Posted on 06/22/2003 5:29:39 PM PDT by Aric2000
Already answered you on that one, but you're determined to stay in the slow-learner class by not reading what has been posted already.
Now, almost all of the data you have been reviewing [But not you, Timmy! How many of the preceding links did you even click on?] were unknown in Darwin's day. For all the evidence that they did have, there were a lot of holes. Darwin et al. fearlessly predicted based upon the already-outlined tree of life that certain kinds of "intermediates" would be found. Precambrian life of any sort, legged whales, legged sirenians, ape-human intermediates, etc. Other intermediates, amphibian-bird mixes for instance, violate the presumed evolutionary scenario and are not predicted.This prediction is a certain kind of inference. Creationists who believed that God on certain days created certain "kinds" scoffed then and denied that such an inference from the then-available data was valid at all. They began to mockingly ask for "the missing link," which is exactly how you, who bill yourself as a scientist, opened the discussion.
The history since then has filled in gap after gap in the areas where evolution says the intermediates have to have existed. The people who will not make certain inferences because God will burn them in Hell for so doing still will not make them. Nevertheless, the ground under their feet has shrunk to nothing compared to the situation in 1859.
So, you'll be back tomorrow dumb as a stump and trolling for suckers, no one today having succeeded in making you see what has been posted to you. Tomorrow, of course, you will still be wasting people's time by "demanding to see" the evidence.
BwaHaHaHa!!!
Hey, when evolutionists cannot contradict a statement they just give a link, hoping no one will read it. Anyone can give a link and claim it proves their point. There are billions of pages on the internet and you can always find at least one that will say what you want. This is a discussion, discuss my statement.
It is evolutionists which are always trying to re-define science. Without facts, science is garbage. Models are themselves garbage. By tweaking a model you can 'prove' whatever you like. That is not what science is about. Science is about knowledge, factual knowledge, not about models and fairy tales which is what evolutionists want to turn it into. It is about the speed of light is x and the force of gravity is y, about facts, not storytelling. That is why science has accomplished so much, because it builds upon the facts already discovered to gain new knowledge, build practical applications and solve problems.
enjoy!
Timmy's "demand" will be the same simple discourtesy tomorrow that it was today. He has no intent of paying the slightest attention to what is furnished. As I explained on that earlier thread to Darwin_is_passe:
Just a few posts, and we've already gone far enough to see how dumb your little dumbshow is. You issued a challenge for the production of transitional fossil evidence from the fossil record. This challenge is meant to fool the naive lurker into believing that something to be reasonably expected in that record is actually missing. In fact the fossil record is full of extinct life forms which outline branching progressions from the long ago few and simple to the extant many and varied.Your dodge is not in the evidence, but in your simple refusal to draw any inference at all therefrom ...
I was beginning to forget what real critical thought looked like.
The strange fossils that are found consist of:
1. Mammoths with undigested food standing upright in ice.(wonder if they were stuck in a snow drift because a forty day blizzard trapped them).
2. Fish fossils that are in the process of eating, with a little fish still in it's fossilized mouth.(wonder if the mud slidding off the continent buried the poor guy trying to get a meal).
3. Fish fossils giving birth when they were buried.
4. 10 feet deep dead clam shell layers in the closed position. (Clam shells open when the clam dies, the muscle relaxes).
5. Petrified trees in the upright position crossing through multiple layers of rock.
For more information on these strange occurances try clicking here.
Vade, we skim your sources because we have read them, or others like them, countless times. You think because we aren't convinced to come around to your simple idea, then we either won't read them or are simply too stupid to learn.
Sorry. I have a pretty good understanding of this stuff and won't waste my time trying to reason with a simpleton who puts out bird to dinosaur, or mutated plants or fruitflies, or the peppered moth hoax, or those who buy every Nebraska man that comes along. We ain't stupid. We just ain't buying.
Hmmmm... You may want to do a bit of research on Kent Hovind before using him as a reference.
Oh, well done! You have now superbly demonstrated both your astounding ignorance and your intolerance of correcting it. That's good to know for our future reference - Darwin Central will be informed. Oh, and, congratulations on joining ALS on the Idiots Crusade.
Feel free to wallow in your pitifully inadequate self-image as the final arbiter of what is and isn't current evolutionary theory (at least to yourself, that is). Revel in it for all to see and entertain us with your further puerile assertions!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.