Posted on 05/20/2009 8:07:15 AM PDT by lakeprincess
"This is an incredible piece of hype to popularize a movie and a book. It's hard to believe that this story took off, but the media picked up on very emotional claims about the 'missing link.' It's created good publicity," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“Why do creation rationalizationists always try to mix politics into the debate?”
Why do you keep calling me this? I have no such belief and nowhere have I said as much. Go back and look. You are unhinged on this subject.
“Sorry—I don’t get your multi-trillion dollar hole rant. Why do creation rationalizationists always try to mix politics into the debate? So, as you can see, I don’t lose. In fact, I win.”
Oh. You brush aside the point I make and declare victory over me based on refuting a point I did not make. VERY scientific.
“Why do you keep calling me this?”
Aren’t you? You display the MO of creation rationalizationists.
“You brush aside the point I make and declare victory...”
Perhaps you should make your point more clearly. I still win, though.
1) Virtually none of the short videos or online articles mention that this fossil was found 16 years ago. They all either make it sound like it was "just found," or else was found 2 years ago. Acknowledging a 16 year gap between discovery and publicity would lessen the aura around it, raising lots of obvious questions.
2) According to the WSJ, the current owners of the fossil are misusing the term "missing link" --
The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn't been found. That gap in the evolution story is colloquially referred to as the "missing link" controversy. In reality, though, all gaps in the fossil record are technically "missing links" until filled in, and many scientists say the term is meaningless.
According to the classification of the Primate Order, there are lower primates, including Tarsiers, Lorises, and Lemurs, and higher, or anthropoid primates, including New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, and the anthropoid apes (gibbons, orangutangs, gorillas, bonobos, and chimpanzees). This creature, it appears, is a link in the evolution from lower primates to higher primates.
“Aren’t you? You display the MO of creation rationalizationists.”
No. You display the MO of an idiot but I don’t presuppose it.
“Perhaps you should make your point more clearly.”
More clearly than this;
Mistakes are a negative - they are a result of misintrpretation (intentional or not) that leads to a false conclusion. Sometimes, mistakes are beneficial - allowing us to advance - but sometimes (like spending TRILLIONS of dollars on something like global warming (or “climate change”) that has the capacity to finanacially cripple us - we do not get a do-over.
I said in my last post that you display the MO of an idiot but I don’t presuppose it. If the above was not clear, I do believe that you are an idiot.
“No. You display the MO of an idiot but I don’t presuppose it.”
You would be wrong to do so, an action you’ve demonstrated that you’re capable of elsewhere in this thread.
Aggression doesn’t suit you—it helps to be right first.
Yes, I meant point 14, not 15, of that post. I read 10 and 14, and scanned the rest.
These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum
I would object to "ad infinitum". Naturally, one cannot expect the fossil of every transitional species to be found, but there should be enough of continual patterns found to state that mechanism of random mutations can lead to speciation.
Poor creation rationalizationist—we weren’t discussing global warming, remember? While your grammar and syntax were correct in your post, your point was clear only to you.
You call me an idiot—I expect that from your ilk. Your model is your mirror.
“You would be wrong to do so.”
Therefore, I didn’t. Thank you. But now you have removed all doubt.
“Poor creation rationalizationist.”
Poor idiot, calling me a name that has no meaning to me. Shall I pretend to be as wounded as you are correct? Gosh, you DUmmies really don’t hide well.
As I posted earlier:
“Aggression doesn’t suit you—it helps to be right first.”
Still holds.
As I posted earlier: “Aggression doesn’t suit you—it helps to be right first.” Still holds.”
Hahahahaha...so in other words you got nothing, eh?
So long, Skippy.
“Hahahahaha...so in other words you got nothing, eh?”
You seem to be incapable of digesting the pearls that I have already cast before you. Therefore, adieu.
“You seem to be incapable of digesting the pearls that I have already cast before you. Therefore, adieu.”
So, you are going back to DUmmie land where the single digit IQ is king...have a nice trip.
“So, you are going back to DUmmie land...”
Sorry—I never visit the place.
Perhaps you’ll have an opportunity to look silly on another FR thread—ping me, will you?
“Sorry—I never visit the place.”
But...you exhibit all the signs...the MO is there..COULD I BE WRONG????
“But...you exhibit all the signs...”
Actually, I don’t What leftist sign have I displayed in this thread?
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.