[CottShop]

I read this this morning- just like hte 98% ‘similarity’ claim between chimp and human genome- the comparisons between dino and chicken protiens was HAND PICKED- ignoring evidnece that didn’t fit so that they could come to a biased conclusion- Funny hting is though that the results put the dinos more ‘similar’ to Amphibians than to chikens or Ostriches- but don’t let’s let the facts get in the way of a good story, as TV shows and news articles were very quick to tout the ‘dino-bird connection’- again, foisting a complete LIE on our kids- they KNEW they were printing a lie- but they went ahead and printed it anyways- and these evos have the gall to claim Creationists have an ‘agenda’?

[GodGunsGuts]

I seriously got a chill down my spine when I read this article for the first time. Talk about corruption! I'm also quite gratified that ICR is putting together such a good team of heavy hitters, both in terms of their staff of scientists, not to mention the people they have hired to transform their work into words that the average Joe can understand. In short, it would appear that ICR is back on the ascendancy, and I for one am quite gratified by this, since they played such a huge role in the formation of the modern creationist movement.

[Natural Law]

"I read this this morning- just like hte 98% ‘similarity’ claim between chimp and human genome"

Percentage differences are not credible comparators when dealing with an information carrying media like DNA. All DNA strands, whether for a gnat or a human contain the same four complimentary bases; adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. In this respect they are 100% similar. All DNA strands are comprised of two long chains of nucleotides twisted into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases. Again 100% similar.

Consider the preamble to the constitution. It is 52 words comprised of 330 characters. If the word "not" was added to the end of it the meaning would be significantly different with 99% similarity.