Of course it can. Validity doesn't guarantee truth. But that's not the type of logic I am referring to.
Then what kind of logic? Give an example.
Well, in that case there is no need to go further then.
You've changed your mind about ID then? Or are you on a
discussion forum without being willing to change your mind?
I am unable to find myself around in this thread for some reason and tend to lose track. It isn't done on purpose.
Then you should take the time to learn to use the site before posting. At the beginning of each thread there's a button that looks like this:
That will take you to the first post in the thread since you last looked at it.
Or when you go to a thread start at the end and go backwards until you find your final post (or use the search function to find it) and start from there and respond to people who have taken the time to respond to you. It's only common courtesy.
Also, it's exceedingly hard to motivate myself to engage in a discussion that I know will lead nowhere. That's why I try to restrain my participation on this subject to informative feedback only.
Think of how that sounds though. This is a
discussion forum, where people engage in and expect to engage in discussion. Imagine you are with a group of your friends, and someone every few minutes comes by and interjects something into the conversation they think is relevant, but doesn't actually engage, just wanders off and ignores responses to their interjections. Then comes back and does it again, thinking their contributions valuable and informative, then leaves again, not providing any basis or context or anything for their interjections.
Sounds pretty annoying when put that way eh?
In fact it's a common tactic used by forum and Internet trolls, swing by, write something known to get a response, leave and let the responses get more and more as the troll ignores them all, then come back and post something else.
I'm not saying you are trying to do this, but when the end result is the same I think one has to choose either to really engage, or refrain from making the interjections in the first place.
If that's the impression I gave I apologize.
Fair enough.
Alright so you agree that most mutations are neutral. Now, what happens when one isn't?
Let's say there's a mutation that causes the heart to be very weak, so weak the individual dies before reproducing.
Let's say there's another mutation that causes something else, say the leg bones to be slightly longer so that individual can run faster, meaning it can catch its prey a bit better than the others.
Now between those two examples, which one is going to have their genetic code passed on, and which one isn't?
Well, the Bible tells us that mankind underwent physical and mental deterioration asfter the fall.
It does? Where does it say this?
So the junk DNA could be explained away as part of that effect.
But that doesn't explain anything. First, on the level of 90% of the genetic code is junk DNA, how could mental and physical deterioration cause 90% of the genetic code to become useless? Did we have 10 heads and 20 arms before? The code to grow an arm or a brain is still necessary regardless of whether the arm is strong or weak.
Second, part of a creationists and ID'ers argument usually involves no new information in DNA, now you're saying that the amount of DNA can increase 10 fold in a few thousand years? Baloney, if it was increasing that fast we'd still be able to detect it.
Third, did every organism on earth have this? Because the amount of junk DNA varies wildly depending on the organism. Oh, and the amount and content of the junk DNA just happens to coincide
EXACTLY with what evolution predicts. If the DNA had just become messed up from the fall, why would it all be messed up in such a way that the pattern of the noise changes exactly if the animals were all descended from each other?
Either god is being deceptive, or evolution is the correct answer.
Evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. There are people who reconcile the twain. However, from a strictly literal biblical view the two are incompatible.
A literal Biblical view invalidates itself, there are many discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible already.
