[VadeRetro]

BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.

-- gore3000

Questioned here.

Repeated here.

I'm curious. You so seldom see a creationist say, "Oops! I had that backwards! The DNA studies show it was hippos. Mesonychus is what it wasn't."

In fact, you so seldom see a creationist say "Ooops!" at all. And yet, they're far from infallible. (About as far as it gets, IMHO.)

One feeble dodge based upon a misread (deliberate?) attempted here.

Rebutted with ease here.

"Still waiting for you to source this or back off. It's wrong."

Still waiting.

So what's the big deal? As I said before, I'm curious. The interesting psychopathology of people like you is part of the jollies I get from this game.

The DNA evidence is the opposite of what you said it was. The DNA evidence overthrew Mesonychus, an otherwise plausible-looking candidate that a lot of the paleontologists favored until new fossil specimens of your buddy Pakicetus showed artiodactyl ankles.

You screwed it up. I do that routinely and eat the crow all the time. I've noticed my evo brethren are similarly self-correcting: Junior with his math error per recent example.

But creationists have too much cognitive dissonance to say "Oops" when arguing with a Godless materialist Satan-worshipping Evo. No matter how much piety they radiate, they brazen, play dumb, erupt in abuse, or slink silently away when in error.

How many chances am I supposed to give you?

[Doctor Stochastic]

You give him three chances or until the cock crows, whichever comes first. That's seems to be traditional.