The silly bible and 1/2 of Americans don't believe in evolution

JerryM,You are sounding as though you believe in a lump of sarcasm...You don't like my name Kossam. Your name JerryM doesn't exactly say much either. Who are you? I have absolutely no idea except for reading today's post and your follow-up comment. But it doesn't matter much either.You are correct in stating that the origin of life and its evolution thereafter are two different issues. I did not mean anything else, but maybe I did not make it clear that I believe both to fall under the same problem. Both as explained by contemporary darwinism are unlikely to the degree of being silly. It's just that the first is infinitely impossible to the power of ten, whilst the second is infinitely impossible to the power of two, to put it metaphorically. Random mutations, irrespective of how many gazillion iterations you choose to apply to them, do not provide a "possible although unlikely" explanation for how our world's current life forms came to be. That's a question of math and understanding basic genetic principles. The fossil record, even in its most lenient interpretation does not provide the time needed - and because we are looking at such infinitely minute potential progress, there is no reasonable reason to believe this would be possible no matter the time scales applied. True, we have not learned everything about genetics yet, but what we have learned so far clearly show that the engines of change that random mutations provide do not pull in the needed direction, and certainly not with the necessary force to explain the origins of species. (I am now assuming the hypothesis that all species evolved from one common ancestor). In fact, Charles Darwin in his time had an interesting theory, that could have been proven right by future research uncovering gray areas. He believed that hereditary features could be trained; e.g. a blacksmith working hard and gaining stronger upper arm muscles would pass these on to his offspring. That would have been an engine of change with potency, if the hypothesis was proven true. Unfortunately, genetics showed that this was not the case. Random mutations as a driving force for explaining the degree of change needed to select the good material afterwards, and obtain our current complexity of life forms is a totally unsatisfactory theory, which can only be made intellectually acceptable if one believes some extra-natural (or yet unkown) force intervened regularly along the way of evolutionary history to boost and guide this process heavily - which too seems like an odd supposition.As I said, I myself am a system developer, and spend my days composing codes that need to execute correctly - or if they fail my "organism" (software) dies. If I were to run this process unguided, putting it through gazillions of random mutations and only keeping the most promising (I know what a genetic algorithm is), then I could still impossibly arrive at a useful result. True, genetics and software development are not exactly the same, but research has shown that DNA is indeed a very complex coding language. It's not like putting lego blocks together where almost any combination of blocks can produce something "interesting", whatever it is, that can then reproduce itself and be meaningfully selected upon.If however current-day darwinists like yourself one day uncover a better explanation for the creation of new genetic material, then the theory could be worth listening to again. Until then, please don't accuse people of being silly whilst believing in things that are definitely from the realm of fairy-tales yourself.