Replies

evolutionists can never point to a single species which has clearly transformed itself to another more complex one.

Ever hear of eohippus?

No, G3K hasn't. It's also why G3K can post with a straight face that Darwin never did any experiments, that all (yes, all!), scientific discoveries in the last 150 years have disproven evolution, and that there's never been a rebuttal of anything he/she/it posts.

Curiously though, Gore cannot count to two. Gore is not aware that if "A" does something once, and "B" does something once, it is not the same as "A" having done something two times. Gore is not aware that a circle is a type of ellipse. Gore is not aware that 1⁷²⁰ is the same as 1. Gore is not aware that although Malthus inaccurately predicted that the food supply would be outstripped by human reproduction, this has nothing to do with evolution. Gore has posted both that there are no creationists, but that NASA astronauts were creationists. Gore claims he doesn't ignore posts to him, but has been ignoring the points in this paragraph for varying lengths of time ... some as long as months by now.

Gore3000 is the proud possessor of a Memory Hole that would be the envy of George Orwell.

Ever hear of eohippus?

I am convinced that the horse series is more wishful thinking than science. Checkout this url.

http://www.alternativescience.com/talk-origins-horses.htm

It's not a Creationist site.

evolutionists can never point to a single species which has clearly transformed itself to another more complex one. -me-

Ever hear of eohippus?

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clear up another evolutionist lie. Eohippus is also known by the name of hyracotherium, and for good reason. Hyrocotherium was the name given to it by its discoverer. Reason he gave it that name is that it most clearly resembled an animal from a totally different genus than the horse - the hyrax:

* Totally unlike modern horses, both morphologically and in habitat. Some scientists believe that Hyracotherium is simply an extinct subspecies of Hyrax. Robert Owen named the first specimen "Hyracotherium" because of its resemblance to the genus Hyra x (cony). When the error margin is taken into account for fleshing out the skeleton of Hyracotherium (left top) into a fleshed out photo (left middle), it becomes almost identical to the modern Hyrax. (Even closer than pictured (left middle). Some evolutionists draw Hyracotherium as looking like a mini horse. This is way outside the error margin of the bone to fur guess.
* Arched back that stood about 16 inches to the soldier about the size of a fox terrier
* Had 18 pairs of ribs with short neck, snout & legs and a long tail.
* Each toe has a pad like dogs. Three toes on hind feet, four on front feet with a shorter leg/longer head to body ratio compared to horses. Tiny stubs (vestiges) of the 1st and 2nd toes.
* Major bones not fused, legs both flexible and rotatable
* Short face, with eye sockets in the middle and a short diastema (the space between front and cheek teeth).
* Low-crowned teeth unlike horses and more teeth than horses. Teeth sets: 1 canine, 3 incisors, 4 premolars, 3 grinding molars in each side of each jaw. Teeth of a typical omnivorous browser.

From: Textbook Fraud where you can see plenty of pictures, bones, and scientific testimony showing that this was not a horse.

Seems that the evolutionists, in their total desperation to give evidence for what there is no evidence committed another one of their paleontological frauds, 'borrowing' bones from one species to use in another to prove their point. One has to wonder what kind of scientists, what kind of scientific theory this evolution is that it needs to perpetrate so many frauds.