[Dimensio]

Think of it this way. Thousands of years ago, people spoke Latin. Today, their descendants speak Italian. Do you think that there ever came a time when a Latin-speaking mother was unable to communicate with her Italian-speaking children?

Why is it that no matter how often and how clearly a creationist who makes the mistaken argument that mlc9852 has made has this explained, they still insist upon their bogus "one species gives birth to a completely different species" argument? It's as though they don't care about the actual explanation and ignore it at all costs so that they can continue asking a question about an absurd event that no one claims happened so that they can "prove" that evolution is somehow fallacious for failing to be able to explain their strawman.

Of course, I keep in mind that mlc9852 has admitted to being a liar in the past.

[Physicist]

Why is it that no matter how often and how clearly a creationist who makes the mistaken argument that mlc9852 has made has this explained, they still insist upon their bogus "one species gives birth to a completely different species" argument?

He threw that out there to avoid answering the skulls question. ("Here, boy! It's your favorite ball! Go fetch!") By diverting the conversation down that well-beaten path, he thinks I'll stop pressing him for a clear answer.

But I'll continue to ask him: if someone accepts the skulls as largely accurate, can someone--how can someone--still deny the gradual evolution of hominids, from ape to man? What link is yet missing?

[PatrickHenry]

Creationists are always declaring that there are no intermediate fossils between two closly-related species, as if that somehow disproves that the two species have a common ancestor. But the example of human races is one possible way to explain this. If we hadn't developed ships and then other means of rapid travel, the races of man would probably have remained so genetically isolated that they could eventually have become different species, unable to breed with one another. This might have taken a few thousand generations, or maybe more; but that is virtually no time, geologically speaking.

If that had happened, where would the "intermediates" be? There would probably be no "true" intermediate specimens; nevertheless, the different species of humans would have descended from a common ancestry. And so it is with all the species on earth.

[Thatcherite]

Why is it that no matter how often and how clearly a creationist who makes the mistaken argument that mlc9852 has made has this explained, they still insist upon their bogus "one species gives birth to a completely different species" argument? It's as though they don't care about the actual explanation and ignore it at all costs so that they can continue asking a question about an absurd event that no one claims happened so that they can "prove" that evolution is somehow fallacious for failing to be able to explain their strawman.

It is like Groundhog day, isn't it.

[Thatcherite]

Why is it that no matter how often and how clearly a creationist who makes the mistaken argument that mlc9852 has made has this explained, they still insist upon their bogus "one species gives birth to a completely different species" argument? It's as though they don't care about the actual explanation and ignore it at all costs so that they can continue asking a question about an absurd event that no one claims happened so that they can "prove" that evolution is somehow fallacious for failing to be able to explain their strawman.

It is like Groundhog day, isn't it.

[Thatcherite]

Why is it that no matter how often and how clearly a creationist who makes the mistaken argument that mlc9852 has made has this explained, they still insist upon their bogus "one species gives birth to a completely different species" argument? It's as though they don't care about the actual explanation and ignore it at all costs so that they can continue asking a question about an absurd event that no one claims happened so that they can "prove" that evolution is somehow fallacious for failing to be able to explain their strawman.

It is like Groundhog day, isn't it.