You seem to be ignoring the rest of the posts
Which ones? Another round i won and anyone reading this can see that.
Why are geeks often atheists?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Which ones? Another round i won and anyone reading this can see that.
:roflmao:
You haven't even responded to my posts. It's typical of someone on the losing side of an argument to declare victory and run away.
Well then just point out which one i did not respond to.
Likewise.
I'm wondering what S.A.M. is going to say when I tell him that eugenics is mandated by the Bible.
Likewise.
I'm wondering what S.A.M. is going to say when I tell him that eugenics is mandated by the Bible.
Sam is a chick
True. I'm sure, if determined, a breeder could find some way to make it work (though I don't want to go in that direction
). But if they were in wild now, without humans, they could be classified as a different species by the same standards that are applied to other species. If a field biologist (who somehow never knew of dogs) encountered them, he would probably think there was sympatric speciation.
Oops.Sam is a chick
If they were wild, they would be far more homogeneous.True. I'm sure if determined a breeder could find some way to make it work (though I don't want to go in that direction
But if they were in wild now, without humans, they could be classified as a different species by the same standards that are applied to other species. If a field biologist (who somehow never knew of dogs) encountered them, he would probably think there was sympatric speciation.
[ENC]S.A.M.[/ENC]
If i responded the way i want to it would be viewed as personal insult towards you, this is not my intention.
Then tone it down. You certainly can't refuse to respond for fear of insulting me and then declare victory.
At least, not without looking rather foolish.
:shrug:
It says you're a tranny, so technically I'm still correct.
I missed that :bugeye: (My eyes/brain probably weren't working after damage from looking at that picture).
I did not respond because the post is pointless. I gave the opportunity to provide coherent argument for determining that biological evolution, not simply changes from plant to plant or within Canis lupus familiaris, does not rely on faith. Neither you, SnakeLord or Spidergoat came close to achieving that. They left, your still here posting things that are not even relevant just as they were.
Hey, i dont look foolish at all because i am relying on facts. And after all you did post that evolution was from land to water, remember that? Where did that come from anyway? I think your just googling as you go along, that is my theory.
You stopped challenging the point that was made, because it appeared that you were incapable. You can't declare an argument invalid without finding fault with it.
More to the point, you certainly aren't doing anything useful if you declare an argument invalid without providing one of your own.
I posted that the evolution of cetaceans was from land to water, not that all evolution was from land to water, and that's true. The evolution of the precursors to cetaceans was probably from water to land. So what?
But we are not arguing any points about children growing into adults.:shrug: Start a new thread for that.
As to the other point, they teach that in third grade. I misunderstood your circular arguing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
You brought it up. I'll happily carry on the arguments about evolution and speciation if you can find any fault with the argument as it stands.
If they teach that in third grade, then why did you get it backwards when I presented it? The reason I told you that it was from land to water, if you recall, is because you asked why there were still dolphins, which is a moronic question on numerous levels.
I'm beginning to think that the reason you keep presuming that you've won an argument is because you're entirely incapable of keeping track of one.