"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good." Psalm 14:1

I know a great deal of computer language because I do a lot programming in various languages for several years. And the only reason you think that I do not understand physics is because you don't know as much about physics. DNA is not just expressive like HTML, because it actually tells cells what to do, not just what to look like. Hypertext Mark up Language (HTML) tells a browser how to present and format information. It used to only be used that way without any actual processing taking place, but the Internet has changed where processing takes place on both the client machine and the server. Because of this, I'd liken DNA more to an interpreted computer language like SCHEME or JavaScript. Such scripting languages tell computers how to process data but it isn't compiled but interpreted line by line as the software or web page is ran. DNA is wonderful and Information Technology can be used in analogy to a point, but the analogy does break down if you press it too far. By the way, in information technology, HTML is still often referred to as "code". I have 2 degrees in Engineering (one of them has an emphasis in physics) and 1 degree in information technology with an emphasis in computer programming. Make no mistake...just because you disagree with me, and immediately willing to reject what I say without really thinking about it, I'm not uneducated or ignorant.

You didn't show any error only that you know how to take the Bible out of context. Genesis 2 does not conflict with Genesis 1 because Genesis 2 just gives more detail about that 6th period of time. The Bible does not say where the light came from in Genesis 1:2. Stop reading into the text what isn't there. Well at-least you are quoting from it. You just don't know what you are quoting. I have supported my claims about what the text says. Where is your support? The Bible is right. You are wrong.

The Bible talks of God as being light. Haven't you ever read it. I'm amazed. You are not like your profile at all. "Pathetic"
describes your apologetic not mine. You offer no rebuttal or no well-reasoned argument to the response I offered to you. Did you even read the other viewpoint? You did not interact with it. The Bible is not poorly edited. It hangs together and agrees with itself despite the numerous sources. You haven't shown that it's scientifically incorrect because you have not proven your interpretation is the correct one.

Your argument is summed up as "Nuh uh!" And that is not an apologetic.

Maligning my education and my knowledge base does not change that either. Unless of course you would like to malign the University of California, at Berkeley. Which is your right, if you choose. But attacking me instead of refuting the answer I gave only serves to show how desperately ignorant you are. Anything not to submit yourself to God. Truly sad.

1. Understood. As far as I'm concern it's squashed. I have no need to discuss it further. I accept your apology.
2. You have an extreme bias against the Discovery Institute. Is it because they believe the Bible is true or is it because you think they have bad scientists who don't know what they are doing? If it's the latter, you need to provide proof that they are incompetent scientists. Remember there was a time when the majority of scientists thought that the earth was flat. When the majority thought that flys spontaneously generated from rotten meat. Those were the prevailing mainstream ideas until a small percentage of scientists challenged them.This point has no proof.
3. I will find data on Phylogenetics, but i will post them on my blog. I was referring to fossil evidence. In the meantime, you can't issue a challenge without answering the challenge already put forth. I'm waiting on the rebuttal concerning the fossil record.
4. Saying that the similarity in DNA structure and material was designed and implemented is not a supernatural explanation. Is it supernatural explanation to say that HTML standards were designed to make information viewable on the Internet?
5. How do you know ERVs are NONFUNCTIONAL? Maybe we just don't know what they are for. I'm way into information technology, and DNA is a lot like coding in computer programming. One programmer may look at some code and say that code block being observed is junk - not needed - but only the one wrote the code could say that.

1. "nonce"?
2. I think you may need to think your time line. The Light described in verse one is not the same as the sun or moon.
3. I take this portion of Genesis literally, but you can't possibly think that it gives all the details. Or that it's talking about six 24 hour days. Like I have said so many times that the hebrew word translated "day" only means a "period of time". Like wise there are other ways to look at this. I find that if I see something wrong in the Bible then maybe I don't understand what it is saying. You must remember, none of your argument or criticisms are new. They have been used before and will continue to be used. Here is an example of other ways to understand what the Bible is saying instead of your misreading:

http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/the...

The Bible is complex. Too complex for anyone individual to understand every single thing in it. I'm still learning myself.

The Bible is not nonsense because you don't understand it.

1. I sent that comment reply in the e-mail ('ve got comments being e-mailed back to me.. I saw something in it that said you could reply by replying to that e-mail. Guess I was mistaken. Shame too, I really liked how that one came out. I believe that you haven't deleted any of my comments. but some one did.
2. Of course you can see it:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100Sci...
3. I did cite my sources in the first blog post i did about tiktaalik. I have trhree links from people who disagree with your conclusions and you nor anyone has responded to the points they raise other than to say they are creationists so they don't matter.
4. Heredity is only one possible explanation. I'm not coming against that. It does not prove it. You are inferring again. How else could it happen? When God made everything he chose to do it that way because all life on earth have to have some similarities to coexist. For example,

It says some administrator deleted one of my comments 4 comments above this one.

On the off chance that you are being serious....yes it does...The Bible does not say that light was created after earth. Genesis 1:2 does not say the earth existed. It was void and without form. Light was brought into being before the earth was. Just like the scientific evidence points to. Have you ever bothered to read Genesis?

I've looked at the data as well as you have. You have been trying to argue that the "transitional fossils" lead to the inference that all forms of life have a common ancestor, yet no ancestor has ever been identified. I'm not conspiracy nut, but I happen to know of a petition by 100 scientists who believe that the Evolution theory is false. I'm not a "lone voice crying in the wilderness". You just refuse to listen to the other side.

I did respond to your phylogenetic analysis comment. I don't see it here. Showing that various forms of life have similar DNA sequences does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they have common ancestry. Considering that DNA is made up of the same proteins no matter what form of life you are talking about, it does show that you can rule out chance and coincidence. I would infer a designer....some one did it on purpose. And to avoid the backlash, I'll be clear: The God of the Bible did it.