Quote:

To the argument whether insertion of foreign DNA sequences is mutation or not: A mutation is defined as an inheritable modification to the DNA.



Ok, well let me reword that then. When I say 'reword' I'm not speaking about rephrasing it, I mean let me retype exactly what I said before.

If its being inserted from a foreign DNA source, how does that explain the way the DNA was randomly written in the first place?

Moreover, why then can't a germ just immediately evolve into a human (-like cell) by absorbing human DNA (rhetoric). Even on 'mutations' like that there is a severe restriction on exactly what kind of change can take place. One of the biggest restrictions is that the DNA has to exist in the first place, fully created in some other organism.

Fundamentally, the germ is still the same germ it was before.

Quote:

In 1950 the idea was revived and proposed[1] by Dutch astronomer Jan Hendrick Oort to explain an apparent contradiction: comets are destroyed by several passes through the inner solar system, yet if the comets we observe had really existed for billions of years (since the generally accepted origin of the solar system), all would have been destroyed by now.



Uh huh. This kind of logic is why I refuse to believe evolution just HAS to be absolute truth, along with the big bang. If you're so hung up on the natural, how are you going to let the (scientific) imagination of some guy change the natural to explain why the accepted theory doesn't make sense? (Time and time again, no less).

Your theory has holes, and my theory has holes. Doesn't make either of them more or less true, but it does mean that I have no reason to accept yours as absolute truth like you seem to do. What if I were allowed to say that the reason we see stars that are billions of lightyears away is because there's an unobservable, hollow, spherical bend in space-time that surrounds our solar system at some arbitrary distance and makes it possible to see things that are far away, despite that our universe within the reference of earth is only about 6000 years old. After all, we can observe its affect since we see stars that are billions of lightyears away in a universe thats only (relatively) 6000 years old! Problem solved, theory-hole patched. Sure, some comets may seem to be about 40,000 years old, but that's just a contradiction that my theory will find evidence against at some later time. This is me, just using science!

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."