Mr Snake wrote:
"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt
I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician
Member NY Academy of Sciences
Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America
Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities
New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4
In other words, the theory of evolution should have been abandoned, it being obvious that something like DNA could not evolve.
Seems clear there are some things you hold dear.
Lessee here, what you just brought to the table -
Your Mr Cohen, who argues from the standpoint of probabilty:
1) Mr Cohen's sole book publication credit is the work cited above.
2) Mr Cohen's book was self-published
3) Mr Cohen's book was subject to no peer review process prior to publication
4) Mr Cohen's book is cited as authority only by Creationist/Intelligent Design proponents
5) Mr Cohen's book is long out of print
6) The vanity press which published that book is long out of business
7) Mr Cohen has published no study, report, finding, criticism, or thesis in any professional or academically accredited journal, review, periodical, or edited compilation
8) Mr Cohen's purported credentials have absolutely no academic standing
9) Mr Cohen neither is nor has been recorded as staff, faculty, or fellow of any accredited institution of higher learning
10) Mr Cohen offers a postulate not only at variance with but in opposition to the preponderant academically accepted position.
Now, while any one of those things might or might not mean something by itself, what are the odds that, considered as a body, those things might pose serious challenge to Mr Cohen's credibility and authority?
Oh, and thats apart from the fact the cited statement proceeds from a false premis.
Personally, I'd hafta say the odds were pretty good there's somethin' snakey there.