🚀 go-pugleaf

I am not sure that I fit into this group of people, but I often listen in 
on the arguements.  I am not ashamed to say that I believe in Creation, 
why should I be?  Is it wrong to have faith in something unprovable?  If I 
thought that evolution was a viable explaination to mine/our existence, 
then I would question my faith.  So far my [unbiased] studies have 
revealed insufficient evidence to shake the foundations on which I base my 
faith.  

Evolution certainly has some valid science and very logical points, and I 
don't deny that evolution evolution could take place.  Though I personally 
believe that in our case, it didn't.

What I am really posting is my opinion, and no-one elses, concerning GA's. 
I have a few points to express, they are:

1) The findings of GA's imply that the development which is being measured 
over so many generations is independent of development of other structures 
which are necessary for function.  (ie. the eye may have evolved, but it 
would be useless unless the organism has the neural processes and/or the 
mental processes to translate and utilise the information perceived by 
the eye)

2) The changes observed from the simulation are dependent on the original 
data input which clearly is a consequent to human design of the 
sequences/regions to be worked on and also the program(s) which are used 
for the simulation.  (hmmm..get it?)  These are therefore NOT random.

3) Lastly, there is a translation error in such sumulations involving 
computer hardware/software.  This can take the form of electronic error in 
single bits which are coding for a particular digit.  Over many loops in 
this performance, intrinsic error can be magnified considerably.  Was the 
simulation repeated using different PCs?

I hold no grudges against anyone for any belief they hold, but it is 
offending the way that Steve McGrew labels people a 'Creationist' as if it 
were a dirty word. Why can't you accept someone for who they are not what 
they believe?