Replies

It appears that ancient bones have not lost their ability to make monkeys out of those who try to decipher what the flesh on them looked like. This is probably one of those people who had a major physical deformity, and the "scientist" are trying to make us believe it's a precursor to all apes. They will never learn; but why do they continue to try this evasive "missing" link between species? Because they don't want to have to face the consequences when they find out (read - come to their senses) that there IS NO MISSING LINKS BETWEEN SPECIES, and therefore, all animals were created by a "highly intellegent being" (their way of admittting that there is a God) that must have created all life. BUT they don't want to believe that because then they will have to be accountable to that "Creator" who, according to Scripture demands complete obedience to Him, his Commandments, statutes, laws, and covenants, and that's something they will never allow themselves to do, so, they continue to look for that "impossible dream" so that they don't have to even think about the possibility of "intelligent design".

Because they don't want to have to face the consequences when they find out (read - come to their senses) that there IS NO MISSING LINKS BETWEEN SPECIES

Oh... Then what are these? And how do you explain shared ERVs across species, if not by common descent?

This is probably one of those people who had a major physical deformity

This old fabrication?

This argument goes back to the first Neanderthal skeleton which was of an old Neanderthal who did have arthritis. Creationists took this to mean that Neanderthal skeletons were nothing more than regular humans with arthritis.

Of course, they choose to ignore the fact that we've since found a good number of Neanderthal skeletons without evidence of arthritis.

But "facts" and "evidence" are not things creationists like to deal with.

It appears that .... the possibility of "intelligent design".

And the beauty is that you can continue to post that in refereence to whatever is discovered from now until the end of time.

But kudos for putting "intelligent design" inside quotes.

there IS NO MISSING LINKS BETWEEN SPECIES, and therefore, all animals were created by a "highly intellegent being" (their way of admittting that there is a God) that must have created all life.

Note the total lack of logic here. The premise "there IS (sic) NO MISSING LINKS BETWEEN SPECIES" in no way leads to the conclusion: "all animals were created by a 'highly intellegent being' (their way of admittting[sic] that there is a God) that must have created all life."

This is wrong in so many ways that one can lose count. It is so poorly constructed as to not even really qualify as fallacious, it doesn't pretend to enough logic to warrant it.

There are no common terms, insufficient number of terms,asserting the negative (NO MISSING LINKS BETWEEN SPECIES), assertion without proof, (all animals were created), and, among others, begging the question, (must have created all life.)

I find it funny that there is this fervent questioning of "evidence" when there is a dearth of evidence for the creationist side.

Where is the fossil record for the Garden of Eden? Or the Tree of Life? Or the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Or that Moses' cane turned into a snake? Or that Egypt ever held the Jews as slaves? Or that the devil took Jesus upon on the spire and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world? (An incident that could have had no witnesses.) Or that the cock crowed 3 times and not 4 times? Or that it was 30 pieces of silver and not 24 or 33 or 36?

Why are the writings of a man 150 years ago suspect but not those of 2000 years ago? What about the other writings from that period that were not "cannonized" by the church more than 300 years after they were written, for political reasons, but had just as much validity as those that were? If one believes in that act of cannonization, how could one be anything other than a Catholic and expect to be saved?

they continue to look for that "impossible dream" so that they don't have to even think about the possibility of "intelligent design".

Which here is truly the "impossible dream?" I also have a pet peeve with this last term, "intelligent design." This term is completely redundant. "Design" implies intelligence, by definition. The fact that the term has to be qualified is an admission of the intellectual poverty of the phrase.

What, there is "intelligent design" as opposed to "unintelligent design?"

But this is representative of the intellectual rigor of this argument, i.e., none.