First, the title. According to evolutionists, EVERY species is a "missing link" species! Can we stop saying "missing link" at the beginning of every sentence?! Missing link, missing link, missing link! There, it's been said, can we drop the prefix???
Second, they dropped in a couple Freudian slips into the article. The first one was in this paragraph:
An unusual new species of dinosaur discovered in a Montana fossil provides a long-sought link between a primitive group of dinos in Asia and those that roamed North America, experts say.Now how can this fossil be a long-sought link, when it had never been seen before? Isn't this what we call "pre-judging the evidence"? It's like a defense attorney hired to defend a murderer: he's already decided that the knife, the footprints, the gloves, the blood in the white blazer...oops, am I betraying my thoughts? Anyway, he's already decided that they were planted and fabricated by the police. These guys have already decided.
Also, note how they only tell us about the "missing link" that they "knew" was there when they find it! How do we know they knew? Have you ever been lost in the woods following someone who claims to know where he's going? It's like that. Every so often, he lets out an "Oh, yes, there we go!" and then marches boldly toward some tree or rock. After about ten OhYes's, you start to catch on that this guy has no clue where we are! Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
The second gem was in this paragraph:
"We knew that [the two groups] were related, but we didn't have any fossils that showed a mixture of characteristics like this and thus [demonstrated] the split between the Asian group and the North American group."So, if you didn't have any fossils showing characteristics of both groups, then how did they know they were related?!? Oh, that's right, we're all related, I forgot. How about this:
"We knew that [humans and Pediculus humanus (body louse)] were related, but we didn't have any fossils that showed a mixture of names like this and thus [demonstrated] the split between the tiny insect group and the North American, listening-to-ipod group."There. Mine is as valid as theirs. Filled with slight of hand, self-aggrandizing affirmations, and ridiculous, unproven assertions. And, best of all, now everyone thinks I'm smart!
Posts
3 comments:
I mean no personal attack on you, but I'm afraid none of your arguments thus far display the remotest tinge of validity. To say that one suspected that one species of dinosaur was related to another, and a new fossil has proven that link is not by any means a long stretch of reason.
I see you're an American, so let's take cars as a medium with which we can build our argument. If you cast your mind back to the construction of the first wheel, most likely made as an ornament that was found to have a practical application, it's obviously completely different to a modern sports car, or a bus for that matter. It would be difficult to draw a connection between to two. Now, let's imagine you take this early wheel, then sit it down next to a set of logs that are being used to roll a heavy object over. Still a pretty long stretch, isn't it? Let's then throw in an early chariot and an old horse-drawn carriage. Getting a bit easier, isn't it? Now, just stick in an early horseless carriage, and you've got all the steps you need to clearly demonstrate the evolution of a decorative ornament to a modern car. That progression took 4 intermediate steps, as opposed to the one that these palaeontologists required.
Just to prove that I'm more than happy to hear your rebuttal, my name is Josh, I'm a Medical Sciences major at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, and while I'm not foolish enough to openly publish my email here for zealots to email me mindless creationist spam, if you reply to my comment (constructively), I'd be pleased to continue dialogue with you via your email address, as published on your blog.
Josh,
First of all, thanks for reading.
Secondly, anyone who is familiar with debate will recognize that when one side says "none of your arguments thus far display the remotest tinge of validity", that doesn't mean it's so. This is called rhetoric. It's meant to set the stage for further dismissals. After all, there's no need to take seriously anything said by someone who fails to "display the remotest tinge of validity".
Thirdly, you're still in college, which means you're young and idealist in nature. That's fine, but all it means is you are on the up-curve in developing your faith in evolution and are surrounded by nothing but true believers. But you haven't lived long enough to watch many of their theories and assertions fall apart. You've not been exposed to the many willing misreadings of evidence (read my Mastodon blog), relativistic certainties, and blind assertions-gone gospel that make up the backbone of evolutionary thought.
Your statements are, thus far filled with unproved assertions that are the meat of the debate between Biblical creation and evolution.
Next, your analogy of the "evolution" of the car shows how your mindset isn't even able to grasp the truth. Not even two 2007 brown Toyota Corolla's are "related" in any real sense. I'm sure you can see that. They are completely unique constructions. Between the 2002 and 2007 Corolla, they are completely unique designs. That the knowledge that produced one car also produced the other car is only a re-statement of intelligent design. By the way, I'm not arguing intelligent design. I'm arguing Biblical creation by an almighty God in Heaven. Not space aliens, not "super men". And while we're at it, Corolla's don't have offspring.
Next, yes, I agree with you that scientists do indeed know that the fossil record is flawed and incomplete. But I could also easily demonstrate that in publications to the "uneducated" public as well as in debates, shoot , even in Jurassic Park, they often speak of the fossil record as hard, concrete truth, not at all admitting that their opinion and interpretation are what they are really defending.
Creationists don't deny the fossil record. We just read it as translated by someone who witnessed it all: God. You have to consult your own flawed probabilities chart that, as a core value, starts with the non-existence of God. No explanation can even include God. This is a presupposition that plagues all evolutionary thought.
I'm not going to try to prove God to you. He needs no defense. But you might as well give up trying to prove a universal negative as well.
As far as constructive replies, I hope you see this as one. As far as debates, I really wish more folks would come by and "pick a fight" so to speak. Most visitors come and go without so much as saying "hello". :)
Thanks for your reply. I apologise for the increasing level of hostility in my arguments, as I thought your delayed response was out of deliberate ignorance of my post.
As I mentioned in my very first post, I did not intend to initiate an attack on you, and I apologise for my rudeness. It's been nice to talk to you.
Post a Comment