My Missing Links Challenge

[AV1611VET]

I submit missing links as strong evidence that macroevolution can take a hike.

Since macroevolution depends on the belief that any gaps in the fossil record should be assumed to have been filled in at one time in the past, it demonstrates a "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

And that is the Biblical definition of "faith."

And since faith is not a part of the scientific equation, I submit that science -- by definition -- should rule out macroevolution.

What say you?

 

[friend of]

Yeah there does seem to be a lack of transitional species missing from the fossil records

 

[Occams Barber]

I submit missing links as strong evidence that macroevolution can take a hike.

Since macroevolution depends on the belief that any gaps in the fossil record should be assumed to have been filled in at one time in the past, it demonstrates a "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

And that is the Biblical definition of "faith."

And since faith is not a part of the scientific equation, I submit that science -- by definition -- should rule out macroevolution.

What say you?

Come on AV!

It's only old fossils like you who are still rabbiting on about "Missing Links". Get with the program AV. It ain't the Victorian era.

These days it's all about genetics, DNA, RNA, alleles, chromosomes, Endogenous Retro Virus' etc., etc.

This link might help you to catch up. (Careful - contains actual knowledge)

Videos • Stated Clearly

Our animations clarify scientific topics so everyone can understand. Great for use in the classroom and for learning on your own.

www.statedclearly.com

OB

 

[Ophiolite]

I submit missing links as strong evidence that macroevolution can take a hike.

Since macroevolution depends on the belief that any gaps in the fossil record should be assumed to have been filled in at one time in the past, it demonstrates a "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

And that is the Biblical definition of "faith."

And since faith is not a part of the scientific equation, I submit that science -- by definition -- should rule out macroevolution.

What say you?

Your foolish, antiquated, ill-informed, juvenile assertion is dismissed with a single word: Tiktaalik.

 

[AV1611VET]

Come on AV!

It's only old fossils like you who are still rabbiting on about "Missing Links". Get with the program AV. It ain't the Victorian era.

-- Hey, cut me some slack! I just turned 70 back in May!

These days it's all about genetics, DNA, RNA, alleles, chromosomes, Endogenous Retro Virus' etc., etc.

Then that's even more missing links, isn't it?

From fossils, down to DNA, that's about what now? a jillion missing links?

For the record, did you see my snowman challenge thread?

My Snowman Challenge II

 

[AV1611VET]

Your foolish, antiquated, ill-informed, juvenile assertion is dismissed with a single word: Tiktaalik.

I addressed Tiktaalik: HERE

 

[Occams Barber]

-- Hey, cut me some slack! I just turned 70 back in May!

I turned 76 in July - I win.

From fossils, down to DNA, that's about what now? a jillion missing links?

I'm waiting for your "Endogenous Retro Virus Challenge"

For the record, did you see my snowman challenge thread?

Fortunately, I missed that one.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

I turned 76 in July - I win.

So you do! So you do!

I'm waiting for your "Endogenous Retro Virus Challenge"

HERE

Fortunately, I missed that one.

Who's the dinosaur now?

 

[Laodicean60]

-- Hey, cut me some slack! I just turned 70 back in May!

I turned 76 in July - I win.

I guess this is an old-people thing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I submit missing links as strong evidence that macroevolution can take a hike.

Since macroevolution depends on the belief that any gaps in the fossil record should be assumed to have been filled in at one time in the past, it demonstrates a "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

And that is the Biblical definition of "faith."

And since faith is not a part of the scientific equation, I submit that science -- by definition -- should rule out macroevolution.

What say you?

I say you're wrong.

 

[MorningDance13]

I submit missing links as strong evidence that macroevolution can take a hike.

Since macroevolution depends on the belief that any gaps in the fossil record should be assumed to have been filled in at one time in the past, it demonstrates a "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

And that is the Biblical definition of "faith."

And since faith is not a part of the scientific equation, I submit that science -- by definition -- should rule out macroevolution.

What say you?

For the most part I agree with and like what you had to say.
The only thing I would change is instead of using the word macroevolution I would just use the word evolution.
Because what most people usually call microevolution is not any type of evolution at all but rather adaptation within a 'kind'.
I think and have seen that there is less confusion when creationists do not mistakenly blur the lines by saying that some types of evolution have happened and other types of evolution haven't happened.
Because the truth of the fact is that no type of evolution has ever happened, is happening or will ever happen.
One kind never becomes another kind.

 

[Lost4words]

We didnt evolve, no. There is and always has been, the Corgi!!!! I can trace us right back to the Ark! I have the original boarding passes!!!!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We didnt evolve, no. There is and always has been, the Corgi!!!! I can trace us right back to the Ark! I have the original boarding passes!!!!

The joke's getting real stale now.

 

[Astrophile]

I submit missing links as strong evidence that macroevolution can take a hike.

Since macroevolution depends on the belief that any gaps in the fossil record should be assumed to have been filled in at one time in the past, it demonstrates a "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

And that is the Biblical definition of "faith."

And since faith is not a part of the scientific equation, I submit that science -- by definition -- should rule out macroevolution.

What say you?

Do you think that you are descended from ancestors who lived at the time of Aristotle (384-322 BCE)?
Can you name all of them?
If not, there are missing links in your ancestry between the time of Aristotle.
Therefore it is a matter of faith that you had ancestors who lived at the time of Aristotle.
Since faith is not a part of the scientific equation, science rules out the possibility that you are descended from people who lived in Aristotle's time.

 

[Lost4words]

The joke's getting real stale now.

Its not a joke!! Its real!!

 

[Ophiolite]

For the most part I agree with and like what you had to say.
The only thing I would change is instead of using the word macroevolution I would just use the word evolution.
Because what most people usually call microevolution is not any type of evolution at all but rather adaptation within a 'kind'.
I think and have seen that there is less confusion when creationists do not mistakenly blur the lines by saying that some types of evolution have happened and other types of evolution haven't happened.
Because the truth of the fact is that no type of evolution has ever happened, is happening or will ever happen.
One kind never becomes another kind.

The study of evolution is a scientific study. The nomenclature of that study is determined by the experts in the field. You do not appear to be such an expert, therefore your attempts to mess with definitions is irrelevant and presumptuious.

 

[AV1611VET]

I say you're wrong.

You're entitled to.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're entitled to.

You can't even prove how missing links are a problem. Just saying they are does not make them a problem.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I submit missing links as strong evidence that macroevolution can take a hike.

Since macroevolution depends on the belief that any gaps in the fossil record should be assumed to have been filled in at one time in the past, it demonstrates a "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

And that is the Biblical definition of "faith."

And since faith is not a part of the scientific equation, I submit that science -- by definition -- should rule out macroevolution.

What say you?

I don't mean to sabotage this thread, but let's face the fact that the entire book of Hebrews really DOES present that Christian faith has a component of evidence as a part of its cognitive structure, despite the lousy ways that people read a mere one or two verses in the 11th chapter.

And it is a fact. People just need to do their homework better when reading Hebrews.

As for one identifiable form of "missing links," a person like myself can affirm Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge's interpretation of "Punctuated Equilibrium" and still believe that the Theory of Evolution is a viable scientific explanation of nature.

What I don't believe is that the Theory of Evolution explains "everything." It doesn't. And so, I have less problem bringing in the prophetic explanations in the Bible to further inform my outlook in life.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only thing I would change is instead of using the word macroevolution I would just use the word evolution.

Good point.

But I use the two terms (micro & macro) to differentiate between changes within kinds and changes of kinds.

Changes WITHIN kinds is nothing more than adaptation.

Changes OF kinds is baloney.