My Missing Links Challenge

[2PhiloVoid]

As Jesus put it ...

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

... thank you for proving my point, because this verse you've cited is part of what I have in mind in connection to all that I've already said above. (That's why I specifically referred to John...)

 

[AV1611VET]

So what's the problem?

From your perspective, your children are missing.

All those kids from Homo [this] to Homo [that] haven't shown up at the party yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

Missing links are continually found, because they're transitional fossils, which is what we expect since the fossil record is not perfect nor complete.

Science would find anything and call it a "transitional."

Even a tooth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science would find anything and call it a "transitional."

Even a tooth.

And once again, you treat science as this singular monolithic being just to pretend that you can tilt at it.

Sad. So very sad.

 

[MorningDance13]

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.

The study of evolution is anything but scientific.
Science will see evidence that something different happened from what they believe and will change their minds.
Evolutionists refuse to let go of their fairy tales and myths no matter what.
Plus I'm not talking about attempting to discuss something in a worldly manner and from a secular perspective but rather as someone who is a follower of the Lord God Almighty and from His perspective.
I am not the one who is attempting to change definitions but rather pointing out that other people are using words erroneously.
If millions of people were walking around calling a book a spatula and I were to point it out would you call me presumptuous?
And it absolutely isn't scientific to use language that is erroneous and mistaken.
It also isn't intelligent or logical.

Talking about microevolution as though it happened is the same as talking about Santa Claus and the bunny rabbit as though they are real.
And it DOES blur the lines and confuse things to use erroneous language and words with the wrong definitions even if bunches and bunches of self-proclaimed so-called experts are doing so.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The study of evolution is anything but scientific.
Science will see evidence that something different happened from what they believe and will change their minds.
Evolutionists refuse to let go of their fairy tales and myths no matter what.
Plus I'm not talking about attempting to discuss something in a worldly manner and from a secular perspective but rather as someone who is a follower of the Lord God Almighty and from His perspective.
I am not the one who is attempting to change definitions but rather pointing out that other people are using words erroneously.
If millions of people were walking around calling a book a spatula and I were to point it out would you call me presumptuous?
And it absolutely isn't scientific to use language that is erroneous and mistaken.
It also isn't intelligent or logical.

Talking about microevolution as though it happened is the same as talking about Santa Claus and the bunny rabbit as though they are real.
And it DOES blur the lines and confuse things to use erroneous language and words with the wrong definitions even if bunches and bunches of self-proclaimed so-called experts are doing so.

So many claims and assertions and yet not a single thing of substance at all.

 

[BCP1928]

From your perspective, your children are missing.

All those kids from Homo [this] to Homo [that] haven't shown up at the party yet.

Goodness! We don't need all of them.

 

[Ophiolite]

So many claims and assertions and yet not a single thing of substance at all.

It's good to let the tired old arguments, profound ignorance of the subject, coupled with an arrogant dismissal of forum rules, all remain on display thereby providing the most effective put-down.

 

[BCP1928]

The study of evolution is anything but scientific.
Science will see evidence that something different happened from what they believe and will change their minds.

Yes they will. That's how science works.

Evolutionists refuse to let go of their fairy tales and myths no matter what.
Plus I'm not talking about attempting to discuss something in a worldly manner and from a secular perspective but rather as someone who is a follower of the Lord God Almighty and from His perspective.
I am not the one who is attempting to change definitions but rather pointing out that other people are using words erroneously.
If millions of people were walking around calling a book a spatula and I were to point it out would you call me presumptuous?
And it absolutely isn't scientific to use language that is erroneous and mistaken.
It also isn't intelligent or logical.

All specialized fields use words in a specialized way, from auto mechanics to astronomy. Nothing "illogical" about it.

Talking about microevolution as though it happened is the same as talking about Santa Claus and the bunny rabbit as though they are real.
And it DOES blur the lines and confuse things to use erroneous language and words with the wrong definitions even if bunches and bunches of self-proclaimed so-called experts are doing so.

What do you think happened?

 

[Ophiolite]

Goodness! We don't need all of them.

I admire your ability to remain lighthearted in the face of resolute ignorance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Goodness! We don't need all of them.

Well, you're in luck then.

They were never born.

Thus "missing links" are more like "non-existent links."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, you're in luck then.

They were never born.

Thus "missing links" are more like "non-existent links."

A bold claim.

But, as they say: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[AV1611VET]

A bold claim.

But, as they say: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Touché.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Touché.

I am honestly surprised that it took three pages for someone to point that out.

None of us were on top form for this.

 

[Yttrium]

For every missing link you fill in, you create two more.

Creationists can rejoice that the number of missing links keeps growing and growing!

 

[Occams Barber]

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.

Where does mutation fit in your version of evolution?

OB

 

[Kylie]

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?

There is a huge difference between religious faith and faith in something that has a proven and reliable track record.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a huge difference between religious faith and faith in something that has a proven and reliable track record.

Yes.

One pleases God,* while the other pleases man.

* Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[Kylie]

Yes.

One pleases God,* while the other pleases man.

* Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So please don't try to dismiss science on the grounds that "it's just faith."

(Also, that suggests you think faith is a bad thing.)

 

[dlamberth]

Yes.

One pleases God,* while the other pleases man.

* Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I'd say that both pleases God. There's the faith part. And then there's the part where His own Creation is opening a window into how He Creates. That I would think would be very pleasing it God.