So what you are trying to tell me is that because I list sea animals and then birds, you insist that I am only saying birds were first? This is getting incredibly dumb.
No, Retard, it does not say "Sea Animals and then birds", it says "Sea Animals AND birds" meaning both. It is not implied at all that sea animals came first, but that they both came at the same time. Sorry to break it to you, but birds came A LONG F'ing time after sea animals
You didn't care to mention Genus, just species. Heck, you even skipped THE REST of the filing tree. A unique creature is just that. Is a zebra just like a man? Is a sparrow just like an eagle? All are unique creatures. No UNIQUE CREATURES were created after man. How is that so tough?
Wait, if you don't believe in evolution then how can you even believe in taxonomy (or filin' chart as you decided to call it)? To believe it means you believe species to be related to one another and diverged through evolution. And are you saying creatures are still being created by evolution, just not unique ones? You really dug yourself a whole here..
Thanks for the ground breaking announcement, Genius.
Second, any one of those points has no vagueness to it. They CLEARLY say what they say and can be taken no other way. -And they had the knowledge thousands of years in advance.
Those are VERY FEW examples in over 1000 pages that kind of sound right. And if they new everything back then, then why was Galileo threatened with torture if he didn't take back his claim that the earth revolves around the sun? Certainly they should have known it was true from their divine knowledge
-Ummm......Up to 30000 years? Did you miss a few of those things on that list?
I saw where you gave a different number, but it is in fact around 30,000. Just because you pulled a number out of your ass doesn't mean I have to accept it as fact.
I DID mention DNA chains. I assume you either missed that or didn't want to face that which proves you wrong.
Maybe I didn't mention it because I didn't care? What does that have to do with K/Ar dating?
When evolution says that if you need it to survivive, you will get it and when you do not use it, you lose it, I think I understand it pretty well.
Thank you for this quote as it proves you don't understand evolution AT ALL. First, needing something to survive DOES NOT mean you will get it. That's why 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. Second, if you do not use something then there is no reason you would lose it unless it is somehow detrimental to your ability to reproduce viable offspring (NOT survive like you claimed, survival is only a means to and end)
I don't see anything you have posted as evidence against ANY ONE POINT I posted, and you can't even read anything I post all the way through. I have to accept this means that you have nothing for evidence to prove your point.
What are you talking about? I've posted plenty of evidence against many of your points. One of your original points was that plants were responsible for the O2 levels on earth, then I explained to you how you were wrong and Cyanobacteria was responsible for it and you then claimed that you never said plants were responsible for the O2. If you're going to play games like that then I guess I'll never be able to prove any one point wrong.