About origins.

charityagape said:

Someone said it was 75% to the banana? Anyone know the truth?

Click to expand...

The best stat I could find lists it as 50%. Howeve,r it doesn't say how that measurement was made, were they comparing coding, non-coding, etc...

charityagape said:

Someone said it was 75% to the banana? Anyone know the truth?

Click to expand...

There are different numbers because some measurements exclude the DNA that they don't think is important (although we are beginning to learn that even DNA that does not code a protein can be important).

there are about 800,000 species of beetle which cannot interbreed,

I thought there were 800K species of insects, of which 300k are of the beetle variety? Anyway how does one get from dogs to insects? What relevance is there other than that insects may be found on dogs or perhaps in their feces? What I am wondering is where is your support that among the 300k species of beetles identified, none can interbreed? As that would be quite an assumption, as it would mean that every single male and female of all beetle species have been paired and proven to not successfully produced any young – now that would be an amazing scientific investigative feat worthy of a Nobel prize!

did noah take them all?

Scripture tells us that Noah was commanded to take all the animals on land whose nostrils was the breath of life into the Ark (Genesis 6:17, 7:14-15, 22). Since insects breathed through their skin and have no nostrils, it would be logical to conclude that insects were not specifically taken on the Ark - at least not knowingly anyway.

what about some feline species that can't interbreed? house cats and tigers can't breed.

Don’t really know about that, any research done on this? It could be the same reason a Chihuahua and a great Dane can’t interbreed, physical limitations rather than genetic. I would like to get some research that has been done on this though.

your model falls apart even when someone just scratches the surface.

Yes of course coming from you I am more than convinced that YECism is doomed. Anyway Evolutionists (TEs in this case) are always itching to jump all over any creationist who dares to disagree with them. So go ahead and scratch away even if its just at the surface - you’ll just have to get in line and wait your turn like everyone else.

i'll ask again, how does the fossil record support the YEC model?

The fossil record is very much circus-stantial evidence for evolution and would not stand up in any court of law – not even evolutionists rely on the fossil record as their strongest evidence anymore. And besides it isn’t my area of interest so I’ll have to leave it at that.

Crusadar said:

The fossil record is very much circus-stantial evidence for evolution and would not stand up in any court of law – not even evolutionists rely on the fossil record as their strongest evidence anymore. And besides it isn’t my area of interest so I’ll have to leave it at that.

Click to expand...

There may be other evidence for evolution that is stronger than the fossil record. That doesn't mean the fossil record is not evidence for evolution. Its only weakness is its incompleteness. In all other respects, it fits perfectly into the model of evolution.

Nor does it matter if it is circumstancial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be very sound and conclusive and has stood up in a court of law many times. Circumstantial evidence often makes the difference in determining which of two contradictory witness statements to believe. And circumstancial evidence can be sufficient in itself to convict or acquit.

You haven't attempted to answer philadiddle's question yet. I am interested in that answer too. We know how the fossil record supports evolution. How does it support the YEC model?

In all other respects, it fits perfectly into the model of evolution.

Of course it does, after all it is the only viable explanation - never mind what scripture tells us. I suppose the only historical evidence for evolution are fossil remains so why should it be abandoned?

And circumstancial evidence can be sufficient in itself to convict or acquit.

Actually I said "circus - stancial, which obviously wasn't enough to convict O.J. Simpson. Even though we all know who is guilty. But even with the OJ case there were witnesses and historical facts which can be confirmed. Just exactly how any court case can be built on fossilized remains that no one knows had any progenitor or left any progeny is beyond my logic.

I am interested in that answer too. We know how the fossil record supports evolution. How does it support the YEC model?

Like I said: "And besides it isn’t my area of interest so I’ll have to leave it at that."

yes crusader, this question is continuously dodged by YECs.

That's Crusadar, with an "ar" to you. Anyway if there was such a record then I will have to convert to TE, however it only exists in text books and in the minds of evolutionists so I will sleep comfortably.

Crusadar said:

In all other respects, it fits perfectly into the model of evolution.

Of course it does, after all it is the only viable explanation - never mind what scripture tells us.

Click to expand...

It is the only viable scientific explanation, yes. If scripture tells us something different (and I am not making the claim that it does) then scripture contradicts science and you have to choose between them.

I don't choose between them, because I don't believe scripture contradicts science.

I suppose the only historical evidence for evolution are fossil remains so why should it be abandoned?

Click to expand...

It would be more accurate to say the fossil records provides evidence of the history of evolution. What makes it valuable, even in its incompleteness, is that the history it shows agrees with the history predicted on the basis of other evidence, thus confirming theory with fact.

Actually I said "circus - stancial, which obviously wasn't enough to convict O.J. Simpson.

Click to expand...

That's why it went over my head. I paid no attention to that circus. And you can't use one instance to discount circumstancial evidence generally.

Just exactly how any court case can be built on fossilized remains that no one knows had any progenitor or left any progeny is beyond my logic.

Click to expand...

Science is not decided in a court room anyway. An given the fact of reproduction, I think it would be necessary to show that the once living organism which is now a fossil did not have a progenitor or progeny. Such evidence being lacking, it is much more probable that it did than that it didn't. Especially in the case of a progenitor.

As for progeny, that is not so essential. Another reasonable assumption is that when alive, our fossil was a member of a species and that even if this individual did not have progeny, other members of its species did.

I am interested in that answer too. We know how the fossil record supports evolution. How does it support the YEC model?

Like I said: "And besides it isn’t my area of interest so I’ll have to leave it at that."

Click to expand...

Well, at least that is honest. It is refreshing to find someone who is not afraid to admit they have no answer.

I guess at this point we turn it over to another defender of the YEC model.