On Apr 13, 7:25 am, Kathy C <kokusmaxi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 6:54 pm, Kathy C <kokusmaxi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Uncle Vic wrote:
> >>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Kathy C <kokusmaxi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>> TimK wrote:
> >>>>> "Killiam" <koof...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:_47Mj.815$mG1.159@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>> TimK wrote:
> >>>>>>> Evolution, despite the ignorant rantings of people like you, is
> >>>>>>> tested - for well over 100 years.
> >>>>>> How?
> >>>>>> With old incomplete bones?
> >>>>> Evolution is about genetics.
> >>>>> idiot
> >>>> Yeah of course. there was this thread about the evolution of bats.
I
> >>>> guess you missed that one.
> >>>> in the short, Bat been around for millions of year with very little
> >>>> change versus Hominid. Why don't bats evolve.
> >>> Probably because their habitat (dark caves) and food source have not
> >>> changed much. Genetic mutation occurs with changes in habitat, food
> >>> source, etc., basically survival conditions.
> >> Bats eats insects. Nothing on evolution on insects neither. Why?
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html
>
> Talk.origins info, is not peered review, that is like asking a
> creationist to prove evolution with Genesis.
That proves you're Jabriol. He's scared to death of talk.origins.
The fact is that the people who write the talk.origins material are
practicing scientists in their various fields, and a lot of that
material refers directly to published, peer-reviewed science papers.
Talking of which, Jabberhole, where is *your* peer reviewed material
sup****ting your LIES? (Note, references to a letter published in New
Scientist magazine are *not* considered peer-reviewed material you
hypocritical vacuous asshole).
Budikka
|
