Originally posted by robbie carrobieOkay, what is your definition of 'fundamentalism'? Personally, I don't mind just keeping the term as a pejorative, but I am interested in hearing other views. That's why I asked the other guy since he seems intent on going another route.
ask me! ask me!
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm a little bewildered. You seem to imply that there is no missing link by your request for references, as if thousands of common ones didn't exist.
References please. Which missing link is still missing?
I'll give you a recent one... remember Lucy? The scientists were sure to have "finally" found the "missing link." But alas, the link is still missing.
Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link
By Editorial Staff
Published December 2007
The science of finding and identifying man’s “prehistoric ancestors” runs in a predictable pattern. A press conference is announced, the discovery of an ape-like “ancestor” revealed with an artist’s impression of what the creature looks like, and the discoverer becomes famous, earning money on lecture tours. The actual fossil bones are scanty and the imagination runs wild. Later, when more evidence is found, the “ancestor” turns out to be totally human or totally ape. The Neanderthal man is an example of one find that turns out to be totally human. Once this find is removed as an intermediate form, you can expect another great discovery to save the day. The latest discovery is “Lucy.”
If you are of the impression that there are many intermediate ancestors to man, take notice of the following statement by an expert in the field: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed with room to spare inside a single coffin.“
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html
And I think the link between single-celled organism, algae, and lizard is still up for debate.
Hey, let's go back to the most awesome missing link of all. The link between pre and post "big bang."
Without a Creator, one is left only with the "logical" argument that the universe created itself.
Originally posted by sumydidWithout a Creator, one is left only with the "logical" argument that the universe created itself.
And I think the link between single-celled organism, algae, and lizard is still up for debate.
Hey, let's go back to the most awesome missing link of all. The link between pre and post "big bang."
Without a Creator, one is left only with the "logical" argument that the universe created itself.
Say what? That must be a joke. Or else maybe you are not very familiar with both sides of the cosmological argument. Unfortunately for you theists, the first part of the cosmological argument doesn't demonstrate jack with respect to the truth of theism. And actually, there seems to be a sort of dialectic symmetry. For instance, whatever you want to claim about the creator, it seems the other side could just as well claim the same about the universe itself. For example, suppose you want to say that God is a necessary entity (metaphysically or ontologically) or that God is a self-existent entity. Well, what's to stop someone else from claiming the same about the universe itself? What's to stop them from saying the universe has always existed (which does not entail its being created)? Or what's to stop them from simply denying the principle of sufficient reason and, for example, claiming that the universe's existence at at bottom simply has no explanation (which also doesn't entail creation)? Or what's to stop them from adopting other explanatory platforms that likewise do not entail creation? Aren't there many alternatives here? You must be joking when you say that they are committed to the idea that the universe somehow created itself. Actually, that self-creation kind of nonsense (or at least nonsense along roughly similar lines) belongs in a stronger sense to your side of the argument with creationists who often claim self-existence for God.
By the way, how did the discussion move from evolutionary theory to cosmological origins? Are you confused on what sorts of claims are encompassed by evolutionary theory?
Originally posted by sumydidYou have spent a lot of time telling me what isn't a missing link, but scarce information on what 'link' is still 'missing' and why that should be a problem in the first place. So of those 'thousands of common ones' can you list a few, and explain why you think the fact that they are 'missing' (whatever that means) is a problem.
I'm a little bewildered. You seem to imply that there is no missing link by your request for references, as if thousands of common ones didn't exist.
As for you quote from "The forerunner" I feel compelled to point out that the writer hasn't the first clue about biology. He makes two rather odd claims:
1." ... turns out to be totally human or totally ape ..."
Well humans are apes, so bang goes that claim.
2."The Neanderthal man is an example of one find that turns out to be totally human."
Neanderthal man is most definitely not modern human (or he wouldn't have a different name, would he?), so what is meant by 'totally human'?
Originally posted by sumydidI am sure the exact link is up for debate. Why is that a problem? I am sure the link between you and a stranger you met yesterday is also 'up for debate', but you do not deny that you are related do you?
And I think the link between single-celled organism, algae, and lizard is still up for debate.
Algae are plants and lizards are animals so I would guess that they had a common ancestor many millions of years before algae evolved. I would be impossible to trace every single species in between the common ancestor and algae or the common ancestor and the lizard, but I fail to see why it is important to do so. There is a link, the basic structure of the link (common ancestry) is known and not 'up for debate'.
Lol, i am always amazed, the first prerogative of those who wish to discredit the noble theist is a claim to ignorance, ah, the last bastion of the desperate, an emotional outcry! but it is futile, for perhaps we could talk about some other notable evolutionary hoaxes! for example the noteworthy, Ramapithecus! for if you google it, you will find the type of scientific dogma and postulation that the noble theist is subject to on a daily basis, for example, the encyclopedia Britannica states,
fossil primate genus dating from the Middle and Late Miocene epochs (about 16.6 to 5.3 million years ago). For a time in the 1960s and ’70s Ramapithecus was thought to be the first direct ancestor of modern humans.
however, on further inspection you will notice that it does not state why it was only considered such in the sixties and seventies and gives the impression that its 'good science', however, it has been ascertained that the whole skeletal structure was composed from a lower jawbone and a few teeth, that is correct noble reader, the whole skeletal structure! its nothing short of saying, hey we have found a few wheel nuts and a hub cap, hey, lets construct a Cadillac complete with cowhorns! what do we learn? that there are no limits the scientific community is willing to go to try to establish their postulations and dogma, even resorting to deception!
The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.”
yes yes, the type of dogma that we have become accustomed to reading
however as time progressed, new information came to light! the consequence of which provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession?” Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.
emphasis mine, quotations from a third party source, just in case lemmony yellow gets all legalistic on me again, you never can tell 😀
time will fail us if we also uncover the devastating truth of Australopithecus as well as the aforementioned 'Lucy'.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI do not think i can answer the question given the conditions that you have set, and the terms are not so clear in my own mind as to warrant a reasonable reply, sorry 🙂
Okay, what is your definition of 'fundamentalism'? Personally, I don't mind just keeping the term as a pejorative, but I am interested in hearing other views. That's why I asked the other guy since he seems intent on going another route.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieInteresting how you too seem most intent on discovering missing links that are apparently not missing links rather than actually answering the question which was 'which missing links are still missing?'.
Lol, i am always amazed, the first prerogative of those who wish to discredit the noble theist is a claim to ignorance
The original accusation was that 'the missing link is still missing' and that science was 'sweeping it under the carpet'. Yet nobody seems to be able to point out what missing link he was referring too, nor why anyone would sweep it under the carpet (its a funny mixed metaphor though 🙂 )
Originally posted by twhiteheadoh, so you are talking to me again! don't worry you are forgiven, i never hold grudges, but you better be nice to me! 🙂
Interesting how you too seem most intent on discovering missing links that are apparently not missing links rather than actually answering the question which was 'which missing links are still missing?'.
The original accusation was that 'the missing link is still missing' and that science was 'sweeping it under the carpet'. Yet nobody seems to be able to ...[text shortened]... oo, nor why anyone would sweep it under the carpet (its a funny mixed metaphor though 🙂 )
Originally posted by twhiteheadnever mind that, what have you to say for yourself on these evolutionary frauds, is it not dithspicable!
Interesting how you too seem most intent on discovering missing links that are apparently not missing links rather than actually answering the question which was 'which missing links are still missing?'.
The original accusation was that 'the missing link is still missing' and that science was 'sweeping it under the carpet'. Yet nobody seems to be able to ...[text shortened]... oo, nor why anyone would sweep it under the carpet (its a funny mixed metaphor though 🙂 )
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI never stopped talking to you. It was you that announced that you would not talk to me. If I recall correctly that has happened several times and each time it has been when you don't want to answer a difficult question, though the most recent time was because I pointed out that you had contradicted yourself and you didn't want to admit it.
oh, so you are talking to me again! don't worry you are forgiven, i never hold grudges, but you better be nice to me! 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFraud by scientists - or by anyone for that matter is certainly dithspicable. I wont comment further on the ones you mention because I haven't investigated them because I fail to see the relevance.
never mind that, what have you to say for yourself on these evolutionary frauds, is it not dithspicable!
Originally posted by twhiteheadpah, that sir is an unmitigated fabrication, you're lucky i don't ask Scriabin to solicit a charge of defamation of character against you on my behalf!
I never stopped talking to you. It was you that announced that you would not talk to me. If I recall correctly that has happened several times and each time it has been when you don't want to answer a difficult question, though the most recent time was because I pointed out that you had contradicted yourself and you didn't want to admit it.