Missing link was a lie

[dad]

Seems like I was right.

Heck, not only are you right, you haven't even stated a position here. Can you prove that evolving was the same in the past, yea or nay? The answer is...nay. Nothing else matters here.

 

[Tomatoman]

dad:

Heck, not only are you right, you haven't even stated a position here. Can you prove that evolving was the same in the past, yea or nay? The answer is...nay. Nothing else matters here.

You've missed my point, unsurprisingly.

You don't understand evolution. You've proved it. This means you're not qualified to criticise it. Therefore anything you have to say on the subject is worthless.

 

[Split Rock]

Heck, not only are you right, you haven't even stated a position here. Can you prove that evolving was the same in the past, yea or nay? The answer is...nay. Nothing else matters here.

There you go again, asking us to prove a negative. You have to prove that evolving was different in the past. What predictions can you make that can be tested if "evolving was different?" How was it different? All you have is your warped, fallible interpretation of scripture and nothing else. Keep shouting at the rain, in your lonely little Church of One, dad. The rest of us will stick with reality.

 

[Split Rock]

Nope. You do not know what you are talking about. Illustrate for us here where I went wrong... Lurkers, well...you know

LOL! Do you really think you have the lurkers on your side, dad? Do you think they will join your lonely Church of One? Has anyone ever joined your Church of One?

 

[brinny]

Well, some may be surprised.

"A fossil that was celebrated last year as a possible "missing link" between humans and early primates is actually a forebearer of modern-day lemurs and lorises, according to two papers by scientists at The University of Texas at Austin, Duke University and the University of Chicago."
'Missing link' fossil was not human ancestor as claimed, anthropologists say

Ho hum. Kids, Isn't it time to not believe a lying word these dreamers say to begin with?

you got that right. Thanks for starting this thread.

 

[Split Rock]

you got that right. Thanks for starting this thread.

Please tell us your definition of "Lie," then brinny. Because mine doesn't seem to fit the O.P. Also, you do realize all the scientists who are critisizing the conclusions of those who found and identified Ida still view it as a missing link, just not one leading to humans... right?

 

[plindboe]

Tweedleydee and tweedlydum, more like it. Of course a house divided against itself cannot stand. But it's fun watching them shoot each other in the foot.

If it's a conspiracy controlled by some evil super entity, surely disagreements wouldn't happen, be encouraged and wouldn't be public and so vocal. Your OP is evidence against your own conspiracy theory.

No reason in science, no, they are deaf dumb and blind to anything but the present. Of course the bible and history are fantastic reasons to accept the obvious, that the past was sure not like now. Also...remember, If there's no reason (i.e. evidence) to indicate that laws were the same, there's no reason to assume they were

One can assume any state, including a same state and the same thing applies. So science is gutted. Useless in this matter. Yet it assumes a certain state, and fabricates all thing from there.

Assuming that additional unevidenced hypotheses shouldn't be taken into account is the default position, until we have any substantial reason to include them. You wouldn't be able to live a normal life if you applied your reasoning to everything as you'd have to be an agnostic about everything. You'd be paralyzed if you constantly had to disprove any imaginary, unevidenced hypothesis before any action could be taken.

Science is supposed to be something more than that. To be reduced to faith based arguments for it, is a death knell. Not for bible believers.

Again, you're not answering my queries. Let me keep it simple:

1.Why is faith bad?
2.Why do you think faith is bad, considering that you're a man of faith?

Nope. It was to highlight a claim made that a fossil was a missing link with man. Now they are exposed as wrong.

No, you've exposed a disagreement. I don't take these scientists words as gospel. You constantly argue as if you do, and then turn around and say that you don't trust them at all. You're either being inconsistant, or you're communicating very poorly.

Peter

 

[brinny]

Please tell us your definition of "Lie," then brinny. Because mine doesn't seem to fit the O.P. Also, you do realize all the scientists who are critisizing the conclusions of those who found and identified Ida still view it as a missing link, just not one leading to humans... right?

sorry, but dad's got all o' ya's beat

 

[YoungEarthAstronomer]

I accept that evolution happened in spades, in a different state past, and was a created trait. The only real issue I have with 'evolution' is godless evolution over long ages, that has no known starting point, and is a complete satanic fabrication.

I don't fully understand what you mean by this. Do you believe animals have changed (mutated, evolved) in their phenotype?

 

[YoungEarthAstronomer]

Is that why the "doubter" lists all have the same names on them that never change over time?

2009/2010 polls have proven the vast majority of people want other theories alongside the theory of evolution to be taught in schools. The average person on the street accepts evolution as a theory, nothing more, they don't accept it as fact.

The fact remains, support for creationism/ID is increasing, while evolution is losing it's support. The reason is simple: there is no evidence for the theory of evolution, and more people are beginning to question it, doing so they stumble across creationism.

Really? Since I don't, I guess that must mean you are the one embrasing a lie. Correct?

My statement was based from what i've personally encountered. At my university, for a fact i know most biologists there were closet creationists. People only go along with evolution on show, because they know if they question it in public they would become ridiculed. Deep down, evolutionists know their theory is nonsense, as i said evolutionists are closet creationists. Sometimes evolutionists are more deeper fooled by their own delusions, so it's harder to pull them out of evolution and get them to admit/embrace creationism.

You claim you used to be a science researcher. May I ask what research you took part in?

I studied taxonomy, and wrote a paper on Baraminology.

 

[plindboe]

you got that right. Thanks for starting this thread.

Perhaps you can help explain the reasoning then, as dad has been unable to.

1.Why does a disagreement mean that everyone is wrong?
2.Scientists in all fields disagree all the time. Does that mean all of science is wrong?
3.Does being wrong mean one is lying?

Peter

 

[Split Rock]

sorry, but dad's got all o' ya's beat

LOL! Maybe you can be the first to join dad's Church of One. It would be a first for him, after years of posting here and in other forums.

If you believe in the following, you can join Dad's Lonely Church of One:
1. Before the time of Peleg, all the physical laws of the universe were different.
2. Before the time of Peleg, physical and spiritual were mixed together in unknown ways.
3. It was during "The Split" that the physical somehow was divorsed from the spirtual.
4. The core of the earth is the exception, being made entirely of spirtual something or other.
5. After The Flood, super-evolution produced all the variety we see today, within a short period of time via unknown spirit-physical world mechanism. Except for man, of course!
6. We can know absolutely nothing about what occurred before "The Split" unless Dad tells us it happened via his infallible interpretation of scripture and his Non-P.O. Past Earth Model.
7. Dad is God's inerrant prophet.

 

[brinny]

Perhaps you can help explain the reasoning then, as dad has been unable to.

1.Why does a disagreement mean that everyone is wrong?
2.Scientists in all fields disagree all the time. Does that mean all of science is wrong?
3.Does being wrong mean one is lying?

Peter

science sounds a bit fallible, doesn't it?

Lying is deliberate, Being mistaken is not.

 

[Split Rock]

science sounds a bit fallible, doesn't it?

Sure is, but it is self-correcting. Mistakes are identified and corrected. Now compare that to creationism. How do creationists recognize when their interpretation of scripture is wrong? How do they determine if what they think scripture says does or doesn't apply to biology or geology, etc.?

Lying is deliberate, Being mistaken is not.

If that is the case (and I agree with you) why did you claim the O.P. was correct?

 

[brinny]

Sure is, but it is self-correcting. Mistakes are identified and corrected. Now compare that to creationism. How do creationists recognize when their interpretation of scripture is wrong? How do they determine if what they think scripture says does or doesn't apply to biology or geology, etc.?


If that is the case (and I agree with you) why did you claim the O.P. was correct?

I believe that God the Creator, created heaven and earth. I believe that He is infinite. I am not. Science is stumbling along, attempting to understand His creation...and has an "Oops!" factor that is quite amusing. Always has and still is. Science epitomizes how flawed man is, even as he thinks he "knows sumthin' fer sher" but then the error of that assumption flies in his face later. Aah yes, the majesty of man, in all his glory. Quite a sight to see

I agree with the OP.

 

[plindboe]

science sounds a bit fallible, doesn't it?

Of course, all human endavours are. It's the only process that truly makes an effort in removing as much fallibility as possible though, by testing and discussing ideas, instead of accepting ideas dogmatically and on faith.

Lying is deliberate, Being mistaken is not.

We agree about definitions then. Can you please explain to me how the disagreement we see in the OP mean that the scientists were lying?

Peter

 

[plindboe]

I believe that God the Creator, created heaven and earth. I believe that He is infinite. I am not. Science is stumbling along, attempting to understand His creation...and has an "Oops!" factor that is quite amusing.

Not sure what's so amusing about people being mistaken and disagreeing, considering that you already accept human fallibility and therefore shouldn't be surprised by it. Perhaps you have unrealistic expectations of science. With realistic expectations, you would expect hypotheses to be shown wrong all the time, while others become validated, it's par for the course.

Science epitomizes how flawed man is, even as he thinks he "knows sumthin' fer sher" but then the error of that assumption flies in his face later.

I find that religion does that better than anything else ever concocted by humans. Problem is that when the errors of assumption flies in the face of the religious, they get ignored. Science embraces the errors and learns from them.

I agree with the OP.

You haven't explained why the disagreement means they're all wrong and that they're lying. I'm not sure, even if I believed what you do, how the OP can make any sense to you. I find that making a baseless claim that people are lying to be rather unethical, and I'd think that even if I was a creationist.

Peter

 

[dad]

you got that right. Thanks for starting this thread.

Thanks, always nice to get a compliment from a voice of reason..

 

[brinny]

Thanks, always nice to get a compliment from a voice of reason..

from one voice of reason to another

 

[dad]

dad:


You've missed my point, unsurprisingly.

You don't understand evolution. You've proved it. This means you're not qualified to criticise it. Therefore anything you have to say on the subject is worthless.

Let me sharpen your thinking, here, and get some focus here. We are looking at how so called science does not understand evolution or the way life worked in the far past, when most evolving happened. You seem focused on how it now works, which is irrelevant. Meaningless. ..Unless the past was in the same state with the same laws. However, science can not prove that, in the least. It does not know. You will have to deal with that fact. No choice.

I understand that the timeframes of the bible require rapid evolution, and that the differences in the past allowed it, just as they allowed men to live near a thousand years. You may not lock it in to how things adapt today. Any more questions, oh knight of the defeated point?