Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

reply to post by Con Science


Wow, nice quote mining my past posts without even pointing out the context of the discussions. Obviously I hit a nerve. I am most certianly not anti-religous, and you would see that if you would stop picking and choosing things I said in threads that have nothing to do with what we are discussing here. At this point you are not worth responding to anymore.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
reply to post by Con Science

 

Wow, nice quote mining my past posts without even pointing out the context of the discussions. Obviously I hit a nerve. I am most certianly not anti-religous, and you would see that if you would stop picking and choosing things I said in threads that have nothing to do with what we are discussing here. At this point you are not worth responding to anymore.

If I had a nickle for everytime some atheist with a holier than thou attitude crying quote mining everytime they get quoted for saying something that busted them I would be rich.

If I had a nickle for everytime I heard something truthful by a Darwinist, I wouldn't have a nickle to my name.

Here www.abovetopsecret.com...
anyone wanting to see the mean spirited context of your so called "respectful" style of debate can read it there in all its sarcastic glory. As far as you not responding, that is exactly what I think you should do also. The wisest thing you have ever said

Originally posted by Con Science

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
reply to post by Con Science

 

Wow, nice quote mining my past posts without even pointing out the context of the discussions. Obviously I hit a nerve. I am most certianly not anti-religous, and you would see that if you would stop picking and choosing things I said in threads that have nothing to do with what we are discussing here. At this point you are not worth responding to anymore.

If I had a nickle for everytime some atheist with a holier than thou attitude crying quote mining everytime they get quoted for saying something that busted them I would be rich.

If I had a nickle for everytime I heard something truthful by a Darwinist, I wouldn't have a nickle to my name.

Here www.abovetopsecret.com...
anyone wanting to see the mean spirited context of your so called "respectful" style of debate can read it there in all its sarcastic glory. As far as you not responding, that is exactly what I think you should do also. The wisest thing you have ever said

Sorry, but everything you have posted regarding evolution is wildly misinformed. I know your mind is made up, but I just had to say it.

i'm still confused by how ID is meant to work. Is something designing new animals and putting them on the earth over a 500 million year period? is that how ID folks pitch it? or do they say evrything was made at the same time?

this is a genuine question.

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth

Originally posted by Con Science

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
reply to post by Con Science

 

Wow, nice quote mining my past posts without even pointing out the context of the discussions. Obviously I hit a nerve. I am most certianly not anti-religous, and you would see that if you would stop picking and choosing things I said in threads that have nothing to do with what we are discussing here. At this point you are not worth responding to anymore.

If I had a nickle for everytime some atheist with a holier than thou attitude crying quote mining everytime they get quoted for saying something that busted them I would be rich.

If I had a nickle for everytime I heard something truthful by a Darwinist, I wouldn't have a nickle to my name.

Here www.abovetopsecret.com...
anyone wanting to see the mean spirited context of your so called "respectful" style of debate can read it there in all its sarcastic glory. As far as you not responding, that is exactly what I think you should do also. The wisest thing you have ever said

Sorry, but everything you have posted regarding evolution is wildly misinformed. I know your mind is made up, but I just had to say it.

*sigh* of course it is and you contradict me but offer nothing that refutes what I have said. The post given in the last page DOES prove that this discovery is nothing but what scientists speculate what a creature "might" have looked like as a link to a common ancestor which already assume evolution is true the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent ring a bell?

Open minds people. OPEN MINDS. Flaming is a real good way to make yourself look dumb. There is NO 100% proof for either Evolution or Creationism...So don't put someone down for their beliefs because it really brings out your ignorance

reply to post by Con Science


No, I didn't need to, everyone else had posted all you need to know.

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
reply to post by Con Science

 

No, I didn't need to, everyone else had posted all you need to know.

Oh would that be the part where the guy goes on a rant calling me an idiot saying I got zero legs to stand on for proof even though the burden of proof is on those making the claim this is a missing link?

Or the one that got insulted because he didn't like the way I think this same science is so confident to stand on its own merit it has to use a myriad of fakes and manufacture evidence explaining away evolution by equivocating micro eveolution to macro evolution? Sorry, attaching an observed event with one that has never been observed does not good science make. So please, in case I missed it, where is the "all I need to know" information in this thread?

Or is it perhaps, I am not as easily impressed, not as gullible as some, mmm?



[edit on 20-5-2009 by Con Science]

reply to post by Con Science


so how does ID work? i'm interested to know

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
There is nothing humorous to what you wrote nor is their any sign of intelligence either.

The humor? Opinions vary.

The intelligence? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognise Dogmatic speculation and as far as intelligence goes,, when it comes to evolution, their is NO intlelligence allowed.

It boggles the mind, here is blatant proof of a species that carries traits of monkeys, lemurs and us and you think it's one heaping pile of bs.

It doesn't boggle my mind, sorry, I have seen much more impressive science then this dead lemure carcus's fossil.

It boggles the mind, here is blatant proof of a species that carries traits of monkeys, lemurs and us and you think it's one heaping pile of bs.

I think using it as evidence in the context it proves Darwinian speciation is BS and that is because it doesn't prove it. You think it does because you think you are smart and you think you are scientific in your baseless opinion

You know what I find hilarious

Well I know none of my dry humor works

more than anything, is people like you who have been hit with a shovel over the head with evidence still sit there shaking your head in disbelief,

Evidence? Evidence of what? a dead lemure is the only thing I know I can count on may be a fact they have evidence for and that is all.

you want people around the world to take the NWO, Aliens and Government conspiracy's seriously.

I do? Now I understand why you are so presumptuous to believe in that fossil as the "missing link" to our common ancestor

I would even venture a guess that the same people who think Ida is crap also believe the Iraq war was justified, Iran is out to kill the world, Liberals are the enemy and Rush Limbaugh is right about everything.

yes, no, no, yes, and only sometimes is rush right.. Just like you and me.

Open your mind and for once read and learn about something before slamming others who took the time to understand the world they live in.

After the sterotype you have gone on ablout trying to fit my "type" into and you have the unmitigated audacity to tell me to open my mind?

Ha ha ha

In other words you have ZERO LEGS TO STAND ON, so excuse us if we think your statements are completely foolish.

Oh to be sure, I fully understand why someone with your staggering intellect would think my statements are foolish.

This is an insult to even folks of average intelligence.

What are they trying to do with this?

Are they testing to see how well their BS brainwashing has worked?

Don't you wonder how many people will actually believe this?

It is just a lemur. Which proves what? That they have been around for a long time.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Con Science

 

so how does ID work? i'm interested to know

When ever I get a request like this, it has been my experience the request is not really a request at all but a dare.

looking at your quotes in various threads pertaining to this subject, I don't think I would fare any better than anyone else you suckerd into wasting there time explaining to you what you obviously and willfully won't understand much less agree with. I do admire your methods of debunking issues not brought forth scientifically but alas my friend, what I believe the scientific method with its inherently limited constraints to the physical properties of this finite universe in this dimension of time and space will only serve to frustrate me and amuse you. I have already had my sense of humor insulted enough and do not wish to be the butt of any jokes of yours or anyone else. Chances are, I have heard them already and as much as I love someone that can get me to laugh at myself


I got better things to do today

Originally posted by AllexxisF1


I will explain it to you even more simply, You have a talus bone yeh? well Ida's is shaped just like YOURS, and not like a monkey or ape's;


[edit on 19-5-2009 by AllexxisF1]

[edit on 19-5-2009 by AllexxisF1]

and duck billed platypus has a bill just like a Avian

flying fish have wings , like insects

does this mean since they are very identical biological parts that they are directly related?




just because two things are similar, does NOT mean they are directly related

Novel ways oflooking at longstanding problems have
historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science
is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest
in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the
Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and
more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and
accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive
posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to
validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
Source: shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu...
Shapiro is continuing the work of this woman: en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 20-5-2009 by peaceonearth]

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown
reply to post by Con Science

 

People like you with your snide and over sarcastic remarks really do no justice to the people who can debate their side of the argument respectfully. Please Con Science, with all the vast knowledge you seem to think you have, explain to me how everything was put on this earth? Since you prefer the purer science of mathematics, explain to me using math, the secret that you seem to have found out while the rest of us are still looking.

If we are looking for something and we still haven't found it, we should continue looking for it. We shouldn't take a theory which is the closest to what we are looking for divert our research. You get what I mean.

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown

Originally posted by stander
There is no sound argument that disproves the possibility of someone finding this planet and using the primitive life here for accelerated evolutionary experiments.

Of course there is nothing that disproves that theory. We only take what we can observe and come to a conclusion about things. The simple fact is we just don't know how life began and for what reason. But that is not something that evolution seeks to reveal. Abiogenisis is the field of study concerning how life came to be.

Abiogenesis and evolution of species are two distant cousins, and the OP is about the latter.

You observe and come into conclusion. So people observe and come into a conclusion. I simply don't buy the conclusion that the cardinals of science arrived at.

Originally posted by theflashor
No Darwinism is Logical and the best understanding we have, although it does have its flaws and this find eliminates just one of them. And it really isnt the holy grail.

Although it dont matter people that beleive in creationism still can, because to evolve me must of had some deep coding into our DNA to get us here today, But darwinism teaches us that a leopard does change its spots.

]

Why are we arguing about this really. I think my previous post sums up darwinism , can we not agree to disagree. But the true answer is we cant be sure and darwinism is still theory.

Ida, though an amazingly well-preserved fossil, will prove to be another Lucy, Java Man, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Pakicetus, and Eosimias. It will undoubtedly join the growing collection of fossils that were once thought to be missing links, but that upon further study turned out to be extinct creatures with no transitional features.

upon further study turned out to be extinct creatures with no transitional features.

Exactly this is why this find is annoying me, not the find its self buts its publicity. Like its the holy grail of finds when it simply is not.

There's a difference between evolution and Darwin's theory of evolution.

Darwin's theory of evolution has more holes than swiss cheese. It's based on wishful thinking. Darwin expected to see small successive steps but he didn't see them. He then came up with a theory to try and explain these gaps. This has never been proven and followers of Darwin have to update the theory ever few years because it's just wishful thinking.

Evolution is a product of design. It's a product of the code in DNA. This code allows for species to adapt to their enviroment. You don't need Darwin's fantasy of evolution.

Some people say this is just God of the gaps. It's not because the Designer can be God or the universe itself if the universe is a quantum computer. This is the code of the gaps. With a code you would expect to see these gaps and there's no need for Darwin's theory. Well defined species appear in the fossil record because that's what the program is designed to do.

This is what Darwin said:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?" — Charles Darwin

This is Darwin's theory of evolution. It's just wishful thinking. He tried to explain these gaps and why we only see well defined species.

The reason is because the code. This is the program called evolution.

I think Darwin's theory is a danger to humanity because we are looking for evidence to support Darwin's dream instead of looking for the code. The code would open up so many things for us and are lives would change. Disease would be no more because we could just cancel or close out the line of code that's causing the disease.

Those who support Darwin never ask the question is life a fundamental property of the universe. Maybe the universe is designed to support life either by God or some universal quantum computer. Life desires to be from extremophiles to humans, life finds a way.

Those who support Darwin have to have non living material somehow spark into living material and they never stop to say maybe the universe is programmed to support life and life is a fundamental property of the universe.

They never ask this question because they are determined to support their belief in Darwin's illogical theory.