Your answer, Dan S de Merengue, to everything that cannot be explained by science is "it was God wot dunnit". This doesn't actually illuminate anything, does it?

>>What exactly was built in those six days? I said, ‘Everything’. Did God make the world, or did it make itself?<<

My question was posed in the context of "how" you believe it came into being, against the backdrop of its sheer impossibility: six days, when current evidence points to a universe that is around fourteen billion years old.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

My question was, what evidence are you using to support your belief that "God made the universe in six days". Your answer is "because I believe that he did".

Your defence can be summarised as "because I believe the Biblical account of origins". Nothing more.

>>Mankind created from earth? I know man is made up of earthly elements and chemicals<<

Have you tried this at home? Any success?

Of course not.

>>Coded information always implies intelligence (a mind) at its origin.<<

You have decided this. Your decision does not constitute evidence.

>> Ancient people were capable of building wonderful things. Look at the pyramids.<<

Pyramids do not conflict with the laws of physics. A boat made of wood, of those dimensions, does.

It wasn't I who made the assertion "I can prove the origins of the universe". It was you who made the claim that you would "defend the Biblical account of origins."

So far, you have done nothing of the sort.

Dan S

It is one thing to read, another entirely to be able to APPLY that knowledge.

You claim to have read the many helpful links people have selected for you - yet are still unable to apply this knowledge to the world around you. It is precisely this brick wall that I do not wish to be set around the intellect and inquiring minds of children.

I don't expect that you will understand, unless a fact fits YOUR interpretation of the bible, you reject that fact completely. Scientists do not reject facts, they revise their interpretations - even though it may be that they are forced to go back and start again.

DAN S de MERNGUE alleges :
"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."

But no NEW information needs to be added to any evolved genome, for all the information required is already there, in the huge database of chemicals and genes on this planet.

As an analogy, you are saying that once a book has been written, no other new books can be written, because all the words available have been used.

Not so. For there exists, outside the first book, large dictionaries, in many languages, together with many encyclopedias, etc.

From this rich background, many new books can be written. And thus is it so with new species of evolving life.

There already exist HUGE databases of inorganic and organic chemicals, the many, many proteins that have 'yet to be connected', are just awaiting some survival need for them to come into play.

Dan, you show obdurate resistance in reading any science evidence, instead burying your nose in just ONE book.

But anyway, here is a science source for the above explanation:
http://www.hhmi.org/news/hittinger_carroll.html

See the para where the author says :
('... said Carroll...'):
"His research has shown that the evolution of body parts more commonly occurs through changes in how development genes are regulated, than through the evolution of new genes."

So there's another answer as to why your claimed NEW GENES are not required for a new species to evolve.

Dan, your obvious ignorance in biology and genetics only serves to appal your readers.

If you want to become a convincing "evangelical", you will have to display much better education and knowledge that you have so far.

-

Dan de MERENGUE,

Here's another "smack in the eye" for your Creationist nonsense:
http://noblesseoblige.org/2009/05/27/irreducible-complexity-debunked-again/

And Dan, if you still refuse to read any "sciency posts", perhaps you might like to pay attention to this Bible focussed post:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/refuting-the-bible

Ammonite,
Just to be clear, I am not claiming to have read all of those links. I read a few of them. I did claim to have done enough reading on the issue (elsewhere) to be quite acquainted with the intricacies of the controversy.
 
You claim that I reject facts. I would prefer you give an example of which ‘facts’ I have rejected. I would suggest that I haven’t rejected any facts. Rather, I am disputing various interpretations of the evidence that you and others would like to impose. (In other words, I’m offering an alternate opinion, which is what people like to do here at OLO.)
 
=
 
Pericles,
Now, Ammonite claims I’m ignoring facts (without listing any). You say I’m ignoring the fact that a wooden boat of the biblical ark’s dimensions conflicts with the laws of physics. How do you know this as fact? Are you an expert ship builder? Are there not plenty of ships floating around right now as we speak with similar and even larger dimensions? As I said, the ark only was designed to float for a year or so, not for distant voyage or long term durability. A scientific approach might lead us to test a boat or a model of such dimensions for its stability.
 
Also, I offered, ‘Coded information always implies intelligence (a mind) at its origin.’ I could give plenty of examples of coded information being sent originating from an intelligent source. You wish to deny it. Offer a counter example (just one will do).