Thanks, Salty,
You’ve put the evolutionary story quite elegantly, almost poetically. In that, you have been helpful. However, I’m wishing to try and describe an alternative view; the view from the other side, so to speak.
 
Ammonite,
Of course, these are not the first times these views have been put to me. I’ve done plenty of reading on the issue, enough to be quite acquainted with the intricacies of the controversy.
 
It’s not that I haven’t heard the evolutionary view. As a generation, we’ve been continually force fed it from primary school. I’m simply of the opinion that it is not the best theory to meet the facts. And I’m sure you’d want me to be discerning. You don’t swallow everything that’s put in front of you or believe all that you read in newspapers, do you? I would hope our children are taught skills of discernment, and not just told what to think.
 
In fact, that link that you asked me to read talked about the ‘evolution/creation controversy’. It used the word ‘controversy’ umpteen times on the first page on which I clicked. Controversy implies that there are at least two significant views that are being debated. So your insinuation that I’m little behind on my reading is off track. You know that there is a genuine controversy here. And as with any controversy, there are intelligent and educated people on both sides of the debate.
 
Thanks, Ogg,
I haven’t gone anywhere. I haven’t claimed victory. I do sometimes play chess.

Pericles,
I probably did guess that you were looking for more detail than what I offered. You were asking how I would reconcile the alleged discrepancies between our present-day understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and physiology, and the description of the universe’s creation contained in Genesis. Your question probably assumes these discrepancies are many. There are probably more discrepancies from your view than from mine.
 
For some specific questions, I wasn’t sure exactly what alleged discrepancies you were referring to.
 
What exactly was built in those six days? I said, ‘Everything’. Did God make the world, or did it make itself? Scientists and philosophers have discussed this for millennia. It’s a pretty big question. How much time (lifetimes) have you got to debate it?
 
Mankind created from earth? I know man is made up of earthly elements and chemicals. I believe that a person has a spiritual element also.
 
But I’ll tell you what we know from genetics (or what’s pretty clear to all). That the genetic sequence within all living things makes up coded information, capable of ordering that biology. And that information is not inherent within the properties of the elements themselves. Just as words on a scrabble board have been ordered by intelligence, order which has been imposed on the arranged letters rather than found naturally within the properties of the plastic or ink of the letters. The information is independent from the matter. Likewise, genetic information is independent of the physics or chemistry of its acids and molecules. Coded information always implies intelligence (a mind) at its origin.
 
An ark 300 cubits long made of Gopher wood? Again I don’t see the discrepancy. Ancient people were capable of building wonderful things. Look at the pyramids. All the ark was designed to do was float around for a year.
 
Noah lived to be 950 years old? This is the only obvious apparent discrepancy, as people currently don’t live nearly so long.
 
Though I’ve begun (perhaps just barely) answering your four questions, you haven’t attempted the one question I gave you?!?

And Pericles,
Regarding the question that up until now both you and Ammonite have let through to the keeper, perhaps I’ll rephrase and try and clarify. For it is rather an important question, and helps to highlight the discrepency between evolution theory and the clear facts (even more so when evolutionists avoid it).

Is there anywhere observable evidence of new genes arising creating new forms and functions? 

For to get from the genetic make up of say, a bacterium, to that of a comparatively far more complex vertebrate, such as a horse, it (continually over time) would need to ADD the genetic information to make skin, bones, hoofs, eyes, brains, etc.

The text book examples of evolution don't show this. For instance, we're shown populations of moths which went darker when conditions became favorable for darker ones. But some dark ones, with their genes for dark colours, were already present in the parent population. No new genes were ADDED. Only favorable conditions meant the dark coloured were selected and their percentages increased.

Various windy islands have beetles which have lost the ability to make wings. These beetles are favoured in the conditions, as they never try to fly so they don't get blown into the sea. This is an example of genetic information (that appropriate for wings) being damaged or corrupted. Yet still no new genetic information was added in this so called example of evolution.
 
If we've never seen anyone live 950 years, (such as with Noah) we might think to question the story's veracity.

Similarly if experience tells that genetic information is not being added to the genome, ought we not stop to question the story's veracity?

Dan,

I had already given you plenty of examples in the past of “information” (that deliberately ambiguous creationist term) being “added” (another deliberately ambiguous creationist term) to the genome, so what do you do?

You now shift the goal posts in a classic Kent-Honind-and-his$200,000-challenge style and demand that directly observed evidence (completely forgetting, of course, that direct observation has been proven in many situations - particularly in courts of law - to be incredibly less reliable than observing events through forensically collected evidence) be given of information being added to the genome that would completely form an entirely new function.

The problem is, though, that if we were to find such “additions” it would disprove evolution and turn science on its head - forcing us to find a new explanation for the diversity of life.

So this is nothing more than a classic example of creationists deliberately setting impossible standards with their ever-shifting goal posts to make creationism appear credible.

It may make you creationists feel better but it doesn’t fool the general population, I’m afraid.

Here Dan. Here’s a link I once gave you that explains it all. Perhaps you could read it this time?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Dan S,

Following some points you made to Pericles:

An open mind, a cursory glance at the universe - billions of galaxies, containing billions of solar systems, containing a sun/suns, planets/moons, asteroids/comets... All this from somewhere, elegant, beautiful, orderly - high speed perpetual juggling, bound by gravity. Can this be mere chance, from some amorphous mass of matter, and then "Bang", and here it is? Pretty long bow, possible, but still a stretch. And the Earth and life - just accidents? Maybe, maybe not.

There has to remain possibility that even the very first "accident" of life may have had a helping hand, and maybe some "tweaking" here or there? Who can be sure?

It is possible that "man" was either a most remarkable accident, or no accident at all. A witness? Sometimes, a coincidence may not be a coincidence.

As for evolution's possibilities, you asked -"Is there anywhere observable evidence of new genes arising creating new forms and functions?" Well, yes. As every human being is unique (excepting identical twins), each has a unique set of genes. Accidents happen quite regularly in human conception, with resultant still-births, deformities, etc, but also probably with some occasional undetectable "improvements".

A look at DNA on Wikipedia gives an idea of how complex are DNA, RNA, genes, etc, and in one part offers the following: "Recombination allows chromosomes to exchange genetic information and produces new combinations of genes, which increases the efficiency of natural selection and can be important in the rapid evolution of new proteins." Ok, Wiks is not proof positive, but reasonably trustworthy.

This G A T C simple gene set seems to spell out every life combination. Simple and elegant, and maybe designed that way to facilitate possibilities.

Throw some scrabble tiles in the air, and occasionally will fall a word. Do it enough times, with enough tiles, and you may spell out the Websters - just, a lot of tosses, over a long, long time.

For some, evolution has to explain everything, for others, maybe?