Originally posted by sonhouse
Now the last argument you have is crumbling before your eyes: No missing link to modern humans. Well there is one now. I feel sorry for your loss.

Someone rec'd this?!! How amusing. Could you post your evidence for review and discussion?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Not to mention that your attacking YECism does nothing to increase the credibility of evolution...

I ask again, have you read any Creation magazines?

It might surprise you that Creationists actually do have scientific evidence to back up their views..

Not to mention that your attacking YECism does nothing to increase the credibility of evolution...

Irrelevant. No one argues for evolution on the grounds that YECism is not true. That the two views span the entire set of all ideas for the origins of life is a distinctly YEC way of thinking.

Originally posted by Starrman
What evidence? I confronted you over and over again and you just came back with the same drivel you always do, I grew tired of responding to nonsense. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show me this 'evidence'.

And while we're on the subject of running away from threads, I'd remind you of the living in sin story which you tried to get out of for weeks, plu ...[text shortened]... ion, independant criticism, weight of evidence? where are these thigs in that article?

I am actually in the middle of my exams, when I have the time I could gladly proceed with our discussion...

You were the one with the cop out saying you never wanted to talk to me again...

Originally posted by telerion
[b]Not to mention that your attacking YECism does nothing to increase the credibility of evolution...

Irrelevant. No one argues for evolution on the grounds that YECism is not true. That the two views span the entire set of all ideas for the origins of life is a distinctly YEC way of thinking.[/b]

You are allowed to ignore rhetorical statements...

Originally posted by dj2becker

I had already answered your question. A little advice: Stop typing and learn to read.

Edit: I see that you realized your error.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You were the one with the cop out saying you never wanted to talk to me again...[/b]

The only reason I continue to do so, despite the headache it gives me, is my refusal to let your corkscrew induction and abhorrent faith make any headway in terms of debunking science, since it is, as Telerion so nicely puts it, 'god magic' and not science at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sadly Creationists and IDers will not be happy untill every single fosil of every single living thing on the earth ever to have lived is found, and prooved to be genuine and then they will still deny it. Missing links have never detracted from the theory of evolution, but rather the fact that people talk about the existance of a missing link shows that th xible so that if it is observed then it becomes micro. All fosil record is discounted as fake.

Sadly Creationists and IDers will not be happy untill[sic] every single fosil[sic] of every single living thing on the earth ever to have lived is found, and proved[sic] to be genuine and then they will still deny it.

Hogwash. ID'ers find the contemporary evidence deficient in confirming neo-Darwinian evolution. Your jaundiced ad hominems are unsubstantiated and bigoted.

Missing links have never detracted from the theory of evolution, but rather the fact that people talk about the existance[sic] of a missing link shows that there is a clearly discernable pattern in the fossil record and the existance[sic] of intermediate species can be infered[sic].

Some more of your pathetic plebian verbiage. What do you mean missing links don't detract from the TOE? Do you even understand neo-Darwinian evolution? According to the TOE all living creatures evolved from one, and I repeat, one, common ancestor. There is no way scientists can explain the genetic similarity and homology exhibited through the all taxonomical groups without alluding to a common ancestor (or a common Designer).

The fact that the paleontological evidence shows clearly defined animal classes (reptilia, aves, mammalia, etc) rather than an organic flow of animal evolution is a serious blow to the neo-Darwinian theory. If you want to assert that this doesn't cause any questioning of the theory, I'll have to classify you as the dj2 of evolutionists. Your moving of the goal-posts is sooooo hypocritical: you are the very thing you condemn in YEC'ers.

So the fact that people talk about the existence of UFO's shows that a clearly visible inference can be made for their existence? You never cease to amaze me.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I didn't raise the point. The point is raised often by creationists with their 18th century understanding of science.

18th Century understanding?! You are the one claiming that infinity means “all of time”. You agree that time started during the Big Bang however-many years ago this was, but then you go on to claim that this definable amount of time (X billion years) equals infinity and therefore the universe is self-sustaining, self-created and therefore uncaused. This semantic illusion is just one of the many obfuscator tactics the “anti-god squad” (hereafter referred to as the AGS® ) delve into.

Originally posted by Starrman
You have the temerity to lecture me on deduction? You don't even know what the word means.

Originally posted by Starrman
That's not a very Christian way to act is it dj? Why don't you offer up your other cheek so I can smack-talk it too?

Ah, the classic double standard of the non-godbotherers. 'I know everything about your system of thought, but you can know nothing of my domain.'

Of course, [dripping with Christ-like sarcastic love here] the Christian viewpoint can not be supported logically. Logic, that purely man-constructed standard which stands on its own without external support, cannot enter into the Christian perspective; Christianity only survives on circular reasoning [end of sarcasm].

As logic depends upon the living God, to remove Him from the equation would be like removing numbers and attempting math.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
would be like removing numbers and attempting math.

When you usee numbers, it's arithmetic; math doesn't use numbers.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
When you usee numbers, it's arithmetic; math doesn't use numbers.

Numbers, things, etc. You understood the concept.

mathematics
n
The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Numbers, things, etc. You understood the concept.

mathematics
n
The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using [b]numbers and symbols.[/b]

The dictionary is wrong, again. The editors need to return to finding definitions from standard usage by informed users instead of all. Soon, "my bad" will be acceptable English. 😛

Originally posted by Halitose
Someone rec'd this?!! How amusing. Could you post your evidence for review and discussion?

Crap! Can't believe I forgot to paste the article:
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/
And one more:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/25/missing.link.ap/index.html

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The dictionary is wrong, again. The editors need to return to finding definitions from standard usage by [b]informed users instead of all. Soon, "my bad" will be acceptable English. 😛[/b]

My bad.

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/25/missing.link.ap/index.html

No, sorry...that article says the discovery was in Africa. Everyone KNOWS Adam & Eve were white.