Quote:

Then I haven't understood the question. Insertion of foreign DNA from other species is a frequent mutation of bacteriae and virae



Yeah. Prewritten DNA. It didn't have to be somehow written from scratch. So it may technically be a mutation, but not the kind of mutation that evolution likes so much. I'm sure you understand the limitations on this kind of mutation. At best, what we'll end up with is a bunch of bacteria that all have the same resistances, but nothing more than the same bacteria they were to begin with. Let's say we pool all these bacteria together (basically putting a rush on what's happening now) and let them all share DNA at once. Its just going to reach equillibrium. Nothing new will be created from it.

Quote:

"Writing a DNA" by point mutations occurs in the way I described above, as an accumulation of beneficial mutations.



I'll have to disagree with this, but I don't have time to get into it tonight.

Quote:

Only confusion among creationists. For an average educated person with some mathematical background, thermodynamics is easy to understand.



I don't know, when I hear an evolutionist say that all it takes to create order is the addition of energy (from a debate) then I have to be skeptical about the idea that only creationists are confused.

Quote:

Apart from the fact that we observe all those "unverifiable, and actually scientifically unimaginable" heavy elements in star and supernova spectrae since 150 years.



SOME heavy elements are produced.

Quote:

Larger stars will also fuse heavier elements, all the way to iron, which is the end point of the process.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star

Unless there's an explanation for the other heavy elements?



And then you spend the rest of your post setting up a strawman for you to burn down. I'll take a few moments to tell you how I see things, as a creationist.

Quote:

Creationists attribute the observations of nature to the actions of supernatural forces



No, we attribute the things that nature cannot do on its own to God or whatever other creator. The universe cannot create itself. Life cannot create itself. So regardless of the specific details like evolution and all of that noise, we understand some fundamental things about nature that scientists just say, "Our explanation isn't really physically possible, but we know this is how it happened anyway."

God created the universe to run itself, albeit in a way that will eventually wind down to nothing. Do you know why the Big Bang was generally accepted over solid state (in part). Because if the universe was infinite, there would be no energy left. It had to have a start. Certainly something added a whole bunch of usable energy to the universe (etc), and I can't imagine any natural event that could cause that to happen. At least one that lies within the realm of reality.

The Big Bang has an even bigger problem because it has to create all of this energy and matter from scratch....literally nothing.

Quote:

you'll see that nature is running without any obvious supernatural events. The Creator (let us assume for a moment that he or she exists) does not need to manually rotate the earth or apply the breath of life to every living being. Obviously the world is designed to run automatically without permanent divine interventions.



I ALMOST couldn't have said it any better myself. Although I would have left out the uncertainty of a creator.

I just want to point out one thing.

Quote:

obviously the world is designed to run automatically without permanent divine interventions.



I'm glad we agree.

Quote:

The assumption that the world still needs supernatural interventions in order to develop species implies a limited ability or limited power of the creator. Only a bad watchmaker needs to push his watches from time to time to keep them running.



I don't see what this has to do with creationism at all. Are you saying that in order for life to keep on existing once its been created, that we assume God has to keep fixing it? I wasn't aware that this was a creationist belief.

Quote:

and possibly the creation of nature's laws.



I would think this would just go hand in hand with the creation of the universe. I don't think that nature's laws are absolute truth. They're just the 'absolute truth' as far as our universe is concerned (per se). What would be the point of creating a universe, and then just hoping that random chance keeps it together and running?

Obviously the world would have been designed to run on its own.

Quote:

Permanent intervention is the belief of creationists. This is the belief in a lesser god.



First part, wrong, last part, not necessarily logically correct because even an all powerful God could make a creation that he had to constantly maintain if he really wanted to, I suppose. But I don't see as to why he would.

Quote:

as creationists still believe today, literally created all species



I don't see any rational, scientific explanation otherwise. If elightened folks have somehow moved beyond the creation of life, then I'd love to see some reasonable evidence. There aren't enough zeros in the world to explain the slim chances of this happening.

Also, its not fair to say he literally created all species. Sometimes, species are created as life reproduces. We believe in original kinds. In other words, something like a wolf was created at the beginning, and micro evolution took over from there.

Quote:

Amber needs millions of years to form from tree resin



I don't see how that's an exception. As far as I can tell, they date amber by the strata. So there's just as much proof for the age of amber as there is for the age of any other fossil. From what I understand, no one truly knows for sure how or why amber is formed, though there is some speculation.

Anyway, off to bed. Good night.

"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."