It doesn't, it has to do with the transitional fossils simply being subspecies, and not TF's at all.
There's just nothing here that proves evolution or even close, only people who want to believe it so they conclude it, whether they be scientists or people that buy their theory as fact.
Leave it to the Regressives to misrepresent the problems critics have with Bill Nye the Pretender. The major problem with the man is not what he has to say about the weather nor his past role in offering instruction in science; its his recent break-out role as an outspoken, unabashed SJW/High Priest of materialism and his current crusade to persuade our children that there is no God, and they are little more than animals that arose by natural processes, which can expect nothing more than a hopeless and lifeless future.For a long time, Nye was a beloved children's show host, teaching kids about fun experiments, etc...
However, I noticed a recent backlash against him on social media as well in conversation with people.
Since he did an episode about climate change, seems like many of the people who used to like him, now no longer do.
Now there's memes of "Bill Nye the 'not a real scientist' guy"...claiming that his opinion isn't trustworthy because he doesn't have a PhD (as if that ever impacted their opinion before).
Does anyone who espouses the idea that they believe in climate change instantly make them "an enemy" to some?
How much evidence would it take before some would actually start viewing scientific issues as just that, rather than immediately thinking that every form of scientific research that challenges their beliefs must be a "liberal political scheme"?
Leave it to the Regressives to misrepresent the problems critics have with Bill Nye the Pretender. The major problem with the man is not what he has to say about the weather nor his past role in offering instruction in science; its his recent break-out role as an outspoken, unabashed SJW/High Priest of materialism and his current crusade to persuade our children that there is no God, and they are little more than animals that arose by natural processes, which can expect nothing more than a hopeless and lifeless future.
Maybe the man's "tribal instincts" were just being repressed during his 90's TV show?
Do evolutionists have an explanation for the lack of what should be a vast number of missing links?
Do evolutionists have an explanation for the lack of what should be a vast number of missing links? Seems to me, the ground should be teaming with these things in all stages of development.
The cognitive dissonance is amazing sometimes.Yep - it is a falsehood made up by creationists. There's no reason to believe the copious amount of transitional fossils we do have is any less than it should be.
Yep - it is a falsehood made up by creationists. There's no reason to believe the copious amount of transitional fossils we do have is any less than it should be.
Huh?No the link seems to be missing...
That's me getting an infusion of Remicade. I have an arthritis type condition called Ankylosing Spondylitis.Off topic, seems ur in a hospital. U ok..?
In your mind, what would a missing link look like?
I hope you do know that we are all links, missing or not...
Edited for formatting
Any thoughts?
I already mentioned, all life would have to be a transitional Fossil with your way of thinking, hence missing links, if there were such a thing.
Your comment just strongly implied a missing link cannot be proven it is one or not, as it would look like nothing unusual since we all are one, and for all you know it's one of a same species. So we end up with a more impressive sounding "evidence" to the unaware, but in the end, useless claims/opinions. Like I keep trying to get across, that's how the evolution lie works, it's based on tons of non evidence so it tricks some into believing it must be real.
Your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution has been duly noted...
I see, the oh so popular "you don't understand" defense. I would think that even those with opposing views to mine can see that is a clear cop out.
Make me understand. What exactly did I say there that showed a misunderstanding? Or does a simple disagreement equate to a misunderstanding in your eyes? Or, truth be told, is all that just a means if excusing yourself because you can't refute my comments? I
think the latter.
I edited this, I thought i came across condescending, wasn't my meaning. Lets just say we disagree...
Well, your quest for the missing link is a strong sign you don't understand it...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?