Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
A link in a chain is always something in the middle linking one end of a chain to the other. But since scientists don't know who the common ancestor is, then they only have one end of the chain, namely, humans, not both. So until they know who the common ancestor is, they can't possibly know what the links of the chain lead to on the other end!
Thus, they find any bones they want to and claim it's the missing link. the latest "missing link" looks more like a lizard than a human. So are they now claiming that a giant lizard was the common ancestor? Or, since they don't know who the common ancestor is, because he's as imaginary as each individual imagination then they can claim that the bones of any animal is the common ancestor? Or can they just plain claim anything they want to since the world believes they're infallible gods because they have degrees? I suspect it's the latter.
Hold on... ridiculous overuse of smilies... weird fixation on the idea that there is ONE common ancestor... Carico, is that you?
Hold on... ridiculous overuse of smilies... weird fixation on the idea that there is ONE common ancestor... Carico, is that you?
Considering that no one can even describe any common ancestor, then of course, they can't know how many there were. One simply has to indulge in fantasy to figure that one out. Since I live in reality, not in my imagination, then I'll leave fantasy to science fiction writers.
the latest "missing link" looks more like a lizard than a human. 
Or, since they don't know who the common ancestor is, because he's as imaginary as each individual imagination then they can claim that the bones of any animal is the common ancestor?
Or can they just plain claim anything they want to since the world believes they're infallible gods because they have degrees? I suspect it's the latter. 
Linear Mode
