Instigator / Con
0
1389
rating
413
debates
44.55%
won
Topic
#5527
Has evolution(a thing changed to that of a complete human) been proven fact?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1484
rating
8
debates
31.25%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Burden is completely on the pro side. Please answer all questions with an applicable yes or no. Be concise in layman's terms and not so much technical.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Con
#1
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.
I yield my mic.
Pro
#2
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.
The theory of evolution is the great unifying principle of biology, as powerful a model to biology as Newton's model was to physics. The conceptual framework of the theory of evolution makes sense of a profoundly wide range of scientific facts and it does it in a magnificent and comprehensive way. It provides a principle of unity, a framework by which science can attempt to explain, to unify, and to order, a vast amount of disparate data into a consistent whole providing tremendous coherence and clarity. To deny evolution you must bring into question the entire interwoven fabric of scientific research.
The denial of the theory of evolution requires the concomitant denial of an astounding range of scientific disciplines, not just the disciplines of geology, paleontology, archeology, radiometric dating, genetics, and zoology, but also such fundamental disciplines as physics, astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, geophysics, biology, botany, microbiology, and meteorology, and many others. Because of the interrelated aspect of the sciences you can’t really deny evolution without being fundamentally anti-scientific. If you could in fact, deny evolution, it would in effect, unravel the world of science.
There is a vast amount of fossil evidence that when dated and organized in time, clearly demonstrates a developmental sequence which has culminated in Man, and is consistent with the theory of evolution.
The fact that man is a product of evolution is observed in the fossil record, it is as much a fact as anything in science,
The answer to your question is yes.
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.
Round 2
Con
#3
"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. The evolution stopped when a complete man and woman came into existence 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.
Pro
#4
"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.
That just isn’t correct, the theory of Evolution is based on a huge amount of observational evidence,
First, we do in fact directly observe evolution on a small scale with organisms with short life spans, we have been observing millions of generations of fruit flies for decades, we have directly observed the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that is causing a crisis in health care.
Second, we observe Fossil evidence that clearly demonstrates a developmental sequence over time.
Third, we have observations of molecular biology that show that DNA and the genetic code demonstrating the shared ancestry of life.
Fourth, we have observations of anatomy demonstrating similar physical features and homologous structures that clearly demonstrate common ancestry.
Fifth, observations of the from global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species demonstrate evolutionary development and geological change.
Lastly, these are just a few of the main areas of observational evidence, as I mentioned in my first-round post, there are observations from an astounding range of interrelated scientific disciplines that demonstrate or support the Theory of Evolution, you can’t deny evolution without denying science.
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?
No, that is not right. You are creating a false dichotomy between evolution and sexual reproduction; it isn’t an either-or thing.
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.
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.
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.
There is nothing inconsistent between evolution and sexual reproduction, that’s what we are to believe. You are confusing two completely different things.
Now you convey there's a fossil to show us something nonhuman transformed into a complete human.
There are a massive number of fossils and ordered in time the resultant fossil record shows a developmental sequence.
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.
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?
No, I’m not talking about anything even remotely like that.
Please go into detail and describe this to help demonstrate evolution is actually fact, not a theory which is non fact.
Just because Evolution is a "theory", does not mean it is not factual, it is as much a fact as any scientific fact. The General Theory of Relativity is a "theory" of gravity, that doesn't mean that gravity isn't a fact.
By the way I say statue by being unable to resist at citing the possibility of man made hoax.I yield.
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.
I think the apparent evolution conflict between those of faith, and those of science, comes down to a matter of perspective. 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.
Evolution is not just a collection of facts and theories, it is the story of life, and it is inherently meaningful. So let’s talk about the emergence of man in time, the man that evolved from a hominid precursor, the man we have come to call "Adam".
Evolution places mankind into a series of animal forms, but that doesn’t deny the transcendence of man over the rest of nature, in fact, properly understood, evolution reinforces that idea.
All you need to do is look around to see that Mankind is quite different, Our civilizations and cultures, our abstractions, logics, inventions, and mathematics, our sciences, philosophies, arts, and faiths, our languages and technologies, even our anxieties and dreams, it is apparent that the difference between humans and the rest of the world of animals is more than just a difference of degree, it is a difference of kind. It’s difficult to see how such an abrupt discontinuity can be reconciled with evolution’s idea of development through gradual change
Even though we are continuous with the rest of life, we are also fundamentally different, along the way something dramatic happened that gave us “dominion over the Earth”, so to speak. How does evolution explain this?
To understand it, we need to take a step back and try to see the big picture of a world in a continuous process of transformation, unfolding in time and space and clearly revealing the “direction” of its movement. If we apprehend the coherent behavior it exhibits and recognize the underlying principles over the large-scale dimensions that are demanded by the study of evolution, it becomes clear that evolution does not present us with a random process, it has steadily progressed towards greater complexity and higher forms of sentience, from inanimate matter, to life, to thought, to self-reflective consciousness, culminating in a rational and morally responsible animal.
To understand how this differentiation of man occurred, it's important to understand a very common phenomenon in science called a "phase change". A phase change is a complete and dramatic change of state that occurs suddenly, displaying an abrupt break with the linear progression of events leading up to it. In our everyday experience we can see water cross two thresholds, or go through two distinct "phase changes": transforming from a solid to a liquid at 0 degrees Centigrade (when ice melts) and transforming from a liquid to a gas at 100 degrees Centigrade (when water boils).
As water is heated, each degree of increased temperature corresponds to a degree of change in a gradual process, the molecules move faster, the evaporation rate increases, etc. With each change in degree the physical changes that occur follow a linear progression until the water reaches 99 degrees Centigrade. You add a little more heat and water crosses a threshold from 99 to 100 degrees Centigrade; there is a profound, nonlinear change of state that couldn't have been predicted by the events leading up to it. Boom, phase change, water boils and becomes steam, suddenly transformed from a liquid to a gas, exhibiting completely different properties than it did a moment before. It is not a change of degree it is a change of state, and if you were seeing it for the first time you would see that something completely new and unpredictable had just occurred.
We are continuous with all of life, but our emergence was not a change of degree, it was a change of kind, a phase change in scientific terms, and consequently, we are indeed different.
Maybe two million years ago a remarkably complex and intelligent primate stood perfectly adapted to its environment. It had become about as intelligent as an animal can become without some kind of profound transformation taking place. It stood on the brink of a "phase change" in regard to the further development of its mind. The thrust of evolution carried it one step further, adding one more degree of intelligence and suddenly, a phase change occurred. The linear growth in “knowing” transformed into “reflective knowledge”, and a new creature was born that doesn’t just know, it “knows that it knows”, and that creature was now a Man.
The implications of this change are profound, as Ernst Cassirer put it "without a distinction between the knowing subject and the reality known the fact of knowledge would be unaccountable". This break, from being an integral part of reality, to being separated from it into a knowing subject, “faced” with a reality that can be known, necessarily resulted from our access to self-reflective consciousness.
Reflection is, as the word indicates, the power acquired by a consciousness to turn in upon itself, to take possession of itself as of an object endowed with its own peculiar consistency and value: no longer merely to know but to know oneself; no longer merely to know but to know that one knows. The being who is the object of his own reflection, becomes in a flash able to raise himself into a new sphere. In reality, another world is born.
As it crossed the stages of reflection, he was charged with new principles, and as a result manifested new activities, abstraction, logic, reasoned choice, inventions, mathematics, art, science, philosophy, and religion anxieties and dreams of love – all the unique activities of a human being’s inner life are nothing else than the result of this new way of thinking, which translated into a new way of being. The functional circle of man is not only quantitatively enlarged; it has also undergone a qualitative change. Man has, as it were, discovered a completely new method of adapting himself to his environment.
This "Man" had mentally precipitated out of his natural environment into a new life, that of an individual, standing apart from and outside of his environment, looking upon it, from a point of view that is outside of reality, That is why we talk about "facing reality", even though we know that we are part of reality, we can’t face it because we are in the middle of it, so when we face it, it is still behind us, it is only from our unique point of view that we think of the rest of reality as a separate thing we can face. But after this transformation, the self-conscious ego takes a detached point of view artificially assuming a position outside of reality, we say we face reality “as if we were Gods” so to speak, standing outside of nature, looking upon it and “judging” it.
An animal that is self-reflective is also self-conscious, and with that comes feelings of shame, anxiety, life can feel more like a struggle against reality, it can become work.
He has gone from a perfectly adapted animal that was part of his environment to being separated from it. He was now incredibly alone, he must have been afraid and ashamed to have been somehow rejected by the whole of existence and consequently excluded from it, it must have been experienced as if he were "cast out of the garden of perfection", so to speak.
Consequently, we are distinct in the animal world because of the way we think, and now we image reality in a detached and symbolic manner, and everything that is distinctively human, language, culture, science, technology, it all followed from that "break" with the true reality we were once part of. We must now represent reality to ourselves, the world we live in is a symbolic construct.
What we know to have followed this event "evolutionarily" was an explosion of brain growth, that resulted in language, culture, science, etc. This explosive brain growth over time caused the head to grow too large for the female pelvis, consequently, humans are the only mammal to experience painful childbirth.
We didn’t descend from animals, we ascended from them, the story of evolution does not reduce humans to just another animal, evolution places us above the rest of the animal world, rather than deny our transcendence, evolution preserves and explains the transcendence of mankind over the rest of the animal kingdom.
We are self aware, conscious of our position in nature, and at the forefront of evolution’s trend towards greater consciousness, we have “seized the tiller of the world”, so to speak, responsible beings, consciously evolving through language, culture, mathematics and science, the future development of intelligence is something we consciously control now, we are responsible beings creating the future. We are simply at the final boundary between what has been and what is striving to emerge.
Since the advent of life on this planet it has steadily progressed towards greater complexity and higher consciousness, there is clearly a direction inherent in evolution, which has culminated in Man. Evolution does not secularize the world, it divinizes it, and it does not reduce Man to some animal, it places Him at the front of the wave, “the spearhead of evolution” to use Teilhard’s words. Evolutionary theory does not in itself postulate design without a designer, it doesn't bring the existence of God into question, and it doesn't in any way "explain' the mystery of life, it only describes what happened in time.
This natural “phase change” allowed us to take that necessary point of view that imparts “knowledge”, we don’t just know, we know that we know, and therefore we can have knowledge, and with knowledge we can develop cultures and societies, mathematics, sciences, faiths and philosophies, and in so doing, we can consciously direct evolution, and create our own reality.
I simply do not see evolution challenging any of the basic tenets of Christianity; unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about the wholesale rejection of the theory of evolution, especially if it is in support of the belief in a 6000-year-old universe. You accordingly have to postulate a deceptive God, a God who would create Man with a rational mind, a sense of wonder, and seeking intellect, while creating a universe with the false appearance of tremendous age. This concept of a deceptive God is very hard to accept, it strikes me as a much greater challenge to Christianity than any damage the concept of evolution could ever hope to do.
This story is not new, it was told 3,500 years ago in a different language, but it is the same story, for the non-literalist who is interested in meaning, the story of evolution is found in the book of Genesis where the phase change is depicted as the first human beings eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
We are all in this together, groping our way towards the future, in the direction of greater awareness and higher consciousness, towards understanding. Where we go from here is up to us.
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T.S. Eliot
Happy Fourth of July!
Round 3
Con
#5
"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.
Pro
#6
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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? If Mankind didn’t evolve with the rest of the Universe, how did Man come to exist?
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.
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.
Evolution started man and apparently ended because where is man evolving this way now?Man sexually reproduces now obviously.
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.
So I urge you to drop the term evidence and all like that for something that has been heavily theorized, not proven.
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?
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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 .
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.
"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 topicis fact. Based on this what you just stated gives rise to theories, conjectures, hypotheses, etc.
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?
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.
So you reject the revolutionary war and the existence of Jesus?
"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.
Yeah, it is analogous to saying historical evidence provides facts about history.
Do you deny anything in history is factual?
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.
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?
"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.
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.
So far I have you agreeing there is no such evidence to demonstrate what I'm talking about.
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.
"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?
Apes and humans have a common ancestor, why is that so hard for you to understand?
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?
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.
What was with evolution that it just stopped changing one species into a whole other one?
It didn’t, it’s still happening, always has, always will, change happens.
"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.
So your family tree is just conjecture? You don’t believe in Jesus or your great grandparents?
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 ?
That sentence doesn’t make sense, please try again.
So all in all, at the end of it, we have no evidence like we do with kinds producing after their own, namely mankind.
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?
Round 4
Con
#7
"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.
Pro
#8
"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.
LOL, no, we do not agree.
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.
"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.
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.
But I understand you aim to present what's available to showcase the hypothesis. You have demonstrated the hypothesis of evolution, yes.
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.
"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.
Yes, mankind reproduces sexually, and apparently you like to watch, so what?
Do you not get what I'm saying that if a non human became complete human, did this process not stop?
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.
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.
What do you reject human evolution in favor of?
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.
Nope, your nonsense about someone watching evolution occur is what remains nonsense.
"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.
Nonsense.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
It’s what the record shows us, it is a scientific fact, what do you think happened?
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 .
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.
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?
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.
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.
No we aren’t, there is plenty of evidence, the evidence shows a continuous developmental sequence.
"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?
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.
It's like saying challenging the fact of wet liquid water. It's a fact, we can observe/experience this with water .
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.
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.
That’s what the evidence shows.
You say you can't demonstrate it with one thing so looks like you have the heavy burden with multiple individuals.
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 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.
Just how much porn do you watch anyway?
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
A case of dementia maybe.
"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.
Something happened to you today, OK, and why is that relevant?
You want to SEE the proof of God before you accept him as fact don't you?
Nope, I’m a devout believer.
You want to see or experience the reality of anything as fact . That's what proof is .
LOL, facts are facts and proof is proof, you have a very weird idea about both.
So why is evolution any different?Made your bed to lie in it. Keyword:lie , as far as some of us are concerned.
When you say “some of us” are you talking about the voices in your head?
"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.
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.
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 .
Nonsense, what a waste of time this is.
"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.
You are not making an argument, you are only presenting your conclusion which is not based on facts, evidence, logic, science, or reason.
"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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk, why, soitenly.
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.
You do not understand at all.
"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.
Just trying to explain your nonsense to you.
"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?
We don’t, what we know is that they both have a common ancestor.
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 .
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.
I don't see species becoming new species and that is not possible to observe (empirically prove), we both concur.
You both concur, only two voices in your head now?
"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 .
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?
"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.
Makes it a scientific fact.
"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 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.
Round 5
Con
#9
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.
Pro
#10
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?
Oh please, this idea that nothing is a fact that “YOU have not personally observed eliminates almost all scientific facts. That is just nonsense.
So, you are saying each person has their own personal facts that they have personally seen lol. You are the God of your own psychodrama, cool.
"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.
LOL, yes, I know of no person who has lived a million years, but I do know that you have already admitted that you are wrong and I’m right, thank you.
"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.
Wrong again, I saw it happen twice yesterday, and I’m going to keep my eye on you to see if maybe you will become human someday.
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?
No, you already said you do not believe something somebody says just because they said it, so you reject everyone’s reality but yours, quite the big ego you have there, you determine truth, the things you have seen become facts, you have about the most self-centered sense of reality as I’ve ever seen. I’m glad you have finally yielded to my superior argument.
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 get it, you live in your own little world, you have your own little reality, things become facts when you look at them, you are like a God. In the end, you have just forfeited the debate.
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.
Spoken by someone who really knows delusion. I’m glad you realized you didn’t understand the subject, I’m glad you had the good sense to forfeit.
"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.
You have porn and I don’t, OK. Thanks for admitting I’ve won the debate.
"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.
So, you admit I’m correct, I admire your honesty in admitting you are wrong, I just wish you had done so several rounds ago.
"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.
So you don’t have anything, you are conceding that I am correct. Thank you.
"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.
So you admit that you don’t understand your own position, thank you for conceding.
Something is not outright fact because you say it is. That's pure nonsense.
Of course it isn’t, I’m not your God, you are your God, remember.
"Nonsense."Wrong. What actually is nonsense is saying I know something to be true without actually knowing.
You admit you don’t know anything, finally you speak the truth.
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 .
Yes, you create reality by looking at it, you are a powerful God.
"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.
Of course not, you have a consensus of one, the only way to prove something is by your God like powers of seeing facts into existence.
"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?
At first, I thought so, but then I realized it wasn’t me, I was in somebody else’s feeling, and they were not too happy about it either.
"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.
Yes, I’m saying yes, you admit I’m right.
"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?
When you become a human, you will understand.
"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?
You are an atheist; I am not going to let you attack my faith with your accusations that God is dishonest.
"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.
Since you already forfeited, it feels like a waste of time to keep discussing it since you agree with me, I think the debate is over.
"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?
I already told you; I saw it happen twice yesterday.
"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.
I just did, when you conceded that I was right and you were wrong, that means we no longer disagree, please pay attention.
"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.
Hey, you did say that, now you are lying.
"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.
Why would I stop, waffles are delicious.
"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.
I like waffles, everybody likes waffles, what is your problem with waffles?
"Just how much porn do you watch anyway?"What difference does it make?
It must be a lot; you are obsessed with it.
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.
I know you were right when you forfeited the debate to me, thank you.
"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 .
Yes, and you said you agreed with my stance, that is very mature of you to admit you are wrong.
"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?
I was thinking we might have an intelligent debate, but you just want to talk about porn.
You guys are tailored made for one another."A case of dementia maybe."Case and point.
Point, set, match, at least you were mature enough to admit you are wrong.
"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.
You atheists who try to denigrate faith are a dime a dozen, you want to portray God as dishonest, so what, I don’t care, spiritual detractors like you need to get a life.
"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.
I don’t need rebuttals, you already conceded.
"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.
I already proved it, you already agreed, the debate is over kiddie.
"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.
I know that 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.
Why would I need a rebuttal when you have already completely agreed with me.
"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, I can’t imagine anybody is going to keep reading this nonsense to ever see round 5, especially when they see you conceded the debate in rounds two and three, no reason to keep reading after you accepted defeat.
"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, yeah, I saw that dishonest crap you wrote, I guess when you claimed God is dishonest you were projecting.
"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."
No rebuttals need since you forfeited two rounds ago.
"Nyuk nyuk nyuk, why, soitenly.""Ok no rebuttals here. That's fine.Realize this readers."
Ditto, your total surrender eliminated any need for rebuttals.
"You do not understand at all.""Ok no rebuttals here. That's fine.Realize this readers."
Realize this readers, he already conceded.
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.
Readers, I said the opposing side gave up the debate last, so I win.
"Just trying to explain your nonsense to you."No rebuttal.
Nothing to rebut since you already conceded.
"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.
See, you agree with me again.
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.
I’m flattered that you keep saying I’m right, but enough already, I get it, you forfeited.
"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.
So, you admit that even if you saw it with your own eyes, you still wouldn’t believe it, but thanks for agreeing with me earlier.
"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.
I realize that you are the one agreeing with me, you keep conceding but enough is enough.
"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.
I recall you said you forfeited two rounds ago.
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.
I was done when you admitted I was right and conceded, you even apologized for trying to debate something you don’t understand.
"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.
Hey, when you attack Theism with your atheist insults, you will be challenged, if you don’t like it, quit attacking people of faith.
"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 .
Still making things up I see, I know it was difficult to admit I was right, it’s humiliating I’m sure, but it’s OK if you bow out, nobody will blame you.
"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 .
You want to exchange sides, well yeah, I bet you do now that you realize you were hopelessly wrong.
Don't even respond with anything except stating "I yield", hit submit.
There you go, yet again he has said “I yield”, he submits again.
Thanks , do us that favor.
It is big of you to declare me the winner, thank you for being so honest.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
"In this discussion you will realize (if you haven’t already which I doubt) that this won’t be a debate but a lecture."
No problem, I'm planning to launch a full-frontal assault with a counter lecture.
I think both sides of this debate are wrong, so my debate strategy here is to piss off both sides of the debate, may not get the votes that way, but what the hell, I get to piss off everybody, and that is its own reward :)
In this discussion you will realize (if you haven’t already which I doubt) that this won’t be a debate but a lecture.
I might accept this one, but your either way, your going to have to provide some better descriptions, specifically about what you mean by "evolution". You might mean is it proven that natural selection happens, or that it is why we have all our different species.