Evidence against Evolution

[JustThinking]

What new capability has evolution ever given to a living being?

 

[secret2]

What new capability has evolution ever given to a living being?

Em....do you know why you are encouraged to get new flu shots every year?

 

[shawn001]

One .. Earth wide flood

LOL, time to get an education it seems. For one there is a place on earth where it hasn't rained more then 2 inches in 23 million years in the Atacama desert in Chile and another in the antartic where it hasn't rained in 2 million years. How do you explain this and a flood? That's just a start the flood never happened, it was a story.

So the dinosaurs didn't get wiped out by a meteor?

There was a whole other group of animals called Pelycosaurs, Archosaurs and Therapsids? Who died during the Permian mass extintion we know happened for a fact. Before dinosaurs then evolved?


Big Five mass extinction events

Although the Cretaceous-Tertiary (or K-T) extinction event is the most well-known because it wiped out the dinosaurs, a series of other mass extinction events has occurred throughout the history of the Earth, some even more devastating than K-T. Mass extinctions are periods in Earth's history when abnormally large numbers of species die out simultaneously or within a limited time frame. The most severe occurred at the end of the Permian period when 96% of all species perished. This along with K-T are two of the Big Five mass extinctions, each of which wiped out at least half of all species. Many smaller scale mass extinctions have occurred, indeed the disappearance of many animals and plants at the hands of man in prehistoric, historic and modern times will eventually show up in the fossil record as mass extinctions. Discover more about Earth's major extinction events below.




BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events



There have been five mass extinction events throughout Earth's history:

1. The first great mass extinction event took place at the end of the Ordovician, when according to the fossil record, 60% of all genera of both terrestrial and marine life worldwide were exterminated.
2. 360 million years ago in the Late Devonian period, the environment that had clearly nurtured reefs for at least 13 million years turned hostile and the world plunged into the second mass extinction event.
3. The fossil record of the end Permian mass extinction reveals a staggering loss of life: perhaps 80–95% of all marine species went extinct. Reefs didn't reappear for about 10 million years, the greatest hiatus in reef building in all of Earth history.
4. The end Triassic mass extinction is estimated to have claimed about half of all marine invertebrates. Around 80% of all land quadrupeds also went extinct.
5. The end Cretaceous mass extinction 65 million years ago is famously associated with the demise of the dinosaurs. Virtually no large land animals survived. Plants were also greatly affected while tropical marine life was decimated. Global temperature was 6 to 14°C warmer than present with sea levels over 300 metres higher than current levels. At this time, the oceans flooded up to 40% of the continents.

Earth's five mass extinction events


Sceintist now know that the permian mass extintion was caused by the siberian traps, the largest volcanic eruption we know about on earth. A crack in the earths crust opened up in Siberia and enough lava came out to cover the entire lower 48 states 1000 feet deep in lava. It changed the entire Earth!


Also tell me why there is ancient salt water ocean 1 mile under the great lakes and another at 22 thousand feet at the top of Everest.

Next you be denying plate tectonics.

 

[Pegg]

And yet you have not presented any facts (of nature or otherwise) which do not support evolution.

on the contrary, the 2 facts i posted in the OP did just that.

The cambrian creatures do not have ancestors.... there are no fossils of anything like them in any layers of earth prior to when they first appeared. Considering that they are fully formed and complex creatures, where are the simpler life forms who should be their ancestors?

There are none. Fact 1 is true no matter how many times you deny it.


Fact 2 is also true. The fossil record does not tell the story of Evolution as described in the ToE. There are not enough transitional fossils to tell such a story. You can deny it all you want but it does not change the fact that the majority of fossils needed to tell the story of evolution are not there.
They weren't there in darwins day and they are not there today.

 

[McBell]

Sit down... Relax.. Try to figure this simple point out..I'll put it in language you may be able to grasp...get a crayon and follow

Can you lend me one of yours, seeing as you are obviously not using it...

YOU don't belong here... Do you know why?

Because you neither post evidence against evolution nor do you post alternative hypothesis ...

I do not know of any objective empirical evidence against evolution.

I was actually hoping that someone would actually present some in this thread.

but no, all we get is a bunch of strawmen arguments and attempts at changing the subject from people who do not even know what evolution is.

Why don't you start a thread called "only I have expert knowledge but I'm not telling"

I will right after you stop being an **** and learn what evolution actually is instead of mindlessly copy/pasting strawmen and utter bull **** from creationist websites.

 

[McBell]

Webster - agnostic

A peron who is unwilling to present an opinion about something

Good place for someone to be in a religious forum with no opinion

Wow.
A completely irrelevant rule breaking personal attack instead of presenting evidence against evolution.

I am like so impressed.

not.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sorry. Your "fact" is incorrect.

The Cambrian Explosion has nothing to do with "the beginnings of life. But rather a rapid expansion of phyla in the Animal Kingdom.
And it is not "Evidence against evolution", in fact the accumulation of Precambrian fossils is showing that the early Cambrian rapid evolution (rapid as in 5 to ten MILLION years) was not as much an "explosion" as previously thought.
What we learn is more about the mechanisms of biological evolution.

on the contrary, the 2 facts i posted in the OP did just that.

The cambrian creatures do not have ancestors.... there are no fossils of anything like them in any layers of earth prior to when they first appeared. Considering that they are fully formed and complex creatures, where are the simpler life forms who should be their ancestors?

There are none. Fact 1 is true no matter how many times you deny it.


Fact 2 is also true. The fossil record does not tell the story of Evolution as described in the ToE. There are not enough transitional fossils to tell such a story. You can deny it all you want but it does not change the fact that the majority of fossils needed to tell the story of evolution are not there.
They weren't there in darwins day and they are not there today.

Fact 1
There are pre-cambrian fossils. The reason they are "not anything like" the cambrian fossils supports biological evolution.

And I will ask you once again.

What scientific alternative do you propose explains the Precambrian fossils and the Cambrian explosion?

Fact 2
The fossil record, along with genetic evidence, supports the predictions made in the Theory of Evolution. Transitional fossils are made constantly that support the Theory of Evolution.

Quote mining aside, you have yet to present evidence against the known scientific facts of biological evolution. Nor have you presented an alternative scientifically supported theory to explain the diversity of life.

 

[colaboy]

Quote Bob Dutko

What's so dishonest though about this whole debate is that evolutionists fill our textbooks and science journals with “examples” of evolution occurring all the time, but if you read what the actual examples are, you see that they are all the “Micro-evolution” examples from earlier. That's right, 100% of all “proof” of evolution occurring is nothing more than certain features on animals making slight changes in shape or size, but staying the very same kind of animal. Some dolphins may develop longer or shorter fins, but they have never grown wings and then evolved into a bird. The evolutionists know this, and so they point to these genetic adaptations within a species and say “look, evidence for evolution”.

What's so dishonest about the creationist argument against evolution is that it demands evolution should work a particular way, and then, when it doesn't work the way creationists think it should work, they cry "false".

Many people have said that your arguments are "straw men". Are you clear what this means? This is when you misrepresent your opponents argument and refute that.

So let's examine why this is a straw man.

Firstly you quote that dolphones "have never grown wings and then evolved into a bird". You say "The evolutionists know this, and so they point to these genetic adaptations " ... as if evolutionist are being apologetic. But evolutionists know this FOR A FACT. This is not how evolution works. Evolution is not trying to make dolphins, birds, people;l flyers, swimmers, runners; predators, herbivores; eyes, ears, livers, hearts, blood. Evolution did not design "Just Thinking". You are not the sum total of all creation - you have used "arrogant" many times. Isn't this idea arrogant - that in the whole universe you are what's important?

Your problem is that you are insisting on an intelligent designer. Whether by evolution or creation, you cannot comprehend that you came about through non-intelligent means. Your argument is "I am intelligent; therefore the thing that created me must be intelligent". You think "I am here - I was meant to be here". You try to imagine intelligent things happening in evolution - then debunk it when they don't.

Unfortunately in order to comprehend evolution you have to think away this fallacy. Yes... being able to breath underwater would be useful if you lived by the sea and farmed oysters. Being able to fly would be a great advantage to any animal. But in evolution things don't STRIVE to become better suited in their environment. This directly applies to the errors that occur to the genetic material during reproduction - a miscopied gene does not "know" it is a leg or a lung or a mammalian feature and TRY to make the object longer, flatter, stronger. It doesn't try to follow the path from amphibian to reptile. The errors are not there to make the animal better suited to the environment. They just happen anyway - which is why you and your siblings are not the same as your parents or eachother.

However some changes do happen to make you better suited to life in a certain situation (like a long line of oyster farming animals). Some changes make you less suited. And some make no difference (like the colour of your hair - unless you are a rabbit in the snow surround by foxes!). Over long periods of time the creatures that just happen to become better suited to their environment have a better chance of breeding and so pass there changes on.

You also have to remember that the enviroment is a factor as well and this is also liable to change - so changes that suited the animal species one day could become a hindrance the next - following a volcano, flood, change in weather, etc.

Evolution is not intelligent, anymore than gravity is. But it follows rules. It is random - but this does not mean anything can happen. As a computer programmer I can say "x = rand(6);" which not the same thing as saying x can be anything it wants.

By the way you should research dolphin evolution because there are many intermediate fossils found which can directly trace dolphins back to dog-like creatures. A dolphin even swins like dog - by arching its back - and not like fish which swims with a side to side motion (like an amphibian and reptile). There are skeletons showing the creatiure's skull changing, the bones in the back legs retreating. This is a good example. A dog that lives by the water's edge benefits from having legs which retract backwards so that it can pump them to move through the water - . The bones themselves are a weight and a hindrance, so any change that reduces their drag would benefit the animal so that it could move faster and catch fish. Any mutation that reduced the length of hair would also benefit it in the same way. Over time, many thousands of generations, a dog can turn into a dolphin. Evolution cannot "design" a lung to work under water, but a sperm whale can dive to depths at least 3km for 30 minutes or more. That's adaptation! Taking what's already there and making it work better. But over time these changes become significant. They reach a threshold that allow the animal to do something it couldn't do 1 million generations ago. On gaining wings for instance take the sugar glider which uses a membrane between the leg and arm to glide from tree to tree. In a few million generations this might be become adapted - gain rigidity - and so a membrance becomes a wing, gliding becomes flying. Nothing happens over night, so you can't envision a dog suddenly growing a fin! But you can see clearly that the evolutionary path of the sugar gliding might be toward flight - but this is not by design. First the mutations that lead this way must occur and there's no guarantee that they will. However I can gurantee that these adaptations happened to the bat, bird, insect all independantly. This is why evolutionists only have evidence of micro-changes - because there are ONLY micro-changes. It is TIME which is large.

 

[colaboy]

*There’s no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans. *There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be changing into something else continuously. *But we find none of that. *The evolutionists’ theory suggests that fish grew legs and turned into mammals, and dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds. *If evolution were true, we’d be finding creatures that were:
*
3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...
*

But you can find animals that have percentages of other animals!

Again you MUST give up your concept that everything has been made exactly as it is today! You want to see things that are percentages of animals that exist now: a creature that is x% fish1 and y% amphibian1.

This is not how evolution works. Fish and amphibians share an ancestor. - let's call this ancestorZ. You can use the Time Tree app to look these things up actually - which is kind of cool. I used the app to find the common ancestor of a "newt" and a "bony fish". This ancestor existed 400mya. Let's call it ancestorZ. And so a bony fish is x% of ancestorZ and y% it's own thing. A newt is x% of ancestorZ and y% it's own thing.

Mammals and reptiles share large percentages of things with a common ancestor: lungs, nails, ears, 4 limbs, digits, blood - so mammals and reptiles are x% like the common ancestor. We have a system of warming our own blood, which is why there is y% difference. We don't lay eggs, so that's another z% to add to the differences. But there are many more similarities between mammals and reptiles than differences.

Mammals and reptiles share eyes, stomach, brain, an inner skeleton with modern bony fish. So "mammal-reptiles" are x% the same as a distant ancestor of mammal-reptiles+modern bony fish and modern bony fish are also x% the same as a distant ancestor of mammal-reptiles+modern bony fish.

There are even more similarities between mammalA and mammalB, birdA and birdB, and so on.



Think about all the things you share with an ape or chimpanzee! Forward facing eyes, opposable thumbs, big brain, ability to walk on legs, sexual organs, finger prints, emotions, expressions, hunting!

Of course we share a direct ancestor with the chimpanzee; let's call it "chimpman" for sake of argument. We are 99.6% chimpman and 0.4% human. Chimps are 99.6% chimpman and 0.4% chimp. You see the very important difference - we're not x% chimp and x% human! You are going in the wrong direction!

Here's a little thought experiment for you.

Take a male horse and next to it place the horse's father. Then next to the father place it's father. And place it's father next it. And keep doing this, placing the father next to each horse. Do this for 100,000,000s of generations. These generations represent time, so do this for 60million years worth of time.

Now get into a car and start slowly driving down this line. As you drive slowly, even a long way like 100,000years, you won't see much difference. But if you drive fast, like a flick book, you'll see changes happening, relatively minor ones to begin with which represent the coming and going of ice ages - hair length and colour, eye-lash size, limb size. Now drive 10 million years. What you will see, looking down this line is that every animal in this section is similar to all the fathers and sons in both directions. The animal will be horsey, but there are differences. The key one is size.

Now drive to 50 million years ago. Again all animals you can see in this section of the line will look very similar. But this will not be a horse that you would recognise today. The shape will be a little horse-like - mainly evident in the long legs. It will be small like a dog. A blacksmith would not be able to shoe the animal; the bones structure is different - it has none of fused digits of a modern horse.

Now drive another 45 million years. This is not a horse. This is a tiny mousy or shrewlike animal that lives in the shadow of the dinosaurs. But in your section of the line every animal looks the same as the one next to it.

At this point imagine one of the animals in this line sits next to its sibling - another male - and also a father. And leading from this animal is another line of father-sons stretching forward in time. So now you should follow this line forward as quickly as you can. If you look across you can see the other line that you drove down, but this line gets further away from you as you drive forward. As before, no section in this new line has a animal that looks significantly different from the rest in the line that is currently visible to you - but if you drive fast you will see large changes happening.

You have now driven 95million years forward to the present day and you will find a father animal at the end of this line. You should now get out of the car and take your place next to your father.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also recommend Richard Dawkins "The Ancestor's Tale" - which I probably stole this thought experiment from! LOL

 

[johnhanks]

LOL I knew it.. You are not here to argue legitimate posts on evidence against evolution.

Your arrogance will not let you consider that there could be any. From me or anyone else.

Does it bother you at all that you cannot even propose a theory of how life began on earth so you spend your time in here calling others ignorant.. I bet not

Just another piece of Evidence I will quote again

*There’s no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans. *There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be changing into something else continuously. *But we find none of that. *The evolutionists’ theory suggests that fish grew legs and turned into mammals, and dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds. *If evolution were true, we’d be finding creatures that were:
*
3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...
*
and so on, with similar processes for every type of animal that exists. *Everything would be a transitional species, and we’d find abundant evidence for it. *In reality, there is nothing anywhere close to that scenario. *The fact that there is absolutely no evidence for such transitional species is illustrated by the articles published in 1999 by National Geographic, about the “missing link” fossil that was finally discovered that proved dinosaurs (lizards) evolved into birds. *It was shaped like a lizard, but it had wings like a bird. *They published a huge article with photos and great fanfare, and newspapers reported it with excitement across the country. *Months later, it was revealed that someone just glued parts of different animals together in China and passed it off as a real fossil. *Why would evolutionists be so excited over a single, glued-together, fake fossil? *It almost seems as if they are completely devoid of any evidence whatsoever. *

The
Myth
Of
Evolution

I presented facts.. You have none

The muddled biology presented here would disgrace a 12-year-old. Suffice it to say that anyone who thinks a dinosaur was a kind of lizard and then boasts "I presented facts" doesn't know a fact from a hole in the ground.

JustThinking, what makes a fish a fish is its genome - a long string of A,C,T and G DNA bases. What makes an amphibian an amphibian is a different sequence of the same A,C,T and G bases. The challenge for you and other creationists is to explain exactly what barrier exists to prevent the first ACTG sequence from changing, step by step over many generations, into the second. Over to you.

 

[johnhanks]

What new capability has evolution ever given to a living being?

An excellent example is the development of red-green colour differentiation in humans, other apes and Old World monkeys. Red-sensitive and green-sensitive pigments are coded for by two very similar adjacent genes on the X chromosome (significantly, New World monkeys have only one such gene at this locus). It is likely that unequal crossing-over of chromosomes in an Old World primate ancestor resulted in duplication of the original single gene, which by further mutation diverged from its new neighbour to give the pair we have today. (Copied and pasted from this post).

One of the mantras that creationists chant to each other (right up there with "there are no transitional fossils") is "evolution cannot create new genetic information". This is as demonstrably false as the rest.

 

[EvidenceOfAbsence]

I'd emplore the reasonable people in this thread to stop responding to this guy.

Despite being told more than three times that evolution is only a way of explaining the diversity of life on the planet, he STILL thinks it teaches how life begun.

He's not listening, he's not willing to have a reasonable debate where all assertions and evidence are addressed individually, he's just discounting the wealth of information you are providing.

I would claim that "JustThinking" is here to gloat to his friends that he won a debate against non-believers by not listening to the other side of the argument and being pig ignorant, ignore him. =P

 

[Zoe Doidge]

I'd emplore the reasonable people in this thread to stop responding to this guy.

Despite being told more than three times that evolution is only a way of explaining the diversity of life on the planet, he STILL thinks it teaches how life begun.

He's not listening, he's not willing to have a reasonable debate where all assertions and evidence are addressed individually, he's just discounting the wealth of information you are providing.

I would claim that "JustThinking" is here to gloat to his friends that he won a debate against non-believers by not listening to the other side of the argument and being pig ignorant, ignore him. =P

I've had him on my ignore list for a while now.

I'm happy to debate with Pegg but this guy's arguments are nothing more than trolling.

 

[colaboy]

I'd emplore the reasonable people in this thread to stop responding to this guy.

Despite being told more than three times that evolution is only a way of explaining the diversity of life on the planet, he STILL thinks it teaches how life begun.

He's not listening, he's not willing to have a reasonable debate where all assertions and evidence are addressed individually, he's just discounting the wealth of information you are providing.

I would claim that "JustThinking" is here to gloat to his friends that he won a debate against non-believers by not listening to the other side of the argument and being pig ignorant, ignore him. =P

It's a fair point, but I don't post my answers for just one person - I assume there are other readers who can see reason when it is presented politely, logically and thoroughly. Just Thinking cannot do this but while continues to post inaccuracies and disinformation I will continue to refute the points.

 

[JustThinking]

What's so dishonest about the creationist argument against evolution is that it demands evolution should work a particular way, and then, when it doesn't work the way creationists think it should work, they cry "false".

Many people have said that your arguments are "straw men". Are you clear what this means? This is when you misrepresent your opponents argument and refute that.

So let's examine why this is a straw man.

Firstly you quote that dolphones "have never grown wings and then evolved into a bird". You say "The evolutionists know this, and so they point to these genetic adaptations " ... as if evolutionist are being apologetic. But evolutionists know this FOR A FACT. This is not how evolution works. Evolution is not trying to make dolphins, birds, people;l flyers, swimmers, runners; predators, herbivores; eyes, ears, livers, hearts, blood. Evolution did not design "Just Thinking". You are not the sum total of all creation - you have used "arrogant" many times. Isn't this idea arrogant - that in the whole universe you are what's important?

Your problem is that you are insisting on an intelligent designer. Whether by evolution or creation, you cannot comprehend that you came about through non-intelligent means. Your argument is "I am intelligent; therefore the thing that created me must be intelligent". You think "I am here - I was meant to be here". You try to imagine intelligent things happening in evolution - then debunk it when they don't.

Unfortunately in order to comprehend evolution you have to think away this fallacy. Yes... being able to breath underwater would be useful if you lived by the sea and farmed oysters. Being able to fly would be a great advantage to any animal. But in evolution things don't STRIVE to become better suited in their environment. This directly applies to the errors that occur to the genetic material during reproduction - a miscopied gene does not "know" it is a leg or a lung or a mammalian feature and TRY to make the object longer, flatter, stronger. It doesn't try to follow the path from amphibian to reptile. The errors are not there to make the animal better suited to the environment. They just happen anyway - which is why you and your siblings are not the same as your parents or eachother.

However some changes do happen to make you better suited to life in a certain situation (like a long line of oyster farming animals). Some changes make you less suited. And some make no difference (like the colour of your hair - unless you are a rabbit in the snow surround by foxes!). Over long periods of time the creatures that just happen to become better suited to their environment have a better chance of breeding and so pass there changes on.

You also have to remember that the enviroment is a factor as well and this is also liable to change - so changes that suited the animal species one day could become a hindrance the next - following a volcano, flood, change in weather, etc.

Evolution is not intelligent, anymore than gravity is. But it follows rules. It is random - but this does not mean anything can happen. As a computer programmer I can say "x = rand(6);" which not the same thing as saying x can be anything it wants.

By the way you should research dolphin evolution because there are many intermediate fossils found which can directly trace dolphins back to dog-like creatures. A dolphin even swins like dog - by arching its back - and not like fish which swims with a side to side motion (like an amphibian and reptile). There are skeletons showing the creatiure's skull changing, the bones in the back legs retreating. This is a good example. A dog that lives by the water's edge benefits from having legs which retract backwards so that it can pump them to move through the water - . The bones themselves are a weight and a hindrance, so any change that reduces their drag would benefit the animal so that it could move faster and catch fish. Any mutation that reduced the length of hair would also benefit it in the same way. Over time, many thousands of generations, a dog can turn into a dolphin. Evolution cannot "design" a lung to work under water, but a sperm whale can dive to depths at least 3km for 30 minutes or more. That's adaptation! Taking what's already there and making it work better. But over time these changes become significant. They reach a threshold that allow the animal to do something it couldn't do 1 million generations ago. On gaining wings for instance take the sugar glider which uses a membrane between the leg and arm to glide from tree to tree. In a few million generations this might be become adapted - gain rigidity - and so a membrance becomes a wing, gliding becomes flying. Nothing happens over night, so you can't envision a dog suddenly growing a fin! But you can see clearly that the evolutionary path of the sugar gliding might be toward flight - but this is not by design. First the mutations that lead this way must occur and there's no guarantee that they will. However I can gurantee that these adaptations happened to the bat, bird, insect all independantly. This is why evolutionists only have evidence of micro-changes - because there are ONLY micro-changes. It is TIME which is large.

Thank you for that reasonable explanation

I appreciate you taking the time to write this.

I do have a preconceived idea of what evolutionists believe and previous posts just said " you don't understand " no explaination.

This forum is entitled evidence against evolution and some expect that evidence to be scientific biologic evidence only. I would propose that the theory of evolution must also make sense.

Now on to your points.

Are you saying that small random changes over millions of years caused changes that could randomly but not necessarily move a lower life form to a more advanced life form?

I am sure that one of the issues that we creationists have especially conversing in a forum like this, is that we are criticized for claiming that the planet, humans, the atmosphere are so unique and work so well in harmony that it is difficult to comprehend that it all was so random.

Especially when you consider we have not been able to find it on any other planet so far.
I am criticized for believing in intelligent design yet all science can say is it is a random accident and we can't prove our theory because millions of years would need to go by AND even then it might not happen.

This takes all responsibility out of the theory .. If pressed you can just say " hey it is random and may or may not happen"
This in itself seems to take a lot of faith to believe.

If I had no belief in anything but Science I would want proof of more than just small changes within kinds of animals..

 

[JustThinking]

Creationists also expect an evolutionist to not only claim that small changes happened over millions of years but also how it arrived in the first place. This adds some responsibility to the arguement . Other wise you can end all conversations with"you just don't understand how evolution works.

 

[Revoltingest]

Webster - agnostic
A peron who is unwilling to present an opinion about something

Ooooo....I love creative definitions!
Theist - a person who is willing to endlessly present the absolute truth about everything.

 

[JustThinking]

I'd emplore the reasonable people in this thread to stop responding to this guy.

Despite being told more than three times that evolution is only a way of explaining the diversity of life on the planet, he STILL thinks it teaches how life begun.

He's not listening, he's not willing to have a reasonable debate where all assertions and evidence are addressed individually, he's just discounting the wealth of information you are providing.

I would claim that "JustThinking" is here to gloat to his friends that he won a debate against non-believers by not listening to the other side of the argument and being pig ignorant, ignore him. =P

This is no different than religion... " don't ask us how it came to be ... Just believe that it is"

 

[JustThinking]

Ooooo....I love creative definitions!
Theist - a person who is willing to endlessly present the absolute truth about everything.

Cool word .. Find me one for lots of useless information with no real conclusions

 

[McBell]

Cool word .. Find me one for lots of useless information with no real conclusions

Creationism