"The one who makes the assertion has to provide the proof"

^I wonder if that assertion can be proved.

"The one who makes the assertion has to provide the proof"

^I wonder if that assertion can be proved.

It is really just a matter of common sense.

It is really just a matter of common sense.

Like I said before, prove a cell capable of reproducing can appear, without any sort of intelligent design or divine intervention, through complete random chance. :)

"The one who makes the assertion has to provide the proof"

^I wonder if that assertion can be proved.

In order to establish reliable fact, we cannot have people claiming whatever they please. Only by providing proof can any knowledge be verified and depended upon.

Like I said before, prove a cell capable of reproducing can appear, without any sort of intelligent design or divine intervention, through complete random chance. :)

I cannot prove that. Science cannot prove that. I accept that.
You cannot prove intelligent design or divine intervention. You will not accept that.

Evolution has enough evidence for it to be considered fact for now. IF scientists discover skeletal structure that are very complex in the oldest earth layers of fossils they WILL reconsider evolution.

My question to you Rolloffle is this: Why did your God create the simplest of life forms first? Why did he create more millions of years later slightly more complex? Why does it follow this pattern of simplicity changing to complexity as the earth gets older all the way up to present day?

This is a FACT. This suggest evolution or at the very least a lazy midly retarded God who took his sweet time in making us. Perhaps he just had to create and learn along the way how to make a human?

How do you justify the FACT....ahem......FACT that life forms on the Earth grew more complex and advanced as time went on? Before you puke out God did it, realize that I do NOT believe in your God.

^I wonder if that assertion can be proved.

Proven by contradiction.

Assume that's not the case:

Who then must prove it? The one that didn't make the claim, and might not even agree with the assertion in the first place? Why the hell would he have a burden to prove something he didn't claim, and might not agree with to begin with?