Yet more irony from the self confessed believer in creation. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-4#post-1065395435
Once again, nobody has provided any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
Do you have evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species? Nobody else does. If you do then post it.
You nor anyone else has posted any scientific evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Please do so.
Since you can't provide any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species then you're forced to play the red herring ploy. I'm not a Creationist. Believing in God does not make one a Creationist. On the other hand, you still haven't provided any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
Your admission that "goddidit" makes you a creationist. Here is your admission of being a creationist in your own words; http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-3#post-1065392370 #59 Wolverine: "Matter can be formless, however matter cannot be "nothing". It is indeed a contradiction, no amount of apologetics will reconcile this." #60 Prunepicker: Then where did matter come from? #61 Wolverine: "No one knows. The fact there is not a definite answer does not mean goooooodddddddddd did it and you are somehow validated. " #71 Prunepiker: "Wrong. I know. It's from God. There's no doubt about it. ... God said he did it and that's very reasonable. I trust him over any scientist." No amount of dissembling is going to alter your admission that you are a creationist that you have made in your own posts quoted above. Only creationists believe "God said he did it"! That you deny your own motivation to reject evolution goes towards your lack of credibility. Furthermore your incessant denials that you have not been provided with evidence of transitional species in these threads just compounds your lack of credibility on this topic. The evidence of a "gradually transitioning species" is right there in your own mirror but your self imposed blindness refuses to allow you to accept what your own eyes are seeing. That is your problem and the problem of your fellow creationists. It is not the problem of scientists and those who understand the facts and knowledge obtained via the scientific method. Have a nice day!
We have presented the evidence that the scientific community has used as the basis for the current iteration of the theory of evolution. You just choose to not believe it. On the other hand I have asked what your theory is that explains why we have animals today that we didn't have 10,000 years ago...50,000 years ago, etc and so forth and your answer is "Don'tknowdon'tcare." The score still stands where it last time we went 'round with this. We have evidence, you have argumentative apathy. Same time next week?
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364 where in you said... And since the Bible claims that God created the animals... ...how are you not a creationist?
Correct. You've yet to produce any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Just the same old cut and run. No evidence. Just extrapolation with artistic renderings. Yes. you're a broken record. Either put up or shut up, as they say.
You have not provided any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Nothing. Nada. Zip. You have a fossil here and a fossil there and plenty of extrapolation with artistic renderings. Same time next week? Yes. I'll be here and you'll still not produced the evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
Because I'm not a Creationist. Am I supposed to bend to what you think I should believe? I think not. I'm not a Creationist.
No, it's absolutely accurate. Nobody on this thread, or anywhere else on Earth, has produced any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
Your own posts prove the opposite! http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-4#post-1065395435
And you still have yet to answer my question of what an alternative theory of why there are creatures that exist now that didn't exist back then could be apart from "[smurf]ed if I know" or pulling some name out of a hat without bothering to see if that person's scientific works were even relevant to the discussion. We have provided the evidence that we have regardless of whether or not you believe in it. Time for you to do the same. Provide some scientific evidence that explains where the African Elephant came from since we don't have any evidence of it in the fossil record before 1.5 MYA. Some scientist's work that explains what created the modern horses. Some paper that explains where in the name of Poseidon's salty nutsack H. Sapiens came from since the earliest we can find evidence of fossils and artifacts is 300,000 years ago. And if you can't or can't be bothered to do so...maybe it's time this thread gets moved to the Conspiracy Theory section to sit along side the Flat Earthers. Hell at least they bring game. They'll cheerfully toss in their evidence into the ring to see it go toe to toe with the evidence that the Earth is a spheroid.
You said..."The Bible on the other hand is factual and is totally based on reality." That is your belief and you very admirably stick to them. However since the Bible that is "is factual and is totally based on reality" says that God created all the animals... ...then you by saying that you believe in the Bible as the factual and real word of God and an accurate telling of what God did in the early days...that means that you believe that God created all the animals...thus you are a biblical creationist. You believe in the Bible, the Bible is fact, the Bible says that God created cattle (and every other critter)...you are a creationist. Which makes my challenge to you in my other post a bit tricky for you. Since you believe that the Bible is "factual and is totally based on reality", any evidence that you believe explains the creation of life forms that is counter to what the factual and real Bible says...is going to indicate that you don't really believe that the Bible is "factual and is totally based on reality". That's a bit of a toughy.
PP has dug a hole for himself by using a literalist approach to the bible. He cannot acknowledge the scientific facts without having to acknowledge that the bible is metaphorical rather than literal. It is not science that has a problem dealing with reality. Instead it is PP who has created a barrier in his own mind to accepting reality. Yes, that is a bit of a toughy!
Believing in God doesn't make someone a Creationists. You still haven't produced any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. I accept your concession that you can't do so and have lost the argument.
This is a red herring. But I'll answer. Maybe they came from outer space. No you haven't. You have yet to produce any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Not a single shred. According to your statement it came out of thin air. And they don't have a single shred of evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Yet, not a single shred of evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Just guess work. Produce evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
If it was a lie then you would have provided some evidence. You didn't and it's because you or anyone else don't have any. Provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. ANY SPECIES!
