"The more I study this issue the more I come to belief that evolutionists who adhere to classical Darwinism are really kind of quaint. Kind of like flat earthers."
And DNA is just one little part of the whole works. The requirements for dozens of enzymic reactions to start a given RNA/DNA replication, e.g. making new pieces of DNA, proteins and other biochemical structures with a fully functional living cell, is mind boggling. Everything must already be in place, in order for these processes to happen. If things don't work properly within the particular design critera for a given type cell, depends a lot on what kind of animal or plant in some cases, a particular thing would happen or not be a part of the over process, the cell would die, or at best go bad, disease resulting in the animal or plant.
And then spend a few years reading about all the very suspect views on how earth geology does not show a uniform strata as insisted by evolutionists, investigate the problems many scientist claim are wrong with all our major radiometric dating systems, e.g. get a reading of 1.2 million years on one sample and a hundred on another sample of same rock, picked up a few feet away from first etc..
The lists of things that go against evolution is so great it is truly a wonder that anyone would dare preach it as being a fact in at this late date. Of course little has changed from the late 60's to present. I get so tired of hearing the issue is between religion and science. That is a ploy to make it sound like evolution is supported by the total scientific obervations and learning curves in many of our branches of science, and that religion is religion and has not place in science. It has been going on for a long time.
How about, advance it as a theory?
You have just shown us all how much you understand about science. Please read, and understand, the following:
the·o·ry (the¯'?-re¯, thîr'e¯)
n., pl. -ries.
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.[Late Latin theo¯ria, from Greek theo¯ria¯, from theo¯ros, spectator : probably thea¯, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from hora¯n, to see).]2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
http://www.answers.com/topic/theory
faith (fa¯th)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.
http://www.answers.com/topic/faith
Now, do you see the difference????????
Good post. It is incredulous how closed-minded evo's are about any challenges to their dogma. There is a sort of PC atmosphere around evolution and global warming. Their tactics are to ridicule anyone who even questions how evolution could account for the complexities. They have circled the wagons and are scared critters defending their dogma like some new age religion.