Fossil Called Missing Link

[xdisciplex]

When somebody says evolution is proven and a fact he makes a clown out of himself, this is simply not true and ridiculous. I think you evolutions should get your facts straight not even your gurus believe that it's a fact....
lol!

 

[Petrel]

Actually pretty much everybody thinks it's fairly accurate (i.e. factual), but no one says it's proven because science just doesn't do that.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Wow! What a hostile forum. Is this how you talk to all your fellow Christians."

Sorry if you were offended by my response. I fail to see where I made an error but I did not set out to offend you. You made a statement and asked for comments. So I commented.

I still would like to know specifically just how you think that the scientists involded "duped" anyone. Others have come in here and doubted this find but so far none have been able to actual provide any facts to dent it was challenged. I thought you might be different.

And I would really like to know, if this is not a transitional, why it is that extant lobe finned fish are genetically more similar to tetrapods than to other fish. Evolution predicts that this should be true. It is. Why would this be true in your paradigm and how would we test it?

"So what you are saying then is that all these examples show that one species transformed into another species?"

Even better.

One class evolving into a new class.

"So in demonstrating this you hope to prove? what? That man was once an ape?"

Man IS an ape.

The effort is to promote the truth against the harm done by YECism.

 

[UTEOTW]

"When somebody says evolution is proven and a fact he makes a clown out of himself, this is simply not true and ridiculous."

Another personal attack? "Clowns?"

As Petrel said, science is not about "proofs." That is for math. But evolution is considered to be fact by scientists. There is both the fact of evolution and the theory that attempts to explain how it happened.

Now since you called us "clowns," I will offer my opinion about YEers. I think most simply have not looked too in depth at the issue. Others have, but only from YE sources and they lack the background to judge the validity of the claims being made. These I think are simply honest but deluded. I think that this category includes almost all YEers.

However, I think there exist at the top of YEism, in some of the leaders, a group of down right dishonest YEers. It was exposure to this group, such as the guys at places like AIG and ICR, that changed my opinion from YE to what it is today. In my opinion, too many of their claims seemed to be based on false premises in which they should have known better. (Like the claims of Dr. Menton on the last page.) It is entirely possible that some or all of these guys are also deluded, but some cases just seem to be to be more likely to be a lack of honesty.

"I think you evolutions should get your facts straight not even your gurus believe that it's a fact...."

What? I am not sure what you are talking about.

Here is one example.

"Evolution as Fact and Theory" by Stephen Jay Gould.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

"lol!"

Laugh as much as you like. No one has yet presented a factual reason why we should not consider Tiktaalik roseae to be anything other than what its discovers claim it to be. And we are on page 9. There have been lots of opportunities.

And I will extend the same invitation os Petrel. If evolution is so easily discredited, come join the hidden science forum.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/66.html?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by xdisciplex:
When somebody says evolution is proven and a fact he makes a clown out of himself, this is simply not true and ridiculous. I think you evolutions should get your facts straight not even your gurus believe that it's a fact....
lol!

Actually the high priests of evolutionism often do claim that it is a fact.

The problem is that their own atheist brethren will then confess to gaps/flaws/blunders in that religion we know today as "evolutionism" admitting to its pseudo-science methods.

Isaac Asimov will admit that it "NEEDS" a massive decrease in entropy to tell its story EVEN though no such thing is seen in the lab!!

Colin Patterson will admit that the stories told about transitional sequences are merely "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science".

A number of the atheist and agnostic evoltionist far surpass any posting here in their willingness to admit to the outright fraudulent and contrived artifact of the horse series.

As for those devotees to evolutionism that post here - EVEN THEY have been coaxed into admiting that the "blind story telling" of abiogenesis would need us to "make up" entirely new laws of physics and biochemistry than what we see in the lab!!

So "yeah" there are some problems with their "story telling".

Even worse - as has been pointed out repeatedly on this board - their story telling is designed to destroy the Gospel itself though they like to "pretend" that you really CAN slice up the bible between reliable and false -- and keep the Gospel isolated from all the parts you delcare to be false!

Even their own atheist evolutionist brethren see the fallacy of such leaps of faith -- so it is not just Christians that denounce that self-conflicted illogical model!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Petrel]

Lately I feel like saying "Whee!" a lot. Wheee!!

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Actually the high priests of evolutionism often do claim that it is a fact.

Read UTEOTW and my posts before you start thinking this is a problem.

The problem is that their own atheist brethren will then confess to gaps/flaws/blunders in that religion we know today as "evolutionism" admitting to its pseudo-science methods.

Yawn. Quantum mechanics is incomplete, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Science will continue to build on the theory of evolution as we learn more about how the world works.

Isaac Asimov will admit that it "NEEDS" a massive decrease in entropy to tell its story EVEN though no such thing is seen in the lab!!

Source in context, please. Additionally the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't prevent evolution.

Colin Patterson will admit that the stories told about transitional sequences are merely "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science".

Depends which one we're talking about. Source in context, please.

A number of the atheist and agnostic evoltionist far surpass any posting here in their willingness to admit to the outright fraudulent and contrived artifact of the horse series.

Several posters more patient than I went around and around trying to pound this into your head. I think we need a bigger hammer.

As for those devotees to evolutionism that post here - EVEN THEY have been coaxed into admiting that the "blind story telling" of abiogenesis would need us to "make up" entirely new laws of physics and biochemistry than what we see in the lab!!

No we don't.

Even worse - as has been pointed out repeatedly on this board - their story telling is designed to destroy the Gospel itself though they like to "pretend" that you really CAN slice up the bible between reliable and false -- and keep the Gospel isolated from all the parts you delcare to be false!

In your opinion.

Even their own atheist evolutionist brethren see the fallacy of such leaps of faith -- so it is not just Christians that denounce that self-conflicted illogical model!

Some disagree, some don't, and I don't see what influence anyone's opinion should have regarding this anyways.

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob, it is amazing to what ends you will go to obfuscate and ignore the subject.

You claimed that Panderichthys has been "discredited." When are you going to ever support that assertion?

You also gave that big quote from Dr. Menton. When serious flaws were pointed out in every single sentence of what you posted, you gave a personal attack and listed his credintials. To which I asked

In your last post, you pointed out to us that DR. Menton, who wrote the AIG bit you are quoting from, was once Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. (I think you left out the part about this being in the past. No biggie.) A very prestigious school.

But, as has been shown, he made a major error in his statement about the anatomy of the tetrapod shoulder. Now I am not trying to set up a false dilemma. Perhaps you see a third way. But I only see two choices. Can you tell me which you think is true?

In the first case, Dr. Menton made a major error in anatomy. It happens. But, when making such a profound error in an area of gross anatomy by an anatomy professor, it may cause one to cast doubt upon the rest of what he had to say.

The second possibility that I see is that this was a deliberate error. That is that he set out to deceive in the cause of making a point. In this case, we should not just question the rest of what he said, we should totatlly disregard it.

Which do you see as most likely?

And finally, I asked you to explain to us why extant lobe finned fishes are more closely related to tetrapods than to other fish. This is just what evolution predicts that we should find. It seems to defy logic why this would be so in your paradigm. Care to give it a try?

Ignoring questions and trying to distract from the subject are the traits of a position that is bankrupt.

 

[UTEOTW]

"The problem is that their own atheist brethren will then confess to gaps/flaws/blunders in that religion we know today as "evolutionism" admitting to its pseudo-science methods."

So far, the only way you have been to point out "flaws" and "blunders" has been to dishonestly take statements out of context. The problem you alledge always seems to go away when placed in context.

"Isaac Asimov will admit that it "NEEDS" a massive decrease in entropy to tell its story EVEN though no such thing is seen in the lab!!
"

Excellent example! In the quote mining you do of Asimov, you always seem to leave out the part where he tells you exactly why this is not a problem and how nature gets around the strawman problem you are building.

"Colin Patterson will admit that the stories told about transitional sequences are merely "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science"."

Another excellent example. Again, you have been shown the context where Patterson states explicitly that what he means is that you can never tell for sure whether a given fossil is directly ancestral to another organism or is instead on a closely related side branch. You have even been shown his strong remarks condemming those, such as yourself, who would take his words out of context to try and make a point with which he disagrees.

But even when the source of your quotes say that you are using them dishonestly, you refuse to man up, admit error and to quit violating the commandment against bearing false witness.

 

[Nonsequitur]

UTEOTW on 4-18-06 said, "Man IS an ape."

1 Cor. 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

 

[UTEOTW]

So where do you draw the line?

Do you deny that we are apes?

Do you deny that we are primates?

Do you deny that we are placental mammals?

Do you deny that we are tetrapods?

Do you deny that we are vertebrates?

Do you deny that we are animals?

Do you deny that we a eucaryotes?

Do you deny that we are alive?

Just which of these will you accept and which of these do you deny? Where do you draw the line? What logic do you use to draw the line?

Do you think that perhaps that scripture was speaking of something with a more spiritural meaning than taxonomy? I think so and that you have taken the verse out of context. BUt I am used to such.