Is evolution a fact?

[DutchLiam84]

1. Genetic variation contained within DNA
2. Dog breeding makes virtually unlimited variations of dogs. Great Dane to chihuahua
3. Show that a breed of dogs is not a dog.

Yes I reject the theory of evolution.
No you saying I have presuppositions is not amazing.. It is your only line of defence. The amazing part part is the thinking that evolutionists don't have presuppositions.

Are you seriously this thick? How about you show me a breed of apples that's not an apple. While you're at it, show me a duck that isn't a duck. Show me a circle that's not a circle! My god dude, in the Netherlands we call people that use your kind of "logic", "te dom om te poepen" or people who are to dumb to take a shit.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Hahaha, vind het een beetje jammer dat je een medelander bent, met alle respect, maar je bent absoluut geen goeie reclame voor Nederland zo. Waar heb jij in hemelsnaam op school gezeten? Ze zijn je nl. het 1 en ander vergeten te leren.

Het feit dat je vraagt om honden die nageslacht krijgen die geen honden zijn betekent dat je na 107 pagina's nog steeds geen idee hebt wat de evolutietheorie nou inhoudt. Dat zou bewijs zijn TEGEN de theorie, Bernard.

Je hebt helaas echt geen idee hoe erg je jezelf voor lul zet hier.

Mocht je overigens wel aan het trollen zijn....chapeau!

But let's continue in English so everyone can read it.

p.s. Ik kom overigens uit Arnhem.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I have been looking for evidence the entire time special frog. Now I am looking for evidence to justify the presupposition of " evolution is science"

That's a new level of bullshit from you. Either "evolution is science" is a presupposition or it needs evidence. That's the very definition of "presupposition".

You can't even keep your own nonsense arguments straight.

Besides, the evidence for the claim "the theory of evolution is science" is the same evidence for the claim "the theory of evolution is a fact".

So you continue to run away from talking about the evidence you pretend to want.

Either you are a master of double-think who is honestly incapable of seeing self-contradiction or your pants are on fire.

 

[Collecemall]

I tried to get us talking about boats. Even if it is about incense boats. Everybody likes boats. Right?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

I tried to get us talking about boats. Even if it is about incense boats. Everybody likes boats. Right?

I like boats

Don't get me started on the Titanic, I'll go on for hours

 

[MarsCydonia]

Anyway because it is super simple:

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.

1. Genetic variation contained within DNA
2. Dog breeding makes virtually unlimited variations of dogs. Great Dane to chihuahua
3. Show that a breed of dogs is not a dog.

Yes I reject the theory of evolution.
No you saying I have presuppositions is not amazing.. It is your only line of defence. The amazing part part is the thinking that evolutionists don't have presuppositions.

1. I asked for an explanation. Please provide an explanation
2. How can this be evidence for your explanation? Please provide an explanation
3. How can this be used to falsify something that has not been provided? Please provide an explanation.

Please Bernhard, do not run.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I tried to get us talking about boats. Even if it is about incense boats. Everybody likes boats. Right?

I think Bernhard missed by incense boat joke.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Yes... Classified according to the theory of evolution. So according to the theory of evolution we are related via common descent to monkeys, so because of that assertion (never been observed) poof evolutionists draw a line between us and monkeys and that is supposed to be all the evidence I need.

It's like me stating: whale...........me . ...... Reason: we both breath oxygen, we are both mammels, therefore we are related via common descent,

It's not exclusive... It's not therefore only can be common descent.


Now if you want to state : monkey........ Me similar DNA, mammel, blah, blah, therefore we are related via COMMON DESIGNER..... Sure I agree.

But then you will say evidence for common designer?

Like I ask evidence for common descent?

Since the thread is titled " is evolution a fact". My question has precedence.

You simply assert it is common descent, no way of verifying the assertion because you were not there to observe it.


I don't need videos I already know that's how it works. I don't agree with it because the theory of evolution is wrong. The theory is wrong because according to the theory nobody was around to observe single cell organism becoming well Anyang else besides the organism.. That is what is observed.

If you want it claim you believe the theory of evolution... That is honest, but you still need evidence,


I have been looking for evidence the entire time special frog. Now I am looking for evidence to justify the presupposition of " evolution is science"

DNA tells the story of Life - you can't escape that fact, Bernhard.

Through DNA, we know humans are a species of ape, and apes evolved from monkeys - ergo, we're monkeys: A gave rise to B, and B gave rise to C, therefore C is related to A - it's that simple.

Your claim for a "Common Designer" is nonsense because you have no evidence that a Designer existed - particularly since, according to you, no-one was around to witness a Designer.

DNA tells us everything we need to know - there's no need for anything else.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

You asked I answered. You want to call it running... Your perogative. Have a nice day

No Bernhard, you did not answer. You only presuppose you did and your presupposition is false.

Please answer Bernhard, hold yourself to the standard you demand of others.

Dragan glas " Through DNA we know know we came from ape"

No dragan glas .... There is no we. You think you know. You were not there to see it. It's faith

Your presupposition of designer is faith.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I have been looking for evidence the entire time special frog. Now I am looking for evidence to justify the presupposition of " evolution is science"

That's a new level of bullshit from you. Either "evolution is science" is a presupposition or it needs evidence. That's the very definition of "presupposition".

You can't even keep your own nonsense arguments straight.

Besides, the evidence for the claim "the theory of evolution is science" is the same evidence for the claim "the theory of evolution is a fact".

So you continue to run away from talking about the evidence you pretend to want.

Either you are a master of double-think who is honestly incapable of seeing self-contradiction or your pants are on fire.

No wrong... Look it up. A presupposition does not mean no evidence. A presupposition can have evidence, easily.

Bollocks. A presupposition is assumed to be true.

The problem however is " evolution is science" has no logical evidence. It's an assertion + presupposition.

More bollocks. You have been presented with logical arguments why it is science and don't want to hear any evidence.

Do you agree that if evolution is shown to be a fact this also shows it to be scientific?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Anyway I'm going on vacation. Fishing and bear hunting. Have a ball.

Just remember: not only are bears your cousins but fish are too.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Dragan glas " Through DNA we know know we came from ape"

No dragan glas .... There is no we. You think you know. You were not there to see it. It's faith

And you weren't there to see it not happening.

So, that leaves what the scientific community considers the evidence to show.

And we didn't "come from ape".

DNA shows we are apes who evolved from monkeys, therefore we are monkeys.

It's not me saying it - it's what the scientific community says the evidence shows.

Your argument-from-ignorance opinion is irrelevant.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[MarsCydonia]

I'm perfectly fine with you thinking I did not answer. Really. If you wish to think I did not, I cannot stop you. Your thinking doesn't bother me.

Well coming from someone that is completely fine thinking that evidence for evolution was not provided or that how evolution was not explained, this does not suprise me.

After all, it would be hypocritical to not allow others to act as you do.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Even Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy (and a Christian) recognized that we were apes even without knowing anything about evolution.

But I ask you and the whole world for a generic differentia between man and ape which conforms to the principles of natural history, I certainly know of none... If I were to call man ape or vice versa, I should bring down all the theologians on my head. But perhaps I should still do it according to the rules of science.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Even Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy (and a Christian) recognized that we were apes even without knowing anything about evolution.

But I ask you and the whole world for a generic differentia between man and ape which conforms to the principles of natural history, I certainly know of none... If I were to call man ape or vice versa, I should bring down all the theologians on my head. But perhaps I should still do it according to the rules of science.

In b 4 Bernard: "That's an argument from authority"!

Apparently!

 

[Steelmage99]

Dragan glas " Through DNA we know know we came from ape"

No dragan glas .... There is no we. You think you know. You were not there to see it. It's faith

Bernhard, do you accept and understand that we can know things about the past without being there to observe it, based on the evidence left behind?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Dragan glas " Through DNA we know know we came from ape"

No dragan glas .... There is no we. You think you know. You were not there to see it. It's faith

Bernhard, do you accept and understand that we can know things about the past without being there to observe it, based on the evidence left behind?

This has been explained to him many, many times

All he does is claim that if you don't see the evidence forming, then you basically have no evidence

And he calls himself a scientist. As if.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It's like me stating: whale...........me . ...... Reason: we both breath oxygen, we are both mammels, therefore we are related via common descent,

Well, you lot are making progress. Originally The troll believed whales were fish, now it accepts hat whales are mammals. It only took approximately 100 pages to get that fact through the trolls head.

However, in other respects, the troll is moving backwards. It originally claimed that kind was the same as family for taxonomic classification, making all great apes the same kind. Now it seems the troll no longer accepts that humans are great apes. One wonders what brought about the change. Perhaps any new information moves out old information?

 

[Visaki]

What I've learned in these 107 pages is that Bernie-boy*, like many evo-denialists, doesn't know what the thing he is arguing against actually is.

* Props for you if you get that reference.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Bernhard, everything you say has been dealt with. You aren't even trying to address the objections and only re-assert your dubious claims as if no one had said anything.

You may as well have let one of the bears type for you.