spider
has the missing link been found?
has the missing link been found?
The Nonsense of Atheists
- Thread starter RenaissanceMan
- Start date
There is no alternative theory. Evolution IS A FACT. As much as Gravity.
If any of those beliefs at those links get published in a respectable journal you let me know, k?
The whole missing link argument has been discredited long ago in favor of a more complex story. There are so many transitional creatures between an ape-like form and the modern form, that it's difficult to diagram their exact interrelationships.
This is a myth. You are confused.
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Missing_Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
etc. etc. etc.
And irrelevant anyway based on DNA evidence.
a few of these theists are using a new tactic.
by being obtuse and using the angle that 'no one knows', they can hold their beliefs or indirectly give them credit by stating that no one knows if evolution is true etc. i have the suspicion that they are using arguments that atheists have posted on this forum but taking it out of context and using it for religious purposes. notice before, when they did not know what angles to use, they were all pretending to be non-religious yadda yadda. when they think they can, their true colors show and they are indeed very religious. i even respect theists like jan ardena more as they are more upfront about their beliefs and aren't as deceptive.
anyways, the only people who have problems with evolution are those who think humans were literally created by their god and not evolved from lower lifeforms.
i seem very harsh and unfair to theists but it's because i know how they are and all their games. most people here don't know just how full of bs they really are.
they will always use the 'be fair to us' guilt tactic which not giving credence to someone else's delusions as well as mental laziness is tantamount to bigotry. lol
by being obtuse and using the angle that 'no one knows', they can hold their beliefs or indirectly give them credit by stating that no one knows if evolution is true etc. i have the suspicion that they are using arguments that atheists have posted on this forum but taking it out of context and using it for religious purposes. notice before, when they did not know what angles to use, they were all pretending to be non-religious yadda yadda. when they think they can, their true colors show and they are indeed very religious. i even respect theists like jan ardena more as they are more upfront about their beliefs and aren't as deceptive.
anyways, the only people who have problems with evolution are those who think humans were literally created by their god and not evolved from lower lifeforms.
i seem very harsh and unfair to theists but it's because i know how they are and all their games. most people here don't know just how full of bs they really are.
they will always use the 'be fair to us' guilt tactic which not giving credence to someone else's delusions as well as mental laziness is tantamount to bigotry. lol
Really nothing new at all.
now they are using the 'empirical evidence' angle yet it's misapplied.
Once again - Ring Species - look into it.
i did acknowledge it, and the subsequent stasis, and said that there has been no fossil evidence of this tree of life that darwin suggests exists in relation to it and it's ancestry.
every organism has 16s rna. there is also dna and homology.
it's really pathetic how theists will overlook the more realistic to support their religous beliefs.
it's the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty.
oh lookee! the theists have something else up their sleeve. "let's demand this evidence. where is this missing link or relative? i want to touch it"
why shouldn't this work? they demand to see god, right?
yipee! we don't have to pretend to be moderate theists no longer or pretend we aren't religious or that evolution is okay with us etc!!!
we can stop with the act now!
why shouldn't this work? they demand to see god, right?
yipee! we don't have to pretend to be moderate theists no longer or pretend we aren't religious or that evolution is okay with us etc!!!
we can stop with the act now!
so what? so what if i share 90 something percent of my dna with a fruit fly or some ape? that doesn't explain the vast difference between me and a fruit fly, and it does not explain why fruit flies or i exist.
oh lookee! the theists have something else up their sleeve. "let's demand this evidence. where is this missing link or relative? i want to touch it"
why shouldn't this work? they demand to see god, right?
yipee! we don't have to pretend to be moderate theists no longer or pretend we aren't religious or that evolution is okay with us etc!!!
we can stop with the act now!
oh i see, all of a sudden evidence doesn't matter right?
there is something seriously wrong with you.
birch....
apperantly you only read what you want to read..then you make fun of any legit questions..
you take a vague question (missing link) and amplify it to say what you want it to say..
how scientific is that? if you are scientific, you would confirm that you heard the question the way it was intended, before going off on a tangent.
i did not say i did not believe in evolution..i even said something to the effect that i believe it to be true AND insinuated that god could have played a part in it..and did you read the links?
AND i have posted several times what i thought of the adam and eve story..
and still you keep trying to pidgeon hole me..(although i will admit you are getting better at not coming directly out and accusing me..)
you (no-one) did not answer my specific questions..
let me ask again..
i will withdraw my missing link question..
(it wasn't a demand..it was an actual question as i haven't actually studied evolution since i was in high school,then it was taught with missing link..)
i was going back to cut and paste my questions when i found that kenny had posted in response to that question..
my cookies are not doing the unread posts right..i keep finding posts that i have not read marked as read...:shrug:
so if it appears that i am ignoring a post, it is probably cause it was marked as read when i haven't actually read it..
let me spell it out for you birch..if you do not want me to reply to your anti-theist post, when you use the word theist/believer or any similiar label, be sure to use the word most or some before it..(although i would pry pipe in with the word 'most',but not as bad as when you intone 'all'..
this is not personal advice, this is good debate advice..
IE
Use many rather than most.
Avoid exaggeration.
Use some rather than many.
you seem to have a good head on your shoulders and are capable of expressing your thoughts effectively, don't fall into the same trap as many users here by letting your emotional state of being distract from your point.
apperantly you only read what you want to read..then you make fun of any legit questions..
you take a vague question (missing link) and amplify it to say what you want it to say..
how scientific is that? if you are scientific, you would confirm that you heard the question the way it was intended, before going off on a tangent.
i did not say i did not believe in evolution..i even said something to the effect that i believe it to be true AND insinuated that god could have played a part in it..and did you read the links?
AND i have posted several times what i thought of the adam and eve story..
and still you keep trying to pidgeon hole me..(although i will admit you are getting better at not coming directly out and accusing me..)
you (no-one) did not answer my specific questions..
let me ask again..
i will withdraw my missing link question..
(it wasn't a demand..it was an actual question as i haven't actually studied evolution since i was in high school,then it was taught with missing link..)
i was going back to cut and paste my questions when i found that kenny had posted in response to that question..
my cookies are not doing the unread posts right..i keep finding posts that i have not read marked as read...:shrug:
so if it appears that i am ignoring a post, it is probably cause it was marked as read when i haven't actually read it..
let me spell it out for you birch..if you do not want me to reply to your anti-theist post, when you use the word theist/believer or any similiar label, be sure to use the word most or some before it..(although i would pry pipe in with the word 'most',but not as bad as when you intone 'all'..
this is not personal advice, this is good debate advice..
IE
Use many rather than most.
Avoid exaggeration.
Use some rather than many.
you seem to have a good head on your shoulders and are capable of expressing your thoughts effectively, don't fall into the same trap as many users here by letting your emotional state of being distract from your point.
Lori_7:
That's complete nonsense, Lori. To pick an example completely at random, about two days ago I watched a documentary about London's Natural History Museum. It contains acres and acres of preserved animals and fossils. One part of the doco talked about and showed specific birds that Charles Darwin had collected in the Galapagos and elsewhere. Have you heard of Darwin's finches? Different species come from different islands. Just looking at them, you can see subtle differences.
Is it your claim that these different species were all separately created by God?
This sounds a lot like a cut-and-paste from a creationist site.
This is another common creationist ploy. Ask for the "missing link" between two fossils A and B. When an intermediate fossil C is found, then you say not that the problem is solved, but now there are TWO "missing links" between A and C, and betweem C and B.
Plenty of "missing links" have been found. It is just that creationists refuse to consider the obvious fact that these are links.
That's complete nonsense, Lori. To pick an example completely at random, about two days ago I watched a documentary about London's Natural History Museum. It contains acres and acres of preserved animals and fossils. One part of the doco talked about and showed specific birds that Charles Darwin had collected in the Galapagos and elsewhere. Have you heard of Darwin's finches? Different species come from different islands. Just looking at them, you can see subtle differences.
Is it your claim that these different species were all separately created by God?
This sounds a lot like a cut-and-paste from a creationist site.
This is another common creationist ploy. Ask for the "missing link" between two fossils A and B. When an intermediate fossil C is found, then you say not that the problem is solved, but now there are TWO "missing links" between A and C, and betweem C and B.
Plenty of "missing links" have been found. It is just that creationists refuse to consider the obvious fact that these are links.
the catholic church supposedly does.
i think what religion does is concede when it appears that the evidence is really overwhelming, not because of a love of truth.
these hypocrities like lori and msquirrel have been putting on an act that they were not religious, that they didn't take the bible literally, even going so far as saying that they don't care about morality but "laws of nature" etc and being as evasive with biblical matters almost never quoting from them.
it is all an act they put and is used for evasion. when the dust clears and they can reassert what they really believe, they may start slipping that in a different thread and it starts all over again. it's religious deception.
of course it doesn't explain why because there is no why. we just exist there no reason for it we just came into being