Fossil Called Missing Link

"Everything fits in the wonderful world of circular logic. Things that do not fit are not included in the data base. That does not make it so."

Then how did they use a useless set of data to find exactly what they were looking for? Your assertion makes no sense in the light of a demonstrated use of dating.

The new fossil was found specifically because the scientists knew exactly where to look based on dating.

"I believe the bible. I believe evolution. One of these statements is not true."

False dichotomy.

Plenty of people believe both.

It may be true for you, but not everyone feels the need to deny the truth.

 

You may believe parts of the bible, when they agree with what you think your eye is telling you.

 

So they found a fossil, big whoop tee do. Whatever it is, God created it. Frankly, I know that the Biblical account of creation is 100% accurate. That is as far as I care about it. The apparant conflict between dating, different species, etc with the Bible, who cares? God with Christ created all that there is. How they did it or what time They took is their business. Its my business through faith to believe the Word of God and that includes every word of Genesis.

 

UTEOTW,

Stop it, man...your killing me!!




Stop it, PLEASE!...

Mike

 

Ok now, who will fill in for Petrel? You can't have a tag team match without at least two.....

 

Laugh all you want... No one yet has provided any actual criticism of this find nor the whole tetrapod evolution subject of this thread.

YEers like to ignore the evidence. Did anyone actually read the Scientific American article I linked? Come on guys, this stuff is not radioactive. It won't hurt to get a little on you. Though if you get enough of it on you, you might just end up like me with a changed mind. (Yes, I was once as you are.) Did anyone read the Nature link I provided? Are you just content to assume that it is all wrong without ever exposing yourself to it? (Of course that is dangerous to people like you. Polls consistently show that those who know more about it are the ones most likely to accept evolution.) Did any of you even read every word of the two abstracts from Nature that I put directly into the first page of the thread?

 

They have to be careful, they might catch the evo.

I too was a young earth creationist, but the more I learn about this, the more I'm convinced that the theory of evolution is correct.

Stop it, man...your killing me!!

</font>[/QUOTE]What's your profession? Typically those who are emphatically certain that the theory of evolution is unscientific are those who have spent the least time looking at the evidence.

 

It's really sad that this belief could engender such a disinterest in God's creation.

 

My translation: "God made it. It bores me."

 

"No I didn't read it...It only takes several minuets to read Genesis 1 and then know that God created everything. "

Who is doubting that God created?

The overwhelming evidence, however, from the Creation itself is that He used evolution as His means to create the diversity of life on this planet.

This is the truth and trying to insulate yourself from that will not change the facts.

It, too, only takes a few minutes to go read an account of the steps we followed in discovering just how it is that God created land dwelling animals from fish. It is an amazing process and you cannot even bring yourself to spend a few minutes reading about it. Afraid that real science (as opposed to the pseudoscience and lies fostered upon you by YE leaders) might rub off if you were exposed to it?

Here is the link again.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000DC8B8-EA15-137C-AA1583414B7F0000

I must agree with the above post that such unfounded beliefs as we see exposed here will cause people to bury their heads and not even want to learn about some of the most wonderous aspects of creation.

And there are still not any fact based reasons given to oppose this new find nor the general tetrapod evolution evidence.

 

It's really sad that this belief could engender such a disinterest in God's creation. </font>[/QUOTE]No, what is sad is the fact that you really have no idea about timing, evolution, and other details of creation. All the information you base your supposed theories is from men, men who went to college like the rest of us, men who are falliable, men who look at things from a secular viewpoint, and publish their works in a secular magazine or study of some type, MEN, who were created by the Almighty God who by the way, in case you forgot, created the universe and wrote Genesis.

So let me get this straight, your thesis, and conclusion about how the Creation was accomplished is based on men who were created by God, men whose minds thought up this stuff owe any intellectual knowledge to God, and have for the most part chosen to ignore spiritual principles.

You see, we were not there at creation. You do not even know if time existed as it does now. You do not know if the Creation was accomplished in the framework of three diminsions as we have now. You are relying on falliable man in the context of the physics rules of today as "we" have discovered them. So, you give these people enough credibility to feel obligated to blend their insane theories with the Bible and produce a new document of some kind.

As I said in the other post, they found a fossil, big whoop tee do.

 

People who sit around and smoke weed all day are more likely to be stoned. What does that prove?

 

Oh... not unlike the clear evidence for design that neo-Darwinists are trying to keep out of schools? Maybe more like the evidence that contradicts evolution that you guys are insistent about not allowing school children to see?

What an incredibly hypocritical case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Same could be said to you regarding Genesis. Read it with the faith you give to these musings of philosophical naturalists/materialists... and you more than likely will change your mind.

And several of us were as you are once.

I am late to this conversation so I haven't looked at it... but "assume" is an interesting charge for an evolutionist to throw at a creationist. Without looking, I can say with virtual certainty that the explanation given "assumes" naturalism is true and supernaturalism is not.

Not to dissimilar from a hypothetical poll of the Hitler youth pointing to those who knew the most about it being the most faithful adherents.

Michael Behe and several others who have begun to question evolution answer this objection of yours very well. They accepted evolution because for their whole academic careers it was taught to them as the only valid scientific position. IOW's, their heart's desire was to be a scientist and their teachers taught them that to be a scientist you must accept evolution.

Indoctrination is an incredibly powerful thing... especially when the teacher is wholly indoctrinated themselves and possesses unquestioning faith in what they are teaching.

This is apparent in the current political debate over evolution. Most of the real issues aren't about whether creationism or ID should be taught in school. Most of the debate centers around whether evolution can be taught critically or not. It is noteworthy that evolutionists are adamently opposed to the academic freedom of teachers to present the weaknesses of evolution rather than just its assumed truths.

 

P.S.- SaturnNeptune... I changed my mind.

 

Hello Scott how are you doing. Not sure I understand. You changed your mind about what? I think we agree on this, you have a better understanding of the pros of creation and weaknesses of evolution.