YECs

[Harrowby Hall]

I am not an expert on this subject, far from it. However, a couple of considerations:

1   Lions and tigers are at the top of the food chain and tend to live in areas where there has not been great climatic change. There would, therefore, be little evolutionary pressure on them for their genotypes to diverge greatly.

2   It would appear that having the same the number of chromosomes is important in hybridisation. Lions and tigers each have 38. Dogs, wolves, jackals, coyotes and dingos each have 78.
Humans have 46 but gorillas have 48. Even though gorillas are very closely related to humans this incompatibility prevents hybridisation.

[~TW~]

  Evolution is impossible it is that easy.

            ~TW~

[floo]

Evolution is impossible it is that easy.

            ~TW~

You mean the creation myth in the Bible isn't possible!

[SqueakyVoice]

Evolution is impossible it is that easy.

            ~TW~

In your case? Yes.

But that's just yet another example of why relying on personal experience is such a bad form of evidence.

[wigginhall]

I would think that hybridization provides a strong argument for evolution.  It happens with closely related species, or those which have recently diverged.   An example can be found with the ordinary duck, or mallard, which can hybridize with a number of other duck species, e.g. the pintail, or the American black duck. 

But it's unlikely that a mallard would hybridize with a heron, for example, since they are more distant genetically and ecologically.   

One might ask how creationists explain hybrids, and the block on some hybrids - I suppose they can say that it pleases God!   

[Spud]

Incredible documemtary on big cats made by Chris Packham:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fmg8d

[Spud]

I am not an expert on this subject, far from it. However, a couple of considerations:

1   Lions and tigers are at the top of the food chain and tend to live in areas where there has not been great climatic change. There would, therefore, be little evolutionary pressure on them for their genotypes to diverge greatly.

2   It would appear that having the same the number of chromosomes is important in hybridisation. Lions and tigers each have 38. Dogs, wolves, jackals, coyotes and dingos each have 78.
Humans have 46 but gorillas have 48. Even though gorillas are very closely related to humans this incompatibility prevents hybridisation.

A zenkey: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050609625.html
This is a donkey (62 chromosomes)/zebra (44 chromosomes) hybrid. The zoo had bred two zenkeys previously but they did not survive past a few months. But this one shows that animals with different chromosome numbers can hybridize. A more common example is the mule (63), which is a horse (64)/donkey (62) hybrid. A female puma (38) and male ocelot (36) produced 4 litters in the 1980s.

[Harrowby Hall]

Thank you Spud. One live's and learns. No doubt Sriram will blame epigenetics.

However, it is not evidence that The King of the Fairies in the Sky commanded the creation of the universe on a Sunday evening in 4004BCE.

[wigginhall]

But did the King of Fairies in the Sky make a giraffe in his shed one Sunday afternoon, cos he was bored, and he thought that long necks would be fashionable this year?   Anyway, giraffes caught on, and soon, they were all over the place. 

(Just So Stories, mk. II).

[BashfulAnthony]

But did the King of Fairies in the Sky make a giraffe in his shed one Sunday afternoon, cos he was bored, and he thought that long necks would be fashionable this year?   Anyway, giraffes caught on, and soon, they were all over the place. 

(Just So Stories, mk. II).

Just your level of reading, eh, children's nonsense stories?

[~TW~]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

[Sebastian Toe]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

If you could kindly show on this thread where anyone (apart from yourself) has explicitly said that 'nothing=something'?

If you cannot, then the only clown here could only be .....you!

Now, run off and rejoin your circus and leave the adults to talk amongst themselves.
 

[floo]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

What does your clown suit look like TW?

[~TW~]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

What does your clown suit look like TW?

 Floo you and your mates should read this.

             http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296

     It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.

                     ~TW~

[Owlswing]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

What does your clown suit look like TW?

 Floo you and your mates should read this.

             http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296

     It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.

                     ~TW~

It is not the evidence that changes anything - it is your bare-faced bias and blinkered mind in the way you read the evidence that allows you to reject it.

If you were a scientist of note instead of a gullible christian you would see that! But you aren't and you won't.

[floo]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

What does your clown suit look like TW?

 Floo you and your mates should read this.

             http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296

     It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.

                     ~TW~

That isn't any sort of evidence!

[jeremyp]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

What does your clown suit look like TW?

 Floo you and your mates should read this.

             http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296

     It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.

                     ~TW~

Let's consider this quote from your article:

The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology

For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.

The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.

To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:

Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2

That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.

In fact if we look at population figures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.

In short, your article is utter bollocks.

To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.

Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.

[Sebastian Toe]

any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.

are they though? Really?

Seb, the New Testament drew on the Jewish Scriptures and most Jews understood the creation story to be allegorical, or at least that is what I have been told by Jewish scholars, who have told me that the structure of the material in Hebrew is exactly what one woud expect from a allegorical piece of writing.  I realise that this is largely lost in translation into English, but in Englis there are certain clues - such as the repetitive format of God's daily actions and his deeming them 'good'.

The Jewish writers of the New Testament (the majority of the authors would have been Jewish, even if they were cosmopolitan with it - like Paul) woukd therefore have written their material with that understanding in mind.  There is nothing in Jesus' teaching to suggest that they oughtn't to.

As I said, the 'non-literal' reading of the material that Ussher et al exhibit didn't come into being until the 15th and 16th centuries.  I understand that something that Martin Luther wrote sparked the idea that eventully blossomed into Ussher's detailed calculations.  Exactly what Luther wrote, I'm not sure - I haven't read all his stuff.

Now Hope, if it was actually allegorical and not literally true, then TW would not be able to give you this evidence, would he?
Therefore your Jewish scholars must have been mistaken?

You Christians should know that!

 Floo you and your mates should read this.

             http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296

     It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.

                     ~TW~

[Hope]

Now Hope, if it was actually allegorical and not literally true, then TW would not be able to give you this evidence, would he?
Therefore your Jewish scholars must have been mistaken?

You Christians should know that!

What evidence is it that ~TW~ has given us?  An idea on the internet that is based on 14th century thinking? 

It's ironic that it's appearance seems to coincide with the early development of modern science 

[Sebastian Toe]

Now Hope, if it was actually allegorical and not literally true, then TW would not be able to give you this evidence, would he?
Therefore your Jewish scholars must have been mistaken?

You Christians should know that!

What evidence is it that ~TW~ has given us?  An idea on the internet that is based on 14th century thinking? 

Why don't you ask him?

[Spud]

The irony is that the YEC concept is a YAP - a young aged philosophy.  Whilst Ussher is the famous name associated wth it, it only really began to appear in the 16th century AD.  As such, any Biblical/NT references to the creation story would be allegorical.

Hoppity, re: #119, this link says that ancient Jewish rabbis believed the creation account should be taken as literal:
http://creation.com/ancient-jewish-view-of-creation
For example, the first letter of the Bible is 'beth', which is a back-wards C-shape. Quoting from the link:

In the same manner that the letter beth is closed on all sides and only open in front, similarly you are not permitted to inquire into what is before, or what was behind, but only from the actual time of Creation.

[~TW~]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

What does your clown suit look like TW?

 Floo you and your mates should read this.

             http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296

     It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.

                     ~TW~

Let's consider this quote from your article:

The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology

For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.

The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.

To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:

Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2

That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.

In fact if we look at population figures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.

In short, your article is utter bollocks.

To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.

Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.

 Junk Post you need to go away and find a box with nothing in it and sit and watch it,when you see signs of evolution give us a call.


 ~TW~

[Sebastian Toe]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

What does your clown suit look like TW?

 Floo you and your mates should read this.

             http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296

     It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.

                     ~TW~

Let's consider this quote from your article:

The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology

For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.

The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.

To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:

Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2

That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.

In fact if we look at population figures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.

In short, your article is utter bollocks.

To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.

Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.

 Junk Post you need to go away and find a box with nothing in it and sit and watch it,when you see signs of evolution give us a call.


 ~TW~

Clown. 

[Owlswing]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

What does your clown suit look like TW?

 Floo you and your mates should read this.

             http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296

     It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.

                     ~TW~

Let's consider this quote from your article:

The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology

For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.

The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.

To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:

Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2

That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.

In fact if we look at population figures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.

In short, your article is utter bollocks.

To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.

Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.

 Junk Post you need to go away and find a box with nothing in it and sit and watch it,when you see signs of evolution give us a call.


 ~TW~

Clown. 

Sorry, but I disagree - clowns are funny, not terminally pathetic!

[floo]

Dear oh dear these clowns are still trying to push nothing=something.

 ~TW~

What does your clown suit look like TW?

 Floo you and your mates should read this.

             http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=296

     It seems the evidence says you are wrong,but we Christians know that.

                     ~TW~

Let's consider this quote from your article:

The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology

For those who can't be arsed to read the article, c is the number of each person has (actually, it is given as 2c per couple), d is the number of generations each person lives on average and n is the number of generations after the start.

The first error is that they call something a constant when even they admit it "fluctuate at different times in history". These people have no clue about such basic things as constants and variables.

To be honest, that's as far as we needed to go to debunk the whole article, but let's carry on:

Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2

That's a number they pulled out of their arses and is actually very high. There have been many periods in history when c was less than 1, for instance, the Black Death caused the population of Europe to drop by between a third and a half. Having made a guess, they try to compute the population of the Earth and come up with a ridiculous number. Well of course they did, their input parameters were just guesses.

In fact if we look at population figures

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

assuming a generation of 20 years, even now at a period of relatively high population growth c is only 1.1.

In short, your article is utter bollocks.

To reinforce the point, according to the article's figures and numbers, under the creation scheme, at the time of the pyramid building phase of Egypt there were fewer than 100,000 people on the whole planet.

Next time, TW, try using the brain that you think God gave you.

 Junk Post you need to go away and find a box with nothing in it and sit and watch it,when you see signs of evolution give us a call.


 ~TW~

Clown. 

Sorry, but I disagree - clowns are funny, not terminally pathetic!

I have never been keen on clowns, they creeped me out as a kid!  But I agree they are not terminally pathetic!!