Creationist inconsistency when inferring relatedness

Because they are totally different kinds! You atheist evilutionists just will not get that straight.Dogs don't give birth to cats and neither of them give birth to giraffes.OK, so there was a common ancestor between cats and dogs in the miacids some 30 million years ago and there was a common ancestor between this cat-dog miacid and the giraffes in the protungulates some 30 million years before that ...but... this was all well before the creation so it doesn't count!So no more of this satanic morphology stuff. God hates it.

My apologies, A. canadensis. Obviously my Poe is not yet sufficiently developed. I will try harder next time.By the way, welcome to EvC. Glad to have you.

So your view is that logic and rationality would preclude a theory from growing up out of the preponderance of the evidence? That in itself is irrational.Theories do not poof themselves nor are "concocted" into existence. When the multitude of evidence becomes such that the mechanism hypothesized is shown to be consistently right, then we have a theory. Rationality demands, by force of logic, that the theory exists.The resultant theory was not concocted (in the negative usage of that term) by anything other than the weight of the evidence. When the evidence is lacking, inconclusive or contradictory then there cannot be a theory. When the evidence is verbose, pointed and consistent then the result is termed "theory". Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Not physically, but intellectually you are well on your way. The kind of intellectual atrophy you display here is the same as the eugenicists and the crusaders you have decried. Edited by AZPaul3, : spl