Just Accidental?

[gnostic]

Evolution is about changing and adapting, Deeje.

Anyone who think evolution is about a cat giving birth to a dog or monkey, only demonstrate his or her ignorance, misunderstanding evolution completely. It is ignorance to the point of plain stupidity.

Evolution doesn't say a domestic cat can become domestic dog. It is pure propaganda and misinformation by dishonest and ignorant creationists.

A species of one (taxonomic) family to produce offspring of completely different family and species.

What you can do is compare one feline species against another feline species, to find out why it change.

I had already provided you with example of bears, how polar bears differed from brown bears. Because the polar bear's body have changed, some 600,000 years ago, adapting to the extreme polar conditions, that's evolution through Natural Selection.

Brown bear is one species. And polar bear is another species. They belonged in the same family, but they have diverge at some point in time, where the polar bears have become suited in the region they lived in. It is adaptation, and it is evolution through natural selection.

If you think brown bears will change into dogs, cats or whatever silly claims, then you are truly ignorant.

 

[Deeje]

Evolution is about changing and adapting, Deeje.

LOl.....micro-evolution is about changing and adapting but only within species. There is not a scrap of evidence proving that the Genesis "kinds" can change from one to another over millions of years.

Anyone who think evolution is about a cat giving birth to a dog or monkey, only demonstrate his or her ignorance, misunderstanding evolution completely. It is ignorance to the point of plain stupidity.

Evolution doesn't say a domestic cat can become domestic dog. It is pure propaganda and misinformation by dishonest and ignorant creationists.

I don't recall making such a silly suggestion.....the only silly suggestion I mentioned is the one that evolution teaches where microbes eventually evolved into dinosaurs over millions of years.

A species of one (taxonomic) family to produce offspring of completely different family and species.

And yet in the big picture we all have common ancestors...you think that your ancestor was a microbe....I think it was God creating whole creatures largely as they appear today. I believe that apes are apes and humans are humans......with no way to prove that evolution ever took place. We get to choose which scenario appeals to the heart, not just the mind.

What you can do is compare one feline species against another feline species, to find out why it change.

Cats are cats....they didn't become or come from something else. No one can prove that the cats are descendants of one another.....It could just as easily have been that God created a variety of cats....and bears.....and birds.....and insects....and a bunch of other similar creatures. Similarity does not prove relationship in an evolutionary chain.

I had already provided you with example of bears, how polar bears differed from brown bears. Because the polar bear's body have changed, some 600,000 years ago, adapting to the extreme polar conditions, that's evolution through Natural Selection.

How many times must I say it? I have no problem with adaptation.....the bears remain bears though.....hello.

Brown bear is one species. And polar bear is another species. They belonged in the same family, but they have diverge at some point in time, where the polar bears have become suited in the region they lived in. It is adaptation, and it is evolution through natural selection.

If you think brown bears will change into dogs, cats or whatever silly claims, then you are truly ignorant.

Bear ancestors will always be bears. Horse ancestors will be horses and whale ancestors will never be land animals.

 

[viole]

I believe that apes are apes and humans are humans......

I find this sentence a bit odd, since humans are apes. Great apes to be exact.

Humans are also primates and mammals. So, it would be like saying: I believe that mammals are mammals and humans are humans., which, I hope, you would also find odd.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

The Bible is one story from start to finish...a virtual library of 66 little books.....

There are six different Bibles containing anywhere from 24 to 81 books. http://bessel.org/bibles.htm

 

[sayak83]

Sayak, do you not read what you post in your links? "More evidence to avoid and ignore"?

Let's take this first one....

"A single-celled alga has evolved a crude form of multicellularity in the lab – a configuration it never adopts in nature – giving researchers a chance to replay one of life’s most important evolutionary leaps in real time.

This is the second time researchers have coaxed a single-celled organism into becoming multicellular – two years ago, the same was done with brewers yeast. But the alga is an entirely different organism, and comparing the two could explain how the transition to multicellular life happened a billion years ago.

Multicellularity has evolved at least 20 times since life first began, but no organisms have made the leap in the past 200 million years, so the process is difficult to study. To replicate the step in the lab, Will Ratcliff and Michael Travisano, evolutionary biologists at the University of Minnesota in St Paul, and their colleagues grew 10 cultures of a single-celled alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Every three days, they centrifuged each culture gently and used the bottom tenth to found the next generation. Since clusters of cells settle faster than single ones, this meant that they effectively selected for algal cells that had a tendency to clump together.

Now, don't we have to ask if this process is something it "never adopts in nature" but needed researchers to "coax" them to become multicellular.....and "no organism has made the leap in the past 200 million years"!!!....and you are going to get excited? Really?
Who is the creator of these organisms? Did they happen by undirected chance? Seriously...

How about the next one....?


Just a few generations after evolving multicellularity, lab yeasts have already settled into at least two distinct lifestyles.

The discovery suggests that organisms can swiftly fill new niches opened up by evolutionary innovations, just as the first multicellular animals appear to have done on Earth, hundreds of millions of years ago.

In 2011, evolutionary biologist Michael Travisano and his student William Ratcliff at the University of Minnesota in St Paul made single celled brewer's yeast evolve into multicellular forms in the lab. They did that by centrifuging yeast cultures and selecting the fastest-settling yeasts to found the next generation. Since clumps of cells settle faster than single cells, this quickly led to multicellular “snowflakes”.

When another of Travisano’s students, Maria Rebolleda-Gomez, looked at Ratcliff’s multicellular strains, she noticed that some snowflakes were up to 10 times larger than others. So she took individual cells from large and small snowflakes in Ratcliff’s original samples and grew them into new multicellular snowflakes.

The daughter colonies resembled the parents in size meaning that the size difference was heritable, giving her in effect two different morphs of snowflake yeast. See the difference in two forms by moving the slider below:

And the two morphs respond differently to the centrifuge-and-settle conditions........

Many years ago, palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould suggested that a similar sudden ecological diversification may have led to the Cambrian Explosion in which most animal body forms arose in the fossil record within a few tens of millions of years.


“Possibly what we see here is the first step of what Gould’s talking about – the opening up of diversity due to a key innovation,” says Travisano.

The yeast also show that this diversification can take place in unexpected ways, based on even the simplest of conditions, says Zachary Blount, an experimental evolutionary biologist at Michigan State University in East Lansing. “I’ve come to think that life really rather abhors simplicity,” he says."

Do you see what I see? I see intervention by humans to produce something that was "made" to happen by their intelligent direction.

"Life abhors simplicity" because no life is simple....all of it required intelligent direction.

These links are not the language of provable science...it is pure suggestion and supposition masquerading as science.
How can you not see the obvious? The power of suggestion....

All I see (and everyone else sees) in all the sentences you highlighted is open and shut and slamdunk evidence for evolution. Thanks!!


I suggest you go do an eye check up.

 

[ArtieE]

Bible prophesy is fascinating.....

So are the prophecies of the JW. https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-their-many-false-prophecies
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/1800s.php

 

[Deeje]

I find this sentence a bit odd, since humans are apes. Great apes to be exact.

Humans are also primates and mammals. So, it would be like saying: I believe that mammals are mammals and humans are humans., which, I hope, you would also find odd.

You know what I find odd?

That all mammals only have one thing in common.....they suckle their young with milk. Does this method of feeding their young automatically mean they all had this trait because somewhere way back in the evolutionary line, females somehow began to excrete milk from mammary glands that were previously non-functional? Do we have evidence of any species who have non-productive mammary glands in the evolutionary chain which somehow sprang into production and then automatically instilled the instinct in their young to suckle? Is this what you believe the fossils are trying to tell me? And you think what we believe is a fantasy?
You cannot be serious.

Science giving humans a definition according to their understanding of taxonomy hardly alters the Creator's understanding of what he created. The science god speaks

and all the devotees fall at their feet and

Evolutionists have been sold the greatest fraud in history and you all follow like a bunch of sheep. You point fingers at those who believe in a Creator, inferring that they are uneducated; holding them in derision and accusing them of being exactly what you all are.....believers in an unprovable fantasy. At least we admit that we have no absolute proof except what is right under our noses....a beautifully crafted world full of amazingly designed creatures. Common sense and common experience tell us that what is purposefully designed, has a designer.

Your blindness and ours are very different.

 

[Deeje]

There are six different Bibles containing anywhere from 24 to 81 books. http://bessel.org/bibles.htm

Sorry, the Bible I refer to is the one I accept. 66 books...all harmoniously carrying one theme from start to finish. What happened in Genesis is rectified in Revelation. You don't have to believe it.

 

[Deeje]

All I see (and everyone else sees) in all the sentences you highlighted is open and shut and slamdunk evidence for evolution. Thanks!!

Ah, desperation speaking....

Need a paddle for that trip up the River Denial?

I suggest you go do an eye check up.

LOL.....these were your links Sayak....you just don't read them they way I do. I suggest you do an "I" check up.

What I hope everyone will see is what these scientists are really saying. It isn't apparent until you highlight the actual words and phrases that most of you conveniently just skip over. The real story is right there in their own literature.....they are hoping you won't notice.

 

[Deeje]

So are the prophecies of the JW. https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-their-many-false-prophecies
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/1800s.php

I love it.....classic shoot the messenger. I know when people are desperate, because they will always resort to attacks when they have no defense.

There are no false prophesies....just a clearer understanding of things with the passage of time...isn't that what evolution claims?

 

[viole]

You know what I find odd?

That all mammals only have one thing in common.....they suckle their young with milk. Does this method of feeding their young automatically mean they all had this trait because somewhere way back in the evolutionary line, females somehow began to excrete milk from mammary glands that were previously non-functional? Do we have evidence of any species who have non-productive mammary glands in the evolutionary chain which somehow sprang into production and then automatically instilled the instinct in their young to suckle? Is this what you believe the fossils are trying to tell me? And you think what we believe is a fantasy?
You cannot be serious.

Science giving humans a definition according to their understanding of taxonomy hardly alters the Creator's understanding of what he created. The science god speaks

and all the devotees fall at their feet and

Evolutionists have been sold the greatest fraud in history and you all follow like a bunch of sheep. You point fingers at those who believe in a Creator, inferring that they are uneducated; holding them in derision and accusing them of being exactly what you all are.....believers in an unprovable fantasy. At least we admit that we have no absolute proof except what is right under our noses....a beautifully crafted world full of amazingly designed creatures. Common sense and common experience tell us that what is purposefully designed, has a designer.

Your blindness and ours are very different.

I am not a biologist. But for sure, I can tell you this: if your brand of God exists, then He must love mammals, primates and apes to such an extend to make the pinnacle of His creation, the very reason He created the Universe for, being one of them. Or at least so similar, to make this discussion even remotely possible.

And that is why He probably deflected the trajectory of that killing asteroid! He might have thought that incarnating as a velociraptor was suboptimal. It is not clear if you can crucify a velociraptor so easily. Apes, on the other hand, especially without all those hair on the face, are so much better.

Don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sapiens]

So this is a reasonable response? You sound like a three year old chucking a tanny.

If you say evolution is true often enough, are you going to make it any more true? It was never true to begin with.....it was a thought that developed into a hypothesis, which developed into a theory, which developed into a branch of science.....Oh no!...it was evolution!

Again, just an empty claims based on naught but an inadequate biological education.

I believe that egotism is what evolutionary science thrives on...it certainly isn't evidence. The "best minds" and "virtual certainty" and "virtual consensus" is a bit like "virtual reality"......it looks real, but it isn't.

For a "belief" to be more than unsupported random and disorganized thoughts there has to be a knowledge base. No except you and others with your lack of biological education (something that you claim to be proud of) takes you seriously.

LOl.....micro-evolution is about changing and adapting but only within species. There is not a scrap of evidence proving that the Genesis "kinds" can change from one to another over millions of years.

You have demonstrated such a lack of basic biological knowledge that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to take your pronouncements seriously.

And yet in the big picture we all have common ancestors...you think that your ancestor was a microbe....I think it was God creating whole creatures largely as they appear today. I believe that apes are apes and humans are humans......with no way to prove that evolution ever took place. We get to choose which scenario appeals to the heart, not just the mind.

Once again, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Evolution has been "proven," humans are a type of ape, in this case if you choose where your "heart" leads, you're abandoning all logical thought.

Cats are cats....they didn't become or come from something else. No one can prove that the cats are descendants of one another.....It could just as easily have been that God created a variety of cats....and bears.....and birds.....and insects....and a bunch of other similar creatures. Similarity does not prove relationship in an evolutionary chain

Again, a worthless claim that you can not support.

How many times must I say it? I have no problem with adaptation.....the bears remain bears though.....hello.

You do have a problem with adaptation, you just claim not to ... and it is obvious why.

Bear ancestors will always be bears. Horse ancestors will be horses and whale ancestors will never be land animals.

Another claim that is ignorant of the facts.

So this is a reasonable response? You sound like a three year old chucking a tanny.

If you say evolution is true often enough, are you going to make it any more true? It was never true to begin with.....it was a thought that developed into a hypothesis, which developed into a theory, which developed into a branch of science.....Oh no!...it was evolution!

I believe that egotism is what evolutionary science thrives on...it certainly isn't evidence. The "best minds" and "virtual certainty" and "virtual consensus" is a bit like "virtual reality"......it looks real, but it isn't.

Ah, a logical fallacy that I've not seen you use before: Equivocation. Good show!

LOl.....micro-evolution is about changing and adapting but only within species. There is not a scrap of evidence proving that the Genesis "kinds" can change from one to another over millions of years.

False, there is more than ample evidence to advance Evolution to the highest pinnacle of science, a Theory.

I don't recall making such a silly suggestion.....the only silly suggestion I mentioned is the one that evolution teaches where microbes eventually evolved into dinosaurs over millions of years.

You did, in essence, looking at the other side of the false coin: "Bear ancestors will always be bears. Horse ancestors will be horses and whale ancestors will never be land animals.[/QUOTE]
with yet another claim that is ignorant of the facts.

And yet in the big picture we all have common ancestors...you think that your ancestor was a microbe....I think it was God creating whole creatures largely as they appear today. I believe that apes are apes and humans are humans......with no way to prove that evolution ever took place. We get to choose which scenario appeals to the heart, not just the mind.



Cats are cats....they didn't become or come from something else. No one can prove that the cats are descendants of one another.....It could just as easily have been that God created a variety of cats....and bears.....and birds.....and insects....and a bunch of other similar creatures. Similarity does not prove relationship in an evolutionary chain.

There's that silly suggestion again.

How many times must I say it? I have no problem with adaptation.....the bears remain bears though.....hello.

Bear ancestors will always be bears. Horse ancestors will be horses and whale ancestors will never be land animals.

You know what I find odd?

That all mammals only have one thing in common.....they suckle their young with milk. Does this method of feeding their young automatically mean they all had this trait because somewhere way back in the evolutionary line, females somehow began to excrete milk from mammary glands that were previously non-functional? Do we have evidence of any species who have non-productive mammary glands in the evolutionary chain which somehow sprang into production and then automatically instilled the instinct in their young to suckle? Is this what you believe the fossils are trying to tell me? And you think what we believe is a fantasy?
You cannot be serious.

Once again (surprise, surprise) you reveal that you lack sufficient background to be taken seriously in this discussion. Actually ALL mammals have a bunch more common attributes than you seem to know about, but then we know that your zoological knowledge is very limited. Some attributes are unique and ubiquitous in mammals (hair, auditory ossicles in the middle ear, sweat glands and a whole passel of other specialized skin glands, advanced diaphragm, a jaw joint composed only of the dentary and the squamosal, etc.) some are just unique to mammals though not ubiquitous (placental gestation, lactation, etc.) some are ubiquitous to mammals but shared with a few other groups (warmblooded, 4-chambered heart).

Science giving humans a definition according to their understanding of taxonomy hardly alters the Creator's understanding of what he created. The science god speaks

and all the devotees fall at their feet and

Evolutionists have been sold the greatest fraud in history and you all follow like a bunch of sheep. You point fingers at those who believe in a Creator, inferring that they are uneducated; holding them in derision and accusing them of being exactly what you all are.....believers in an unprovable fantasy. At least we admit that we have no absolute proof except what is right under our noses....a beautifully crafted world full of amazingly designed creatures. Common sense and common experience tell us that what is purposefully designed, has a designer.

Your blindness and ours are very different.

It is, to you, an unprovable fantasy, only because you are not able to understand the proof. This you have amply demonstrated.

 

[Deeje]

I am not a biologist. But for sure, I can tell you this: if your brand of God exists, then He must love mammals, primates and apes to such an extend to make the pinnacle of His creation, the very reason He created the Universe for, being one of them. Or at least so similar, to make this discussion even remotely possible.

The Creator's reasons for bringing the material universe and material creatures into being is not stated. He simply says in his written instructions for man, that "In the beginning" he created the universe, then during an unspecified time he prepared a previously "formless and waste" planet into something living things could enjoy. He created each one specifically and purposefully, with the same amount of skill and attention to detail as his will dictated. He is not a material being himself, but has the power to create matter. Science wants to place him in the realms of fantasy, because they cannot come up with a way to prove his existence, but they cannot categorically state that it is impossible for such a power to exist. They have just not "discovered" him yet and probably never will with the attitude they display towards him. They will confront him soon enough, according to scripture.

Out of all living things, he chose only one species to reflect his own intellect and ability. Man alone is unique in so many ways, so that one can safely say there is no other creature like him. Similar in shape and appearance perhaps, but nowhere near him in his mental capacity. There is a chasm between man and animals that no bridge can cross.

As for him being the one for whom the universe was made....nah, I don't accept that. He gave humans the capability to be a caretaker of this planet and all its inhabitants, not through blind unconscious instinct, but with the same will and sense of purpose that he possesses. They were to be his representatives here, but I don't think that qualifies man to be the pinnacle of his creation, but it does give him the necessary qualifications for the assignment he gave them though. He values them greatly.

There are other created beings who are way higher than humans, but they are not material creatures.

And that is why He probably deflected the trajectory of that killing asteroid! He might have thought that incarnating as a velociraptor was suboptimal. It is not clear if you can crucify a velociraptor so easily. Apes, on the other hand, especially without all those hair on the face, are so much better.

Don't you think so?

Sarcasm is such a poor substitute for reasonable discussion....don't you think so?

 

[gnostic]

LOl.....micro-evolution is about changing and adapting but only within species.

Evolution is evolution.

When I brought up all three examples and evidences (bears, tortoises and viruses) for Natural Selection (the last one...about the viruses...can be example of both Natural Selection and Mutation), but back then you said they weren't evidences for evolution.

Now you are back-pedalling and moving the goalposts, with micro- & macro- creationist bull####.

As I stated earlier, evolution is evolution, whether the changes or adaptations are small or large, or whether the generations are very short or took many generations.

Changes occurring among species and subspecies within a specific genus or family are still evolution, regardless if you accept them or not.

If you don't accept it (which is obvious the case, for you), then is obvious you still don't understand what is evolution and still believe in the old misinformation and propaganda that creationists have brainwashed you.

That you actually repeat the whole micro- vs macro- misinformation or propaganda on this website make you a liar as all other creationists who have used this same tactics.

 

[Deeje]

Again, just an empty claims based on naught but an inadequate biological education.
For a "belief" to be more than unsupported random and disorganized thoughts there has to be a knowledge base. No except you and others with your lack of biological education (something that you claim to be proud of) takes you seriously.
You have demonstrated such a lack of basic biological knowledge that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to take your pronouncements seriously.
Once again, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Evolution has been "proven," humans are a type of ape, in this case if you choose where your "heart" leads, you're abandoning all logical thought.
Again, a worthless claim that you can not support.
You do have a problem with adaptation, you just claim not to ... and it is obvious why.

Another claim that is ignorant of the facts.

Ah, a logical fallacy that I've not seen you use before: Equivocation. Good show!
False, there is more than ample evidence to advance Evolution to the highest pinnacle of science, a Theory.
You did, in essence, looking at the other side of the false coin: "Bear ancestors will always be bears. Horse ancestors will be horses and whale ancestors will never be land animals.
with yet another claim that is ignorant of the facts.
There's that silly suggestion again.


Once again (surprise, surprise) you reveal that you lack sufficient background to be taken seriously in this discussion. Actually ALL mammals have a bunch more common attributes than you seem to know about, but then we know that your zoological knowledge is very limited. Some attributes are unique and ubiquitous in mammals (hair, auditory ossicles in the middle ear, sweat glands and a whole passel of other specialized skin glands, advanced diaphragm, a jaw joint composed only of the dentary and the squamosal, etc.) some are just unique to mammals though not ubiquitous (placental gestation, lactation, etc.) some are ubiquitous to mammals but shared with a few other groups (warmblooded, 4-chambered heart).



It is, to you, an unprovable fantasy, only because you are not able to understand the proof. This you have amply demonstrated.

You know Sapiens...I get the distinct impression that you have complete disdain for anyone who disagrees with your view of how life adapted on this planet.

Oh the shame of the uneducated ID proponents who can see things that you appear to be oblivious to.

Throwing your education around doesn't do anything for me because you can be just as 'brain washed' as you accuse us of being. That thought never occurs to you though, does it? You are welcome to your beliefs but if the only way to reinforce them is with bullying tactics then what is that saying about them?..."believe it or else I will assume you are a moronic twit"? I really don't care what you think.

In my experience, the more education people acquire, the less common sense they exhibit.

I can't disagree with you on how life began however, because science is still poking around in the dark on that one. To me that is the more important question though....isn't it?

 

[sayak83]

Ah, desperation speaking....

Need a paddle for that trip up the River Denial?

You are already at the fount of that river! The very words you highlighted conclusively show the evidence for evolution!
It's like somebody saying that his fingerprints on the murder weapon disproves that he is the killer!

You make my task so easy by red-lining all the great evidence. Keep up the good work.

LOL.....these were your links Sayak....you just don't read them they way I do. I suggest you do an "I" check up.

What I hope everyone will see is what these scientists are really saying. It isn't apparent until you highlight the actual words and phrases that most of you conveniently just skip over. The real story is right there in their own literature.....they are hoping you won't notice.

Oh its quite noticeable alright. What is noticeable in all your highlights is the excellent evidence for evolution and the deluded dreamscape you live in.

 

[gnostic]

You cannot be serious.

Science giving humans a definition according to their understanding of taxonomy hardly alters the Creator's understanding of what he created. The science god speaks

and all the devotees fall at their feet and

Sorry, but you don't know what this Creator god know about biology, because the bible contain not a single EXPLANATION about basic anatomy and physiology...let alone this micro-evolution you are ignorantly harping on about.

I don't recall making such a silly suggestion.....the only silly suggestion I mentioned is the one that evolution teaches where microbes eventually evolved into dinosaurs over millions of years.

Actually you don't have to state it, because all creationists make similar "silly" examples whenever they use the micro- vs macro- argument.

Every (Christian) creationists whom I have come across, used the same deceitful tactics...repeated the same mistakes, never learning from their mistakes...cannot think for themselves...never bothered to understand or grasp the differences between theory and hypothesis, between evidence and faith, or evidence and proof, etc

 

[ArtieE]

I know when people are desperate, because they will always resort to attacks when they have no defense.

Which is why you keep attacking evolution.

 

[Deeje]

Evolution is evolution.

No it isn't....and science recognizes this fact by separating the two into micro and macro evolution. These are not my terminologies.

When I brought up all three examples and evidences (bears, tortoises and viruses) for Natural Selection (the last one...about the viruses...can be example of both Natural Selection and Mutation), but back then you said they weren't evidences for evolution.

Now you are back-pedaling and moving the goalposts, with micro- & macro- creationist bull####.

I think you need to re-read my posts. There is nothing in the way of back-peddling. I have said all along that adaptation is the only form of "evolution" that has been proven by science. The fact that they use adaptation to back up their claim for something way bigger to suggest that macro-evolution naturally follows is absurd. There is no real scientific proof for of any of it. There is no verifiable 'chain' of evolution.

As I stated earlier, evolution is evolution, whether the changes or adaptations are small or large, or whether the generations are very short or took many generations.

Changes occurring among species and subspecies within a specific genus or family are still evolution, regardless if you accept them or not.

There are no adaptations that take species out of their "kinds". No evidence exists for that scenario except in the imagination of science. Species always remain within their 'kinds'. In experiments on speciation, the Hawthorn flies remained flies...the stickleback fish remained fish......the species adapted but remained within the same basic kind of creature. Can you deny this? There is the real science.

If you don't accept it (which is obvious the case, for you), then is obvious you still don't understand what is evolution and still believe in the old misinformation and propaganda that creationists have brainwashed you.

But no one has brain washed you eh? All you guys seem to be able to do is

whenever your beliefs are challenged. Why are so many evolutionists such disagreeable people? What does it matter to you if others disagree with you? Unless of course it makes you feel threatened?

You don't like your theory being stripped down to reveal that it has no backbone. It is a wishbone held together by the power of suggestion and way too many very large egos.

That you actually repeat the whole micro- vs macro- misinformation or propaganda on this website make you a liar as all other creationists who have used this same tactics.

LOL....I will go on repeating it because as you can see from this thread, no one has been able to refute anything with actual facts....only with more theory.

 

[Deeje]

Which is why you keep attacking evolution.

Attacking it? Funny I thought I was just telling the truth about it.

Is it a case of the old Jack Nicholson line...."You can't handle the truth!"