Missing Links

[AV1611VET]

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."

 

[Oneiric1975]

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."

Between any two numbers are an infinite number of numbers.

 

[MIDutch]

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.

 

[Oneiric1975]

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.

That's the game!

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Those two numbers have 8 missing links between them.

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?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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."

Missing links vs the ToE is not a thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Are you thinking of this?

Post 757

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you thinking of this?

Post 757

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

 

[AV1611VET]

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

This?

My Connect The Dots Challenge

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This?

My Connect The Dots Challenge

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

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Air Po started that thread, not I.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Air Po started that thread, not I.

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.

 

[HitchSlap]

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."

But finding 859, that would be crazy, right?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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."

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]

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.

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.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Frank Robert]

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.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Okay, thanks for the info.

 

[MIDutch]

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

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.