> On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:56:42 -0700, DanielSan
>
>
>
>
>
> gmail.com> wrote:

>>Christ's Love wrote:

>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:32:12 -0700, DanielSan
>>> gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>>> Christ's Love wrote:

>>>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 19:45:01 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
>>>>> gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 00:01:29 +0000, Christ's Love wrote:

>

>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:42:37 -0400, Cory Albrecht
>>>>>>> hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>>>> Christ's Love wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:39:44 -0700, DanielSan
>>>>>>>>> gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Then what was Hyracotherium?

>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and flail, Daniel. What was "Hyra"- or whatever name the
>>>>>>>>> idiotic evolutionists made up for it. You'll never be able to prove
>>>>>>>>> inter-species evolution because it NEVER HAPPENED!

>>>>>>>> Then how about you explain why the fossils of Hyracotherium, Orohippus,
>>>>>>>> Epihippus, Duschesnehippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus,
>>>>>>>> Merychippus, Calippus, Pliohippus, Dinohippus, Plesippus and Equus all
>>>>>>>> got laid down in the rock strata in order that gives the impression of
>>>>>>>> evolution and transitional species?

>>>>>>> I'm sorry that you've been so deceived, Cory.  Hyracotherium, Orohippus,
>>>>>>> Epihippus, Duschesnehippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Parahippus,
>>>>>>> Merychippus, Calippus, Pliohippus, Dinohippus, Plesippus and Equus
>>>>>>> certainly all existed, but none fathered any new species. You do err,
>>>>>>> Cory.

>>>>>> I note you failed to answer the question asked, namely, how do you
>>>>>> explain why (or how) these fossils were laid down in a sequence which is
>>>>>> consistent with the notion of a progression of development?

>>>>> They weren't.

>

>>>> Evidence?

>

>>> You're the one making the absurd claim, Daniel. The burden of proof is
>>> on you.

>

>>The evidence was provided.  It was laid down in sequence from
>>oldest/least horse-like to newest/most horselike.

>
> That never happened, liar.
>