re: #95 KGxvi

thanks for the clarification. I’d only spent about 10 minutes doing some google-fu to figure out what it was. but mostly figured it was bullshit when I had to wade through plenty of creationist bullshit to get to the truth.

In order to make that argument creationists have to redefine the term “macroevolution” from how the scientists actually use it.

They only acknowledge some “radically” new species, like, morphologically different, as “new” (think cats from dogs), and it has nothing to do with the scientific definition.

Ironically, their “arkology”/baraminology requires them to believe that, say, lions, tigers and cats are one kind, so a real-time evolution of a lion from a cat-like ancestor would *not* suffice.

They’re fucking psychos is what they are.