Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

quote:

---

A common creationist argument is that evolution does not show that a sufficient level of change can be demonstrated to have occurred in the fossil record, and that thousands of years of breeding of dogs has not produced something that is not a dog:

---

Is your argument reserved for creationists, strictly, or would you care to include non-creationists who also object to your views?

quote:

---

You mean from an agnostic skeptic point of view? Or based on scientific theory\evidence point of view? On way to find out is to ask your questions or state your objections.

---

My objections and questions have been stated and you missed them.

quote:

---

It is designed for creationists to explain the problems they have with "macro"evolution in general and to get some working definition of the amount of change needed to qualify. In that regard it is designed for people that don't have a clear concept of what macroevolution is and think there is something else to the process of evolution than the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

---

Since you appear to draw a line between creationists and people in this paragraph, perhaps you do understood my questions and objections after all. You make your argument for your theory based on what creationists seemingly lack. Contrarily to your wishful thinking, they are, therefore, the focus of your argument, rather than what you purport it to be. And, actually, I have addressed your subject and your agenda as well.

Your subject is creationists, not dogs or macro-evolution. The latter are also-rans to demonstrate your bias and reiterate in your mind that the former are inferior to you.I would have read what you have to say about dogs and macro-evolution. But, you are biased about creationists and other people and whatever you have to say about dogs, etc., is subject to that bias. In other words, you're unbelievable. Leave out the qualifiers. Talk about something you know; creationists isn't it.If your definition of creationists is valid, prove you have interviewed every creationist and evaluated the results with scientific accuracy. LOLWhy do you think my question is valid; invalid.How much do you have to change to give credibility to your scientific observations.What's the difference between a creationist and every other human being.If you use the definition of creationist opposed to human being, show that one differs from the other with your data collected during your interviews with all creationists on this planet.Who's the creationist that peed in your cereal.Wasting time to observe a strong and unchecked bias. You are so common. This is so common.

You are so right. I am to give it to him, while he makes mincemeat of those he hopes to reach with his erudition, derides them as inferior. Come on, Phat, you know what it is. It's as funny as a heart attack. See ya later.If creationists are so inferior, how does he hope they will understand the stuff he talks about. Yet he wants answers from them. LOLEdited by ThreeDogs, : No reason given.