Has evolution(a thing changed to that of a complete human) been proven fact?

Thank you, thank you readers.

Has evolution(a thing that is non human that has changed to that of a complete human) been proven fact?

That is the question to the public.

A thing, a real living organism from the dawn of living organisms that became a thing that has the structure and function of what would completely take the label of homo sapien that became a complete person.

This then after has never again developed in this fashion but has sexually reproduced into the population currently.

"This then after has never again developed in this fashion but has sexually reproduced into the population currently."

"I don’t know what this sentence means, please explain."

Mankind has developed over time through generations by sexual reproduction. We have evidence and can observe sexual reproduction and pregnancy unlike evolution in which we can't observe.

So we are to believe something non human evolved into human but this didn't have to continue with other things to evolve to accumulate the human population. “ I guess and just sexually reproduced from there , is that right?

We just have this one instance of inconsistency but then we resume consistency in sexual reproduction that we are to believe.

This is what I mean.

Now you convey there's a fossil to show us something nonhuman transformed into a complete human.

What does the statue look like?

Is it showing partial man, partial something else?

Partial human skeletal remains attached to another not identifiable.

Is that what you're talking about?

Please go into detail and describe this to help demonstrate evolution is actually fact, not a theory which is non fact.

By the way I say statue by being unable to resist at citing the possibility of man made hoax.

I yield.

"That just isn’t correct, the theory of Evolution is based on a huge amount of observational evidence,"

Let's keep this concise. I have not observed nor anybody for that matter has observed a non human become a complete human. But I have observed plus anyone that has, observed sexual reproduction.

That much is correct. If you say somebody has observed it, a non human become a complete human , tell me who this person is and where the person is.

"No, that is not right. You are creating a false dichotomy between evolution and sexual reproduction; it isn’t an either-or thing. "

Ok so you say evolution concerning man , not anything else because we're not talking about anything else, the evolution concerning man only started the dawn of man and ended when man was able to sexually reproduce is that right?

You said "it isn’t an either-or thing. " Well this is what I'm confirming with you when I say what I said above. I thought I made this clear last round.

Evolution started man and apparently ended because where is man evolving this way now?

Man sexually reproduces now obviously.

So I urge you to drop the term evidence and all like that for something that has been heavily theorized, not proven.

"Evolution refers to changes over long time scales, a species can sexually reproduce a million generations, and over that time a favorable trait might gradually develop and get passed on sexually by past and future generations."

That's cool but we're talking about a non human becoming a human. Sexual reproduction and hereditary isn't a non human species transforming into another.

"The other thing that isn’t right is your contention that “The evolution stopped when a complete man and woman came into existence”, no it didn’t. Evolution refers to the process of change over vast length’s of time, change didn’t stop when Mankind came along, we are still evolving, physically, mentally, and culturally."

You're moving the goalpost of what evolution means in this topic. I was very specific in the topic.

"Has evolution(a thing changed to that of a complete human) been proven fact?"

So we're dealing with a thing that has become completely human where it wasn't before. You're conflating all these general expressions of evolution to try to have a valid argument and you're drawing up a fallacy. A classic one at that.

"There is nothing inconsistent between evolution and sexual reproduction, that’s what we are to believe. You are confusing two completely different things."

No I'm actually distinguishing two different things for you. One is proven (sexual reproduction) and the other is not .

"Evolution does not occur in a single individual so there could never be a single fossil that shows a transition from animal to human, I do think that the transition from animal to man necessarily happened in an individual, but not in a physical way that would show up in a fossil. It was a mental development that made the difference, and I will explain at the end."

Yes and here lies the problem with you or anybody trying to prove evolution according to the topic

is fact. Based on this what you just stated gives rise to theories, conjectures, hypotheses, etc.

I understand everything you're giving explains where the theory (non fact) came from and why it is such. But that's all it is and I believe you just conceded that there's nothing to show a non human thing becoming a human. All you have is snippets of general deductive elements to suggest, theorize, hypothesize, deductively concluding the system of evolution minus certainty.

"The General Theory of Relativity is a "theory" of gravity, that doesn't mean that gravity isn't a fact."

This is analogous to saying the fossils that exist are factual and the studies in biology , speciology, taxonomies, etc.

But this is used to conclude with a theory (non fact) of evolution like the gravity that exists is factual and the studies thereof are used to conclude with a theory(non fact) of relativity. That is indeed if relativity has not been proven. If it has in this context, you used the wrong subject in your example.

"I wish you would just say what your argument is, I’m trying to determine it from your questions, perhaps next round you can explain exactly what your objection to evolution is. I think you are defending the transcendence of man over the rest of nature, so I will address that common concern here. First, it’s obviously a mistaken belief that Evolution and Faith are in conflict, but that is contrived, it isn’t real."

Oh you haven't gotten my position by now. There's no evidence for evolution which is a non human becoming one according to this topic. I think you glossed over the specifics of the topic statement, saw the word "evolution " and just ran with it thinking we're talking about evolution from every whichever way. No we being very specific here.

So far I have you agreeing there is no such evidence to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

"The faithful want to preserve a perceived transcendence of Man over the rest of nature; hence they resist evolution because they can’t see us as having descended from Apes. Well we didn't, we ascended from the Apes, we rose above the apes through a process of transcendence. I just don't see that the two approaches contradict each other at all, quite clearly, the two stories coincide fundamentally. I am offering this perspective to provide a different point of view around which reconciliation might be possible."

Just no evidence or we wouldn't be talking about it. Once more I have to highlight the inconsistency again. The rest of the apes, why did they remain apes and continue producing after their kind?

What was with evolution that it just stopped changing one species into a whole other one?

"It’s difficult to see how such an abrupt discontinuity can be reconciled with evolution’s idea of development through gradual change"

Untestable, non empirical method but understandable premise to an extent.

Much of what you had to say didn't really provide any evidence which you communicated you don't really have but you're offering just conceptualized observations of mankind as a whole, the development and progressions to the point of conjecture.

Basically it's like this I'm getting from you, when you look at all these things, how could evolution not be the cause of all we have and Occam's razor in what have you ?

So all in all, at the end of it, we have no evidence like we do with kinds producing after their own, namely mankind.

"If you think evolution can be observed occurring in an individual then you don’t understand what evolution is.  Evolution from one species to another occurs over vast periods of time, involving hundreds of thousands to millions of generations, all of those generations were produced through sexual reproduction.  So, of course no single person could live long enough to observe a million generations."

Oh well that kills our chances of proving empirically all individuals necessary to exhibit all pieces to this evolution puzzle then. We need all puzzle pieces to verify the correct picture of a non man becoming completely man. We're not filling in the blanks, that's conjecture. That's not proving the topic of evolution I'M TALKING ABOUT. 

Really case closed right there . We can agree.

"The only place that person exists is in your imagination, so you tell me where you imagine them to be. Evolution is not magic if you imagine that the evolution of a nonhuman primate into a human was like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde transformation in reverse that happened to an individual, you have quite an imagination, it might make for a good movie, but it would have to be a comedy, and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution."

So even you agree. You know of nobody that has observed this. Which proves by your own omission, this subject I'm talking about is not proven fact. 

But I understand you aim to present what's available to showcase the hypothesis. You have demonstrated the hypothesis of evolution, yes.

"No, I’m not saying that at all, not even a little bit. 

All of our scientific disciplines individually and collectively point to a universe that is always changing in time, the world has always been a world in the process of transformation. Mankind is a part of that changing universe, Man has evolved as the Universe itself has evolved, if you want to reject Evolution as it relates to Man, what are you rejecting it in favor of? "

It's in favor of observing mankind sexually reproducing for the past innumerable amount of years to progress where mankind is today.

This is where you have not cleared up the discrepancy.

Do you not get what I'm saying that if a non human became complete human, did this process not stop?

What other things are there that are non human that became human while mankind sexually flourished on the planet?

If you're going to argue these things are still happening and it's going to take millions of years, congrats, you've given another unfalsifiable, untestable claim thus not being able to prove that either.

Being that one individual can't typically live past a century, who's going to be here long enough to witness what I'm talking about?

The theory remains.

"If Mankind didn’t evolve with the rest of the Universe, how did Man come to exist?""

From the natural side, nobody knows and that nobody includes those that believe the evolution I'm talking about to be so, not know but believe it.

"You didn’t understand it in the first round and after I explained it to you, you still don’t understand it. You don’t want to understand, and maybe you can tell me what you do believe about how Mankind came into existence."

For the sake of debates, I don't get into personal beliefs like this. You're resorting to asking me this so you're not all alone with your beliefs on this topic taking the light off.

Any beliefs that you've alluded to anyway.

"You really need to try to understand that evolution is not something different than sexual reproducing, until you do, you will keep making incoherent statements like above.  "

You have to accept that I will distinguish between the two and will not conflate them. Just accept that I don't.

Mankind sexually reproducing after their kind versus something that is not of the kind or same kind eventually becoming or turning into the same kind.

Do you get my distinction?

A woman that gives birth to her child is her kind.

A kind that is not human but eventually becomes human is not the same as that.

One side is one kind giving rise to the same.

Do you follow?

The other side is one kind giving rise to a different kind .

Do you follow?

The conflict comes in with speciation.

I can understand the way you view evolution as everything being directly and indirectly interconnected and everything just evolves.

However, the uniformity of that view cuts out the factor of some direct connections that cannot connect with indirect connections which is what we have as a species not being able to live on and flourish with a different species or kind.

You can say evolve. Well the being has to continue and continue and continue to live to evolve. Does that one being of species become another to live on or will it have to produce after its own?

You can say speciation continues while select species stay separate to exist. Now we're back at the question of proof again. We get the theoretical concept. But we have not gotten very far from that .

Then there's the question, why have species to reproduce themselves to flourish when we can have just species changing from one to a complete new distinct one unidentifiable to the last appearing as there was no relation or resemblance at all?

Sure the small changes through the years to tie many of the puzzle pieces together and we're back at the missing pieces in the puzzle again.

"Nope, I’m using the term “evidence” correctly, the evidence from all of our sciences support the process of change that has occurred in time, there is no evidence that indicates otherwise.  Evolution is an observed fact. 

What evidence do you have that challenges this fact?"

If it was actually fact, why would it be challenged? Why have all this controversy?

It's like saying challenging the fact of wet liquid water. It's a fact, we can observe/experience this with water .

So now is good time to demonstrate something or somethings or all the things that are non human becoming or that have became completely human.

You say you can't demonstrate it with one thing so looks like you have the heavy burden with multiple individuals.

"You are still talking nonsense, sexual reproduction isn’t evolution, evolution explains the transformation of non-human to human over a long period of time."

Of course it's not evolution. We can observe sexual reproduction marking it as fact unlike evolution.

"Nope, I’m explaining that the evolution of human beings is as much a scientific fact as any scientific fact.  You have done nothing whatsoever to show that to be wrong, you just keep saying that you don’t understand the subject matter of the debate and insisting that I talk about some very weird ideas about evolution that you have imagined, I can’t really address issues that only occur in your imagination."

The burden is not on me to prove something non human became human . That's your job and you already conceded you can't do it. Stop calling this thing fact because of faith in what scientists or whoever has spoken.

"Yes, you are distinguishing two things and then confusing the two things, here in the real world they aren’t in any way related to each other the way they are in your imagination."

No I'm actually distinguishing two different things for you. One is proven (sexual reproduction) and the other is not which is evolution as no one person can observe this but one can observe sexual reproduction.

Which I say if we continue to produce after our kind, can only produce after our own kind and nothing of another kind transformed into a new kind and nothing else has been observed but that, that's all we can say is fact at this rate.

Case closed again.

"Nonsense, you are saying nothing in history can be considered factual if you can’t produce a person that saw it? What nonsense, according to you the revolutionary war is not a fact, the existence of Jesus is not a fact. Is that what you are saying?"

There you go . Just like today.

You want to SEE the proof of God before you accept him as fact don't you?

You want to see or experience the reality of anything as fact . That's what proof is .

So why is evolution any different?

Made your bed to lie in it. Keyword:lie , as far as some of us are concerned.

"So you reject the revolutionary war and the existence of Jesus? "

This is irrelevant to know what I reject and accept so we will stay on topic thanks.

"Yeah, it is analogous to saying historical evidence provides facts about history.

Do you deny anything in history is factual?"

I don't deny facts because facts are proven. There would be no basis. I can deny what is believed to be fact because what is purported to be fact is only that. It's not proven .

"No I didn’t, the factual nature of a scientific theory is based on how well the theory coordinates and explains the facts. Do you have a competing theory that you consider more factual, what evidence do you have? You are saying you don’t believe in historical facts, OK, so you don’t just deny evolution, you deny pretty much everything in the past. 

Are you an Atheist?"

To give a relevant answer bottomline, evolution is a theory non fact. There are general fundamental facts used to build the basis for the theory or educated guess as a conclusion. But the conclusion itself has not been proven.

"Yes, guilty as charged, I saw the word "evolution” and assumed we would be discussing “evolution”, go figure. I didn’t realize when you use the word evolution you are being very specific about it not meaning evolution, unfortunately, I don’t have information about your imagination."

I accept you conceding once again. Whatever language you want to use, indirectly you pretty much have given up the debate.

"Nope, you have that in your very active imagination, but I have shown the evidence which demonstrates evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So far, I have you claiming to be an atheist who doesn't believe in the Revolutionary war."

Right here I'm going to replay your words against you.

"If you think evolution can be observed occurring in an individual then you don’t understand what evolution is.  Evolution from one species to another occurs over vast periods of time, involving hundreds of thousands to millions of generations, all of those generations were produced through sexual reproduction.  So, of course no single person could live long enough to observe a million generations."

I'm a single person as I would think you are. If you can't live long enough to observe, you're unable to demonstrate. 

Case closed comrade. Also don't misrepresent me. Don't ask me questions and then tell me what I am instead of me telling you. That's a cheap cowardly shot. You got to mature from this. 

Just because you can't prove your point, don't get into these fallacies.

"Apes and humans have a common ancestor, why is that so hard for you to understand?"

I understand that is the theory non fact yes.

"Do you have a family tree?  Do you have cousins?  Do you think that if you and them can’t both sexually reproduce because you have a common ancestor?  Do you think because you exist, then how can cousins still exist?"

I don't see this as relevant to proving something non man became completely man so it won't get entertained, thanks.

"Of course not, and for the same reason, the fact that humans and apes have a common ancestor does not mean apes can’t still be apes and humans can’t still be humans, and both apes and humans can sexually reproduce, and this doesn’t challenge your family tree."

How do we know that these two separate species that cannot reproduce with one another haven't always been just two separate species?

That could be a possibility right. Sure.

"It didn’t, it’s still happening, always has, always will, change happens."

I would ask you to demonstrate this but you can't. Everywhere we look right now , as an individual I can only see what is demonstrated and that is different species reproducing after themselves .

I don't see species becoming new species and that is not possible to observe (empirically prove), we both concur.

"So your family tree is just conjecture?  You don’t believe in Jesus or your great grandparents?"

I have observed my family so whatever point you tried to make to invalidate something, just drop it .

"That sentence doesn’t make sense, please try again."

It doesn't make sense ok well evolution makes sense to you so you posit it as why couldn't it be true. 

Understandable. Doesn't make it true.

"We have a ton of evidence, the evidence from all of our scientific disciplines strongly support the universe transforming in time. 

Science says it happened, the Bible says it happened, all of the evidence says it happened..

On what basis do you deny the existence of history?

If Mankind didn’t evolve, how did it come to be?

Is there something you do believe in?"

"Right here I'm going to replay your words against you."

"If you think evolution can be observed occurring in an individual then you don’t understand what evolution is. Evolution from one species to another occurs over vast periods of time, involving hundreds of thousands to millions of generations, all of those generations were produced through sexual reproduction. So, of course no single person could live long enough to observe a million generations."

Don't confuse fundamental evidence that builds up a case for a theory making the theory itself evidence.

Not so.

I'm"No sane person would agree with one of the most inane ideas I’ve ever heard, you made up a delusional criteria for proof, and it’s pure nonsense. 

According to you, nothing that spans more than a single human generation is a fact.  You can believe what you want, you don’t believe we evolved and you have no reason whatsoever to think that, but you disregard the facts and you deny science to do so."

So to get this straight, you believe something is proven to you without actually observing it.

A formula that scientific methods and empirical approaches are based on which you do not adhere.

You admit we can't observe evolution but you believe something is even fact when you can't witness it for yourself.

Do you believe something somebody says just because they said it?

"No, you just made up an idiotic criterion of truth that renders everything historical to be untrue, that’s nonsense.

I suppose this tactic of claiming your opponent agrees with you is supposed to be clever or something, I find it comical, I would think the voters will just see it as dishonest."

Blah, blah and basically you know of no person that has witnessed a non human thing that has become completely human.

"I’ve presented the facts and observations upon which evolution is based.  If you have never seen Australia, does that mean its existence is not a fact.  Your idea of truth that makes you the center of attention may feel good, but no, you don’t decide what is true, that is a childish and self-centered idea."

Yeah just no observation of a non human thing that has become completely human. You're coming up short on that observation. 

The existence of anything is proven by evidence which has to make some kind of detection with somebody's reality. How else would it be known to exist?

Either you or me or somebody would have to know. Now just because I know and you don't doesn't mean a said thing doesn't exist. Maybe not to you it is evident. That would be true when a thing hasn't tapped into your reality.

I do decide what is true based on what reality presents or does not present is true. Now once it's presented, I can't decide it's not true at that point and be correct. But I can decide to deny in delusion what is presented. But that's another story.

"Yes, mankind reproduces sexually, and apparently you like to watch, so what? "

The "what " is the evidence I have on my case while you have none for yours. 

"I get what you are saying, it just doesn’t make any sense, I’ve explained it and you simply are not interested in learning anything or making sense."

You can explain all day long. I'm still waiting on an empirical observation. 

"What do you reject human evolution in favor of?"

Just species reproducing after their kind versus a non humankind becoming another kind such as mankind.

"Nope, your nonsense about someone watching evolution occur is what remains nonsense."

I'm sorry to break it to you but I have to be able to observe the facts. In science it's called empirical evidence and we don't mix that up with theory.

Evolution is theory. It's called the theory of evolution which is no more than hypothesis and thesis. If scientists, top scientists accept this, you can't go no further than that unless you newly discovered something they are yet to find.

Something is not outright fact because you say it is. That's pure nonsense.

"Nonsense."

Wrong. What actually is nonsense is saying I know something to be true without actually knowing. 

That's all you can say is "nonsense" because you can't refute that. I don't know something is true because I'm told so. There actually has to be evidence which empirical observation/experience .

"Nope, you are saying you don’t believe we evolved, why not? It’s natural to want to know what you do believe instead of evolution. And don’t be even more absurd, I’m not alone with my belief, the vast majority of rational and educated people agree with me."

I don't have to disbelieve or believe in it. Your job was to prove it but failed. Having a consensus is not proving it either.

"Oh, I do, you have a conclusion, you makes up inane shit to prove yourself right, I accept that, just wish you wouldn’t have lied about wanting to have a debate, you are just wasting time and insulting the audience. This is no debate."

We're you in your feelings here?

"I get that you keep mentioning two separate and distinct things and pretending it’s some kind of either/or thing that proves your point, but it doesn’t, it is simply pointless."

I guess you're saying yesl you get my distinction.

"It’s what the record shows us, it is a scientific fact, what do you think happened?"

I don't think I've been presented the record. You could of demonstrated that. What do I think happened concerning what?

"You haven’t gotten very far from that because you don’t want to understand, you aren’t interested in facts, evidence, logic or reason, and until you get an open mind, you aren't going anywhere intellectually.  "

If you say so. You made up your own mind on that. Hey do you believe in the Spirit of God Creator of all things?

"I suppose that is a question, I mean, it’s got a question mark and everything, but it is not a question that makes sense."

In other words you can't answer it I know. How would you know the answer ? Just thought I try. You have all this confidence in this so called fact of evolution but just deflect when being challenged. It's fine and to be expected no less.

"No we aren’t, there is plenty of evidence, the evidence shows a continuous developmental sequence."

Is this so called evidence you've seen yourself somewhere a non person becoming a complete person?

"What controversy, all we have here is a guy that says “nuh uh” and won’t say what he believes, that is not controversy, that is just a waste of time."

That's controversy yes. Anywhere there's disagreement there's controversy. I dare you to say we don't disagree on this subject of evolution I'm talking about.

"What you are saying is like claiming the Revolutionary War never happened because you don’t know of anybody who saw it, pretty bizarre I think."

Hey I'm not saying all that. I just said what I said about water which was correct.

"That’s what the evidence shows."

How do you know when you just conveyed not one person can live long enough to be shown this?

Stop the waffling please.

"No, it has been demonstrated, your clownish idea that somebody had to live a million years and see it, or evolution is not a fact, that is a joke."

You keep waffling . You don't know what you're talking about.

"Just how much porn do you watch anyway?"

What difference does it make?

Why can't you just agree that it's a fact we can observe the reality of sexual reproduction?

You have to derail with something totally irrelevant when you know I'm right in my case.

"LOL, I see a lot of people who have this idiotic idea that to win a debate you just have to keep saying you won, and your opponent conceded, it’s just absurd and childish. I can’t believe you guys think it’s clever, it isn’t. it’s a joke, and a waste of everyone’s time."

Like I say according to my disclaimer, I'm not in this for a win or lose. You obviously have those that agree with each of our stances .

"LOL, yeah, you like to observe people having sex, I get it, just be careful, if you do it too much, you could go blind."

If I couldn't prove my case like you, I'd resort to being facetious as well. Are you on here for fun and games like that other individual?

You guys are tailored made for one another.

"A case of dementia maybe."

Case and point. 

"Something happened to you today, OK, and why is that relevant?

Nope, I’m a devout believer."

Right you sure are a devout believer in evolution. The relevance is, you graduate from believing to knowing something is real once you're presented with evidence whether that's God or evolution.

"LOL, facts are facts and proof is proof, you have a very weird idea about both."

Notice these particular moot statements you make aren't actually rebuttals to my statements. Just saying.

"When you say “some of us” are you talking about the voices in your head?"

You get facetious when you can't prove anything. It's like your calling card or something.

"Nope, those are the consequences of your argument. You clearly don’t know what your argument means, I thought maybe I’d explain it to you."

My friend you don't know you already conceded.

"Nonsense, what a waste of time this is."

You're really wearing out this word. No it is not nonsense to not deny facts because they're proven. You know that. You cry "nonsense" when you don't have a rebuttal.

It's obvious.

"You are not making an argument, you are only presenting your conclusion which is not based on facts, evidence, logic, science, or reason."

Ok no rebuttals here. That's fine.

Realize this readers.

"LOL, that puerile tactic of proclaiming yourself the winner, and proclaiming your opponent conceded, I know it is supposed to be clever in an infantile internet way, but it is an insult to anyone who reads this debate."

I already stated: "Like I say according to my disclaimer, I'm not in this for a win or lose. You obviously have those that agree with each of our stances ."

"LOL, yes, I know you keep saying that and I’m embarrassed for you, but hey, whatever floats your boat, I’ll just imagine you with a big red Styrofoam nose and big floppy shoes every time you say it, do you also have a big plastic lapel flower that squirts water?"

"Ok no rebuttals here. That's fine.

Realize this readers."

"Nyuk nyuk nyuk, why, soitenly."

"Ok no rebuttals here. That's fine.

Realize this readers."

"You do not understand at all."

"Ok no rebuttals here. That's fine.

Realize this readers."

Readers gonna be like "yeah we get it". 

Readers, I said the opposing side has given up the debate so now this individual is just taking amusement out of this.

"Just trying to explain your nonsense to you."

No rebuttal.

"We don’t, what we know is that they both have a common ancestor."

This is a contradiction. If you "know" there's a common ancestor , then the two species haven't always been two separate species reproducing after their own, duh.

So it's one or the other. You don't know so you don't know there's a common ancestor. You believe or theorize it . Through your own omission again you're revealing this is not proven fact but you're waffling and straddling your position.

"LOL, you want to see evolution tricks. How about I pull a rabbit out of a hat, will that prove that a hat evolved into a rabbit? You are really good with this scientific stuff LOL."

No rebuttal again but hey you told on yourself.

"We don’t, what we know is that they both have a common ancestor."

You say "we don't " meaning we don't know and you are correct. Something that is proven fact , you do know. Thanks for agreeing, conceding again whether you realize it or not.

"You both concur, only two voices in your head now?"

Yeah yours and mine. Usually when you interact with somebody, that person's voice registers in your mind . This is why you can think about what a person has said and you hear the person's words, recall what you've heard, what the person said, etc.

So yes yours and mine. Mine has refuted yours into a case closed.

Boo-yah. Say it with me ...BOO-YAH.

Who's next....any evolution believers.....step up to the plate. This person sadly attempted, gave contradicted points, the person is done.

"Hey, it’s OK with me that you are an atheist, and I seriously doubt your great grandparents care.

Your idea that God would create man with a wondering mind and a passion for knowledge and truth and then deceive him by creating a world with only the appearance of great age. That certainly seems like an atheist attempt to make God look dishonest.

Why are you trying to insult believers?"

This is why I say you've given up the debate. Why can't you just stick to the subject?

You take personal shots asking things directly about me instead of what you should be doing is making rebuttals.

"Makes it a scientific fact."

You can't even prove that two separate species haven't always been two separate ones. You say we don't know so just bow out really .

"I won’t confuse you with someone who wants to even try to understand the subject matter.

I just love it when about twenty of you guys get out of a tiny little car, how do you guys get so many into such a little car,

What a waste of time.

Please reply quickly so we can get this nonsense over with."

Yeah get your nonsense over with. The actual only true nonsense in this exchange from your side .

Don't even respond with anything except stating "I yield", hit submit.

Thanks , do us that favor.