[Sopater]

I see nothing in these DNA results which either supports creationism, or which disproves evolution. Perhaps you could clarify these findings for me?

Non-coding DNA having a useful purpose, rather than being evolutional byproducts, supports Creationism.

Since Evolution does not have a well established and rooted "goal-post", I'm skeptical that it possible to "disprove".

Thanks for the link to "antievolution.org". I'll check it out.

[muir_redwoods]

"Non-coding DNA having a useful purpose, rather than being evolutional byproducts, supports Creationism."

Says whom? And by the way, how?

Creationism being merely an unsupported conjecture no more benefits from such a finding than does the FSM

[RobRoy]

>>Non-coding DNA having a useful purpose, rather than being evolutional byproducts, supports Creationism.<<

It also supports the concept that we don't know everything yet. Something darwinists ignore. They forget that, as Rumsfeld said, "we don't know what we don't know".

Lastly, it supports the concept that whoever designed it know what He was doing.

[RightWhale]

Non-coding DNA having a useful purpose, rather than being evolutional byproducts, supports Creationism.

This statement seems to be floating out there without means of support.