Correction. There is no evidence. If there was you would have produced it. You haven't. It's like your other arguments. Lot's of words and no action. Provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. ANY SPECIES.
You're the one using a literalist approach to the Bible. And you still haven't produced any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. You have nothing.
And you still haven't produced a single shred evidence showing a species gradually transitioning into another species. Care to put up the evidence or will you continue running from the facts that you can't produce the evidence? I say you'll continue to run from the facts because you can't produce them.
Yeah...some one or something schlepped half a gazillion miles to drop off the latest model of elephant with the improved nasal appendage, white-walled feet and go faster stripes. Is that really supposed to be more believable than evolution. Wrong beyond all bounds of wrongability. You don't understand the evidence or more likely don't want to understand what the evidence is. This is the same evidence that the vast majority of the scientific community has used to formulate the current theory of evolution. We have presented evidence. You have presented... ...or a total attitude of "I don't fuggin care where the animals came from." No...that's your belief. MY belief (as well as the belief of numerous members of the scientific community) is that they evolved from other elephant-like species. We've shown you the fossil examples. Archaeopteryx being a prime example of a species that shows traits from the believed ancestors and the believed descendants. In this case...it shows traits that are common to both Theropods and Birds. Guesswork that is based on observations of the fossil record, comparisons with other species and deductive reasoning. Certainly better than your off the cuff guess of "They came from Outer Space" I'm done with you and frankly I think that many in this thread are as well. You ask "Provide evidence" and we provide the evidence we have. You choose to not believe it. We ask "Point out alternative theories" and you provide apathy. I am serious. Right now I'd rather be discussing the shape of the planet with the Flat Earth people. At least they'll present their evidence and it's going to be based on someone's scientific works. I may not agree with it, I may not agree with what they're saying...but at least they're putting forth more of an effort than a once a week session of "Nuh-uh! That theory is stupid!"
What the heck do you think being a creationist is? You believe the Bible is the end-all-be-all of the creation of the Heavens, the Earth, the animals that exist upon it... If you believe that it's the absolute, literal, stocking top truth of how the universe as we know it was created...then you therefore believe that the bits in Genesis where it's is written that God created every last little thing that exists on this planet. That's the problem you find yourself in. Either you are a creationist who believes that God sat there with a tube of Divine Play Doh making snakes... ...or you don't believe that God created every creature, therefore you don't really believe that the Bible is the absolute, carved in stone truth of existence. If you believe that the Bible is the absolute and true word of God...you are a creationist. If you aren't a creationist...you don't really believe that the Bible is the absolute and true word of God. Which is it? Is the Bible the Absolute Truth of it all...or is it not the absolute and that some as yet agreed upon factor created the animals independently of God?
So, you don't believe that your god created the Universe? You have been presented with evidence, you choose not to accept it, that is your choice and a choice that Creationists also make.
https://www.google.co.za/search?q=d.....69i57j0l2.5620j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Claiming that "Goddidit" does make someone a creationist! And you posted that "God...did it" right here in this post of yours! http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-4#post-1065395435 So by your own admission you are a creationist. Now if you want to retract your own creationist post and state that god did NOT do it then please feel free to set the record straight by admitting that god did NOT create the universe and living organisms.
I have done so repeatedly and you (as stated) refuse to accept it, thus are you dismissed as wasted server space.
Claiming that I've been given evidence is a demonstrable lie. Once again you refuse to put up any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Please provide that evidence.
this statement is a lie. We both know, that in this thread alone, you've been given the evidence in at least 20 different posts. claiming you have not been given the evidence, is a demonstrable lie.
I'm willfully educated on the biological theory of evolution. I see you didn't provide any evidence. Not that I expected you to do so. I did expect your typical broken record reply which contains nothing that contributes to the conversation. It must frighten you to not be able to intelligently support your case since you can't provide any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
Really? Yes, I do. But I'm not a Creationist. Look at all the definitions of that word and none of them apply to me. I've been presented with very weak evidence. None of the evidence presented shows a species gradually transitioning into another species. If you would do that then this discussion will come to an end. Transitional fossils aren't examples of a species gradually transitioning into another because they are complete species of their own. Since I don't follow Creationists I don't know what they really believe.
Great. I'm not a Creationist. Where is your evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species? Oh, you have nothing!
Not true. You haven't presented on single piece of evidence to me of a species gradually transitioning into another species to any post of mine. Not once. Your skating around the issue speaks volumes that you don't have the evidence because if you had evidence you'd have gladly presented it and without reservation. You've provided nothing.
Yes, I know., the mountains of evidence that is very meaningful to hundreds of biologists who are experts in the field, is meaningless to you because you somehow have this knowledge that now one else has, despite having a limited education in the field.
It seems that you reject the very evidence which would demonstrate decent with modification of sufficient change to form new species. In addition, the issue of whether a transitional fossil belongs to a species "of their own" is a nonsense issue. Every organism that ever lived belongs to one species or another. The question is whether two fossils or living organisms belong to the same species, or different ones, and not whether a single organism belongs to a species. What would this evidence of "species gradually transitioning into another" actually consist of? For example, the biological theory of evolution generally predicts that speciation occurs over a fair amount of time involving hundreds to tens of thousands of successive generations. You seem to demand a fossil of each generation by actual lineage in the proper sequence (from oldest you most recent).
There is no ignorance like self imposed fundamentalist theist ignorance because it cannot be cured by education.
I have an extensive education in this field. I'm also smart enough to ask the tough questions that everybody is afraid to answer. Nobody, including the biologists and experts in the field, has provided a single shred of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Every single fossil they've uncovered is a complete species of it's own. There's nothing that shows a gradual transitioning, which is what evolution is all about. Where is that evidence if there are mountains of it?
Not at all. In fact I'm not rejecting any evidence. There The fact remains that the so-called transitional species are species of their own. Are you trying to say that species didn't gradually transition from one to another? Apparantly so. Of course I demand evidence from each lineage. That's an incredibly reasonable demand. According to Darwin the Earth should be littered with such evidence. There should be evidence in existing species. Of all thespecies on Earth that have ever existed there must be gradually transitioning evidence. There'snothing to show for it. Not a single shred. Are you going to try to tell me that everything has disappeared? That would be rather convenient for the evolutionists. All that's available in the theory of evolution is extrapolation with artistic renderings to fill in the gaps. Nothing real or tangible to show for it.
Hmmm, you still haven't put up any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Are we to expect you to chase red herrings? Maybe you can't provide the evidence. I know you can't because you would have done it in a heart beat. Instead you're intent on violating PF rules and not contributing to the discussion. I'm not a Creationist.
Then I have to ask you a question. Do you believe that the Bible is a literal, from the mouth of God to Man's pen, telling of the actions of God in the early days? Is Genesis the Truth?
So you have a degree in a biological science? Not that anyone can prove or disprove that over an Internet forum. I don't have a degree in science which is why I don't have mountains of evidence. I do have proof that science works and that is all I need because when science says the evolution does indeed happen, I listen.
