I think it's part of an act. Prunepicker has failed to present anything scientific that he/she thinks would refute evidence for evolution.If his/her reasons/objections are strictly based on science, where is it?
Exactly. Theists are more willing to believe something without testing it for themselves. This has nothing to do with their religions being wrong or right, but rather the key difference in how science approaches something compared to "faith". I'd like to challenge Prunepicker to find the same level of absolute scientific evidence he/she wants for evolution, but for his/her religious beliefs instead, before continuing to believe that the Bible is completely full of facts. Here is an example of extremists Theist (not all Theists) mentality compared with the scientific approach: Personally, I don't care much for Bill Nye, however I admit he handled himself well. Please let me know if you have any difficulty viewing the video. Website links don't always seem to work.
Well, for me at least, it seems Prunepicker has somewhat of a point when saying that the burden of proof is on the theory of evolution. However, the typical "anti-evolutionist" hypocrisy is obvious when Prunepicker is unwilling to turn that same need for scientific proof on his/her religious beliefs. Let's hope for our sake it is an act, because I'm very bothered sharing this world with that demographic.
Forget Religion completely. Show real proof of us evolving, genetic proof, and stop conflating Natural Selection of survival traits with Evolution. I would readily accept that we are genetically engineered as a species by some extraterrestrial race of scientists that have been experimenting with life here on Earth over countless Millennia. Or anything more plausible.
Religions still make the claim of being true. I'd like them to show concrete proof of their claims before they go on adapting it into our laws simply because a deity allegedly told us how to live. Though the idea of another an extraterrestrial race is somewhat a possibility. At least that does not come with religion's ideological "baggage".
You didn't provide all of my quote. I said I'm "asking questions, not providing opinions". That's absolutely true. We know why you did this. It's because you can't produce any evidence that evolution has or is happening and you need a red herring to keep the discussion on something, make that ANYTHING, to keep off the topic you can't provide support for. Fact: Nobody, so far, has produced evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. This is the foundation of evolution and there is no evidence to support it. Fact: Evolutionists must create evolution by making up what might have happened. They have this complete species and that complete species but absolution nothing showing they gradually transitioned into another species. The "gradual transitioning" has been made up. Why? because there is no evidence. They have to fill in the blanks. This isn't science. It's making something up. i.e. Science fiction. Please try to provide some evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species, i.e. the crux of what is evolution.
I'm the one not using religion. You are. Therefore you are the creationist. I'm the person only wanting to know what is true and evidence to support that it is.
Prunny....you are so completely ignorant as to be somewhat entertaining. Massive evidence has been provided to you which is either dismissed or ignored and "Transitional species" are virtually everything you see, everywhere....including you. What you refer to as transitional cannot exist until it no longer lives as it is generally extinct when the creature it transitioned into is alive. The level of comprehension ability you project is difficult to believe without feeling profound pity.
You aren't going to find what you're looking for here. I'm not completely certain where you'll find information, but perhaps try speaking to actual experts on the subject rather than random forum users.
I'm an agnostic of sorts. Not a true creationist. You say you want to know what is true based on evidence, but you're being very hypocritical when you express "certainty" regarding your Christian beliefs as being true.
Okay I'm asking the Creationists here, were you there at Creation and what proof do you have it happened the way you say? I can say the body of scientific consensus says its true men and women profoundly more educated in science then I am that is evidence backed by the research and investigation of science, you people have NOTHING to counter that.
Just be aware, Prunepicker will deny being a creationist despite actually being a creationist. As far as I know, she or he is the only one still here.
There is plenty of evidence of transitional species, but you apparently are loathe to search it out. Here we describe a new 220-million-year-old turtle from China, somewhat older than Proganochelys, that documents an intermediate step in the evolution of the shell and associated structures. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07533
Scientists know that evolution occured/occurs because of the convergence of evidence from diverse fields of science. Present a valid argument using science instead of hand-waving.
Key word: Postulate In the absence of actual proof, Theory misrepresented as science, when either can be interpreted as proof of Extraterrestrial influence and genetic engineering starting with the Origin and creation of life as we know it, Millions of years ago by some advanced race of Scientists.
If you want to claim extraterrestrials as the solution to abiogenesis, that's one thing. (Not that I agree.) But, suggesting that is an alternative for evolution is a bridge WAY too far. First of all, the fossil record shows a taxonomy shaped like an ever expanding tree. To replace evolution, you would have to postulate repeated incremental deliveries from space. But, the taxonomy isn't shaped like that, either, as there is no time sequencing between the branches of the taxonomic tree. That leaves no sufficient number of points where subsequent deliveries of numerous new life forms can be detected. Plus, there are too many species that have come about within the last millions of years. So, even your postulate still depends on evolution. More fundamentally, scientific method doesn't have proof of validity. It only has proof of falsity. So, any demand for proof of validity is really no more than an admission of not understanding how and why science works the way it does.
Possibly. I remember doing the same to some "Haters" on YouTube back in 2007. In a way, I've been "****" right back. Only one thing truly ends these conflicts. And I know between Prunepicker and I, only one of us is willing to do what it takes.
No. That is simplistic and untrue. Science is not emotional projection. I deal in science and logic, medicine, chemistry, maths, all things able to be duplicated in any standard scientific laboratory.
