I wrote:On Wednesday 28 March 2007 08:06 am, you wrote:
Beginning with an aside - the interesting article you present, regarding the 15% human sheep - if we assume common descent with modification as the engine of evolution - then the 15% means that 15% of this sheep's offspring will be humans - correct?
That may be the single funniest thing I've seen anyone write, since the last time I browsed "Dr" Kent Hovind's website. Please, by all means, explain how you decided that common descent + genetic modification somehow leads you to this conclusion.
Or are species actually defined by something other than nebulous statistical concepts?
Are you not aware that you can simply look up the definition of "species"?
In terms of microbiology, a sheep is in fact all but a goat. And vice-versa. Does that mean that sheep are, say, 80% goat, and goats are, say, 75% sheep?
And we're genetically more than 95% chimp. So what? How does this refute species similarity? If anything, it confirms it.
Or are species, as Darwin himself seems to imply, actual testable units that are distinct from one another in some deep-seated, as yet not understood, way?
Where did Darwin imply that species are totally distinct from one another? Show me the quote from "Origin of Species" where he says this, since I own a copy and I don't recall ever seeing any such thing written in it anywhere. In fact, one of his major arguments is that species definitions are highly fluid, and that variations flow into species: something you would know if you had ever actually read his book. If anything, modern biologists have more rigid definitions of "species" than Darwin did.
If so, then how can they nebulously grade into each other? How can they be produced purely through common descent with modification, unless that modification does something far, far more sophisticated than mere haphazard incremental change?
Since this entire argument hinges upon your completely made-up (and thoroughly false) claim about Darwin saying that species are totally distinct from one another with no crossover, it has no merit whatsoever. Truly, yours are among the worst creationist arguments I've ever seen. You don't even seem to grasp the concept of shared DNA: something that even most creationists acknowledge to be fact.
My main intent is to bring to your attention something more obvious - somewhere in this site there are statements made to the effect that there is no testable, published creation theory.
Correct.
This wouldn't be an outdated assertion, would it? Try searching under CREATION THEORY, and look particularly for creationtheory.com, and see what the search engine advisors classify it as. Is mainstream science good enough to classify as science? Come, come, my fine fellow.
"search engine advisors"?
You're telling me that creation theory is a valid scientific theory because Internet search engines come up with hits on it? This proves it: you MUST be an absolutely inspired satiric comedian. Either that, or you're a raving idiot.
. Here's hoping the nut replies (sorry DW, but I need a good laugh 
