It does get tiresome but since he objects to being called a creationist his own posts can now be used as evidence to establish his lack of credibility.
There's nothing to correct. Youve been given the evidence. You know this. You also know that claiming you haven't is a demonstrable lie. Why do you do this?
LYING again. You have No Game/No science, just continue denying evidence IS evidence. Fossils, skulls (pictured), named intermediate species/subspecies, hybrids, DNA regression analysis, Anatomical Vestiges of our ancestors, etc. Those ARE Evidence. Not 'proof' (which doesn't exist in Science), but strong Evidence. You cannot Continue this Empty and Dishonest "No"/Denial routine. I also Caught You Lying that you weren't a Creationist. You are. AGAIN: If Species didn't transform into one another, they were created separately, roughly As Is. There was NO ANSWER to that, and as I Pointed out, you just conspicuously dropped it in your last post: drastically 'short quoting' me. Great idea! Let's submit our replies to the Moderators. Enough of this denialist BS! If I haven't presented evidence of Transitional forms/species, I get banned, if I have, You get banned. Deal? By all means, let's end this empty "no" nonsense. `
Obviously more science minded than. I also have the knowledge that scientists don't always know what they're doing. You've yet to answer my very serious question. Is there another reason, we know it's not science, as to why you're devoted to a theory, toe, that has no real evidence to support it?
Which you show little evidence of having. And it doens't make me a Creationist. No it doesn't. I dismiss evolution because it conflicts with science. When you can produce real solid evidence, i.e. the gradual transitioning from one species to another then we can talk about evidece. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why you support the fallacy of evolution. We both know your reason has nothing to do with science. What is it?
So if you don't believe species spontaneously appeared or that they evolved then how did they get here?
You have no evidence. Let's look at your so-called evidence. Every single fossil you've put up is a complete species of it's own. There is no gradual transitioning from one species to another. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF A SPECIES GRADUALLY TRANSITIONING FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER? I'm not a Creationist. AGAIN: If Species didn't transform into one another, they were created separately, roughly As Is.[/QUOTE] Now, how can that be? Species that were created separately? That sounds like you're a Creationist. You have yet to produce any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Now you're saying they were CREATED separately. If you can't be trusted to provide real evidence. How can I trust you to do what you say? Show me the GRADUAL TRANSITIONING FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER SPECIES. That means fossils gradually leaving (gradually transitioning) one species to become another. NOT the usual tripe of putting up so-called transitional species which really aren't because they are completely separate and don't show they came from another species.
Where is the explanation on why there are animals that exist now that didn't exist back then? People have. Science has whole bunches of them. You just choose to not believe them. If osteolepis didn't evolve into eusthenopteron...then where did eusthenopteron come from? Where did panderichthys come from? Where did any of them come from?[/QUOTE]
Isn't this YOUR post where you tacitly admit to being a creationist? http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/creationist
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-4#post-1065395435 Wolverine said: No one knows. Prunepicker: Wrong. I know. It's from God. There's no doubt about it. Wolverine said: The fact there is not a definite answer does not mean goooooodddddddddd did it and you are somehow validated. Prunepicker: God said he did it and that's very reasonable. I trust him over any scientist.
Here's a good bit to read. https://futurism.com/there-is-no-missing-link-in-evolution/ A snippet of the article that's pretty relevant... And here's another good one... So in a very real sense...the theory of evolution is in of itself in a state of evolution.
Prunepicker overlooks the other lines of evidence for evolution. It's like watching the creationist version of a one-trick pony.
You tell me. One of my favorite scientists, Fred Hoyle (revered astrophysicist and mathematician) and others, says evolution by chance fails science and mathematics. He believes life may have come from outside of the Earth, i.e. outer space. My argument is that the evidence for evolution is so weak it needs to be bolstered with speculation and extrapolation to make it look feasible.
Here we go again. The argument isn't where they came from. If we did that then you better explain abiogenesis and how it took place. There is no evidence of a gradual transition from a species into another species in the artistic rendering you posted. They are all different species. Science doesn't not have bunches of anything showing the gradually transitioning of species. I know you want to believe it does but there is nothing. Only extrapolation with artistic renderings like you just posted.
No I wouldn't. Besides if you could do so you would without hesitation. By the way, since you don't study science, sub species are the same species as the parent species. Whiff! Strike 1. Again you answer dishonestly. Your DNA analysis, if that's what you call it, doens't show absolute relationship. Good grief read Crick, Hoyle, Holroyd, N.C. Wickramasinghe or anybody else who shows clearly how you're wrong. Whiff! Strike 2. I'm not a Creationist. Whiff! Strike three. You lose. Fun game. Under no circumstances will you put up evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. The evidence doesn't exist.
Ahh, you can run but you can't hide. At least you can man up and write to me instead of the school yard behind the back tactic. I've overlooked nothing. You, on the other hand, have not presented any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another. It's like you playing the evolutionists one trick pony. You have nothing. You put up nothing. I'm simply asking for that which you refuse to provide. What's the real reason you can't accept the scientific fact that evolution doesn't exist? You can't support your case. I've successfully defended mine. You have no evidence.
You've yet to establish a lack of credibility in anything I've written. You, on the other have, have yet to put up any evidence that truly shows evolution to be anything but a theory that makes for good science fiction.
You, nor has anyone else, provided any evidence that shows evolution to be anything more than a theory that makes for good science fiction. I've asked you and others to provide evidence of any species gradually transitioning into another species. You've not provided a single shred of evidence. Oh, there's the so-called transitional species but it's really a complete species of own. There nothing to show how it got there except for extrapolation and artistic renderings. Put up some real evidence.
So...what explains why there elephants when there weren't elephants in the past? Why is there H. Sapiens now when they didn't exist in the past? What is the mechanism that replaces all the animals that have gone extinct with the animals that exist now?
