Creation science II

As for me, the way "creation science" explains the extinction of species, especially in regards of the truth Darwin himself had the greatest difficulty to get rid of (species are immutable) is still unknown.It is said that the thylacine, among other animals, was the only specie of its genus. I had chosen this exemple earlier for Kelly or whoever wished to answer, because it was a quite recent case, but she went on the dinosaurs.If this kind of question is treated seriously by "creation science", then we may have a little hope for its legitimacy, among other little signs of real inquiry.If we all agree on taxonomy, then it's a real question to be asked to creationists/ID supporters.

Uh, have I the right to say... "Yes"? But I'd rather have a Flying Spaghetti Monster.Ok, Invisible Pink Unicorn is allright with me. It makes me think of the Ridley Scott movie... LEGEND!

Hey, i never meant to be arrogant, since so mlany creationists/ID supporters lectured me about what was true, not true, etc.This was intended only to add some humour to the thread True, i don't think "creation science" has brought any serious info that has the potential to contradict the evolution theory, but that doesn't prevent me from writing such lines, from time to time, wether you find it funny or not. Don't go thinking i'm persuaded i know it all, and that i make jokes in some state of jubilation.