Is evolution a fact?

[he_who_is_nobody]

Did your back hurt doing that backflip? Pull any muscles? Cause it was HUGE

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Now you have a problem with stating a cell can become a human being through the process of evolution..

No. I have a problem with YOUR definition:

evolution is defined as the process of a single cell becoming a human being.

Which is absolutely not correct.

Single cell could become human through the process of evolution

Evolution is not the process of a single cell becoming a human.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Read my comment.." the process of cells....."

Uh:

evolution is defined as the process of a single cell becoming a human being.

No

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Ayyyyy Lmao

 

[Mr_Wilford]

You defined it like that when you said " it's a fair summary".

When I said cell to man is that change in inherited traits over successive generations?

You answer yes fair summary.

I agreed it would be an example of Inherited traits changing over successive generations. But you tried to define evolution as the process of a cell turning into a human.

Look at these two statements.

1. Evolution is the process of a single cell becoming a human (yours)

2. Evolution is the process by which a single cell could become a human. (what I agree with)

They look similar but they say very different things. If you think about it long and hard, maybe you'll see it.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Ok

So..

Change in inheritable traits over successive generations is the process by which a single cell can become a human.


Evidence?

Of inheritable traits changing over successive generations, which is the definition of evolution? That's already been provided.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[Mr_Wilford]

"Monkey gave birth to a human"

Put that down as another of Bernies greatest hits.

I fail to understand what you want, Bernhard. We agree evolution is the change of inherited traits passed on to successive generations. You asked for evidence of this, it's been provided.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Such beautiful animals. A shame the Whaling Industry is still active.

 

[Prolescum]

Given the length and utter futility of this thread, how about we commemorate it with a new smiley for the board?

Post suggestions below.

In the vein of :docpalm: (which in all fairness is the best)

 

[SpecialFrog]

So Bernhard, do you really want evidence that we have single-cell ancestors? Because I can tell you now that it may involve talking about transitional species, which you don't seem to want to do.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Given the length and utter futility of this thread, how about we commemorate it with a new smiley for the board?

Post suggestions below.

In the vein of :docpalm: (which in all fairness is the best)

How about something like , but cross eyed?

 

[SpecialFrog]

A brain in a vat smiley might be good for talking with presuppositionalists.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

A brain in a vat smiley might be good for talking with presuppositionalists.

Agreed.

Presuppositional apologetics: for when you know you lost the argument, but refuse to stop arguing.

 

[Prolescum]

Bernard, this isn't the place to discuss moderation. We have a sub-forum specifically set aside, as you well know having posted in there previously.

That you're banned across the web is not a surprise, and speaks volumes about both your character and your ability to retain useful information. Just like I tried to say to you in private, if you're going to act like a troll, don't act shocked that you're treated like one. If your piss is turning into vinegar, I suggest posting in the correct area of the website to discuss your behaviour further.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bernhard, we are monkeys due to the fact that evolution's classification system is based on nested hierarchies.

Your inability to accept scientific definitions and evidence does not render science or the evidence invalid.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Prolescum]

Bernard, I don't care what your views are, only that you're intentionally provoking other members. I know you're attempting to provoke me too, and I know why. I've done my research, and I have little beyond pity for you. So, let me just make this abundantly clear: your contributions to this site aren't valued, and effectively, the only reason you are still here because this thread is a pristine example of the depths people will go to maintain their delusions, and watching you dig yourself into various holes without the foresight of taking ladders with you is morbidly fascinating.

If you are under any illusion that being banned is a source of pride, you're genuinely lost and I doubt even Christ can redeem you.

No more moderation discussion in this thread, please. Posts will be moved to the appropriate sub-forum.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Ok dragan glas if you wish to define monkey and humans in that fashion then yes we are monkeys. Example we both have two legs and two arms... Therefore we are same. Then yes we are like monkeys.


Now if you wish to define our differences you will rapidly see how we are not monkeys.

If you wish to claim we descended from monkeys, that's your prerogative, but I simply state never been observed.

I'm not stating it - that's how we are classified according to the theory of evolution: because we share characteristics with monkeys. Apes are a development from monkeys of which we are one species (of ape).

We have DNA evidence which clearly shows where the various species of apes have evolved from monkeys - including our own species.

Why don't you watch Aron's video on the subject?



And, for completion...



Although both are somewhat old, they do address a number of your misunderstandings.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Bernhard, once again you are insisting that you are asking for evidence. Does this mean you actually want to discuss evidence?

If not, this is part of why you are being considered a troll.

 

[MarsCydonia]

If you sift through Bernhard's comments, there is a lot we can actually agree upon.

Not possible to observe simple becoming complex, without intelligence. That's the problem.

I think that we can all agree that without intelligence you cannot observe evolution. That is indeed the problem some people have.

I don't want serious discourse.

No challenge to Bernhard's statement there, he made this abundantly clear.

remember I don't go to sleep at night thinking

Nor does he wake up and spends his days in this manner either.

Am I a troll? If you call asking for evidence trolling then yes I am a troll. Is it ok to ask for evidence?

No, actually this is not what we call trolling. This is not the conduct for which you have been referred to as a troll.

The reason we tolerate you Bernhard is because you provide, to some of us at least, a form of entertainment. For others, you provide evidence of the conduct of creationists when confronted with evidence and explanations.

Have you ever stopped and asked yourself "If someone neutral on the positions of creationism and the theory of evolution looked at this forum, which commenter will leave them with the impression that they looked at and honestly considered the explanations provided? Who will leave them with the impression of running away, blindly and willfully refused the discuss and acknowledge what was presented?"

Can you ask yourself this question and think you fall under the first rather than the second? If think you are the first and we are the second, no one can help you.

Now progress can always be made... Simply provide evidence....

Already provided with no rebuttal from you other than "I don't accept it"

Who can show me evolution is science?

Already shown with no rebuttal from you other than "I don't accept it"

Who can show me change in inherited traits over successive generations will produce a human, but not limited too, from a single cell?

Already explained to you with no rebuttal from you other than "I don't accept it"

When the very doctrine of evolution teaches there was nobody around to observe this cell changing?

Already explained to you how observation in science does not require direct observation to as observation, with no rebuttal from you other than "I don't accept it"

What do you chose evolutionary doctrine that nobody was there thus it is a faith? Or do you chose to claim evolution is science, without ever observing the evolution specified? Which is also faith.

See above, you never came up with something better than "I don't accept it".

The answer is easy... Claim false dichotomy, change definitions and in general run from the burden of proof.

Your conduct: false dichotomy of "inherited traits" applying to some species but not others, change definitions of "evolution" from "simple to complex", to "cell to humans", etc. run from the burden of proof as you have not presented anything yet.

But are you not making a positive claim? Thus the burden of proof is on the evolutionist.

Well Bernhard, why don't put up? You reject the theory of evolution because you don't want to accept it and we all know that you don't want to accept it because you have a preferred magical origin for the biodiversity of life. If not, then:
1. Please provide your alternative explanation to the origin of biodiversity of life.
2. Please provide evidence that supports this explanation
3. Please provide a way your explanation can be falsified.

If you want to reject the theory evolution then you are going to have to check your presuppositions. There is nothing amazing about us saying that you have presuppositions because you project your conduct, your "standard" of evidence for creationism unto us when it comes to evolution while having a whole different standard, none in fact, for creationism.

Please, don't run from the burden of proof, act to the standard you demand of others but never do yourself. Surprise us all...