The first quote by a legitimate scientists states a known fact, but tells nothing of interest. It would appear as if you are trying to establish some kind of legitimacy for your argument by quoting them, based on their backgrounds as legitimate, respected scientists. You then go on to quote from Michael Denton, Sean Pitman, and Michael Behe, who are all creationists, and although they do have legitimate degrees in the fields of science, they have never had any of their ideas, theories, hypothesises, or evidence in relation to creationism accepted by the scientific community. Their research is full of logical fallacies, confirmation bias, misconceptions, and just plain bad information.

Michael Denton also has distanced himself from the Discovery (creationist) Instutute, and no longer stands by his creationist claims:
Denton's views have changed over the years. He was influenced by Lawrence J. Henderson (1878-1942), Paul Davies and John Barrow who argued for an Anthropic Principle in the cosmos (Denton 1998, v, Denton 2005). Thus his second book Nature's Destiny (1998) is his biological contribution on the Anthropic Principle debate which is dominated by physicists. He argues for a law-like evolutionary unfolding of life. He no longer associates with Discovery, and the Institute no longer lists him as a fellow.
Keep the bullshit coming Pahu, I'll be glad to refute it until someone locks this SPAM thread.