Checkmate, Creationists

[essentialsaltes]

Man claims that his pet cat gave birth to a chihuahua

 

[AV1611VET]

Man claims that his pet cat gave birth to a chihuahua

It's still a mammal.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Man claims that his pet cat gave birth to a chihuahua

Seriously?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Man claims that his pet cat gave birth to a chihuahua

Yah, you would believe that. lol. I mean come on. But thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Wanna bet that if the DNA is studied not one cat gene is found????

Notice how the other believers in evolution are avoiding this post like the plague. Even they know better that to accept such silliness.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Seriously?

No. Cats can't give birth to dogs.

The OP brought this article to attention because how often Creationists claim evolution says that a cat could become a dog or vice versa. The OP is having, quite deservedly, a jolly chuckle.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[HitchSlap]

Yah, you would believe that. lol. I mean come on. But thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Wanna bet that if the DNA is studied not one cat gene is found????

Notice how the other believers in evolution are avoiding this post like the plague. Even they know better that to accept such silliness.

Hey, as long as some anonymous dude says something and it's written down, even one hundred years later, I'll buy that.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Notice how the other believers in evolution are avoiding this post like the plague. Even they know better that to accept such silliness.

Because everyone else knows OP created this thread as a joke. Relax.

 

[Smidlee]

Hey, as long as some anonymous dude says something and it's written down, even one hundred years later, I'll buy that.

So you don't think a man today couldn't easily write about World War 1?

 

[HitchSlap]

So you don't think a man today couldn't easily write about World War 1?

Correct.

 

[Smidlee]

Well they have claim that there were civilizations were able to pass on their history by word of mouth alone for many centuries. They kept it as a whole group.

 

[Willtor]

This is what Willtor's Wager is all about, people.

Alas, hoisted by my petard. I now renounce the theory of evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. Cats can't give birth to dogs.

The OP brought this article to attention because how often Creationists claim evolution says that a cat could become a dog or vice versa. The OP is having, quite deservedly, a jolly chuckle.

-CryptoLutheran

No, we insist it is Kind after Kind. It is evolutionists that say a fish can become a rodent which can become a man. I think you are a tad confused over the two theories.

This is a creationists view, what matches reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, we insist it is Kind after Kind. It is evolutionists that say a fish can become a rodent which can become a man. I think you are a tad confused over the two theories.

This is a creationists view, what matches reality.

No, there was no "change of kind" in going from sea to land. Since creationists can't define kind I have hijacked the word.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, we insist it is Kind after Kind. It is evolutionists that say a fish can become a rodent which can become a man. I think you are a tad confused over the two theories.

No evolutionist believes a fish becomes a rodent, and/or that a rodent becomes a man.

What "evolutionists" do understand is that rodents and human beings share a common mammalian ancestor; and that "fish" is not a monophyletic group but describes an extensively diverse array of animal groups, some extant and some extinct. Mammals, as amniotic tetrapods, are thus descended from an amniotic tetrapod ancestor, and it descended from a non-amniotic tetrapod which evolved from a type of "fish". Specifically a fish whose air bladder had already evolved into a primitive lung (similar to modern lung fishes), and very likely already had powerful fins/limbs to cross muddy banks. It, and all other polyphyletic fish groups did evolve from a common chordate ancestor, ancestral to all organisms in chordata--things with a backbone.

But no, it is only Creationists who insist that evolution teaches and evolutionists believe that cats can give birth to dogs, or that rodents become human. Evolution doesn't say that, evolutionists don't believe that. That is peculiar to Creationist anti-science propaganda, intended to confuse the gullible and naive into unquestioning and blind acceptance of Creationist dogma.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

What "evolutionists" do understand is that rodents and human beings share a common mammalian ancestor;

Does this common mammalian ancestor have a name?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does this common mammalian ancestor have a name?

Stanley.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stanley.

Wasn't he the guy in that movie about that man-eating plant?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does this common mammalian ancestor have a name?

Not relevant.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

What "evolutionists" do understand is that rodents and human beings share a common mammalian ancestor;

Does this common mammalian ancestor have a name?

Not relevant.

So, in other words, this "common mammalian ancestor" is just a dot, and you expect us to play connect-the-dots?

I'll pass.

 

[USincognito]

This is a creationists view, what matches reality.

Domestic cats are a subspecies, not a "kind" and they are part of Feliformia which is part of Carnivora. This is actual reality.