[Ultra Sonic 007]

Ah. Oh well. I can admit that I'm wrong. (Glances at his source of information) Talk about misrepresentation of facts.

You do understand that there's a difference between monkeys and apes, don't you?

Condescending, much? It doesn't do you much a favor when you presume me to be a dummy.

And while we're on interesting facts, did you know that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than mice and rats?

Okay. Your point?

It was an outright lie anyway. Never accept anything a creationist tells you at face value, even the words 'and' and 'the'. Any claim they make has a high probability of being completely made up.

Pardon me if my source of information ('Exploring Creation with Biology' by Dr. Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell) had a very selective view of cytochrome C sequences (my fault for not noticing the 'A Highly Selective View of Some Cytochrome C Sequences Compared to Human Cytochrome C Sequences' above the data table).

Has it ever occured to you that grouping all creationists together and branding them as 'liars' doesn't reflect well on you?

[Right Wing Professor]

Has it ever occured to you that grouping all creationists together and branding them as 'liars' doesn't reflect well on you?

No. It's a result of long experience. Most scientists who've had to deal with creationists will tell you the same. It's like Ray Charles and bad luck; if they didn't have false claims, they'd have no claims at all. The only way to prove a bogus theory is with bogus information.

[Right Wing Professor]

I followed up on your link, BTW, and found the source you cited is being promoted as a high-school text for Christian schools. That's scary.

[highball]

Me: You do understand that there's a difference between monkeys and apes, don't you?

Ultra Sonic 007: Condescending, much? It doesn't do you much a favor when you presume me to be a dummy.

Um, you're the one who brought up the relatively distant relation between humans and Rhesus monkeys. It's a specious comparison, because monkeys are not apes. What exactly was your point in raising that issue in the first place?

I'm not presuming you to be a dummy. Quite the contrary. I do think you're using disingenuous tactics, with the bait-and-switch monkey comparison and by implying that "scientific theory" means "untested and unreliable." But "disingenuous" does not mean "stupid."