Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

Nesslig20 said:

I think you overlooked the most important part

Like you have given us what you believe.
You believe dogs and wolves are related, and that it is very possible that they are also related to other canids like Coyotes, foxes , dingoes, and African wild dogs.
You also believe that the transition from fish to tetrapods is "very different".
(and also a few other things but let's keep it to one topic at a time)

But you haven't given us a reason why you believe this. Like, imagine for a sec you have another creationist who says that dogs, wolves, foxes, etc are not related. They are a separate creation. And also imagine that you have another creationist who says that not only are dogs, wolves, foxes, etc related, they are also related to other carnivorans: bears, seals, weasels, cats, hyenas, etc.

How could you resolve such a dispute? How do we determine who is right?

Furthermore, you say that the fish to tetrapod transition is very different, but you are obviously thinking in terms of a fish (something like a flounder) and a modern tetrapod (like a wolf). The gap seems so huge that it is very different than the differences between dogs and foxes. But what if we look at extinct fishes and tetrapods, like the following:
View attachment 451
Now the differences don't seem to be that significant.
And how is saying that all the above are related different from saying all the canids below are related?
View attachment 449
Or to use a better example, here is a modern group of blennies where we also see a similar transition from sea to land:
View attachment 452
If blennies are related, how is it different in the case with the the fish to tetrapod transition given above?
And while we are at it, how are these all different from the dinosaur to bird transition:
View attachment 453

Click to expand...

Maybe I did overlook part of it. It's also sometimes difficult to put a lifetime worth of "how did you arrive at your worldview" into a few sentences in a forum thread. I had to start somewhere.
What if Creationists A believes this? And what if Creationist B believes that?
In my opinion , this is irrelevant to our discussion. Aron stated he could get ME to accept these concepts. So it only matters what I believe to be correct. And why I believe it.
With the fish to wolf scenario. Yes, I know it allegedly happens in small increments over vast amounts of time. That the fish like ancestor lead to several different lineages. Only one of which leads to a wolf . Most of the evidence that I can find is "comparative anatomy". The genetic part is what I'm trying to get a clearer picture on.
Anyway , thanks for your reply

Sparhafoc said:

You just accepted evolution and common descent.

Click to expand...

I'm responding because your reply doesn't contain nonsense like "shitting hippos".
I am aware that many portions of the Theory of Evolution are correct. Natural selection. True/fact. Wolves are related to dogs. True/fact. Mutations , genetic drift , inheritance and others. True/fact.
My sticking point is "how far can these mechanisms really go".
One can completely accept that green bugs and red bugs hiding in green grass will eventually lead to more green bug alleles. The predator will see the red ones more often, they will get eaten more often and soon there will be more green ones due to available green parents.
But is that where it ends? Is natural selection really just an end observation of who didn't die? It's not like anything changed inside of either.
Yes, I know there are other mechanisms. But , I don't accept that DNA errors/mutations lead to all the diversity that we see
Am I correct? I don't fucking know. (I threw in the profanity just for you. I know how you like it). I don't know. That's what I thought we were all here to discuss.

JohnHeintz said:

I'm responding because your reply doesn't contain nonsense like "shitting hippos".

Click to expand...

It was meant to be nonsense, John. It's not meant to be taken seriously. Instead, what it does is show you through offering a silly argument that's similar to yours, but stripped of your personal belief, that you wouldn't consider the argument valid, true, or even rational. I appreciate you don't see it, but for me and others, your own argument was exactly equally as silly. This is not justification for belief.

JohnHeintz said:

I am aware that many portions of the Theory of Evolution are correct. Natural selection. True/fact. Wolves are related to dogs. True/fact. Mutations , genetic drift , inheritance and others. True/fact.
My sticking point is "how far can these mechanisms really go".
One can completely accept that green bugs and red bugs hiding in green grass will eventually lead to more green bug alleles. The predator will see the red ones more often, they will get eaten more often and soon there will be more green ones due to available green parents.
But is that where it ends? Is natural selection really just an end observation of who didn't die? It's not like anything changed inside of either.

Click to expand...

Natural selection isn't an observation, it's a selective pressure that transforms the anatomy and physiology of species.

The actual ingredients of evolution by natural selection are: i) heritability ii) variation iii) preferential survival.

Mutations (new variation) occur spontaneously through copying errors and other causes, and those mutations can impact the chance of the individual possessing those genes (heritability) successfully reproducing (preferential survival). An increase in successful reproduction means that the individual possessing those genes has offspring which also possess those genes. This is then iterative. If the gene confers wildly superior reproductive success, then the possessors of that gene will - generation after generation - produce more offspring than those without the gene until that gene becomes near universal throughout the population - they simply outbreed their fellows.

That's change occurring across a species. That's what let us transform the morphology of dogs in a few dozen generations, and it's exactly the same thing that causes change to species over generations by non-intentional selection.

So there are obviously minor changes, longer fur, bigger snout, wider paws... whatever trait you can think of.... and those traits may offer only a tiny little advantage under some situations. However, the environment changes, and there are always new biomes to expand into. That longer fur, for example, might not offer much advantage if you're living in a temperate climate - but if that temperate climate borders a cold elevated landscape, then those individuals possessing that longer fur now have a unique advantage open to them unavailable to those lacking the trait.

A more extreme example of this is when colonizing an island, for example when water levels are low due to water being locked up in glaciers, but then warming releases the water isolating those on the island from the wider mainland populations. Now we have the mainland population all happily breeding with each other, but the island population is now cut off from the wider gene flow. Every single mutation that occurs and spreads through the island population's pool does not get shared with the mainland population's, and vice-versa. Generation after generation, these mutations add up on each side pushing the two populations further and further apart genetically. Eventually, this will mean they are no longer even interfertile, and even if there were no prior justification for doing so, at this moment you'd be justified in calling them two separate species. That alone is sufficient to show you that evolution is how populations diverge and generate new species.

But what you're looking for is morphological change. You're essentially asking how the shape of a species can change sufficiently that they no longer look like each other. The answer really is just more of the same; more generations of accruing minor changes which spread through one daughter population but not the other. There's no hardcoded limitation on what nature can come to produce through gradual change. Evolution might not turn a 4cm long leg into a 20cm long leg in one generation, but it could add 1 cm to leg length generation after generation until that 4cm leg becomes a 20cm leg.

We're back to the hippos John, because at the VERY BEST reading, you can't say this doesn't happen. So why are you skeptical of it?

But not being able to say something doesn't happen isn't a good enough reason to accept or deny anything. What instead would be persuasive is evidence. The fossil record provides ample example of species transitioning to wildly different forms over millions of years - literally hundreds of thousands of fossils repeatedly corroborate this view of the world, and that's not even acknowledging how genetics has provided an independent but comprehensive suite of evidence that also corroborates this view. Amidst all that evidence, there is no sign at all that there is any species boundary that evolution can't cross - dogs don't have to stay dogs, they can change into forms that are no longer dog, are not recognized as dogs even by other dogs, and cannot interbreed with dogs.

To counter this, you would need to present evidence that species do have a boundary that cannot be crossed. You can't just say 'but I don't know that there isn't evidence for this' as if that makes it justified - what we all rationally would want to see is evidence of this idea being justified, yet in a hundred years of expert in-depth study of the mechanisms of change in species, we've never encountered any evidence at all to justify this. So why do you think it's valid?

JohnHeintz said:

Yes, I know there are other mechanisms. But , I don't accept that DNA errors/mutations lead to all the diversity that we see
Am I correct? I don't fucking know. (I threw in the profanity just for you. I know how you like it). I don't know. That's what I thought we were all here to discuss.

Click to expand...

Firstly John, the concept of 'profanity' is abject bunk. What are we, 5 years old? If you can show me why the word 'fuck' is profane but the words 'duck', 'puck' and 'muck' aren't, then you may be able to convince me, otherwise save your moralising for someone else. I neither like nor dislike the word 'fuck' - it's fairly useful in some circumstances like ALL other words.

Regardless, you're lacking the bit here where you present some logical, rational, substantive support for why you don't accept that changes in DNA leads to diversity - merely saying you don't accept it tells us nothing of the truth value of the proposition.

If we ARE all here to discuss it John, then why will you never meet your side of the informational bargain. On the one side, you can see reams of evidence being presented to you informing you about the findings of biological research, and on the other you're just saying 'I don't believe it' but never providing any substance which would justify your disbelief.

Tell me why cosmic hippos shitting out fully working universes are so silly and unbelievable - it's because there's no good reason to believe due to a complete absence of evidence, right? That's the case here: your position is completely absent any justification at all yet you maintain it's valid despite the opposite position offering reams of evidence which you just say doesn't persuade you.

I don't think that constitutes 'discussion' at all.

JohnHeintz said:

Maybe I did overlook part of it. It's also sometimes difficult to put a lifetime worth of "how did you arrive at your worldview" into a few sentences in a forum thread.

Click to expand...

I am not asking to lay out your whole world view, I am asking you to address the "phylogeny challenge".

JohnHeintz said:

What if Creationists A believes this? And what if Creationist B believes that? In my opinion, this is irrelevant to our discussion.

Click to expand...

It's relevant, because we are talking about the phylogeny challenge, were you need to demonstrate how to determine whether a set or species are all related or not.

You said that you believe that wolves, dogs, foxes, etc are all related. Presumably you don't believe they are related to seals, bears, weasels, cats and hyenas. So I proposed a hypothetical. What if you come accross two creationists. One of them believes that wolves are NOT related to foxes, and the other believes that wolves, dogs, foxes, seals, bears, weasels, cats are all related.

How do we determine who is right? Can you show how you determined that wolves ARE related to foxes, but NOT to bears, cats, etc?
Again, this is the phylogeny challenge. If you can't answer the challenge, then say so.

JohnHeintz said:

Aron stated he could get ME to accept these concepts. So it only matters what I believe to be correct. And why I believe it.

Click to expand...

Wrong, that's not all what matters. As Aron said (and I previously quoted from), you need to provide the reasons for why you believe it.

JohnHeintz said:

With the fish to wolf scenario. Yes, I know it allegedly happens in small increments over vast amounts of time. That the fish like ancestor lead to several different lineages. Only one of which leads to a wolf.

Click to expand...

You're missing the main point.

You said that all dogs, wolves, and foxes are likely related.

I brought up the fish to tetrapod transition since you don't think this is possible, but instead of looking at the WHOLE line from the first tetrapods to wolves (which will be too long to explain here), I invite you to focus your attention on just a specific part: the transition from the aquatic fishes that are the closest to tetrapods and the earliest terestrial tetrapods.

These look all very similar to each other, just like foxes, wolves, dogs, etc look very similar to each other.

So I am asking you how you can say the dogs are related to the wolves and foxes, but also say that these species above are NOT related?
What's the difference and how did you determine this. Again, this is the phylogeny challenge.

AronRa said:

I gave you a chart from a genetic study and asked whether you accept the EVIDENCE of relatedness, and you STILL failed to answer.

JohnHeintz said:

No. I said "without a better understanding of how genetically relationship is determined, it's hard to have a firm stance on which is related to which".

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Notice how you STILL did not answer? Even though these were all simply yes or no questions. Give me a clear YES or NO. Then, wherever you say no, we can discuss why you drew the line there.

Do you accept the evidence that ALL of the animals on the canid chart are related? If not, WHY not?
Do you accept the evidence that EVERY species on the Felid chart are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted Cervids are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted ichthyosaurs are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted Mosasaurs are related? If not, why not?

What if Creationists A believes this? And what if Creationist B believes that?
In my opinion , this is irrelevant to our discussion.

Click to expand...

Opinions don't matter. Once again, we don't care WHAT someone believes. All that matters is WHY they believe it. What is the REASON that you keep refusing to give?

I am aware that many portions of the Theory of Evolution are correct. Natural selection. True/fact. Wolves are related to dogs. True/fact. Mutations , genetic drift , inheritance and others. True/fact.
My sticking point is "how far can these mechanisms really go".

Click to expand...

That is why you SHOULD HAVE answered ALL the questions I asked in my preceding posts. I should never have had to repeat any of them. Why am I still having to repeat them all? Why is it that creationists ALWAYS duck and dodge simple, direct questions? I have logs of documented proof of that consistent failure in previous threads on this forum. What is wrong with you people? Does belief do something to your brain such that you realize that any critical inquiry will dispel your favorite fantasy?

It's really easy. Whenever you see a question mark in my post, hit ENTER and write YES or NO. Why is it that no creationist ever does that? What is your collective disability? Why do I have to repeat my questions over and over again for every fucking one of you thoughtless wanna-pretenders? Even when you agree up-front in-writing that you won't repeatedly ignore any direct questions? Every one of you still do.

I'll make it even easier for you. Look at each of the three sets of questions below, and just tell me where you think the answer is "no".

• Are mallards related to pochards, wood ducks, and muscovies?
• Are all ducks also related to geese and all other anseriformes?
• Are anseriformes related to galliformes and other neognathes?
• Are neognathes related to paleognathes?
• Are any extant birds related to hesperornis, ichthyornis, enantiornis, or other euornithes?
• Are euorniths related to confuciusornis or archaeopteryx?
• Are all early aves related to microraptor, velociraptor, or other nonavian dinosaurs?
• Are dinosaurs related to pterosaurs, phytosaurs, and other archosaurs?

• Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?
• Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?
• Are all panthers related to felines and scimitar cats?
• Are all felids related to nimvarids or viverrids? And how could we tell?
• Are all of Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order Carnivora?

• Is the short-tailed goanna related to the perentie and all other Australian goannas?
• Are all Australian goannas related to each other and the African and Indonesian monitors?
• Are today’s terrestrial varanids related to Cretaceous mosasaurs?
• Are varanids related to any other anguimorphs including snakes?
• Are anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
• Are all scleroglossa related to iguanids and other squamates?
• Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
• Are lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
• Are lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
• Are all diapsids related to anapsids or synapsid “reptiles” like dimetrodon?
• Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
• Are all amniotes related to each other and all other tetrapods?
• Are all tetrapods related to each other and all other vertebrates?

If you really care how far it goes, like you said, then you will answer. If you really don't care at all, and are just lying to me like EVERY OTHER CREATIONIST that ever accepted my challenge on this forum has done WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then you will come up with yet another dodge or excuse such that I might have to repeat or clarify my questions yet again. Just understand now that if I don't get an answer to EACH of these three in your very next post *OR* answer ALL of my questions regarding Canids, Felids, Cervids etc in the previous post, then you can fuck off, because I will know that you're deliberately wasting my time by playing stupid, just like every other science-denying fantasy-believer always does.

AronRa said:

Notice how you STILL did not answer? Even though these were all simply yes or no questions. Give me a clear YES or NO. Then, wherever you say no, we can discuss why you drew the line there.

Do you accept the evidence that ALL of the animals on the canid chart are related? If not, WHY not?
Do you accept the evidence that EVERY species on the Felid chart are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted Cervids are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted ichthyosaurs are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted Mosasaurs are related? If not, why not?


Opinions don't matter. Once again, we don't care WHAT someone believes. All that matters is WHY they believe it. What is the REASON that you keep refusing to give?


That is why you SHOULD HAVE answered ALL the questions I asked in my preceding posts. I should never have had to repeat any of them. Why am I still having to repeat them all? Why is it that creationists ALWAYS duck and dodge simple, direct questions? I have logs of documented proof of that consistent failure in previous threads on this forum. What is wrong with you people? Does belief do something to your brain such that you realize that any critical inquiry will dispel your favorite fantasy?

It's really easy. Whenever you see a question mark in my post, hit ENTER and write YES or NO. Why is it that no creationist ever does that? What is your collective disability? Why do I have to repeat my questions over and over again for every fucking one of you thoughtless wanna-pretenders? Even when you agree up-front in-writing that you won't repeatedly ignore any direct questions? Every one of you still do.

I'll make it even easier for you. Look at each of the three sets of questions below, and just tell me where you think the answer is "no".

• Are mallards related to pochards, wood ducks, and muscovies?
• Are all ducks also related to geese and all other anseriformes?
• Are anseriformes related to galliformes and other neognathes?
• Are neognathes related to paleognathes?
• Are any extant birds related to hesperornis, ichthyornis, enantiornis, or other euornithes?
• Are euorniths related to confuciusornis or archaeopteryx?
• Are all early aves related to microraptor, velociraptor, or other nonavian dinosaurs?
• Are dinosaurs related to pterosaurs, phytosaurs, and other archosaurs?

• Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?
• Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?
• Are all panthers related to felines and scimitar cats?
• Are all felids related to nimvarids or viverrids? And how could we tell?
• Are all of Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order Carnivora?

• Is the short-tailed goanna related to the perentie and all other Australian goannas?
• Are all Australian goannas related to each other and the African and Indonesian monitors?
• Are today’s terrestrial varanids related to Cretaceous mosasaurs?
• Are varanids related to any other anguimorphs including snakes?
• Are anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
• Are all scleroglossa related to iguanids and other squamates?
• Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
• Are lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
• Are lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
• Are all diapsids related to anapsids or synapsid “reptiles” like dimetrodon?
• Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
• Are all amniotes related to each other and all other tetrapods?
• Are all tetrapods related to each other and all other vertebrates?

If you really care how far it goes, like you said, then you will answer. If you really don't care at all, and are just lying to me like EVERY OTHER CREATIONIST that ever accepted my challenge on this forum has done WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then you will come up with yet another dodge or excuse such that I might have to repeat or clarify my questions yet again. Just understand now that if I don't get an answer to EACH of these three in your very next post *OR* answer ALL of my questions regarding Canids, Felids, Cervids etc in the previous post, then you can fuck off, because I will know that you're deliberately wasting my time by playing stupid, just like every other science-denying fantasy-believer always does.

Click to expand...

Well Larry. Why don't you take your head, the one that looks like a bullfrog face fucked a Klingon and shove it up your mother's snatch.
First day we decided to do this I told you " not YEC , don't claim any religion and don't believe that biblical stories like Noah's Ark couldn't possibly have happened as written".
I have repeated this through this thread. You keep saying "creationist this. Creationist that"
What's your disability Larry ?
Not everything in the world is a yes or no.
But let's look at little Larry's lack of lateral thinking. Larry asks "do you think dog and wolves are related'. John says "I think dogs are nothing more than domestic wolves of various sizes and shapes". That's a yes Larry.
But Larry only thinks "his way is the right way". "His wording is the correct way to speak".
I even the last response told you directly" I will start with canines. Later answer the others about felines , cervids , ichtosaurs or whatever". Giving the reason that time was an issue due to being on the graveyard shift.
Want yes or no.
Is Larry a tosser ? Yes
Is Larry a temper baby ? Yes
Does John care what Larry has to say? No

Is this conversation over ? Yes.

And thus all the concern trolling about profanity is exposed as being the manipulations of an intellectually bankrupt lying little shit-eater who wouldn't know honesty if it was fucking him up the arse. Show yourself out, there's a good twat.

AronRa said:

Notice how you STILL did not answer? Even though these were all simply yes or no questions. Give me a clear YES or NO. Then, wherever you say no, we can discuss why you drew the line there.

Do you accept the evidence that ALL of the animals on the canid chart are related? If not, WHY not?
Do you accept the evidence that EVERY species on the Felid chart are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted Cervids are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted ichthyosaurs are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted Mosasaurs are related? If not, why not?


Opinions don't matter. Once again, we don't care WHAT someone believes. All that matters is WHY they believe it. What is the REASON that you keep refusing to give?


That is why you SHOULD HAVE answered ALL the questions I asked in my preceding posts. I should never have had to repeat any of them. Why am I still having to repeat them all? Why is it that creationists ALWAYS duck and dodge simple, direct questions? I have logs of documented proof of that consistent failure in previous threads on this forum. What is wrong with you people? Does belief do something to your brain such that you realize that any critical inquiry will dispel your favorite fantasy?

It's really easy. Whenever you see a question mark in my post, hit ENTER and write YES or NO. Why is it that no creationist ever does that? What is your collective disability? Why do I have to repeat my questions over and over again for every fucking one of you thoughtless wanna-pretenders? Even when you agree up-front in-writing that you won't repeatedly ignore any direct questions? Every one of you still do.

I'll make it even easier for you. Look at each of the three sets of questions below, and just tell me where you think the answer is "no".

• Are mallards related to pochards, wood ducks, and muscovies?
• Are all ducks also related to geese and all other anseriformes?
• Are anseriformes related to galliformes and other neognathes?
• Are neognathes related to paleognathes?
• Are any extant birds related to hesperornis, ichthyornis, enantiornis, or other euornithes?
• Are euorniths related to confuciusornis or archaeopteryx?
• Are all early aves related to microraptor, velociraptor, or other nonavian dinosaurs?
• Are dinosaurs related to pterosaurs, phytosaurs, and other archosaurs?

• Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?
• Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?
• Are all panthers related to felines and scimitar cats?
• Are all felids related to nimvarids or viverrids? And how could we tell?
• Are all of Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order Carnivora?

• Is the short-tailed goanna related to the perentie and all other Australian goannas?
• Are all Australian goannas related to each other and the African and Indonesian monitors?
• Are today’s terrestrial varanids related to Cretaceous mosasaurs?
• Are varanids related to any other anguimorphs including snakes?
• Are anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
• Are all scleroglossa related to iguanids and other squamates?
• Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
• Are lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
• Are lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
• Are all diapsids related to anapsids or synapsid “reptiles” like dimetrodon?
• Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
• Are all amniotes related to each other and all other tetrapods?
• Are all tetrapods related to each other and all other vertebrates?

If you really care how far it goes, like you said, then you will answer. If you really don't care at all, and are just lying to me like EVERY OTHER CREATIONIST that ever accepted my challenge on this forum has done WITHOUT EXCEPTION, then you will come up with yet another dodge or excuse such that I might have to repeat or clarify my questions yet again. Just understand now that if I don't get an answer to EACH of these three in your very next post *OR* answer ALL of my questions regarding Canids, Felids, Cervids etc in the previous post, then you can fuck off, because I will know that you're deliberately wasting my time by playing stupid, just like every other science-denying fantasy-believer always does.

Click to expand...

As a Creationist, I am a bit disappointed that John does not want to respond. My answer would have been that I reject evidence of common ancestry. That's why I am a creationist.

Sparhafoc said:

And thus all the concern trolling about profanity is exposed as being the manipulations of an intellectually bankrupt lying little shit-eater who wouldn't know honesty if it was fucking him up the arse. Show yourself out, there's a good twat.

Click to expand...

What's your problem? The guy is an arrogant tool. What have you two been inside each other ? You seem very upset. Aawwww is he your hero ?
I think I'll show myself into your Mum

Nesslig20 said:

So I am asking you how you can say the dogs are related to the wolves and foxes, but also say that these species above are NOT related?
What's the difference and how did you determine this. Again, this is the phylogeny challenge.

Click to expand...

It a good question. But if you affirm the belief that life forms were designed and created than I dont think there is really anyway of knowing what all the original "created kinds" were.

JohnHeintz said:

What's your problem? The guy is an arrogant tool. What have you two been inside each other ? You seem very upset. Aawwww is he your hero ?
I think I'll show myself into your Mum

Click to expand...

When I fuck your mother from behind, sometimes I pull her hair and whisper "Your son John is a bastard." into her ear. It drives her wild when I do that.

Led Zeppelin said:

As a Creationist, I am a bit disappointed that John does not want to respond. My answer would have been that I reject evidence of common ancestry. That's why I am a creationist.

Click to expand...

I did respond. Tried to anyway. Read through the last couple pages. See what you think

Led Zeppelin said:

When I fuck your mother from behind, sometimes I pull her hair and whisper "Your son John is a bastard." into her ear. It drives her wild when I do that.

Click to expand...

Were you getting bored of fucking your own mother ? Me and 4 homeless Mexican guys still enjoy her. Though I think her raising her fee to 50 cents is a little steep.

Can I derail this? It already resembles a YT comment section, anyway.

AronRa said:

Do you accept the evidence that ALL of the animals on the canid chart are related? If not, WHY not?
Do you accept the evidence that EVERY species on the Felid chart are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted Cervids are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted ichthyosaurs are related? If not, why not?
Do you accept that all the depicted Mosasaurs are related? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

@JohnHeintz and this what we mean you are not answering the questions if you do Aron will know where you stand just answer the questions. As for proof what Aron posts is scientific unless he says so. You can quote Aron and close the quote and then open again then you can answer in between the bbcode. Its a lot of work to answer but after that Aron knows what you accept and what not and after that he can continue.

@everyone please do not derail the thread.

Greetings,

What's your problem, John?

Aron asked you a series of yes-or-no questions to try and find out where your acceptance-level ends, that's all. You didn't answer his earlier yes-or-no question, despite his asking it several times, and even when I asked you to answer it, you didn't.

Now you behave in a defensive manner when given a questionnaire to answer.

I think Spar was right earlier when he said that you don't want to give up your cherished beliefs, hence your reaction when faced with an either-or scenario.

I think you should apologise to Aron for your ad hominem, it's quite unbecoming of someone who complained about profanity.

Kindest regards,

James

JohnHeintz said:

What's your problem? The guy is an arrogant tool. What have you two been inside each other ? You seem very upset. Aawwww is he your hero ?
I think I'll show myself into your Mum

Click to expand...

Going to hang around to see if you can troll a bit more?

The questions you adamantly refuse to engage honestly with are still there. We're waiting.

Greg the Grouper said:

Can I derail this? It already resembles a YT comment section, anyway.

Click to expand...

Too late, the train wreck occurred a while ago.

JohnHeintz said:

Were you getting bored of fucking your own mother ?

Click to expand...

Your mother told me I was a douche.

I said I thought it was a little harsh, but it did explain why she smelled better after I fucked her.