You know, I've re-read your posts here, and I am still worried that you still really don't get what is important about your goof in post #65. So let's just briefly look at that one again, because I would really like you to see what you have unwittingly done.
In post #65, you stated:
Finally, Francis Crick, discover of DNA and a Nobel Prize winner said "the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule so as to make it absurd." Like many atheists he believes that extraterrestials sent living cells to earth.
I pointed out, in reply to your post, that the quote allegedly from Francis Crick is in fact from Fred Hoyle. It's very easy to see how you slipped up on the old copy & paste, because the misquote that is from Crick appears on lots and lots of Creationist websites (and often, next to Hoyle). That quote, which you intended, is:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle" and is indeed from his book Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature 1981, p. 88
OK, this is where the fun really starts. Copy part of this quote from Crick, say "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now" and Google it. You will hit quite a few pages, without exception Creationist websites, with this self-same quote from Nobel-prize winner Francis Crick appearing to proclaim his own Creationist creed. Pretty convincing, yes?
Well, read the book itself! Here is the full sentence, and the sentence immediately following:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."
I have added the bolding to the end of the sentence which all of those Creationist websites omit.
Why do you suppose they abridge that sentence, and omit the one immediately following? Do you suppose they are trying to save bandwidth? Or could it just be that they are deliberately doctoring the quote, as shamelessly as Mr. Rather's forgeries, in order to misrepresent? In order, in fact, to lie?
You stated in your post #329, that you found
the simple biblical explanation of human existence does much greater justice to freedom, moral responsibility, equality. the dignity of man, conscience, truth and other values than any explanation based upon the survival of the fittest
I read the Bible, too. It is the basis of my own faith. I read it often and find therein wisdom, beauty, guidance, and comfort. And a grave injunction against bearing false witness.
And it as bearers of false witness that I charge the various creationist websites from which you and others have scooped up so much misleading nonsense to dump on this thread.
Complete the context bookmark.
Reminds me of a movie reviewer -- Medved? -- who was "quoted" in an ad as saying "this is the best movie I ever saw" when the rest of the quote was " ABOUT A CGI GIANT SNAKE" or something very similar. The rest of the review basically said he hated it.
Why am I not surprised to hear nothing more than crickets?