I don't need to. It's a very well known piece of information. But since you refuse to be reasonable it's doubtful you'll never learn. I know that's I've shaken your faith in what evolutionists tell to to say since you can't defend your case. How sad to know you can't provide the evidence and how much sadder it must be to have to remain steadfast because you're fearful of facing the facts. Please show evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. I believe you're afraid of something since you haven't done this. Are you fearful of a huge seeing this huge elephant in the room?
No you have not. To quote Fred Hoyle: He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle Describe your gradual transition in scientific terms. Define spieces and gradual transition using jargon from biology. Otherwise, you are failing your mentor.
Fred Hoyle, award winning astrophysicist, believes this is a possibility. lt's not off the cuff nor is it bull crap. One doesn't need to be an evolutionist to write about evolution. They are going to reject anything that shakes their beliefs. Irrelevant. Alternative theories are just that, theories. They are based on extrapolation and evolution has no real evidence of species gradually transitioning into another species. You have not provided a single shred of evidence. If you could then you would. It looks like coming from outer space isn't a far fetched as you want to believe. Do you refuse to believe there's extraterrestrial life? I'm not straddling any fences. But you have dodged a very reasonable request at all costs. The real question you're asking is "why should I get into a discussion that I can't defend?". That would be the real question. You're dodging the issue. You're refusing to provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Where is your evidence in the fossil record? If anyone can claim wasting time it's me. But I believe the truth needs to be shown. I've asked for you and others a very reasonable request for evidence and you have refused to do so to the point that you found it necessary to chase the creationist red herring. Just answer the question. Where is the evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. continue to demand evidence, regardless of how rude you are, which is nothing more than running from the facts.
No I'm not. I'm correct. Which is done by observation and making notes. Science doesn't not expose nor does it predict. This is a fallacy taught out of ignorance. Science never, ever claims that anything is absolute. That isn't the purpose of science. It never has been and hopefully it never will be. Evolution may try to explain but it doesn't have evidence to back itself up. I could not care less about other theories. I'm only interested in showing that evolution is a hoax. And evolution's biggest issue is the lack of evidence to support it. The majority of theory is based on extrapolation and then making artistic renderings to show what they want to believe happened. It's not a projection. It's a fact. Just like man made global warming. There's very little evidence to support it but people, including misguided science students who have been ingrained with no evidence that man is at fault, are intent on preaching their dogmas of intolerance and hate and are going to do whatever is necessary to keep the flame burning. Facts be damned. To think that scientists are always objective and have no agenda of their own is ridiculous. I'm grateful to my college science and physic teachers that approved of challenging the status quo. They taught me to ask questions and use logic or to believe whatever is told me without checking and rechecking the facts. Evolution is one of those dogmas that doesn't have compelling evidence. Now for the umpteenth time: Please provide evidence of a species (out of millions and millions of species over millions and millions of years) gradually transitioning into another species. I've answered your questions. Answer mine.
Experimental science is all about predictions. You propose an experiment with a prediction in mind (I.e., hypothesis). Your hypothesis can be based on many things, one of which, is a theory. Theories are heavily judged on their ability to make predictions. This is basic science. If you have been trained at all, you should know this. As a researcher, hearing statements like this, cause me to lose my ability to take your claim of being trained in biology seriously (I.,e., it was already apparent that you had no formal training when you cited your mentors). Even your mentor Fred Hoyle made predictions from his theory of the steady state of the universe: It made predictions that were roughly the same as Einstein's general relativity, but it incorporated Mach's Principle, which Einstein had tried but failed to incorporate in his theory. The Hoyle-Narlikar theory failed several tests, including consistency with the microwave background. It was motivated by their belief in the steady state model of the universe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle So how can claim that science does not make predictions, didn't your mentor teach you this?
You don't know what you are talking about. Science make predictions all the time. How do you think we know a eclipse is coming in August? Science predicted that there would be Gravity Waves, and just recently, they found evidence that they exist. Science predicts what happens when you combine two chemical compounds. Science predicts what happens when you slam two pieces of plutonium together. Saying that science does not predict is just plain ignorance. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are pretty absolute. So is absolute zero . According to you, however, to the hundreds of biologists out there, it has more than enough compelling evidence. The arrogance in believing you know more than the experts is astounding. You didn't ask a question, you just gave a command. Also, I am not a biologist, if you really want evidence for evolution, why are you looking on a political forum? Ask a biologist. Anyway, it would do no good to give you any evidence since you refuse to accept any evidence of a species transitioning unless it was instantaneous and clear cut like Pokemon.
Lather, rinse, repeat. What you are referring to was addressed months ago. Darwin acknowledged an incomplete fossil record which is what we expect to see; not a problem with his theory.
Ironically enough if there was a complete fossil record of every single interim variation that ever existed that would be evidence for a deity being responsible for "planting" the fossils.
What you are after is a crockoduck. Science doesn't produce crockoducks, Creationists do. Science doesn't presuppose 'goddidit' like Creationists do.
There are theories I and most rational critical people refuse to call theories String Theory and Multiverse Theory the major modern ones since there is no way to prove either. Evolution has plenty of evidence the nail in the coffin was DNA studies comparing ancient DNA with modern DNA showing there is a chain of proof of evolutionary change and ancient ties between the species. So its not hard you have a species and you determine how it would have developed if Evolution is true then trace it back along the chain of Evolution and find out. Seriously I don't tend to debate Creationists on Creationism and think no real scientists should EVER debate a Creationist - ever.
One of the issues here would be that Prune cannot find the courage or devotion to admit he believes in creation. Instead it simply ignores everything that might challenge it and keeps this silly game going in order to avoid the obvious. It has been asked to present the alternate explanation and pathetically avoided doing so every time. I for one no longer even present the data, knowing it will ignore it and repeat its never ending diatribe.
Hence the reason I said that I was done with the game. It's like attacking an insane asylum with a rubber chicken. It's not going to succeed, you might end up in the asylum yourself, and no matter how hard you try...you'll never be able to explain the rubber chicken.
Exactly! PP's denialism is the only thing keeping this thread from dying. It was started on an utterly fallacious premise and and the OP's have never managed to prove their bogus allegations about evolution. If all of those who understand the science of evolution just stopped responding to PP's taunting this thread would end up in the cyber vaults gathering dust as a tribute to the failure of creationism.
Which includes evolution. I don't need to. You are intentionally avoiding having to answer my question so you're playing a game. You know very well, as does anyone who has anything to do with evolution, what gradrally transitioning into another species means. Face it, you're backed into a corner and are afraid because you can't provide any evidence whatsoever. If anyone is failing a mentor it's you. Now provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another.
Irrelevant. Just provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Science does't make predictions. Science observes and makes notes. People make predictions. That's a fact. Maybe you should take a real college course. This is basic 101.
You didn't provide any evidence whatsoever of a species gradually transitioning into another species, which is the true basis of evolution. If anyone whiffed it was you.
Yes. You're embarrassed for not being about to provide any evidence whatsoever of a species gradually transitioning into another. Your faith in evolution has been shaken. But I'll bet you'll be talking behind my back with others who have faced the same embarrassment.
If it was a lie then you'd provide the evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. You haven't. That's a demonstrable fact.
