometimes the loudspeaker would produce a tone, like clicking, beeping or humming, or sometimes the light was flickering. The random cluster of components formed circuits like oscillators, phase shifters, or amplifiers.

This is what also happens in the DNA all the time. Information can come out of seemingly nothing. But it's not "nothing" of course. It's the energy put in by shuffling the components. There's no magic involved. Information gain in the gene pool requires an energy transfer that increases the entropy of the overall system.

Quote:

Are you actually saying that the birds that crack nuts under the wheels of cars have experienced a mutation and that those that do not have not experienced this mutation? In other words, if we were to take an egg from one of these birds, hatch it in an incubator and then release it (where there aren't any of its kind, but there are streets, cars and stop lights) that this bird will start to crack nuts under the wheels of cars at stop lights? I don't think so.



I won't argue here. I have crows and traffic lights in my neighborhood, but have never observed those crows using cars for cracking their nuts. Without further research one can not tell for sure whether it's instinct or learning.


@Irish:

Quote:

I believe that time dialation can explain this, and that relatively the universe is alternately billions of years old and thousands of years old.



Time dilatation, resp. general relativity, is indeed considered in the formula for calculating the distances of far objects. But I'm afraid time dilatation does not offer the possibility that the universe is alternately billions of years old and thousands of years old.

Quote:

If the Milky Way galaxy is about 80,000 to 100,000 light years in diameter, and contains about 200 to 400 billion stars, why are there so few stars in the sky?



We can see more than 2000 stars with the bare eye, but due to the illumination with electric light we normally only see about 300..400. With a good telescope you can see and count all the billions of stars that are not too close to the center of the galaxy. You can even see single stars in other galaxies, like Andromeda.

Quote:

In that case, a mutation can lose information, add it to the gene pool and be called new information. Its relative to the genome.



You mean when an allele that removes a feature is added to the gene pool? I guess this is not considered new information. In my understanding, new information means that a new feature (replacing an old one in an individual) is added to the gene pool, as in the Milano mutation.

Quote:

Its just an observed fact that mutations don't add information.



Observations not shared by anyone else are normally not called observations, but visions.

Quote:

Audesirk & Audesirk, Biology, 5th edition, 1999, pages 230 - 231

That's a college textbook, I believe. Creationists don't dispute bacterial resistance via mutation, science does.



I am not sure what you want to prove with that quote. Mutations happen by randomly changing DNA sequences, but also by inserting parts from foreign DNA or from the own DNA.