Dinosaur Duck Discovered!!

[Skreeper]

Judges 11New King James Version (NKJV)

Jephthah’s Vow and Victory
29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, 31 then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”

32 So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the Lord delivered them into his hands. 33 And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith—twenty cities—and to Abel Keramim, with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

I read the Bible, I know this by heart, what is it that you think I missed?

Where does God answer Jephthah's offer of burnt offering? Obviously the Lord was already with him, look, he was advgancig with the Spirit of God with him:

Judges 11:9 Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon.

it is here that now he decides to be gracious to God in his own ignorant way, "then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me" this is where his character is showing which was:

Judges 11:3 Then Jephthah fled from his brothers and dwelt in the land of Tob; and worthless men banded together with Jephthah and went out raiding with him.

Who would come out of his house to greet him but his sons, or his wife or his sweet daughter, who else right? So this guy was off a little bit to think that God would be pleased with him offering one of his family members to God. He could have offered a goat, or a fatted calf.

How about your God just tells him that no sacrifice is necessary to prevent the death of an innocent if he didn't want Jephthah to kill his daughter?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Arrogant and mocking? I have shown you how Evolutionist took aborigines, .. and black pigmies from Africa and put them in zoos to show how we evolved from gorillas, I have also shown how Communism was built on Evolution which caused millions and millions of deaths, many in the most horrific ways too, and evolutionists call me an animal, an ape and I'm the one being arrogant and mocking??

Spurious and false 'tu-quoque's are irrelevant.

OK, so now we didn't evolve from; rats, then gorillas, then this mysterious creature he calls the "Common Ancestor"?

The evidence strongly indicates that all extant life on Earth evolved from a single ancestral species, so every extant species has a common ancestor with every other. Typically, the closer the relationship between species, the more recent their most recent common ancestor will be. This nested hierarchy of relationship is why it's called the 'Tree of Life'.

So the rat, the gorilla, the animal he calls common ancestor are not "earlier forms"?? Can you please explain this to me my friend FrumiousBandersnatch?

The common ancestor relevant here was a creature from which rats, gorillas, and humans evolved. It was a species that gave rise to the clade and superorder of mammals called Euarchontoglires. The link shows how the rodents (e.g. rats) and the primates (e.g. gorillas and humans) are thought to to be related via this ancestral species.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, they just stopped at Splatinish. Show me the population of Splatinish speaking people?

Can't show you that, but I can point you to a bunch of gibberish speaking people if you are interested.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My Lord, so you don't see that categorizing and associating humans with animals is a terrible idea, especially in the scientific sense!?

I mean let's hope that if you seen a mutilated human on the side of the road, you wouldn't call animal clean up as you would for an animal carcass!? Or take your kids to a vet instead of a human doctor!?
I mean think about it from the Evolutionist perspective, wouldn't it make more sense to take your kids to a vet who specializes in 8 million different animal species over a normal doctor who only specializes in one, specifically human?? Yet I bet even you wouldn't think of that.

Now Isn't that special? If you are an animal, you should be an animal in every context, just like the 8 million other animals. What makes you so special?

Every species is 'special', they're all different in their own ways. We're special for our advanced cognitive development, among other things. We have doctors for ourselves and vets for the others because we naturally value ourselves more than other creatures, and specialist doctors can do a better job on us than generalist vets.

Explain to me how, or when one species has EVER speciated into another species? You can't. Why? Because it's exactly as you said, time only gives us variations, and NOT different species.

'Species' is not a well-defined scientific term, but it's a useful means of rough classification.

The most common situation for speciation to occur is when part of a population of one species becomes separated or isolated from the rest, and develops for many generations in a different environment. The original population and the separated population diverge (genetically and morphologically) over time, due to the different environments they adapt to, and also due to harmless random variations that may spread through each population.

At some point, they become sufficiently different from each other that individuals from the two populations no longer recognise each other as suitable mates, or may eventually be unable to produce viable offspring with each other. At this point, they are considered to be separate species, and one or other or both will be named or renamed accordingly.

So it's just a useful way to identify and classify populations that have become sufficiently different from each other that they're likely to remain separate and different.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am so sorry my friend @Ophiolite I did NOT mean to insult you, just this Evolution falsely labeled theory hoping to show just how ridiculous it really is.
My apologies if I came across as if I was insulting you personally, I wasn't.

This is a war between God and His creation which I consider myself to be, and labeling me, or humans in general as animals, especially apes (as I have shown in previous debates here) to me is a great insult, and top of that, to falsely label this in-scientific story a "theory" of Evolution, I felt needs to be addressed, which I am willing to prove that it is nothing but a Religion against science. Especially since this, .. umm, I will just say "Dangerous Religion" has claimed to represent science, when as I have shown is a "grave robbing, skull and bones worshipping anti-Creator, anti-God Religion".

And I am also telling you the truth that I thought you were insulting me with the color gradient, which I responded to, nothin personal, really.

I asked if these different color gradients being thrown at me represents speciation or not?
You didn't answer.
So please, tell me: Is the blue to red (or whatever two colors you guys use?) supposed to be two completely different species, like for instance
blue=gorilla and
red=human, .. and the millions of colors in-between the two showing different "kind" of gorillas, and different "kind" of humans?

Again, I am sorry my friend.

To show you I am real, here is my name
Odon Sabo
My phone number, even if I get some crank calls, or even threatening ones I wouldn't mind since having a chance to meet someone live from a debating sight, even if just on the phone would be worth it! This goes for anyone here.
(480) 603-7407

God bless you.

Arius, thank you for your heartfelt and gracious reply. I would like to give you a comprehensive reply, as I feel we can a productive and mutually rewarding discusison. I shall aim to get around to that in the next 24 hours.

Cheers.
Ophiolite

 

[Skreeper]

Can't show you that, but I can point you to a bunch of gibberish speaking people if you are interested.

I think you just quoted a person talking nothing but gibberish...

 

[The Barbarian]

Have you not read Judges 11? Jephthah sacrifices his virgin daughter as thanks to God for helping him defeat the Ammonites.

Um... I was under the impression that cephalopods are peace-loving. WFTH-I

 

[Skreeper]

Um... I was under the impression that cephalopods are peace-loving. WFTH-I

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think you just quoted a person talking nothing but gibberish...

I didn't recognize it as intelligent English, so yes, it must have been gibberish.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh I see, so I don't have a right to call a chimp a monkey but it's ok for Evolutionists to label me as an animal, and call me an ape, and call my ancestors rats, right? How ironic.

If you think it is "ironic" to use words correctly... that's on you, off course.

Meanwhile, the fact of the matter simply is that humans fit the biological definition of "animal" and chimps do not fit the biological definition of "monkey".

You can complain about reality if you wish, but I don't see the point.

Amen, so when are you leaving this discriminating, dangerous and evil Religion that Darwin invented?

Yawn.

Says your grave robbing, skull & bones worshipping science/truth hating Evolution Religion.

I'm going to cut this conversation short, because I have no interest in conversing with someone who is clearly unable to have an intellectually honest discussion.

When you are ready to have an adult and civil conversation, you are very welcome to rewrite your post.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, ..

Really???

So you don't understand how "gradual" is not the same as "instantly"?

do you have one of those gradual light switches for your dining room?
Tell me, can you tell when the light is on, and when it's off?
If you can, how, since its "gradual", from dark to light!?
Yet here we are, once that switch turns the light ON, even if its all the way on low it is ON.

False analogy. Try this one, instead:

That I will have to agree on, or at least they didn't act like humans, maybe they are of another species, maybe the fallen angel mix, hybrids??

Homo Sapiens belongs to the kingdom of animalia.
Your emotional objections to that, not withstanding.

It is impossible to come up with a defintion for "animal" that includes ALL animals but excludes humans without explicitly adding "...but not humans".

It's just the way it is.

Speak for yourself

It's reality. Not a personal opinion.

Same Creator of both, similar design, same material too as we can see after we die and turn back to dust, but one was to dominate, or "rule over" the other. This is why we have animals as pets, but no animal has humans for pets.
Humans were created for a very different purpose, we are creators, and animals are for food, and to use as we wish. I'm sorry that Evolutionists can't see that when even an infant can tell the difference between the 8 million species of animals and humans!?

None of this is relevant. I gave you the biological definition of "animal".
You are welcome to point out how homo sapiens does not fit that definition.

Once again, your emotional objections or faith based beliefs, are irrelevant.
The definition is right there. Point out how homo sapiens doesn't fit the definition, if you believe it is the case.

My Lord, so you don't see that categorizing and associating humans with animals is a terrible idea, especially in the scientific sense!?

No. Not at all.
Just because we classify taxonomically in the kingdom of animalia, doesn't change anything about who we are. It doesn't mean we should start flinging fecies at eachother.

You seem really hung up on this fallacious emotional reasoning.

I mean let's hope that if you seen a mutilated human on the side of the road, you wouldn't call animal clean up as you would for an animal carcass!? Or take your kids to a vet instead of a human doctor!?
I mean think about it from the Evolutionist perspective, wouldn't it make more sense to take your kids to a vet who specializes in 8 million different animal species over a normal doctor who only specializes in one, specifically human?? Yet I bet even you wouldn't think of that.

Off course I wouldn't think of that. Why would I?

None of this is relevant to the facts of taxonomy.
Our biological reality has no bearing on how we should live.
I have no idea why you would think otherwise.

Evolution is an explanation on how life develops / diversifies and that's it. It's not a model on how to organize a society or how humans should treat eachother.

It's an explanation of biology. Not a sociological model on how to live.

Now Isn't that special? If you are an animal, you should be an animal in every context, just like the 8 million other animals.

I'm also a human, specifically.

What makes you so special?

As opposed to what?

Isn't that what Evolutionists push, that Creastionists think they are special, that's why they don't want to be associated with animals?
What hypocrisy in this Religion!

What religion?
I consider humans special, sure. If I were a cat, I'm sure I would consider cats special as well.

The thing is though, in what sense do you consider humans special?
Creationists, in my experience, tend to think they are special in quite narcistic ways. To the point where they believe that this vast universe, holding 250 billion galaxies each made up of 200 billion stars, was created specially for us. That we humans are like not only the center, but the entire reason for the universe.

Yes, .. and after doing this for a billion years, since you guys claim that no animal turns into another species in their lifetime, ..

Not "you guys". That's rather just the gradual nature of evolution.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. And it happens through the gradual accumulation of small changes that spread throughout the population.

Just like how Latin over millenia gradually turned into spanish, french, portugese....
At no point in history did a latin speaking mother raise a french speaking child....
At no point in history was there a latin speaking person who 'invented' spanish or french.
Instead, every person that ever lived, spoke the same language as the people that raised them.

And yet, Latin evolved into french, spanish, portugese,...

you would have exactly what we have today, humans with variations living on different continents.
Or like the domestic dogs, cats, horses, pigeons, they all remain the same species that they originally were created for; "after their kind".

Just like Spanish, French and Portugese are all "still" roman language. Latin didn't become a germanic language.

Evolution doesn't claim otherwise.

Just like very person spoke the language of the people that raised them, so was every newborn of the same species as its biological parents.

And yet, ancestral latin evolved into french, spanish and portugese.
Just like ancestral primates evolved into humans, chimps and gorilla's.

Gradualism is a real thing, you know.

Explain to me how, or when one species has EVER speciated into another species?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Details observed instances of speciation.
It's a dificult thing to observe off course, since it takes quite some time to unfold.
But it's not a problem. Because we have DNA, which can be used to determine blood ties and common ancestry.

You can't

I just gave you a link.

Because it's exactly as you said, time only gives us variations, and NOT different species

Never said any such thing.
I said that it works through the gradual accumulation of changes / variations. I'm sorry that you can't grasp the concept and the implied inevitable result of gradual accumulation.

LOL, .. just how brainwashed do you Evolutionist take us for? This only works on those already indoctrinated in Religion, not me.

More evidence that you
- have no idea what evolution is actually all about
- have no idea what the implication is of gradual accumulation

I'm a scientist

Myeah..... I'm gonna call your bluff here.

THIS IS about Evolution, speciation, where you call my ancestors gorillas and even rats!

Humans did not evolve from gorilla's or from rats.
Not sure where you got that, but most certainly not from me.
Most likely, you got it from yet another creationist propaganda channel.

Why can't you guys tell me this you call a very BASIC question regarding Evolution? How would a species that remains the same species after billions of years of "variations" justify your Evolution?

Already told you and illustrated with an analogy to the development of languages how it works: through the gradual accumulation of micro-changes.

It's how ancestral primates diversified into chimps, humans and gorilla's.
Just like how ancestral Latin diversified into Spanish, french and portugese.

Again, I'm sorry that you aren't able (or willing) to grasp the implications of gradual accumulation.

Right here you admit that Evolution is a lie!

Nope. Just informing you on the natural of gradual accumulation.

And once again you admit that Evolution story is just that, a fantastic story with absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up. You just admitted that no gorilla ever speciated no matter how many billions of years has passed by, so as the Bible says, each animals remains within it's kind, but with increasing numbers of variations!

That's not at all what I said.
It seems you have serious reading comprehension issues.

Well then this should be really easy to detect, so when is the next population of gorillas going to evolve to the point they speciate into the next species? Or any of the 8 million other species? Has evolution stopped since I've been debating it? sure seems like it!

Looking at current gorilla populations, I think it's more likely that they will go extinct rather then live on - let alone speciate.

It seems you have your work cut out for you....

I will once again advice you to learn the basics of evolution theory, before continuing. This is pointless.

 

[Arius]

How about your God just tells him that no sacrifice is necessary to prevent the death of an innocent if he didn't want Jephthah to kill his daughter?

Do you know why Evolution, the Big Bang story, Communism etc. were invented, and Trillions of dollars, hundreds of millions of lives sacrificed for them? It was to hopefully destroy the Bible off the face of the earth, and now you want God to come and talk to every loonytoon for every dumb thing they are about to perform?

Look how it started, God came down, took on a human form and talked with Adam and Eve every afternoon in the "cool of the day", they broke one law, just one that God told them not to do, and they hid from God.

So you think it would be wise for God to be always present? The whole human population would move into caves and never come out. Atheists can't even stand the Bible being around, let alone God telling them right from wrong!

Luke 16:7 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you know why Evolution, the Big Bang story, Communism etc. were invented,

One of these, is not like the others.
Can you tell wich?

hundreds of millions of lives sacrificed for them

How were "hundreds of millions of lives sacrificed" for the two scientific theories you mentioned?

It was to hopefully destroy the Bible off the face of the earth,

Is that why a christian priest (who's also a physicist) came up with big bang theory?
Is that why the vatican itself, the largest christian authority on this planet, accepts both these theories as presented in mainstream science?

 

[Jimmy D]

One of these, is not like the others.
Can you tell wich?



How were "hundreds of millions of lives sacrificed" for the two scientific theories you mentioned?




Is that why a christian priest (who's also a physicist) came up with big bang theory?
Is that why the vatican itself, the largest christian authority on this planet, accepts both these theories as presented in mainstream science?

I don't think he's a big fan of the Catholics.

 

[Arius]

Every species is 'special', they're all different in their own ways. We're special for our advanced cognitive development, among other things. We have doctors for ourselves and vets for the others because we naturally value ourselves more than other creatures, and specialist doctors can do a better job on us than generalist vets.

Thank you for your response.

I'd say that's scraping the bottom of the barrel, .. so what happens when I see 10 different doctors/surgeon s "specializing in the human animal" and they all just scratch their heads and say, "well I don't know what I can do to fix you?" (I have joint problems, neck problems, pain)
One did say he could fix me, and when I woke up from the anesthesia, I could no longer lift either arm.
The doc looked at me and said "I screwed up".
Thank the Lord my feeling into my arms came back little by little after about four days, so don't you think a general animal doctor who can work on all my ancestors all the way down to a rat could do better? If I evolved and they were my ancestors, maybe I have a rat-joint problem, that's why the human doctor doesn't have a clue, but a vet may just take one look, and say: I just fixed a gerbil with that same problem, I know exactly what to do!", .. you know what I mean?

'Species' is not a well-defined scientific term, but it's a useful means of rough classification.

The most common situation for speciation to occur is when part of a population of one species becomes separated or isolated from the rest, and develops for many generations in a different environment. The original population and the separated population diverge (genetically and morphologically) over time, due to the different environments they adapt to, and also due to harmless random variations that may spread through each population.

At some point, they become sufficiently different from each other that individuals from the two populations no longer recognise each other as suitable mates, or may eventually be unable to produce viable offspring with each other. At this point, they are considered to be separate species, and one or other or both will be named or renamed accordingly.

Excellent, let's go with this what you said: "At some point, they (population of gorillas) become sufficiently different from each other that individuals from the two populations no longer recognise each other as suitable mates, or may eventually be unable to produce viable offspring with each other."

My question, again, .. what species is this population of gorillas that become sufficiently different from each other where they now are unable to produce viable offspring with the original group?

So it's just a useful way to identify and classify populations that have become sufficiently different from each other that they're likely to remain separate and different.

So now instead of Dawkins animal species that he calls "Common ancestors", you switch and call them; "sufficiently different", can you tell me what species is this "sufficiently different" animal?

For instance a teacup poodle is "sufficiently different" from a Great Dane, but they are both dogs. Yet as I have pointed out many times, none of the 8 million scientists in the world are keeping their eyes, and maybe a camera or two on either the poodles, or the Great Dane to record the magical event!? It's as if they KNOW that neither of them will speciate into another species!

I mean eight million species, all alive and have been evolving for 4 billion years, how do they KNOW that Not One will ever speciate?

And yet, remember I've shown you guys that family;

Listen to what they say!? So if evidence shows that they could turn back to gorillas, or at least some of the traits of gorillas, how do they know that the teacup poodle will not wake up one morning as a fluffy hamster or whatever?

 

[Arius]

If you think it is "ironic" to use words correctly... that's on you, off course.

Meanwhile, the fact of the matter simply is that humans fit the biological definition of "animal" and chimps do not fit the biological definition of "monkey".

You can complain about reality if you wish, but I don't see the point.

My complaint is NOT about reality, it is this BB-Evolution Religion that's desperately trying to evolve into the word "science" that's bothering me. It's down right frightening, soon surgeons will be looking at me like animal-meat under the knife for a tumor in my Gluteus Maximus , not knowing whether to fry my a__s for breakfast, or take out the tumor from it!?

Yawn.

I'm going to cut this conversation short, because I have no interest in conversing with someone who is clearly unable to have an intellectually honest discussion.

When you are ready to have an adult and civil conversation, you are very welcome to rewrite your post.

An adult and civil conversation about the Long, Long time ago, millions and billions of years ago Evolution story?? .. OK, let me try to keep a straight face and try again.

Yawn? .. If you think I'm boring, then think how I feel asking the same question for the hundredth time?

 

[Skreeper]

Do you know why Evolution, the Big Bang story, Communism etc. were invented, and Trillions of dollars, hundreds of millions of lives sacrificed for them? It was to hopefully destroy the Bible off the face of the earth, and now you want God to come and talk to every loonytoon for every dumb thing they are about to perform?

Evolution and the Big Bang Theory wasn't invented. Evolution is a mechanism we discovered. And the BBT is simply our way of trying to explain the origin of our universe with the currently available data.

There is no conspiracy to destroy the Bible. Only in your little fantasy land.

 

[Astrophile]

Do you know why Evolution, the Big Bang story, Communism etc. were invented, and Trillions of dollars, hundreds of millions of lives sacrificed for them? It was to hopefully destroy the Bible off the face of the earth, and now you want God to come and talk to every loonytoon for every dumb thing they are about to perform?

Why didn't you mention atomism, heliocentrism and the theory that the Earth is a sphere? At the time of Kepler and Galileo, 200 years before Darwin's time, people thought that the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun was encouraging atheism.

'Wits that presumed
On wit too much by striving how to prove
There was no God, with foolish grounds of art
Discovered first the nearest way to hell,
And filled the world with devilish atheism.'
John Ford, 'Tis Pity She's A harlot (1633).

Luke 16:27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

I suspect that this is a prophecy about creationists. If people won't accept what Darwin and other biologists wrote, they won't accept the fossil evidence for evolution either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My complaint is NOT about reality

Clearly it is. I've shared with you the biological definition of "animal". Homo Sapiens fits that definition, which means that Homo Sapiens is to be classified biologically as an animal.

That's reality.

Now, if you disagree that humans fit that definition, then explain why they don't.
Or if you disagree about the definition itself, then explain how it should be changed and how that makes up for a better definition.

, it is this BB-Evolution Religion that's desperately trying to evolve into the word "science" that's bothering me

If evolution is shown false later today, the definition of what an "animal" is, will remain unchanged. And Homo Sapiens would still fit the definition.

It's down right frightening, soon surgeons will be looking at me like animal-meat under the knife for a tumor in my Gluteus Maximus , not knowing whether to fry my a__s for breakfast, or take out the tumor from it!?

Statements like this, are just ridiculous.
Fitting the definition of "animal", does not take away the fact that we also classify specifically as humans.

An adult and civil conversation about the Long, Long time ago, millions and billions of years ago Evolution story??

No. An adult and civil conversation where we simply discuss the topic, without acting like a juvenile [censored] who feels the need to engage in intellectual dishonesty and insults.

Yawn? .. If you think I'm boring, then think how I feel asking the same question for the hundredth time?

What question?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... what happens when I see 10 different doctors/surgeon s "specializing in the human animal" and they all just scratch their heads and say, "well I don't know what I can do to fix you?" (I have joint problems, neck problems, pain)
One did say he could fix me, and when I woke up from the anesthesia, I could no longer lift either arm.
The doc looked at me and said "I screwed up".

Being a specialist doesn't mean you can fix every problem you encounter, and some specialists are better than others. Garage mechanics are a good example

.. don't you think a general animal doctor who can work on all my ancestors all the way down to a rat could do better? If I evolved and they were my ancestors, maybe I have a rat-joint problem, that's why the human doctor doesn't have a clue, but a vet may just take one look, and say: I just fixed a gerbil with that same problem, I know exactly what to do!", .. you know what I mean?

If you really feel that way, go see a vet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My question, again, .. what species is this population of gorillas that become sufficiently different from each other where they now are unable to produce viable offspring with the original group?

How they would be named would typically, but not always, depend on their parent species and some distinguishing element. For example, there are two major species of the genus Gorilla, the eastern gorillas and the western gorillas. The western gorillas are divided into two subspecies, the western lowland gorillas and the Cross River gorillas. The eastern gorillas are divided into the mountain gorillas and Grauer's gorilla or eastern lowland gorilla.

Those are just popular names to identify the species. They're also given latinate taxonomic names - the mountain gorillas are Gorilla beringei beringei, and the eastern lowland gorillas are Gorilla beringei graueri. The taxonomic names reflect the relationship hierarchy.

So now instead of Dawkins animal species that he calls "Common ancestors", you switch and call them; "sufficiently different", can you tell me what species is this "sufficiently different" animal?

A common ancestor is simply the single species from which the descendant species in question derive. 'sufficiently different' refers to the criteria used to identify them as separate species. As I said, 'species' is not a well-defined scientific term, so there are various criteria, depending on the requirements of a particular field. The most common definition refers to the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring.

For instance a teacup poodle is "sufficiently different" from a Great Dane, but they are both dogs. Yet as I have pointed out many times, none of the 8 million scientists in the world are keeping their eyes, and maybe a camera or two on either the poodles, or the Great Dane to record the magical event!? It's as if they KNOW that neither of them will speciate into another species!

No; populations speciate, not individuals.

I mean eight million species, all alive and have been evolving for 4 billion years, how do they KNOW that Not One will ever speciate?

You have it backwards - speciation has always occurred and continues to occur. That's why there are so many species still around, yet at least 5 billion species are thought to be extinct.

And yet, remember I've shown you guys that family;

Listen to what they say!? So if evidence shows that they could turn back to gorillas, or at least some of the traits of gorillas, how do they know that the teacup poodle will not wake up one morning as a fluffy hamster or whatever?

It's not clear precisely what caused their problems; but brain damage though inbreeding and a genetic defect in locomotion control is a long way from 'turning back to gorillas' (btw humans didn't evolve from gorillas, chimps are our closest relative species). And no member of one species can become a member of another species. A population can evolve into a novel species over many generations.