Missing Links

AV1611VET said:

Take two numbers: call one ONE, and the other TEN.

1.........10

Those two numbers have 8 missing links between them.

Now let's say 5 is found.

Now you have 1...5....10.

What have you done?

Nothing.

You found a 5. Wow.

In the meantime, some people go around saying, "There's no such thing as missing links."

Click to expand...

Between any two numbers are an infinite number of numbers.

Science could find 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and creationists will still demand 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, and 9.5.

There will never be enough evidence to satisfy a creationist.

MIDutch said:

Science could find 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and creationists will still demand 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, and 9.5.

There will never be enough evidence to satisfy a creationist.

Click to expand...

That's the game!

AV1611VET said:

Those two numbers have 8 missing links between them.

Click to expand...

As @Oneiric1975 Pointed out, this statement is incorrect.

It also has the assumptions that there are only numbers between the beginning and ending and that there are "8". How do you know?

Have you done this sort of thread before, because I'm having a case of deja vu of you saying pretty much the exact same thing.

AV1611VET said:

Take two numbers: call one ONE, and the other TEN.

1.........10

Those two numbers have 8 missing links between them.

Now let's say 5 is found.

Now you have 1...5....10.

What have you done?

Nothing.

You found a 5. Wow.

In the meantime, some people go around saying, "There's no such thing as missing links."

Click to expand...

Missing links vs the ToE is not a thing.

AV1611VET said:

Are you thinking of this?

Post 757

Click to expand...

No, I'm certain, if not you, then at least someone has made this near enough exact argument before.
It seems familiar.

AV1611VET said:

This?

My Connect The Dots Challenge

Click to expand...

Nah, forget it. Must have been someone else, not you.

AV1611VET said:

Air Po started that thread, not I.

Click to expand...

It wasn't the connect the dots one. As I said, I'm sure that I've seen someone make the exact same argument that you've made.

AV1611VET said:

Take two numbers: call one ONE, and the other TEN.

1.........10

Those two numbers have 8 missing links between them.

Now let's say 5 is found.

Now you have 1...5....10.

What have you done?

Nothing.

You found a 5. Wow.

In the meantime, some people go around saying, "There's no such thing as missing links."

Click to expand...

But finding 859, that would be crazy, right?

AV1611VET said:

Take two numbers: call one ONE, and the other TEN.

1.........10

Those two numbers have 8 missing links between them.

Now let's say 5 is found.

Now you have 1...5....10.

What have you done?

Nothing.

You found a 5. Wow.

In the meantime, some people go around saying, "There's no such thing as missing links."

Click to expand...

To be clear - is your argument that there are 8 missing links which just haven't been found or that there are no missing links? If the former then your argument is pointless. If the latter then you just contradicted yourself.

AV1611VET said:

I was told by someone (can't remember who) that there were NO missing links, and s/he didn't seem to understand what I was talking about.

Thus this thread.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question.

AV1611VET said:

I was told by someone (can't remember who) that there were NO missing links, and s/he didn't seem to understand what I was talking about.

Thus this thread.

Click to expand...

That might have been me, but if it was I didn't mean to imply that there were no missing links, only that it is inappropriate to use it as scientific term which it is not what you are doing.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

No, I'm certain, if not you, then at least someone has made this near enough exact argument before.
It seems familiar.

Click to expand...

Creationists have a habit of recycling the same argument multiple times. They'll start a thread about it, get shown how wrong they are, lay low for a while, then drag it back out as if it's a brand new "irrefutable" argument.

Or, alternatively, his is the sort of disengenuous argument you get on any number of creationism threads and boards. If you've ever been on any other creationism vs science "debate" board, you've probably come up against something very similar.