Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nope. You first need to demonstrate that you understand the concept.
Replying to private opinions with private opinions is how it is done.More of your private opinions, but nothing of any substance or value
No, everyone is on to you. We can all see that you are a denier of reality that hates the fact that he is descended from apes and still is an ape.More of your private opinions, but nothing of any substance or value
The tax evasion, as he wasn't aware that some of his staff didn't everything by the book. He didn't have the time to comb over ever single transaction to make sure all the i's were dotted and all the t's were crossed
all 54 times?
It was his personal transactions that got him in trouble. Why don't you admit that you have no clue?
Thanks for that, I don't like time wasting people who have no evidence to support their theory outrageous claims, so yeah no hard feelingsGiven you haven't replied to my question - as to any qualifications you might have (and evident that you have none) - we can assume you are simply commenting from ignorance and/or a particular religious belief (Wow! so unique too) - and hence will go on the informal ignore list - just as so many others will who are here to waste the time of those who do expect proper evidence, arguments, discussions, or debates.
Asking for "the missing link" as evidence for evolution is ironically a good piece of evidence that we are dealing with a willfully ignorant person who argues strawmen.
Well, at least you admit to drinking the kool aid and supporting pseudo science. I support orthodox science so that separates us
As opposed to orthodox science. You sound very blissful there, hope you enjoy the fantastic journey of illusion.
Still waiting for class to start.
So, no qualifications to assess science, just a layman's knowledge at best - but unlikely - and why we will treat your comments appropriately.
I have made no such admissions, since there is no admission to make on my part regarding acceptance of the pseudoscience you seem to support with empty opinion. However, I predict what you are doing is all that you will do here.
No, you missed the point. I'm only looking for one single transitional fossil to show the transition of one species to another. This is what stumped the wise guy university professor. It proved that the piece of paper they gave him at graduation was worthless, Ray Comfort knocked him out of the park, by asking for a simple piece of evidence which millions should exist if that luny theory had any credibilityAsking for "the missing link" as evidence for evolution is ironically a good piece of evidence that we are dealing with a willfully ignorant person who argues strawmen.
You are not going to get the "missing link" for several reason:
- for starters, the concept is void and based on ignorance. It assumes the fossil record is the end-all, be-all of evidence for evolution while it absolutely isn't. The entire fossil record could disappear and the case for evolution would be as solid as ever.
- you won't be receiving examples of any "missing links" because by definition they are...... "missing"....
- it is a fundamentally dishonest concept to try and use it as evidence against evolution because there will ALWAYS be missing links in any historical evolutionary lineage. Say for example you have speciman A from 10 million years ago and specimen B from 5 million years ago. Then you'll yap about the "missing link" from the 5 million year gap. Let's say we find specimen C from 7.5 million years ago. "missing link" found? NOPE. In fact, this find just creates 2 additional "missing links"... one from 10 million to 7.5 million years and another from 7.5 million years till 5 million years.
So the only way to not have any "missing links" is the have a fossil from EVERY generation from EVERY lineage from the dawn of time till today. An absurd demand.
It's like me asking you of a photograph of your face of every second you were alive to "demonstrate" the claim that you are in fact aging.
Having said all that, I'll go back to my first point: we don't need a single fossil to demonstrate the accuracy of evolution theory. Extant DNA of species is all we require.
Fossils are nice and they sure support the theory. But they are not nearly on par as DNA is in terms of evidence for evolution theory.
I can just imagine you running with the crowd in the great witch hunts, where they execute the accused and then ask questions later
When you quote and cite known liars, loons, and lackwits it does not help your credibility at all.