William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[Mudhammam]

New combinations aren't adding information, theyre changing existing information. Most DNA is NOT junk, this was debunked years ago.

Gee, I'm so surprised that you're... wrong again.

Our understanding of dark matter in the genome is much better because we know what its made of (DNA) and we can isolate it and study its properties both directly and indirectly... Most dark matter contains no instructions and is just space-filling "junk" accumulated over the course of evolution. In humans only 2 to 3 percent of our dark matter contains genetic switches that control how genes are used.

- Microbiologist Sean B. Carroll, Endless Forms Most Beautiful, p. 112

"ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA
This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/1159.summary

Again it is you guys who are ignorant of the science, and its SO ironic because you all behave like you have dominion over it.

Hey shithead, do you read? You say something "was debunked years ago" but then provide an article from 2012? That was three years ago, not exactly the decades you implied. And of course, your selective reading kicks in again. Why don't you try a little harder. It took 2 minutes for me to find this:

...the suggestion by ENCODE that over 80% of the human genome is biochemically functional has been sharply criticized by other scientists,[5] who argue that neither accessibility of segments of the genome to transcription factors nor their transcription guarantees that those segments have biochemical function and that their transcription is selectively advantageous.[6][29][35] In a 2014 paper the leaders of the ENCODE project tried to address "the question of whether nonconserved but biochemically active regions are truly functional". They acknowledged that "the larger proportion of genome with reproducible but low biochemical signal strength and less evolutionary conservation [e.g. 70% of the documented transcribed coverage] is challenging to parse between specific functions and biological noise", that the essay resolution often is much broader than the underlying functional sites, and that therefore some of the reproducibly “biochemically active but selectively neutral” sequences are unlikely to serve critical functions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

---

There are important differences between data & information and signals & noise. I'm not saying YG is right, just that your critique is simplistic.

If you want to give your fellow Christian idiot an in-depth lesson on evolution, please be my guest.