The creationists are BACK

[AllieBaba]

Yikes, maybe it was a hyena!

 

[Newby]

While interesting, Newby's cite does nothing to disprove evolution. As a matter of fact, it's quite a good article on how paleontologists do their work. How does this help the creationist cause? I haven't a clue.

When evolution between ape and man has been proven, then maybe there might be something to 'disprove', until then however, there's no need to disprove it. It's pure speculation and 'educated guess', yet there are many flaws, as shown, in those educated guesses.

 

[cbirch2]

While interesting, Newby's cite does nothing to disprove evolution. As a matter of fact, it's quite a good article on how paleontologists do their work. How does this help the creationist cause? I haven't a clue.

When evolution between ape and man has been proven, then maybe there might be something to 'disprove', until then however, there's no need to disprove it. It's pure speculation and 'educated guess', yet there are many flaws, as shown, in those educated guesses.

Australopithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo habilis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo erectus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, now you have some evidence that you need to disprove. Go ahead.

 

[AllieBaba]

The smartest person on the board was apparently educated @ Wiki U.

 

[cbirch2]

Yikes, maybe it was a hyena!

Not that i expect you to be able to, but try to follow this. Domestic Dogs and African wilds dogs are slightly more different because theyre in different Genu's, as well as different species.

How About these three species of Jackal within the Genus Canis?

Golden Jackal, Canis aureus - Golden Jackal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Side-striped Jackal, Canis adustus - Side-striped Jackal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Black-backed Jackal, Canis mesomelas - Side-striped Jackal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suppose those three totally different species arent related at all?

 

[AllieBaba]

Who cares? I don't recall ever making any assertions about African Wild Dogs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yikes, maybe it was a hyena!

That's one ugly critter. What I saw had hindquarters at an even height with the front quarters, much longer ears and a longer snout. Perhaps its a dog mix with a hyena!

 

[cbirch2]

The smartest person on the board was apparently educated @ Wiki U.

No i was educated at UI. Im just intelligent enough to know most statements need to be sourced.

Problem? You still just sound retarded to me now that i know you really dont know anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of the creationists believe they can disbelieve facts based on their faith. Works at their church but not in the real world.

 

[AllieBaba]

I beg to differ. You may have attended UI, but you were not educated.

 

[Dr.Drock]

While interesting, Newby's cite does nothing to disprove evolution. As a matter of fact, it's quite a good article on how paleontologists do their work. How does this help the creationist cause? I haven't a clue.

When evolution between ape and man has been proven, then maybe there might be something to 'disprove', until then however, there's no need to disprove it. It's pure speculation and 'educated guess', yet there are many flaws, as shown, in those educated guesses.

Australopithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo habilis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo erectus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, now you have some evidence that you need to disprove. Go ahead.

This should be interesting .

 

[AllieBaba]

Some of the creationists believe they can disbelieve facts based on their faith. Works at their church but not in the real world.

Such as?

 

[cbirch2]

Who cares? I don't recall ever making any assertions about African Wild Dogs.

You specifically said that evolution only occurred within the species that god specifically created. I guess any specific example that proves you wrong is meaningless to you. Not surprising since your retarded.

Do you really want me to find the PM that you said that in? itll only take a second.

 

[AllieBaba]

What a nut you are.

Sure, if you want to find that pm, go ahead. I'll wait. I'm sort of curious to see what I really said, since it's a given you sure as hell don't know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I beg to differ. You may have attended UI, but you were not educated.

This from Bible Tech Betty

 

[AllieBaba]

Hence my expertise.

 

[cbirch2]

Some of the creationists believe they can disbelieve facts based on their faith. Works at their church but not in the real world.

Such as?

Such as thinking:

"Family canidae, and there is considerable argument over whether or not they are the same species...but most recognize that they are.

Thats against the facts.

No, you moron. SUBSPECIES within the SPECIES CANIS.

Jeezus.

That too. I think it takes someone thats a little extra stupid to read the first line on the wiki page for the genus canis, the one thats first words are: "Canis is a genus", and still think that Canis is a species rather than a genus.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah, so I should have said species canis lupus.

Big whoop.

And the first one is incomplete without the context and makes no sense. I was saying they were of the family canidae, and a member of the same species (canis lupus). Which of course is true.

Pretty much all I sent you I cut and pasted from reliable sources, btw. As you know. Or maybe not, you're pretty clueless.

 

[AllieBaba]

Now please stop obsessing. It's getting creepy.

 

[cbirch2]

After reading through the pm's its clear that you think the "creation" of new species in evolution means something like a chimp giving birth to a human rather than simple genetic drift.

No wonder i cant get through to someone so stupid.