PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Dino Chicken

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Newly published North Carolina State University research into the evolution of birds shows the first definitive fossil proof linking close relatives of living birds to a time when dinosaurs roamed the earth.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050123211130.htm


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 4:48 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good article.  It provides more evidence supporting the evolution of dinosaurs into birds.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:45 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:45 PM on June 3, 2005 :
Good article.  It provides more evidence supporting the evolution of dinosaurs into birds.


So is this!

http://www.funnyjunk.com/p/0196-jpg.html


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:57 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Consider this.
All the skeletons of dino/birds are fossils of an entirely diffrent species.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 4:04 PM on August 9, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Consider this.
All the skeletons of dino/birds are fossils of an entirely diffrent species.


Yes, exactly, a completely different species that exhibit both avian characteristics and dinosaurian characteristics.  The theory of evolution is the best explanation for this fact and the only scientifically valid explanation.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:09 AM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Have you evolutionest ever seen it happen?Beside fossils?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:51 AM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Have you evolutionest ever seen it happen?Beside fossils?

What?  Evolution?  Yes, evolution has been observed in the lab and in the wild, it is a fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:57 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no. have you seen salamanders become lizards or watever? not chemical changes



-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:40 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no. have you seen salamanders become lizards or watever? not chemical
changes


Quit moving the goal posts!  You asked if we've ever seen evolution happen and I answered you, yes, evolution of new species has been observed.  And since that's new species arising, that means macroevolution has been observed.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:35 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

answer my question have you seen a monkey become a human?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:17 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

answer my question have you seen a monkey become a human?

I'll answer your question when you answer mine, when was the last time you saw god magically "poof" an animal into existance....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:53 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

he did that 6000 years ago and doesnt need to do it now. i have seen him do other things...


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:05 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

he did that 6000 years ago and doesnt need to do it now. i have seen him do other things...

No he didn't.  Support your claim with evidence or withdraw it.  
Human evolution is evidenced by the fossil record, genetics, endogenous retroviruses, just to name a few.  What is your refutation of these evidences.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:38 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

neanderthals could have easily been an exsticts speciexs of ape, or criples. Ancient civilizations often threw their crpples out to live together in large groups.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:32 AM on August 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

neanderthals could have easily been an exsticts speciexs of ape, or criples. Ancient civilizations often threw their crpples out to live together in large groups.

No they couldn't, they were a seperate species from Cro Magnon man, they were not crippled humans, they had larger brains than us, they were anatomically different from us.  And they were also not direct ancestors to us.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:58 AM on August 13, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

than they could have been an ape.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:27 AM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

than they could have been an ape.


Neanderthals are primates.

So are homo sapiens...

Again, I'm having trouble seeing your point.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:55 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how do u no that they where primates?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:26 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We classify organisms based on their traits. Homo sapiens and neanderthals, along with all other primates, exhibit the same traits.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:46 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how do u no that they where primates?

Once again, you are arguing without any knowledge of the subjects you are arguing about!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:39 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

exactly. Showing that, like Lucy, neanderthals could have easily been a species of ape that went extinct.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:42 AM on August 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

exactly. Showing that, like Lucy, neanderthals could have easily been a species of ape that went extinct.

Yes, Lucy was a species of ape that went extinct, yes Neanderthal man was a species of ape that went extinct, and we are a species of ape that hasn't gone extinct.  What's your point?  Lucy was clearly a transitional ape.
How does your ignorance of this subject refute evolution?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:23 PM on August 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lucy and neanderthals were non sentient apes.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 09:55 AM on September 1, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lucy and neanderthals were non sentient apes.


Wrong. Worms are sentient. Some bacteria are sentient. Sentience is just the ability to sense. Keep on not reading anything we say...


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:18 AM on September 1, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lucy and neanderthals were non sentient apes.

Proof please....

Neanderthals used tools, created music, buried their dead and had burial rituals, they were clearly sapient.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:47 PM on September 1, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

they could have also easily been mutants. ancient civilizations often cast their sick or mutated ones out to live together.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:10 PM on September 3, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

they could have also easily been
mutants.


Except there were populations of Neanderthals.  They had a civilization.  That destroys your "mutant theory".
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:46 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

mutants, but still sapieant none the less.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:14 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

mutants, but still sapieant none the less.

What does "mutant" mean???  There was a large population of Neanderthals, so they were NOT mutants.  You don't understand the terms you're using.  And you don't understand the theory of evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:14 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

deformed.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:09 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

deformed.

Mutant doesn't mean deformed.  There was a population of Neanderthals so, by definition, they were NOT mutatnts.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:37 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

they could have been diseased


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:39 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

they could have been diseased

The whole population????  No, they couldn't have been.  Many creationists try to use this to explain Neanderthals actually being diseased, deformed modern humans, but this has been proven false.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:55 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

show me.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:06 PM on September 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

show me.

From here:
Neanderthal

"The signs of rickets differ from Neanderthal fossils in several respects, including the following:
People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor; their bones are weak. Neanderthal bones are fifty percent thicker than the average human's.
Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the ends of the long bones of the body. This evidence is not found in Neanderthals.
Rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur. Neanderthal femurs bend backward."

So no, the whole population of Neanderthals was not simply diseased modern humans.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:34 PM on September 13, 2007 | IP
Architect

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from creationest6 at 11:51 AM on August 10, 2007 :
Have you evolutionest ever seen it happen?Beside fossils?

An experiment was done even before much of what is known about genetics today was known in which house flies with pre-specified characteristics were selected to mate with other flies with those same characteristics. The result was that the house flies wound up with dragonfly-like wings. It was observable over a small time period because flies reproduce within 2 days.

The only thing this experiment goes against is natural selection because it's actually evolution by design. This is only because the process of evolution was unnatural though, which was why the flies were never released into the wild.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 07:42 AM on September 15, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thtas not evolution


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:06 AM on September 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

thtas not evolution

Yes it is.  And since new species have been spawned from the millions of experiments we've done with fruit flies, it's macro evolution and it's an observed fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:52 PM on September 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hat is  deformed flies


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:46 PM on September 19, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hat is  deformed flies

Not at all, from here:
Fruitfly

"In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation."

New species sorted based on habitat.  How were these fruitflies deformed?  Learn a little before you make erroneous claims.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:05 PM on September 19, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i see slightkly diffrent flies. just like slightly different humans.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:14 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i see slightkly diffrent flies. just like slightly different humans.

Well, you don't examine the evidence.  The strains of flies no longer interbreed, they are not the same species.  All humans are the same species, we all interbreed.  Big difference.  That you don't understand this shows that you don't understand evolutioin.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:17 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

u dont understand the bible


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:19 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

u dont understand the bible

We're not talking about the bible here, way to avoid the question!

And yes I do understand the bible, I just understand it's a book of myths.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:20 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

understand 0%


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:21 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

understand 0%

I know you understand nothing about evolution, glad you admit it.  My question is since you admit that you are totally ignorant about evolution, how can you think you can debate it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:23 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i no a thing or 2 about evolution from my debates with u


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:24 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i no a thing or 2 about evolution from my debates with u

But you still make such monumental mistakes when you discuss it!  You need a lot more education on the subject!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:27 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 Dino-bird evolution falls flat!Creation Archive > Volume 20 Issue 2 > Dino-bird evolution falls flat!

 
First published:
Creation 20(2):41
March 1998
Browse this issue
Subscribe to Creation Magazine  
 
by Jonathan Sarfati

Readers may remember the recent media fanfare about the so-called ‘feathered dinosaurs’ (including Sinosauropteryx) supposedly proving that dinosaurs evolved into birds. We covered these in Creation 19(2):6 (see Kentucky fried dinosaur?) and 19(4):49, 1997. We cautioned that many media ‘proofs’ of evolution are later refuted with barely a whimper in the media. Recent research has proved the point:

‘New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related.’1 A team led by bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal Science.2

A team led by John Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University in Corvallis, analysed fossil outlines of Sinosauropteryx’s internal organs. Its ‘bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into the high-performance lungs of modern birds.’3 Indeed, birds have a complicated system of air sacs which keep air flowing in one direction through special tubes (parabronchi) in the lung, and blood moves through the lung’s blood vessels in the opposite direction for efficient oxygen uptake,4 an excellent engineering design.5 Interestingly, some defenders of dinosaur-to-bird evolution, discount this evidence against their theory by saying ‘the proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal.’6 Of course, only evolutionary faith requires that bird lungs arose from lungs of another animal.

Also, Ruben and ancient bird expert Larry Martin believe that the so-called ‘feather’ traces are actually frayed collagen fibres beneath the skin. Feather expert Alan Brush, University of Connecticut, Storrs, points out that they ‘lack the organization found in modern feathers.’7

Recommended Resources



-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:31 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Safarti is a moron!  You keep using creationist sources that do no actual research and are continually wrong!  This is no exception!

New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is “almost impossible” for the species to be closely related.’1 A team led by bird expert Alan Feduccia, chairman of biology at the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal
Science.2


Wrong and out of date.  And by the way, why do you use Feduccia as a source.  Yes, he doesn't accept dino to bird evolution but he does support reptile to bird evolution.  Are you telling me that you accept reptile to bird evolution????  If not, why are you using a source that does?

A team led by John Ruben, a respiratory physiology expert at Oregon State University in Corvallis, analysed fossil outlines of Sinosauropteryx’s internal organs. Its ‘bellowslike lungs could not have evolved into the high-performance lungs of modern birds

Again, your source is just plain wrong!  From here:
DinoBird

"Reading Ruben et al reminded me of watching one of those old Twilight Zone episodes. You know, the one in which reality was distorted all out of recognition? Well, they were all like that. But in this case there is no evidence of any kind that any dinosaur had a croc-like respiratory complex, there is a lot of evidence that they did not. Here is a more plausible scenario. The presence of a septum in crocs and birds suggests that this is the general archosaur condition. Therefore, a weakly developed abdominal pump system may have been present in basal archosaurs. This was taken to an extreme in crocodilians which adapt the liver as a powerful pump. In tridactyl footed theropods this system was suppressed as air-sac ventilation gradually developed in order to overcome the aerobic limitations inherent to septate lungs. As this occurred, the septum migrated dorsally as the lungs reduced in size, and air-sacs expanded posteriorly through the septum. The system was probably weakly developed in Coelophysis, intermediate in Sinosauropteryx, better developed in Archaeopteryx, and about as well developed in dromaeosaurs as in kiwis. Only as flight evolved to high levels in the Cretaceous did volant birds evolve a hyperenlarged sternum in order to support enormous flight muscles, and help ventilate oversized abdominal air-sacs.

Yet again an attempt to refute the dino-bird link fails completely. The evolution of the theropod-bird respiratory complex is strong evidence in favor of an ancestor-descendent relationship. "

John Reuban is wrong.  Your source is wrong and your point is refuted.  Are you going to try and defend your position or run away like you usually do.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:45 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.