human evolution's missing link found (95% complete fossil, w/ pics)

Whatever happened to Lucy? Weren't you all claiming that she was the missing link sometime back? Did that not work out or somethin'?
 
LibertyEagle said:
I just wanted to point out here, that it's this kind of stuff that spawns the threads about Christianity. So, next time you see one, don't wonder why someone created it.
Click to expand...

I can't seem to follow your logic that my post is the type that causes posts about Christianity. I really wish you would elaborate. otherwise it's nonsense to me.
 
Last edited:
LATruth said:
I can't seem to follow your logic that my post is the type that causes posts about Christianity. I really wish you would elaborate. otherwise it's nonsense to me.
Click to expand...

Read the post I quoted. Using terms like "bedroom story", "mystical beings", and the like is rather insulting to a Christian. I'm sure this comes as no shock, which is why so many do it.
 
LibertyEagle said:
Read the post I quoted. Using terms like "bedroom story", "mystical beings", and the like is rather insulting to a Christian. I'm sure this comes as no shock, which is why so many do it.
Click to expand...

It is a story written by man with mystical beings. There is nothing false about my statement. Unless you believe in floating pens scribing on magical parchment.
 
the presence of mssing links... such as this, does nothing to disprove biblical creation.

see........> http://empiricalchurch.org/createvolutionism/

The bible doesnt actually say the world is 6000 years old, and since it doesnt, it becomes a question of how long a day is to God, because if a day to God is 3-5 billion years, then low and behold there is no conflict.

-MEMAT
 
Okay... I guess... that means....
I should... convert to...
a monotheistic ... religion....
and indoctrinate.... my family...
 
LibertyEagle said:
Whatever happened to Lucy? Weren't you all claiming that she was the missing link sometime back? Did that not work out or somethin'?
Click to expand...

It's a different link.

The whole "link" talk is stupid anyway because evolution is not a chain. It's more like a tree with nodes. It's also difficult to say whether an extinct species is a node species or not just based on fossils.

Theocrat said:
That is, I'm fully convinced that evolution is a faith-based religion.
Click to expand...

You just say that because you don't want to feel stupid for believing in the Noah's ark story or the story with the talking snake.

You have got to be kidding me that people think that fossil is a missing link between apes and humans. Clearly it is a lemur-like creature, that's all.
Click to expand...
It's not a link between humans and apes. It's a possible node between Prosimians (Lemurs, Aye-Ayes, Bushbabies, etc.) with the rest of the primates.

The only way a person can say that fossil is a missing link is by faith.
Click to expand...
This may be true. To say it most definitely is a "link" would require relying on something besides the evidence, so it could be considered faith. To say it appears to be a link or is probably a link would be more accurate language.

A fossil can never show evolution, for fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Fossils show "evolution" only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.
Click to expand...


No single fossil shows evolution. You need lots of fossils to do that.

One may say there are similarities between that fossil and humans, but that is false reasoning. Correlation does not prove causation, and similarities can never show evolution.
Click to expand...
Similarities can show a relationship. Progressive differences throughout time are evidence of lineage (and evolution).

Sky News reports, "Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution," while David Attenborough commented that the missing link "is no longer missing." So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?
Click to expand...
Newspapers and magazines do a shitty job of reporting science. They try to sensationalize it and in the process get the story wrong.

It's disappointing to see Attenborough wade into this with the "missing link" talk, since it's such inaccurate language.
 
LATruth said:
Okay... I guess... that means....
I should... convert to...
a monotheistic ... religion....
and indoctrinate.... my family...
Click to expand...

NO... it means you should study the science and the facts, and simply recognise that biblical creation is nothing but a 3000 year old primitive version of what we now know..

i.e.. its not wrong... its just extremely primitive.

but the pattern of development put forward in Genisis, does not contradict evolution, in fact after abundant study I would suggest to you, that evolution in truth supports creation.... AS LONG AS WE GET OVER THE STUPID 6000 YEAR OLD THING.

THE BIBLE DOESNT SAY 6000 YEARS.... ANYWHERE.

AND... sadly.. it is the fanatics who insist on it, that make creation impossible to believe..

change that 6000 year belief... and its stops being a crazy idea.

GOD DOES NOT LIVE ON EARTH, and so, is not limited to a earthly day.

-MEMAT
 
Dr.3D said:
I was digging around at the junk yard the other day and found a small oval shaped four wheeled horseless carriage with an insignia on it showing the letters VW. It really looks a lot like a very small version of a semi truck and has many of the same components.

Could this be the missing link between the horse and buggy and a semi truck?

Of course, it may be that, both the horseless carriage and the semi truck both had the same creator.
Click to expand...

Wow, I've never seen a reproducing Volkswagen before. How many are in a litter?
 
Original_Intent said:
Bingo. When I saw that fossil I was expecting something at least somewhat human - something Neanderthalish or Cro- Magnanish. Anyone that sees this new fossil as proof of a missing link truly needs their head examined.

Of course, this is where the pro-evolutionists say "YOU aren't an expert! You just don't understand how this provides a missing link! If you knew what we knew you would understand!" Which just proves your point Theo - they DO sound just like religious zealots.
Click to expand...

It's not a link between humans and apes!!!

It's 47 million years old for X sake!

It's an ancestor to both humans AND apes.
 
Natural Science Necessitates Faith

Pennsylvania said:
Perhaps the fossil was never an animal at all, and was simply always a fossil. Assuming it was a living animal would require faith.
Click to expand...

A fossil is the remains of a dead organism by definition, so it's quite silly of you to suggest the fossil was never an animal before. It's not like that lemur-like fossil was walking around alive as a skeleton, after all. Besides, things have to buried rapidly before they can be fossilized, which gives an abundant proof for a global flood (since we find fossils all over the world).

The intent of pointing out the faith element of evolutionists is to show that they are not being empirical when they study raw data in nature. They look at the information, such as fossils, with a philosophical viewpoint already established before examining it (just as creationists do). Since we never observe ape-like creatures changing into human-like creatures, you can't say the fossils in the dirt have done it. All you can say scientifically is that it died. The interpretation of how the fossil died is always guided by a belief system of what may have happened in the past. Both creationists and evolutionists do that.
 
LATruth said:
Wordplay, natural selection spawns evolution.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

This being a direct result of natural selection.
Click to expand...

Natural selection is one theory for the occurrence of evolution. Genetic drift is another. Mutation is a third.
 
Mosheh Thezion said:
NO... it means you should study the science and the facts, and simply recognise that biblical creation is nothing but a 3000 year old primitive version of what we now know..

i.e.. its not wrong... its just extremely primitive.

but the pattern of development put forward in Genisis, does not contradict evolution, in fact after abundant study I would suggest to you, that evolution in truth supports creation.... AS LONG AS WE GET OVER THE STUPID 6000 YEAR OLD THING.

THE BIBLE DOESNT SAY 6000 YEARS.... ANYWHERE.

AND... sadly.. it is the fanatics who insist on it, that make creation impossible to believe..

change that 6000 year belief... and its stops being a crazy idea.

GOD DOES NOT LIVE ON EARTH, and so, is not limited to a earthly day.

-MEMAT
Click to expand...

Whoa now, slow down. I never said anything about a 6000 year time-line. I did say something about the Bible being a book of fiction, telling the tale of a mystical being based on nothing factual, which is written by man being quoted as a direct word of "god" being used to combat scientific evidence of evolution. Debate this with me since it's what i said.

And yes, its a crazy idea no matter how you shake a stick at it.
 
LATruth said:
Whoa now, slow down. I never said anything about a 6000 year time-line. I did say something about the Bible being a book of fiction, telling the tale of a mystical being based on nothing factual, which is written by man being quoted as a direct word of "god" being used to combat scientific evidence of evolution. Debate this with me since it's what i said.

And yes, its a crazy idea no matter how you shake a stick at it.
Click to expand...

IF YOU GIVE UP the 6000 year old thing, its no longer crazy.

And you.. need to wonder if you want to debate this.
see.....> http://empiricalchurch.org/createvolutionism/
and see..> http://empiricalchurch.org/theory/

I am very ready to debate it, for hours.

But it maybe more work that we both want to do.


its simple... its 47 million years old, and has a massive tail.

if it is anything, it is a link.. sure, but so what?

that does nothing to crush the biblical version, because the bible doesnt say 6000 years.

read the link..... http://empiricalchurch.org/createvolutionism/

and consider.

-MEMAT
 
LATruth said:
It is a story written by man with mystical beings. There is nothing false about my statement. Unless you believe in floating pens scribing on magical parchment.
Click to expand...

Like I said, don't be surprised if there is blowback.
 
LibertyEagle said:
Like I said, don't be surprised if there is blowback.
Click to expand...

I am prepared for blowback, IMO you can not debate something metaphysical with the tangible and expect a logical discussion. So it all seems sort of silly this discussion exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top