Proof that evolution is the only answer

a reply to: Raggedyman

Seriously? You can't understand how MRSA is emperical evidence?

MRSA evolved from MMSA. First it was susceptible, then it was resistent due to it changing over time.

a reply to: TerryDon79

We did this dance with him in another thread I think? I know Raggedy has always done the "thats not evolution" move when it comes up.

a reply to: Noinden

Yep. It's very boring answering the same questions just to be told "that's not evolution" without any reason why.

I think I might put him on my visually banned list.

You guys are amazing. This is the exact same thread as the Creation one but everything is backwards. Hilarious to watch to be honest. You could just switch the titles on the two and no one would really be able to tell a difference.

So where exactly in the link in the OP is the supposed Proof? I don't quite understand how you can make that claim and then just put a link in your OP and call it a good game. I have read the link, and I understand that it is dispelling myths, but there is nothing there concerning any proof that I can tell. Hell they can't even prove that Evolutionary Theory is or is not losing traction in the Scientific community.

For a claim as bold as this title, I am pretty disappointed to not see the proof. I have noticed the last 2 or 3 pages it is being asked for constantly and still hasn't been produced.

Can anyone enlighten me to what I seem to be missing?

a reply to: sputniksteve

If this is indeed the mirror image of that other thread, then it has the same level of proof that one did. Shall both threads be judged on the same standard then?

a reply to: Noinden

That sounds fair to me.

a reply to: VP740

Ok then. Both threads should be locked Unless either OP can bring up proof. I know this one can have such evidence. Can the other?

What exactly would be the criteria to 'prove it'?

A mission statement for acceptance of the theory? Anyone?

I thought my post on page 3 sounded good enough.

They've witnessed evolution through DNA, physical observation, and even in real time on small levels with bacteria.

How much more exactly do you need, other than it being added to the Bible?

a reply to: imjack

How about any data that is peer reviewed. That is the only thing you can give to multiple people, and get them to review. Stating "it is so" is not evidence, it is gnosis.

a reply to: Noinden

Everything i linked is highly peer reviewed, is that point even relevant? Darwin and Transcription are among the most peer reviewed theories in all science.

a reply to: imjack

It is relevant. I am talking about the Creationist side. We are on the same side here. If Creationists can't show proof, their thread is ... dead.

a reply to: Noinden

most creationism threads are dead at the moment of the member hitting "post"

To the OP
The title of your threat suggests that you are satisfied that you have found the proof you have clearly been looking for. Good for you, you have what you have. I, on the other hand, have my own proof that at least one omnipotent Being does exist. Maybe this Being evolved from out of nothing to eventually become a 'Super Being' and Creator of life on Earth, who can say. I doubt very much that science will ever give us the answer. I can only tell you with certainty that you are a lot more that what you believe you are.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

Seriously? You can't understand how MRSA is emperical evidence?

MRSA evolved from MMSA. First it was susceptible, then it was resistent due to it changing over time.

Seriously? You can't understand how MRSA is adaptation and not evolution?

Where is the empirical evidence that it has evolved, that humans come from space dirt and space water

Thats proof of nothing other than MRSA can adapt, like people who dont have room for wisdom teeth not developing wisdom teeth
Its stupid evidence
"thats not evolution"

How is that evolution, how does that prove mankind evolved as a virus in a stream a million years ago.
Where is the empirical evidence.
Thats evidence that MRSA is an adaptation, nothing more
If it is, how does it prove anything

a reply to: Raggedyman

Adaptation is a part of evolution.

You've already been told this, but I guess that's another thing you ignored.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: imjack

It is relevant. I am talking about the Creationist side. We are on the same side here. If Creationists can't show proof, their thread is ... dead.

Creationists admit its a faith
You claim science, show the empirical evidence, dont use smoke and mirrors like TD and fallacious arguments made of straw, they burn to easy
Hey look a snowman evolved into a puddle

The thread is not dead, your empirical evidence is what we are here to see.
Onwards and upwards

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

Adaptation is a part of evolution.

You've already been told this, but I guess that's another thing you ignored.

Like a snowman adapts to hot weather
Adaptation is evolution in the world where religion is mistaken as science and empirical evidence that man evolved from nothing by using mouse molars
I knew speaking with you was a waste of time

MMSA adapting to MRSA is empirical evidence that MMSA can adapt to MRSA, nothing else
Unless you know something I dont

a reply to: Raggedyman

And here we go again. Strawman after strawman.

I'm not going to bother explaining science to someone who clearly doesn't want to understand it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: sputniksteve

If this is indeed the mirror image of that other thread, then it has the same level of proof that one did. Shall both threads be judged on the same standard then?

Well that isn't my thread, I participated for about 3 posts before I saw the level of discourse happening and left. But even if it was my thread, and even if I wasn't a pretty neutral 3rd party here, is that the level you hold yourself to? VP740 seems to be in agreement with you.

Are you not interested in trying to have discourse with anyone that isn't in either "your" camp or "their" camp? Is the only purpose of the thread to mock the previously mentioned one? You are happy if it meets some threshold that you perceive your Opponent reached without actually doing what is claimed in the title? What is the point of even starting another thread to just have the exact same argument? Home field advantage or something?

So are you saying there isn't any actual proof and you don't intend to give any, and the intent of the thread prior to making it must have been dishonest? Please correct me if any of my observations seem to be false.