[DittoJed2]

Acer saccharum or Quercus velutina
Aren't these species of trees??

The Japanese photos are debatable (which is one reason I didn't bring them up). Theory one says it is a plesiosaur. Theory two says it is basking shark. DNA sampling seems to indicate the latter, however there is only 96% similarity in the genetics and we don't know what plesiosaur DNA looks like. There is also DNA similarity between humans and apes (more than with the shark and the sample), but humans and apes can not mate and reproduce a cross-species.

[whattajoke]

me: Acer saccharum or Quercus velutina
You: Aren't these species of trees??

Yes, they are. (Sugar Maple and Black Oak, the two most prevalent trees in Western VT and NE NY.) In other words, "Champy" is most logically and likely driftwood.

To another of your points, you stated "evolution is about origins." It is most decidedly, not. It addresses "origins of species," but not "origins." Abiogenesis attempts to handle that. So does Genesis. And many other equally ancient religious texts.

[StolarStorm]

One of the differences I preceive to be b/w scientists and creationist, is that of willingness to change a viewpoint. Is their anything that would/could convince you that your viewpoint on YE crationism is wrong? How much evidence would it take? What specific types of evidence could change your mind? I fear that no amount of evidence could convince many YE creationists (not necessarily you) because their beliefs ARE based on faith wen it comes down to it.

[AndrewC]

Aren't these species of trees??

Black oak Fagaceae Quercus velutina

Sugar maple Aceraceae Acer saccharum