Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>>>>They simply don't have the evidence of what they say occurred
>>>>'....over a long period of time' because it can't occur according to
>>>>biological breeding rules.
>>>>>>But it can, and it has been observed. Therefore your "biological
>>>breeding rules" must not be rules.
>>>>Yes they are rules. You have violated those rules by takeing one or
>>two bones which is perhaps millions of years old (by your standards)
>>and created the notion that it represents an entire species...
>>I have? No. Science can tell it is a different species, because it
>differs in some key characteristic from a similar bone of a related
>species.
>>But what science does in classifying fossils has nothing to do with
>violating any breeding rules.
>>>all
>>with no proof whatsoever that thousands of these creatures did
>>indeed exist, and breed as a species.
>>No, we don't know that thousands existed, though it seems likely.
>>lojbab
Right. You have faith that they existed when in fact the bone in
question could have very well been from a mutant, yet you guys
decided by faith that it represents an entire species.
Like I said, your story takes more faith to believe than mine.
Jd
