Also, didn't you refer to the theory of evolution as a religion? If so, then you are no less obsessed than I.
Thinking that you know more than others who have spent their whole life researching the subject is a serious problem:for you. After all,not all opinions are equal.
Which was easily explained. My responses are earned because they are worthy of discussion. You on the other hand refuse to debate and resort to extremely rude behavior. That's to be expected when the truth attacks your beliefs and you have nothing with which to defend yourself. Provide some honest evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Don't say you have. Just do it or concede. It's not your fault that the evidence is so vague
Correction. You haven't provided any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. You're the one with zero cites of this ever happening.
The fact that there is no evidence that evolution is a fact. I'm interested in the truth and it doesn't matter the subject. If you can't deal with it, which it appears you can't, that's your problem.
What it the world do think we've been doing? Good grief. If you can show the evidence of human origins then you can show evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
Yes, evolution faith based. That's doesn't make me obsessed because I've moved on. You haven't moved on. because you're obsessed with religion.
The problem is that you nor your experts can provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. All they have is "Maybe" or "It might have". Nothing concrete. Evolution is totally based upon extrapolation. By the way, I'm not providing an opinion. I'm asking for evidence from those people you revere.
Let me refresh your memory. post #944 Prunepicker said: ↑ The inability of evolutionists to provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species is quite supportive of my opinion. The need of evolutionists to have create what may have happened, due to the fact that they have no evidence, is also supportive of my opinion. -------------------------- The difference is,any opinions I may have regarding evolution are based on science; yours are based on...something else.
What about your religious beliefs? Christianity is the same as you claim the theory of evolution to be.
Like I've asked you for evidence that supports Christianity. You can't show how you're beliefs are different from belief in evolution.
Why is it unreasonable? You have theories on the origins of the universe, objective morality, human origin, and a wide variety of other subjects. I simply asked you to show evidence. The same as you are doing with the theory of evolution.
If you're interested in the truth, then why do you believe what the Bible claims without seeing the scientific evidence proving it's claims? What I actually can't deal with is when conservative aligned Libertists such as yourself have no issue "poking holes" in "atheistic" concepts such as evolution, yet refuse to do the same with their own beliefs. You keep avoiding my questions simply because they are about religion. Your belief in God is based on exactly the same principle as belief in evolution. If there were absolute scientific evidence to support your religious beliefs, you would have revealed it by now. But you can't because it doesn't exist. But that doesn't stop you claiming the Bible is "100% true". But with evolution, you require evidence. This double standard is always the case with all of you who are religious. Some better psychological study of the religious might be required.
Moved on by returning here to repeat the same questions? Obsessed with asking for scientific evidence from believers in a faith-based concept that they assume is absolute fact? We're actually more alike than I thought. And yes, I know I'm obsessed. As I said before I'm usually obsessed with things that bother me.
Prunepicker's opinions about evolution are based on a lack of absolute, fully complete evidence. What truly bothers me though is the blatant hypocrisy when it comes to her or his belief in Christianity.
Debates within the scientific community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred. Prunepicker denies evolution because of his religious beliefs; his comments about it in the Religion & Philosophy section are proof of that.
I see. Why do you think she or he keeps insisting that their reasons are strictly based on science? But that would explain the refusal to apply his/her same logic to their religion.
Pruny is not unique in this. Many deeply religious people are prevented from accepting or even looking at science that may possibly force them to question the books that they use to define it.
Then their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Requiring "evolutionists" to provide full, absolute scientific evidence while believing in something that does not have that "100%" complete evidence. I'll admit, some have presented their own type of evidence for the claims made by their religion. Yet I can almost guarantee you, that evidence has as many "holes" as Prunepicker claims the theory of evolution does. I'm willing to admit there is always the possibility of evolution being incorrect despite the fact that I find it convincing. But most Judeo-Christians are too prideful to aknowledge even the slight possibility that their religion could be false.
My Biggest issue in this comes from the theist demanding impossible proof (making a frog become a Dog) while presenting impossible proofs for their own claims. I apparently was made from mud but fossils cant be in it.
