Look, science doesn't predict. People predict by using data collected by science. That's a fact. The day science starts predicting or proving things will be the end of science. Absolute? Not really. They will change when the criteria changes. By the way, you know that absolute zero hasn't been attained. Right? Well now you do. You're making an assumption that people don't lie. Do you believe that everything printed in a science book or journal is absolute fact? Are you not aware of evolutionists, in their zeal to make evolution real, created Nebraska man? They have no compelling evidence and I'm not being arrogant. Semantics. If evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species existed you and everyone else on this thread would have put it up. I'm not looking. I'm spread the news to those who were indoctrinated and misled. I've also asked biologists. They don't have evidence either. Not true. I'd welcome the evidence with open arms. There simply isn't any.
Really? Sounds silly. Do you have evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species?
Correction, he didn't acknowledge, he thought the record is incomplete. Big difference. At any rate, have you found any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species you'd like to share?
Correction. Not a single piece has been provided. Can you produce evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species? Nobody had done it yet.
Okay...lets understand a few things before I waste my time. Do you expect evidence of real time changes in an animal species? Do you expect video documentation of one species transforming into another? Do you accept biology as a science?
Evolution has proved nothing. Not sure where you came up with that. dna doesn't guarantee relationship. Heck, an chimp has 90+% of the same dna as humans yet there is no evidence that we descended. This hasn't happened. There are specific species and nothing showing a gradual transitioning. Which is why I don't debate creationists, either. You know I'm not a Creationist, right? I'm totally about science.
It is quite simple to provide a scientific definition or as it is sometimes refered to as an operational definition. Right now you refuse the most basic thing that is done in exploring a topic. It shows that you are clearly unable to form your question in a meaningful manner. So just keep repeating that there is no evidence, it will be okay. Don't you worry.
And yet you ignore and deny science every time you comment in this thread and have yet to offer your alternate explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
I'm embarrassed all right, but it's embarrassment for the fact that I wasted so much time arguing with someone who does not or does not want to have a clue as to how science works. It's the same embarrassment I've had for trying to argue with flat earthers and other conspiracy theorists. As for my faith in evolution? Not shaken at all. The fact that you're unwilling to debate or present contrary points of view beyond "don't know, don't care" has no bearing on what I believe. Honestly, until I saw that you had quoted me, I hadn't even given you a second thought. I've been discussing soup recipes and space based weaponry in other threads. Silly me, I forgot to unwatch this thread. I mistake I'll correct afterwards hitting "post". Toodles!
How would it be the end of science? So you think that the conservation of energy can be changed? Do you believe that energy can just pop into existence? And yes, you are right, absolute zero has not been attained since it is only a theoretical absolute (the total stoppage of all molecular motion), but I was only making a bad joke. And who figured out Nebraska man was wrong. Who was it that figured out the piltdown man was a fake? Was it the church? Was it politicians? Was it the press? No, it was other scientists, thus proving that science is the best at policing itself. As I said, I am not a biologist, so I would not be able to get you the information, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. So you say, but this is the Internet so anything goes. I can tell you this though, if I had conclusive proof of something so important that it will shake science to its foundation, I would not be wasting my time on the Internet, I would be going to every news/media outlet on the planet. You would think that at least Fox would want to share it. The biggest problem with your "hypothesis" that evolution is wrong, is that it requires a conspiracy that spans centuries and multiple scientific disciplines, and ignores the fact that an up and coming biologist with dreams of grandeur would be salivating for the chance to gain fame and respect by disproving evolution. Simply put, your belief that evolution is wrong, is utter bullshit. What is funny is that you keep saying that scientists have an agenda, but that is just projection since you are the one with the obvious agenda. I know you claim it is not religious in nature, but I believe that is a lie. Every person I have ever met who says evolution is fake or wrong, had a religious agenda.
So were you being dishonest when you made this creationist post of yours saying that "God...did it"? http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-4#post-1065395435 Or are you being dishonest now about not being a creationist and claiming to be a "scientist"? The evidence of your posts demonstrates that you have no scientific knowledge and are clueless as to how the scientific method works. You might want to revise your position in the light of the evidence in your own posts that effectively refute your bogus claims.
I will ask again as you do not seem overly enthusiastic about actually discussing this topic: Okay...lets understand a few things before I waste my time. Do you expect evidence of real time changes in an animal species? Do you expect video documentation of one species transforming into another? Do you accept biology as a science? Your answers are required for further debate and will define your ability to do so.
Okay Prunepicker ....I have given you two days to answer this very simple query, in which you have obviously seen my challenge and decided to avoid answering. As a result I have shown your obvious cowardice and discomfort with your own position, while explaining to everyone here (not that they didn't know) that you are a very incompetent troll, with absolutely no interest in debate or gaining knowledge. Basically, you have been called out and exposed to which you wipe your nose and weep in a corner. At his point anyone with even minimal self respect would do as I suggest and crawl under a rock to lick your gaping wounds. Your absence will be greatly appreciated as your limited entertainment value has long worn off.
Not a true statement and you know it. I can't ignore that which hasn't been presented. Not a single shred of evidence has been provided that shows a species gradually transitioning into another species. If you had this information you'd have posted it in a heart beat. Instead all I get from you and others is the big lie that the evidence has been provided. It hasn't. When will you honestly and truly put the evidence?
I expect the fossil record to show a species gradually transitioning into another species. Yes, biology is definitely science.
Look you freakin' .....uh...."person". I myself, have provided the data several times so I KNOW you had access to it. That you play this game of purposeful ignorance does not change that. You have become nothing but a sad and no longer funny joke in these threads and are generally dismissed as the pathetic waste of time you are. Though tempted to again present this data to you, even this comment is more than you deserve.
And you've been given one. You are too busy chasing a red herring. Correction, you refuse the most basic thing and that's providing evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. If you had such data you'd have put it up. Instead you're wasting band width chasing your red herring. Correction, the question, or request, is clear and simple and very meaningful. You are the one refusing to produce the evidence, which you don't have. Just keep saying there's evidence without providing it, which is all you've done.
I've denied nothing. You and others have yet to provide the evidence of a species gradually tranistioning into another species. What's the problem? Why won't you just put it up?
Correction, I know very well how science works. Oh look! Name calling. Why don't you stop wasting our time and just provide the evidence of a species gradually trasitioning into another species? Wait a minute. I'm the only one wanting to debate this topic intellectually and resonably. You're the one refusing to provide the evidence requested. You've cut and run and done whatever is necessary to avoid producing any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. I accept your concession that you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a species gradually transitioning into another species. And yes, your faith in evolution has been shaken extremely hard. You, and the others aren't capable of producing any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
Because it would seem you expect me to somehow animate million year old fossilized creatures live, and place them on your kitchen table to explain simple concepts known and accepted by thousands of people who have studied this and are far more intelligent that you are. I have shown you as close to this as is physically possible (snakes with residual legs, whales with leg bones, mutation in bacteria) yet this is insufficient to convince you to actually notice. In short, any further data placed before you would be a futile gesture akin to expecting a dog to create a circuit board.
[QUOTE="Cosmo, post: 1067835763, member: 69233" To imply there are no transitionals misstates Darwin's argument, intentionally or out of ignorance.[/QUOTE] Stop misquoting Darwin and me. "Transitional species" are species that stand alone and are of their own kind. Guess work and extrapolation, with pretty pictures rendered by artists, is what is wanted to be called transitional. Darwin said there would be a "gradually transitioning of species" which means from one species into another. All I'm asking is for that evidence to be presented.
What part of "I am not playing this game" do you not understand? I [ahy] pronoun, nominative I, possessive my or mine, objectiveme; plural nominative we, possessive our or ours, objectiveus. 1.the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself. am [am; unstressed uh m, m] verb 1. 1st person singular present indicative of be. not [not] adverb 1.(used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition): You must not do that. It's not far from here. play [pley] noun 1. a dramatic composition or piece; drama. 2. a dramatic performance, as on the stage. 3. exercise or activity for amusement or recreation. this [th is] pronoun, plural these [th eez] 1. (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark,etc., as present, near, just mentioned or pointed out, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): This is my coat. game [geym] noun 1. an amusement or pastime: children's games. 2. the material or equipment used in playing certain games: a store selling toys and games. 3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators. Hope that clarifies things for you.
Science would then be in the business of proving biases and not studying for the sake of gathering information. Why not? No, but many scientists do. I give you the "big bang" theory. And a bad one it was. Not sure why you want to bring the church into this. Yes science, i.e. using the gathered information and not manipulating it, can police itself. I never denied that. But it was "scientists" who, in their eagerness to produce evolution, created something that never was. To blindly accept that science can't be manipulated with subsidies and agendas is wrong thinking. One need not be a biologist to gather information or understand it. Which includes the fallacy of evolution. Then why are you here? If you really believe in evolution then great. Just don't tell me I'm wrong without evidence. And what does Fox have anything to do with this topic? If there's a conspiracy it's evolution. Just because something span centuries, which the ToE doesn't, doesn't make it a reality. There are many scientists who don't accept evolution but since they aren't in the mainstream, i.e. adhering to the dogmas of those in control, their evidence is rejected. Of course there are scientist who have an agenda. How else can we have anthropogenic global warming? I don't have a religious agenda. My agenda is to seek the truth with evidence and not to manipulate it in anyway. I don't have a religious agenda.
