>>Maybe they really have been studying DNA and that two different “kinds” cannot mate and paid attention as to how evolution came to be accepted as “religion” in schools all across the country on fraudulent information and very shifty evidence that later turned out to be pig’s tooth...<<
Since “kind” is not a scientific concept, the rest of your statement is pretty meaningless.
>>Maybe they really have been studying DNA and that two different “kinds” cannot mate and paid attention as to how evolution came to be accepted as “religion” in schools all across the country on fraudulent information and very shifty evidence that later turned out to be pig’s tooth...<<
Since “kind” is not a scientific concept, the rest of your statement is pretty meaningless.
Well you better go tell all the scientists thare using the term, “change in kind” that they are wrong. It may take you a few years though. Then you can come back and tell me their statements were meaningless...: )
>>Maybe they really have been studying DNA and that two different “kinds” cannot mate and paid attention as to how evolution came to be accepted as “religion” in schools all across the country on fraudulent information and very shifty evidence that later turned out to be pig’s tooth...<<
Since “kind” is not a scientific concept, the rest of your statement is pretty meaningless.
Well you better go tell all the scientists that are using the term, “change in kind” that they are wrong. It may take you a few years though. Then you can come back and tell me their statements were meaningless...: )