"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson
'Missing Links', what are missing links and how does it affect Evolutionary thinking? Why do evolutionist's need to find them in the first place?
There are 'missing Links' in our thinking from all sides of the Natural selection problem, but because of Pride and an inability to SEE facts for what they really are, we accept the lie as is.
If we thought the way we do on this on ALL things, the human Race would all be extinct by now. Good Logic and Common Sense are in very short supply when it comes to the VAST evidence of Creation. Boasting and Pride in our own selfish behavior is in Abundance.
Is this true Logic in action?
Is this Honest intellecual behavior?
Thomas Jefferson
'Missing Links', what are missing links and how does it affect Evolutionary thinking? Why do evolutionist's need to find them in the first place?
There are 'missing Links' in our thinking from all sides of the Natural selection problem, but because of Pride and an inability to SEE facts for what they really are, we accept the lie as is.
If we thought the way we do on this on ALL things, the human Race would all be extinct by now. Good Logic and Common Sense are in very short supply when it comes to the VAST evidence of Creation. Boasting and Pride in our own selfish behavior is in Abundance.
Is this true Logic in action?
Is this Honest intellecual behavior?
Missing Link:
"A theoretical primate postulated to bridge the evolutionary gap between the anthropoid apes and humans. Something lacking that is needed to complete a series."
If evolution is the truth beyond a doubt, what does the link add to it? If they FINALLY found that one link between modern man and ape man would it matter?
Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis
"Archaeoraptor" was unveiled at a press conference held by National Geographic magazine in October 1999. At the same press conference, plans were announced to return the fossil to Chinese authorities, as it was illegally exported.
In November 1999 National Geographic featured the fossil in an article written by art editor Christopher Sloan. The article in general discussed feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds.
It claimed the fossil was "a missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly" and informally referred to it as "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis", announcing it would later be formally named as such. This name means "ancient robber of Liaoning".[5] This drew immediate criticism from Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Writing in Backbone, the newsletter of his museum, he denounced the publication of a scientific name in a popular journal, without peer review, as a "nightmare".[6]
On February 3, 2000, National Geographic issued a press release stating that the fossil could be a composite, and that an internal investigation had begun.
In that same month Bill Allen, National Geographic editor, told Nature that he was "furious" to learn that the fossil might have been faked. In the March issue, in the forum section, a letter from Dr. Xu Xing pointed out that the tail section probably did not match the upper body. In October 2000 National Geographic published the results of their investigation, in an article written by investigative journalist Lewis M. Simmons. They concluded that the fossil was a composite and that virtually everyone involved in the project had made some mistakes.[7]
This is common with every so-called Missing Link that has been found so far. They are so desperate to find proof that great mistakes are made on a regular basis.
Dishonest handling of evidence, and ignoring of creationist evidence that better fits the problem is not logical and further creates a divide between real science and Faith.
The Wall Street Journal reports that scientists believe that the almost mythical missing link has been found.
The missing link is supposed to prove that Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct, I mean really they've had over 100 years to find just ONE of Millions of Fossils.
Who's your Momma?
In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans.
Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today’s lemurs in Madagascar.
Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs. Evolution has CONSTANT CHANGES to coincide with new finds, that is how science works, BUT why make such emphatic statements of certainty about a theory that like the waves of the sea is in constant flux?
In real science your theory should be made more solid with every find, but with evolutionary theory it seems to be made more fluid with every new find and idea added to it! With every new find in science today, Creation Research is solidified as pure Science the more we find out about just how complex our Earth and universe are. This cannot be ignored forever because at some point Creation will stop being theory and become like gravity, ignore it and you'll fall flat.
This find will be found another fake or misread just as the others, as their record proves only one thing, dishonest dealings in science studies! Creation has a case, A GREAT CASE, but we must be heard before that matters. Those who know the truth are deliberate in their SILENCING of our side of the debate with childish school yard behavior.
They find a Monkey bone, its dated by faulty dating methods and because all Monkeys are necessarily related and by extension because they think man is related to monkeys thereby this monkey is our ancestor, what kind of proof is that, it sounds like 'Circular Reasoning' to me!
So why is it that Evolutionist's cannot call a leap in logic exactly what it is - FAITH..... They are trying to PLAY connect the dots without really having the complete underlying scientific support for doing so, if they had their ducks in row to start with, these so-called new discoveries of missing links would make perfect sense THEN we could take them seriously. Evolution is FILLED with scandal after scandal, so what makes anything they say true when they have a History of lies and cover-ups to their credit?
See the Piltdown Hoax:CLICK HERE
Low Down on Piltdown
The Neanderthal Dating issue: CLICK HERE
**************************************************************************
The following links are to Debates concerning the said links, enjoy Apologetic at its best!
***************************************************************************
“We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any good influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproven, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as scientific fact.”
Dr. Thomas Dwight of Harvard (Died 1911)
They will say that since he died in 1911, that his knowledge of science is now outdated, more is known now than when he made this statement. Well, while more is known, and not to support evolution by the way, but to support Creation than ever before it doesn't change one bit what he said, it still applies!
The point he made was clear, Evolution like sex...SELLS, the masses buy it up like candy without one single bit of SOLID PROOF available, its built upon a stack of circumstantial facts that could be interpreted many ways if allowed. These dishonest men and women hide behind these shallow facts that remain unchanged even after the scandals are long gone!
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity
in Creation, this is the trouble Evolutionists face and seem to never be able to answer.
in Creation, this is the trouble Evolutionists face and seem to never be able to answer. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day, seems to be a reverse of the above argument only in this case their science was non-existent YET!
Evolution would be plausible IF the very smallest of creation were NOT SO COMPLEX, but that my friend is God's big joke on man. He made his creation more complex as you descend into its make-up, the exact opposite of how evolution really works.
We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Darwin confessed
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Evolution is in an IRREDUCIBLE free fall, the more we learn about how nature functions the smaller evolution becomes!
