Since Inquisitor now finds it necessary to copy and paste his comments from one thread to another, I find it necessary to copy and past my rebuttals from one thread to another. ChemEngineer restarted a thread originally posted by USFAN titled fallacies of evolution. USFAN and ChemEngineer made the claim that ten "fallacies" are used in the teaching of evolution. That is a bogus claim. I asked both USFAN and ChemEngineer to show just one scholastic textbook that uses any of these ten fallacies in the teaching of ToE. They didn't because they couldn't. Pressuring them to defend their OPs led USFAN to accuse me of nitpicking and ChemEngineer to putting me on his dreaded ignore list. If you want to consider asking people to defend what they post in an OP as expressing hatred and anger, and looking for blood, then you have a strange concept of what constitutes a discussion.
Stop trying to derail the thread. The SUBJECT, Mister Dishonesty,, is "fallacies of evolution." If you want to whine about talkorigins.org, start your own thread and stop trying to derail others. THAT is "intellectual dishonesty", your speciality as a Leftist atheist.
Except for every time you look in the mirror and see a gradually transitioning species. All species, including humans, are gradually transitioning species. Evolution only ends for a species when it goes extinct otherwise it is happening all around you all the time.
Ever heard the expression learning from failures? The theory of a flat earth was proven wrong but there is an object lesson to be learned from that failure. That lesson is that dogmatic assertions without supporting evidence are not fact based and therefore have no value or credibility. Now let's apply that lesson to the OP's dogmatic assertion about evolution allegedly being a "failure" and what do we learn? That the OP does not understand scientific principles because it is based entirely upon fallacious dogmatic assertions without any evidence to support them.
I'll accept fossils that show a species gradually transitioning into another species. Nobody has shown a single one. All that's been put up are complete examples of species. Where are the fossils that show the gradual transition? Whether or not it's a good point is irrelevant. A stronger point than whose? So far they have this fossil and that fossil with nothing to connect the two together except extrapolation and artistic renderings. Show me the gradually transitioning fossils between homo erectus and homo neandrathalensis (sp?). All science, or better evolutionists, have is homo erectus and homo neandrathalensis. Everything that connects them together is extrapolation and nothing else.
You did the usual posting of complete species. Not a single one shows a species becoming another species. You repeat the lie but you don't show the evidence. THESE ARE ALL COMPLETE SPECIES. THEY DON'T SHOW ANY TRANSITIONING FROM ONE TO ANOTHER. One again I ask you, is there some something besides science that's preventing you from accepting the truth?
I'm the same species now as I was this morning. Where is the evidence? Where are the gradually transitioning fossils from one species to another? Yet nobody can produce any real evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
So far I see no rebuttal to what I post. You again quoted me out of the context, because if to read your post only the reader will not know what ChemEng is pointing to. As to ten "fallacies" you can take any scholastic textbook and you will see if not all 10 in one, but some of them in one and some of them in another and apparently there are more then 10 all together. That is if you knew something about logic. So far you cannot understand meaning of two simple sentences even if they are repeated to you slowly and 3 times in a raw: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...wpoints-welcome.506943/page-3#post-1067635260
Another DISHONEST reply. 1. You Edited out Most of my post showing you have LIED for YEARS. You ARE a Creationist. You're 90+ years old. Were you going to die with that Lie? Or just LIE to us? A Creationist with really bad/goofy 'science' objections. How long did it take me to OUT your LIFETIME Lie? TWO posts! 2. I did provide Transitional Species. Illustrated even. Those Transitionals didn't even exist in your Bizarro Creationist world. You Continue to Deny/Lie for Jesus. Now it seems you want mini-transitions/really just IMPOSSIBLE Motion pictures of EACH adaptation. Demand Infinite Detail Fallacy So, IAC... 3. The latest Homo Sapiens/Homo Sapien-esque finds showed Mixed Breeding with Other Sapien-esque groups before they gelled/coalesced into One 'species.' My Avatar: (man or ape?) a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi It and several others PORKS the Creationist word/Concept for species: "Kinds". Meaning there isn't anything between modern Human and ape, but there WERE many. You LOSE even in my last post which show In between Skulls. "God's Mistakes" or Transitional species? and most recent: My string, you AVOIDED They're not even sure it's Sapien. It is, again, Sapien-esque/Trtansitional. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/scientists-find-oldest-known- specimens-of-the-human-species.506866/ b) "...As early experiments in the human form, these ancestors had quite modern-looking facial features, but relatively primitive skulls, suggesting that the cognitive capacities of modern brains had yet to take shape, the scientists said. Their faces were likely so Contemporary in appearance that they might pass unnoticed on a crowded city sidewalk, although they might need to wear a hat to disguise their Skull’s Elongated shape, Dr. Hublin said...."" That is even more Micro-Transitional/smooths the curve. Both were found have bred with other related groups. There were probably scores of Homo/early Homo, Proto-Homo groups/TRANSITIONALS. LIE, Deny, and Abridge my posts which show the Transitions you deny. DISHONEST DENIAL continues. It took you five Defeated/Stunned days to get up the courage to respond after getting OUTED/Gutted by my last. `
[QUOTE="Prunepicker, post: 1067635099, member: 66214"have is homo erectus and homo neandrathalensis. [/QUOTE] Then where did H. Erectus come from? Where did H. Neanderthalensis come from? Where did any of that come from if they weren't there from the start?
Rather than create a new thread under a different title, I thought I would simply add this gem to my quite popular thread Fallacies of Evolution Redux because THERE ARE A WHOLE YOTTA FALLACIES IN EVOLUTION! Yottagram - my own creation
I actually believe in evolution...... but I believe that 99.9% of what we might term evolution has occurred in higher dimensions of space - time and what we see mostly on earth is simply the adaption of an invented species to changes and variations in environment. Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?
Depends on how you define intelligence. Is a sunflower moving throughout the day to follow the source of heat and light more intelligent that other flowers that simply open and close their petals?
Yes, you lied but I just pass it on as indoctrination. You have not provided any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Only the usual tripe that isn't supported by science. No I'm not and I'm reporting your name calling to the moderators. Just because you can't support your cause with science doesn't give you the right to call people names.
Beats me. All I know is that there is no evidence of them gradually transitioning from one to the other. They are complete species of their own.
Quite the contrary. You have yet to produce any evidence of any species gradually transitioning into another species. Where is that evidence? So far you have failed, like everyone else, to produce any evidence. Only the usual wishful thinking. Is there a reason, other than science, that you can't accept the facts?
Correction, nothing has been produced by anyone on this thread, including yourself. Is there a reason, other than science, that you can't accept the facts? Seriously, there's a lot of talk about the evidence of evolution but nothing that shows any species gradually transitioning into another species.
Why does Prunepicker continue to deny he's a creationist? Part 34 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364 #592 Prunepicker,Dec 22, 2016 Yes, your belief is a fairy tale and has no basis in reality. The Bible on the other hand is factual and is totally based on reality. If you could provide evidence to support your case then you would. You haven't.Thank you for bringing that up.
What cause? The pursuit of knowledge through science? You say that you're not a creationist yet admit as much in Religion & Philosophy, where you claim that the Bible is factual and is totaly based on reality. You dismiss evidence for evolution because it conflicts with your religous beliefs.
