[VadeRetro]

As for the common ancestor of cats and dogs - what would that be and what is your "proof"?

If I tell you what it is will you stop trying to beat science over the head with how little of it you personally know or understand? Here's a web page describing that when you go back down the tree of life following the carnivore branch in the fossil record to where you don't see cats or dogs or bears or weasels or civets or raccoons anymore, you get to a thing called a miacid. This not only is the common ancestor of the later diversified forms, but it looks surprisingly like the last common ancestor (called a condylarth) of the ungulates (horses, deer, etc.).

Figure 10. Comparison of skulls of the early ungulates (condylarths) and carnivores. (A) The condylarth Phenacodus possessed large canines as well as cheek teeth partially adapted for herbivory. (B) The carnivore-like condylarth Mesonyx. The early Eocene creodonts (C) Oxyaena and (D) Sinopa were primitive carnivores apparently unrelated to any modern forms. (E) The Eocene Vulpavus is a representative of the miacids which probably was ancestral to all living carnivore groups. (From Vertebrate Paleontology by Alfred Sherwood Romer published by The University of Chicago Press, copyright © 1945, 1966 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This material may be used and shared with the fair-use provisions of US copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires both the consent of the authors and the University of Chicago Press.)

This similarity as one looks back in time between carnivores and ungulates is a prediction of evolution. Being mammals, these groups also have a common ancestor. The fossil record indeed shows this.

We see this convergence in case after case. As you trace birds and dinosaurs back, they grow together until there are specimens whose classification is controversial. The same thing happens with mammals themselves, where they branch from reptiles. That's what evolution says we should find and we do.

[PatrickHenry]

Looks like it's time to haul this one out again:

The scientific case against Craterism

1. Meteor craters have not been observed to happen, now or in the past.
2. Meteor craters have never been reproduced in the lab, and are thus not scientific.
3. Thomas Jefferson said: "Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven."
4. The odds against a random rock falling from the sky, striking the earth, and making a crater are astronomical.
5. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits meteor craters.
6. Meteor craters are not mentioned in the bible, nor are "rocks from the sky."
7. Craterism is a product of materialism and a Godless, naturalistic worldview.
8. Belief that rocks can fall from the sky promotes hedonism and amoral, animalistic behavior.
9. Craterism makes no predictions and is untestable; it is therefore not scientific.
10. Craterists can produce micro-craters, but have no evidence of macro-cratering.
11. Aristotle didn't believe in Craterism. Nor did Galileo, Newton, or Einstein.
12. Einstein even said: "God does not play dice!" Are you smarter than Einstein?
13. Scientists are abandoning craterism because they know it is not supported by evidence.
14. Anyone who thinks there are rocks in the sky has rocks in his head.
15. It takes more faith to believe in Craterism than it does to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
16. More and more scientists are turning to "Intelligent Crater" theory (IC). Craterism is a theory in crisis!