I notice that Othniel hasn't returned to defend his rantings. So typical of creationists: when it's shown that they don't know what they're talking about, they run away like cowards (only to repeat the same falsehoods in the next discussion).
What evolutionists refuse to admit is that the whole purpose of Darwin's shoddy rantings was to explain how life could be so diverse without a creator. The problem with evolution is that, taken to its beginnings that are described by people on this (and other) threads is that it espouses something coming out of nothing: A universe appearing out of nowhere, made by nothing, with atoms that organize themselves (when we see the exact opposite occuring), with DNA coming together in more and more complex forms, making cells, making organs, making animals, giving rise to consciousness (another example of something coming out of nothing), giving rise to better and better people.
It doesn't wash. It never has. It never will. It takes more faith to believe that than in an intelligence with enough power and wisdom to pull it off. As for me getting my information from Discover, I find it sad that every so often they come out with an article ("What was before DNA? Was your ancestor a seasponge?") that never quite answers any of the questions I posted at first, or now. How DOES something appear out of nothing? How DOES natural selection give rise to new DNA sequences,longer sequences that make for more complex information, and thereby more complexity?
How DOES a person who takes science seriously and honestly describe with a straight face that the grand nothingness in the beginning gave rise to a universe that is so finely tuned, to a planet that is perfect for life, to a cell with complexity that was unknown a century ago? Is name-calling and sarcasm the best evolutionists can do?