"Scientific Creationism"- It is an argument going for the theory of scientific creationism.

I tought you did a decent job. The paper seemed to flpw very well and was organized.

Evolutionists have never found an organism with an altered genetic code? You have got to be kidding me. Surely, anyone who has made it through elmentary school should know that each organism is unique.(with the exception of twins and asexually reproducing organisms- but even these occasionally have differing genetic codes.) Please tell me you have heard of recombination and mutations. Every time an organism is reproduced sexually it has a differing genetic code. And every organism that has a mutation has a different genetic code than its parents.


Oh yes, populations with different gene pools (I'm assuming that's what you mean?) HAVE been discovered by biologists.

I'll give you a theoretical example. A population of rabbits is living within the Arctic circle. Although they already have thick fur to protect them from the cold, the winter this year is particularly cold. Only the rabbits with the thickest fur can survive. Thus at the end of winter, when the rabbits begin to reproduce, only the thick-furred rabbits are left to reproduce. Of course, they pass on their genes to their offspring and-assuming there are no mutations- all of the next generation has thicker fur.


Then you go on to contradict yourself by implying that organisms can have different genetic codes, it just has to be within certain parameters. Ignoring this obvious contradiction for a second, where prey tell, are these imaginary parameters?


For the next paragraph. You have heard of Stanley Miller's experiment right? Well anyways, they were able to make nucleic acids under natural conditions.


Third paragraph- wrong again. It is not assumed that small mutations are the only mutations that can occur. And here is why. It does not matter how good or bad a mutation is because generally, the organisms with favorable mutations are the ones that have the most offspring. Organisms with bad mutations are not able to have as many offspring, therefore the bad mutation eventually dies out while the good one survives.


And yes, many of the so-called "missing links" have been found. You may want to have a look at talkorigins.org.


Your last paragraph contains by far the biggest error because it assumes that just because evolution is proven false, that (your) version of the creation myth is true. Has anyone else noticed how the title says that this paper would be about the "theory of scientific creationism"? From the title one could safely assume that the paper would be about Creationism, but no- it has nothing to do with Creationism. The author has created a dichotomy between Creationism and Evolution where there is none.