Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu,You do understand, don't you, that anything you cut and paste from AIG/ICR/etc. will be demolished in one post?Matt P. in Message 5, for example.Furthermore, when asked to provide cites, it is customary to give them is this format:Chassefiere, E.
MEP (Mars Environment Package): toward a package for studying environmental conditions at the surface of Mars from future lander/rover missions.
Adv Space Res. 2004;34(8):1702-9.That way we will be able to find the relevant literature.The garbage you posted in Message 12 is worse than useless.For example, when I search pubmed for the first of the authors that you list, Scott Tremaine, I find 2 entries:The legacy and large-scale distribution of active galaxies.
Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2005 Mar 15;363(1828):613-9; discussion 619.Why Does the Earth Spin Forward?
Science. 1993 Jan 15;259(5093):350-354.Neither of which has anything to do with meteoric dust.Are you going to provide the cites that several of us have asked for or not?Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

You need to do 2 things:1. State your case, using the relevant cites in the appropriate format to support your contentions.2. When someone thoroughly dismantles one of your swiped PRATTs, you need to either rebut or concede.You posted your meteoric dust PRATT as an OP. Fabulous. Matt destroyed your meteoric dust garbage in Message 5.Rebut or concede?

You carry your own weight around here.If you'd like to track down something in the scientific literature, look here:PubMedIf you'd like to track down Stevenson, google his creo ass.If you'd like to track down the footnotes, turn to the back of the book!If you'd like to track down the title of the book, look on the cover!If you want to track down the quotes, turn to page 22!If you don't want to answer any of Dwise1's questions, you are going to find yourself in hot water pretty quick.You can either engage in debate or you can take your swiped creo PRATTs elsewhere.

I'm calling bullshit on this one.Where, exactly, did I show "the 'facts' Tremaine 'discovered' which 'disprove' evolution", hm?Please quote me.Either you pony up the arguments for Tremaine or stop posting.This is getting tiresome.

Jinx!

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 46.   Evolving Planets?Pahu, You swiped your entire post (Message 49) from this website.You are a plagiarist and a liar.You need to go. Now.

Here's the original source: Here's where I found it:
Page not found – Evolution-FactsThis guy is a plagiarist.ABE:At the very least, Percy, this creo needs to get schooled on proper cites and proper quotes.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Doc,The liar ref is from earlier in the thread.Message 35: I did no such thing.And this numbskull is pasting verbatim from Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Without quote boxes. Without providing the proper URLs.Since when is it kosher to just swipe unattributed material from a creo site? And add absolutely nothing else to the discussion?

Aw. Archie. You sugar lump. You made my night.

Jason, it is common courtesy to provide the cite without having to be asked (per Rule 6). Since you didn't provide a cite and since you have been asked, you need to either provide the cite or concede. Something along the lines of:"I, Jason777, have no cite for the claim that Australopithecenes have opposable thumbs; therefore, I concede the point."

Your cite says nothing about opposable big toes.Again.Either concede the point or provide a cite.

Again. You need to provide cites, so that we can research your claims.Simply listing a bunch of names ... ... is not sufficient.

From their conclusion: Nothing of Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus africanus ... which, btw, are not Homo, Jason.Australopithecus is one genus. Homo is another genus.They are 2 entirely different things.

Wrong again.Here is the link to the article you reference:http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000408/note11ref.aspHere is the paper than article references:Richmond, B.G., and D.S. Strait. 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404(March 23):382-385.Here is a quote from that paper: Australopithecus, Jason. Not Homo. Health & Sci Tech is not a journal, you moron. Here is the link to the Jeruselam Post article you cited.Here is the proper cite:
PNAS, April 17, 2007, vol. 104, no. 16, 6568-6572From the article you cited: Australopithecus, Jason. Not Homo.Here are all the species:Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiensEven if you knocked Lucy out of Australopithecus, that would have no effect on the ToE.Lucy is but one example of Australopithecus afarensis.One example out of dozens. Did you catch that last bit, Jason?They are not claiming that Lucy was a knuckle walking ape with no relation to humans.They are arguing that a different Australopithecus is more likely.

Pahu, you have been warned twice by the The Admin (Percy) to stop with the CnPs.Yet, once again, you have done nothing more than swipe from a creo site and dump it here wholesale.Are you trying to get suspended?Cause you will.Percy usually gives 3 warnings and then it's suspension time.ABE:Percy beat me to it.Edited by molbiogirl, : spEdited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.