How were you taught Evolution?

[justlookinla]

Now that is a different question, and I admit is a possibility (I am open-minded like that). But saying that there is no evidence supporting a natural process that resulted in humans (i.e. evolution) is pure and simple denial.

And more blah blah blah blah. Which is evasion, not evidence. There's a difference you know.

 

[quatona]

A solely naturalistic process cannot completely, totally and solely explain the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago. We've never observed a naturalistic process doing such a thing.

We have never observed anything but "naturalistic" (sic!) processes.
As soon as you will be able to bring observable non-natural processes to the table I will support the demand that they are mentioned in science classes. Promise!

 

[justlookinla]

What makes it impossible then? You can't just say it's impossible without going to details.

Nothing has been observed which supports the guess that solely, only totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms could produce something as complex as a human from a single life form of long long ago. Nothing observed comes close to supporting such a creationist viewpoint.

 

[justlookinla]

Tell me which field. I await.

Pick your favorite. Surprise me.

 

[justlookinla]

We have never observed anything but "naturalistic" (sic!) processes.
As soon as you will be able to bring observable non-natural processes to the table I will support the demand that they are mentioned in science classes. Promise!

You haven't, nor has anyone else, observed naturalistic mechanisms producing anything remotely close to the complexity of a human from a simple life form.

 

[quatona]

You haven't, nor has anyone else, observed naturalistic mechanisms producing anything remotely close to the complexity of a human from a simple life form.

We have never observed anything but "naturalistic" (sic!) processes.
As soon as you will be able to bring observable non-natural processes to the table I will support the demand that they are mentioned in science classes. Promise!

 

[CabVet]

Nothing has been observed which supports the guess that solely, only totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms could produce something as complex as a human from a single life form of long long ago. Nothing observed comes close to supporting such a creationist viewpoint.

Everything that we observe is natural.

 

[CabVet]

You haven't, nor has anyone else, observed naturalistic mechanisms producing anything remotely close to the complexity of a human from a simple life form.

Fossil.... record...

 

[CabVet]

Pick your favorite. Surprise me.

Fossil record: Simple life starts. It develops into more complex life. It diversifies. Vertebrates appear. They become more complex. Mammals appear. Dinosaurs go extinct. Mammals diversify. Humans appear. Evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Everything that we observe is natural.

Nothing has been observed which supports the guess that solely, only totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms could produce something as complex as a human from a single life form of long long ago. Nothing observed comes close to supporting such a creationist viewpoint.

 

[justlookinla]

Fossil.... record...

Blah....blah.....

 

[justlookinla]

Fossil record: Simple life starts. It develops into more complex life. It diversifies. Vertebrates appear. They become more complex. Mammals appear. Dinosaurs go extinct. Mammals diversify. Humans appear. Evolution.

Sorry, nothing in your posts addresses the request for evidence that humanity is the creation of only naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Try again.

 

[super animator]

Nothing has been observed which supports the guess that solely, only totally, completely naturalistic mechanisms could produce something as complex as a human from a single life form of long long ago. Nothing observed comes close to supporting such a creationist viewpoint.

Your demand is unreasonable, no one observed the single life from to human, is simply because we didn't exist back then when single life forms first appeared.

 

[justlookinla]

Your demand is unreasonable, no one observed the single life from to human, is simply because we didn't exist back then when single life forms first appeared.

Right, it's a faith-based view.

Thanks.

 

[super animator]

Right, it's a faith-based view.

Wrong. It's scientific method based view.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong. It's scientific method based view.

Explain.

 

[super animator]

Explain.

It's has been explain by other people multiple times already, you just ignore them.
No, point in explain to a denialist.

 

[CabVet]

Sorry, nothing in your posts addresses the request for evidence that humanity is the creation of only naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Try again.

Since you think the geological record in this planet supporting evolution is not evidence, I will answer with a picture again.

Come back when you have something substantial to contribute to the debate. Perhaps a logical rejection of my statement instead of just blind denial.

 

[justlookinla]

It's has been explain by other people multiple times already, you just ignore them.
No, point in explain to a denialist.

Ok. (Hope you don't count your response as 'evidence')

 

[CabVet]

Ok. (Hope you don't count your response as 'evidence')

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If I put you in a time machine and you witnessed evolution giving rise to humans with your own eyes, would you believe it?