Evolutionist bias lurches on

I suppose Coyote might be offended that I'm going to call his example of skulls arranged in a subjectively graded series supposedly representing various types of human beings an abuse of intelligence, but that's what I'm going to call it.

To know whether some of the less human-looking skulls really are human or not I'd have to see their possessors walking around. Human beings come with quite a wide range of skull shapes and sizes but I don't trust paleontologists to be able to distinguish a human skull from a "hominid" or an ape skull. There is no such thing as a hominid, so it's either an ape or a human and since they have that fantasy category mixed in there I don't trust any of it.

So his question to ICANT is meaningless:

OK, if changes at the species level are "still mice" then what do you make of the six figures in the upper left half of the figure below? They are a similar level of change to the "mice" you are so fond of.

And how exactly have you determined that they represent this similar level of change? These are SKULLs, not living creatures. You can't look at their DNA, you can't decide anything really. Some of the flatter skulls don't look very human to me, you just put them in a series that fits your belief that human beings evolved from something apish and got yourself convinced that you can treat this as evidence. You are blowing smoke. Those who arranged those skulls are blowing smoke.

Do you agree that they are all the same?

By which I have to suppose he means Are they all human beings? Well, the answer is that IF they are all human beings, then yes they ARE "all the same" in the sense ICANT meant that the mice are still mice. But again, I don't know if those are all human skulls or not. Sorry.

Then Theodoric accuses creationist Dawn Bertot:

ICANT has ignored this question from frako. It seems you are too. Is this part of your vaunted debating skills? Ignoring the difficult questions.

Frako writes:
How much of a difference in your mind must 2 species have to be called 2 species and not the same species? The minimum difference please

How is a creationist supposed to answer such a question since we don't think in terms of differences the way evolutionists do? Nobody's evading anything, it's just that the question is meaningless. It's an artifact of the evolution fantasy.

However, I did answer in an earlier post today that perhaps Macroevolution should be defined as occurring WHEN SANE PEOPLE (INTUITIVELY AND SPONTANEOUSLY) RECOGNIZE THAT A NEW "SPECIES"/VARIETY NEEDS TO BE CALLED BY A NEW NAME. If it's still a mouse or a horse or a fruitfly then it's a mouse or a horse or a fruitfly no matter how many Latin subtitles you string after it -- and that's microevolution, not macroevolution (which of course doesn't exist).