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

You Forgot Some Things

Mesogen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't feel stupid for believing in the historical account of the Flood nor the serpent in the Garden of Eden. They happened just as God said they did, but you lack the presuppositions to accept it as truth. It's far more feasible than the evolution fairy tale which teaches that life came from non-life.

Mesogen said:
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.
Click to expand...

How do you know it's an ancestor of primates? Were you there when it lived, or are you just believing what the evolution priests are telling you it represents?

Mesogen said:
No single fossil shows evolution. You need lots of fossils to do that.
Click to expand...

You missed the whole gist of my argument. It doesn't matter how many fossils there are, you still will interpret how they came to be based on your naturalistic or supernaturalistic views of the data. Putting a spork between a spoon and a fork does not prove that the spoon evolved into a fork, and arranging fossils into a particular order does not prove common descent.

Mesogen said:
Similarities can show a relationship. Progressive differences throughout time are evidence of lineage (and evolution).
Click to expand...

Do you see what you've already assumed? Just by saying "progressive differences," you're assuming a correlation amongst the fossils without having observed that supposed "progression" empirically.

Mesogen said:
Newspapers and magazines do a shitty job of reporting science. They try to sensationalize it and in the process get the story wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not only the media's fault. Evolutionists do a shitty job of reporting science, too.
 
LATruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're debating hypotheses and theories and acting like they are scientific facts. :rolleyes: Personally, I'm not seeing the logic in that.

Carry on.
 
LibertyEagle said:
You're debating hypotheses and theories and acting like they are scientific facts. :rolleyes: Personally, I'm not seeing the logic in that.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's why I said the whole debate is silly. There is NO logic in this debate when you break it down to the lowest common denominator. It all ends up being he said she said.

But only one side seems to be corroborated with science, which I trust.
 
being prepared for blowback... is not the same thing as winning the arguement.
And saying... its not possible to debate it, says... you cant... which means you have already lost.

-MEMAT
 
Mosheh Thezion said:
being prepared for blowback... is not the same thing as winning the arguement.
And saying... its not possible to debate it, says... you cant... which means you have already lost.

-MEMAT
Click to expand...

This is an UNWINNABLE argument, we can debate this until the cows grow wings and never discover common ground. Losing is impossible. So is winning.

We can go back and forth if you want though. I am just tired of going in virtual circles.
 
LATruth said:
But only one side seems to be corroborated with science, which I trust.
Click to expand...

That must mean that you believe in the Bible then. Because the events therein are much more corroborated with scientific FACT, than evolution has ever shown. :D
 
im sorry bro... did you check the links??

because I am ready... ready to win... lets start with the 30 pages.. here..
http://empiricalchurch.org/theory/
and lets focus on this.......> http://empiricalchurch.org/createvolutionism/

and mind you... all of it.. is based on the science, and not the religion.

My arguement is, that if you learn the very science, you come to realise that it does not nessasrily contradict the religioN.. (ATLEAST NOT GENISIS).

And i of course, am only speaking of genesis, chapter one... not the entire religion itself.

-MEMAT
 
Mesogen said:
The process of natural selection relies on mutation and possibly genetic drift also.
Click to expand...

You need to go reread your biology book. Natural selection is specifically where heritable traits are passed to offspring that make them more likely to survive to produce offspring of their own or increase their fitness. There is no reliance. The body of accepted processes of evolution include all three. They're separate mechanism and separate explanations.
 
LibertyEagle said:
That must mean that you believe in the Bible then. Because the events therein are much more corroborated with scientific FACT, than evolution has ever shown. :D
Click to expand...

believe in the bible? Not hardly. No one has proven Jesus has ever existed. All sites in the bible are still under debate as far as their location. The fact that people believe its the "word of god" when it was rewritten and changed 100's of times to heighten the powers that be's status is ridiculous. And your statement is ridiculous, "I must believe in the bible because it's been backed by science", bullshit. The bible is not backed by more scientific fact than fossil records and evolution.

NOTHING is the bible has been validated, except when it was written, even that is under some speculation.
 
LATruth said:
believe in the bible? Not hardly. No one has proven Jesus has ever existed. All sites in the bible are still under debate as far as their location. The fact that people believe its the "word of god" when it was rewritten and changed 100's of times to heighten the powers that be's status is ridiculous. And your statement is ridiculous, "I must believe in the bible because it's been backed by science", bullshit. The bible is not backed by more scientific fact than fossil records and evolution.

NOTHING is the bible has been validated, except when it was written, even that is under some speculation.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Heard of Jerusalem? Heard of Bethlehem........? ;)

And your statement is ridiculous, "I must believe in the bible because it's been backed by science", bullshit. The bible is not backed by more scientific fact than fossil records and evolution.
Click to expand...
Actually, I didn't say that. What I said was that there were more scientific facts in support of the Bible than there has ever been with the theory of evolution.
 
Last edited:
You Did Divert From the Topic

Pennsylvania said:
Oh come now. If it were a red herring, it would have been set up to divert from my original argument with Liberty Eagle, which you will note, did not exist until that post.
Click to expand...

What does God killing children have to do with the scientific facts agreeing with the Bible? :confused:
 
LibertyEagle said:
Oh really? Heard of Jerusalem? Heard of Bethlehem........? ;)
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?, those cities existed before the bible was written. Proves nothing. You sound like MSM debating the fema camps, taking the ONLY 2 examples you know that exist today that are in the bible. Proving nothing about your claim.
 
This has been the most logical statement of the whole thread.

LATruth said:
This is an UNWINNABLE argument, we can debate this until the cows grow wings and never discover common ground. Losing is impossible. So is winning.

We can go back and forth if you want though. I am just tired of going in virtual circles.
Click to expand...

This is not a winnable argument, its turned into who has a bigger penis thread.
penis = the willingness to bang your head against the wall repeating beliefs that can't be proven .
 
LATruth said:
Are you kidding?, those cities existed before the bible was written. Proves nothing. You sound like MSM debating the fema camps, taking the ONLY 2 examples you know that exist today that are in the bible. Proving nothing about your claim.
Click to expand...

I claimed nothing besides the obvious that there are many more scientific facts in support of the Bible, than there ever were surrounding the theory of evolution. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top