Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[Joel_A]

How about atheists' mind wriggling?

"If God is almighty, can he create a god that is more powerful than him?"   

it's a simple yes or no question.

[Deicide]

it's a simple yes or no question.

Yo=yes+no

[Necrosis]

No.  That's not what the Bible is saying.

God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character, but God can do anything that He determines to do.

No.

God is omnipotent.  Can God give up His omnipotence, after which He would no longer be omnipotent and would be unable to regain His omnipotence?  Maybe, maybe not.  I don't know.  Either way, God has not done that and will not do that.  Therefore, God remains omnipotent.

The question or the answer will not change a Christian's faith, neither will it make an atheist believe in God.  It neither proves that there is no God, nor does it prove that there is.  It's pointless and irrelevant.

it proves that an all-powerful, all-knowing god is not rational nor logical is what is proves. Based on the rules of logic it is impossible.

"God is omnipotent.  Can God give up His omnipotence, after which He would no longer be omnipotent and would be unable to regain His omnipotence?  Maybe, maybe not.  I don't know.  Either way, God has not done that and will not do that.  Therefore, God remains omnipotent."

you have no idea if the above is the case, simply because i dont know and you dont have special powers that i do not have.

[Necrosis]

No.  That's not what the Bible is saying.

God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character, but God can do anything that He determines to do.

No.

God is omnipotent.  Can God give up His omnipotence, after which He would no longer be omnipotent and would be unable to regain His omnipotence?  Maybe, maybe not.  I don't know.  Either way, God has not done that and will not do that.  Therefore, God remains omnipotent.

The question or the answer will not change a Christian's faith, neither will it make an atheist believe in God.  It neither proves that there is no God, nor does it prove that there is.  It's pointless and irrelevant.

[Hedgehog]

Why are many Christians so suspicious of science?
Wouldn't it be great for them if Christianity was proven to be a fraud?
That way they could stop believing something that isn't correct.

Just as I, as an Atheist, would welcome any evidence that there is a God. Then I would become a believer in an instant.

[loco]

it proves that an all-powerful, all-knowing god is not rational nor logical is what is proves. Based on the rules of logic it is impossible.

"God is omnipotent.  Can God give up His omnipotence, after which He would no longer be omnipotent and would be unable to regain His omnipotence?  Maybe, maybe not.  I don't know.  Either way, God has not done that and will not do that.  Therefore, God remains omnipotent."

you have no idea if the above is the case, simply because i dont know and you dont have special powers that i do not have.

I thought we were talking about the God of the Bible.  As a Biblical Christian, I'm basing the above on the Bible.

[loco]

Why are many Christians so suspicious of science?
Wouldn't it be great for them if Christianity was proven to be a fraud?
That way they could stop believing something that isn't correct.

Just as I, as an Atheist, would welcome any evidence that there is a God. Then I would become a believer in an instant.

Christians are not suspicious of science.  But many Christians are suspicious of biased scientists whose only agenda is to "kill" faith in God, to make money and to get recognition at any cost.

And Christians are not the only ones.  I've already posted articles about secular, main stream scientists who are viewing this alleged missing link with suspicion.

[Butterbean]

LOL. I love fundamentalists' mind wriggling...

I know if I throw a 5# rock at a window w/1/2 in. glass the glass will break.  I still have to make the decision to throw the rock.

[Necrosis]

Christians are not suspicious of science.  But many Christians are suspicious of biased scientists whose only agenda is to "kill" faith in God, to make money and to get recognition at any cost.

And Christians are not the only ones.  I've already posted articles about secular, main stream scientists who are viewing this alleged missing link with suspicion.

no real scientist bases his work on such, you are brainswashed my friend.

[loco]

no real scientist bases his work on such, you are brainswashed my friend.

Richard Dawkins has said that his goal for teaching evolution is "to kill religion."  He has also said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine."  That's a biased scientist.

When the scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory, Einstein initially dismissed the theory without thought or consideration, in part because it came from a priest and because it implied "Creation" and a "Creator."  Einstein was quick to endorse both Lemaître and his theory only after Hubble confirmed the theory.

Imagine that, the Big Bang theory...first proposed by a God believing church priest, but dismissed by Einstein initially because of an anti-religion/anti-church bias.

[Necrosis]

Richard Dawkins has said that his goal for teaching evolution is "to kill religion."  He has also said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine."  That's a biased scientist.

When the scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory, Einstein initially dismissed the theory without thought or consideration, in part because it came from a priest and because it implied "Creation" and a "Creator."  Einstein was quick to endorse both Lemaître and his theory only after Hubble confirmed the theory.

Imagine that, the Big Bang theory...first proposed by a God believing church priest, but dismissed by Einstein initially because of an anti-religion/anti-church bias.

there is certainly more to the story here. Just like when you guys posted the stuff about expelled, only to find out that the film is 100% lies and propaganda. Or kent hovind, a criminal and known liar etc etc........


find the entire dawkins quote if you would.

[loco]

there is certainly more to the story here. Just like when you guys posted the stuff about expelled, only to find out that the film is 100% lies and propaganda. Or kent hovind, a criminal and known liar etc etc........

There is more to which story?   

Who is Kent Hovind?

find the entire dawkins quote if you would.

You really deny that Dawkins said these things?  I'll find the YouTube videos later so that you can see and hear for yourself.

[loco]

AURORA FORUM AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY
9 March 2008

AGAINST IGNORANCE:
SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
A CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD DAWKINS AND LAWRENCE KRAUSS

Page 14

http://auroraforum.stanford.edu/files/transcripts/Aurora_Forum_Transcript_Richard_Dawkins_Lawrence_Krauss_03.09.08.pdf

Krauss: No, you see this isn’t the Church of England. [Laughter] No, it’s true. These
kids, every Sunday, from the time they’re too young to think—and that’s why both you
and I absolutely agree that it’s sort of child abuse to subject children to that,
[Laughter/Applause] but they are told that. They are told that in this country, and that is
why many of them just have this gut reaction. Because if I have to be an atheist to
believe in evolution, I clearly am not going to believe in evolution because it’s a threat to
my belief, but if you just tell them it doesn’t require that, then it is eye-opening and
useful. At the same time, I think it’s disingenuous not to point out that there are tensions,
and our mutual friend Steven Weinberg, another physicist, has put it, I think, most
eloquently by saying that science doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God. It just
makes it possible to not believe in God.

Dawkins: Yes. Well, I want to go further than that. As you were talking then, I thought,
I could put it exactly the other way around. You can go to these people in their churches
and say, “Look, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.” Now, if your
aim is to propagandize in favor of evolution, that obviously is the best seduction
technique. But if your aim is to kill religion, as mine is, [Laughter] then since evolution
is manifestly true, then if there are people out there who really believe that if you are an
evolutionist you’ve got to be an atheist, then all I’ve got to do is to persuade them of
evolution, which should be comparatively easy since the evidence is overwhelming, and
I’ll turn them all into atheists. [Laughter]

[Joel_A]

Richard Dawkins has said that his goal for teaching evolution is "to kill religion."  He has also said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine."  That's a biased scientist.

When the scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory, Einstein initially dismissed the theory without thought or consideration, in part because it came from a priest and because it implied "Creation" and a "Creator."  Einstein was quick to endorse both Lemaître and his theory only after Hubble confirmed the theory.

Imagine that, the Big Bang theory...first proposed by a God believing church priest, but dismissed by Einstein initially because of an anti-religion/anti-church bias.

You are highlighting the fact that LeMaitre was a priest, instead of also being a physicist, and a brilliant one at that. Any new theory that gets presented WILL get much scrutiny regardless of their stature. 

Einstein found it suspect because he deemed it unjustifiable from a physical point of view. On the other hand, Einstein encouraged Lemaître to look into the possibility of models of non-isotropic expansion, so it's clear he was not altogether dismissive of the concept. He also appreciated Lemaître's argument that a static-Einstein model of the universe could not be sustained indefinitely into the past.After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and is supposed to have said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." However there is disagreement over the reporting of this quote in the newspapers of the time, and it may be that Einstein was not actually referring to the theory as a whole but to Lemaître's proposal that cosmic rays may in fact be the left over artifacts of the initial "explosion." Later research on cosmic rays by Robert Millikan would undercut this proposal, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html


And how did you come up to the conclusion that Einstein dismissed him because of his bias?

[Joel_A]

It's well known that Dawkins wants to eliminate religion. A lot of people are with him, not just atheists. Organized religion does more harm than good. Why do people need religion to have a personal relationship with God? Why would a priest/pastor/imam know more about heaven or hell than a regular guy? Has he actually been to those places? If not, then why would anyone believe him?

[Necrosis]

AURORA FORUM AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY
9 March 2008

AGAINST IGNORANCE:
SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
A CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD DAWKINS AND LAWRENCE KRAUSS

Page 14

http://auroraforum.stanford.edu/files/transcripts/Aurora_Forum_Transcript_Richard_Dawkins_Lawrence_Krauss_03.09.08.pdf

Krauss: No, you see this isn’t the Church of England. [Laughter] No, it’s true. These
kids, every Sunday, from the time they’re too young to think—and that’s why both you
and I absolutely agree that it’s sort of child abuse to subject children to that,
[Laughter/Applause] but they are told that. They are told that in this country, and that is
why many of them just have this gut reaction. Because if I have to be an atheist to
believe in evolution, I clearly am not going to believe in evolution because it’s a threat to
my belief, but if you just tell them it doesn’t require that, then it is eye-opening and
useful. At the same time, I think it’s disingenuous not to point out that there are tensions,
and our mutual friend Steven Weinberg, another physicist, has put it, I think, most
eloquently by saying that science doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God. It just
makes it possible to not believe in God.

Dawkins: Yes. Well, I want to go further than that. As you were talking then, I thought,
I could put it exactly the other way around. You can go to these people in their churches
and say, “Look, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.” Now, if your
aim is to propagandize in favor of evolution, that obviously is the best seduction
technique. But if your aim is to kill religion, as mine is, [Laughter] then since evolution
is manifestly true, then if there are people out there who really believe that if you are an
evolutionist you’ve got to be an atheist, then all I’ve got to do is to persuade them of
evolution, which should be comparatively easy since the evidence is overwhelming, and
I’ll turn them all into atheists. [Laughter]

are you reading the same quote as me, he is stating the truth that evolution is a fact, a demonstratable fact backed by mounds of evidence. So he is suggesting that if you were to say that you cannot beleive both, it would be easy to disprove god etc.. by proving evolution. Creationism or intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive, you cant literally beleive that the earth is 6000 years old and beleive in evolution, they are incompatible.

he is also halfway joking hence the laughter. He doesnt do science to disprove religion, his previous work has nothing to do with it at all. He is passionate about truth something religion fails to provide.

[loco]

It's well known that Dawkins wants to eliminate religion. A lot of people are with him, not just atheists. Organized religion does more harm than good. Why do people need religion to have a personal relationship with God? Why would a priest/pastor/imam know more about heaven or hell than a regular guy? Has he actually been to those places? If not, then why would anyone believe him?

[Joel_A]

Wow, I didn't know it's cherry season. You do a lot of cherry-picking.

[loco]

Wow, I didn't know it's cherry season. You do a lot of cherry-picking.

What are you talking about, Joel?  I was going to say to Necrosis that it is well known that Dawkins wants to destroy religion, but you said it first.

When Richard Dawkins says that his aim is to kill religion and to turn all into atheists, he is not joking.  His words and his actions the last few years have made that very clear. 

Richard Dawkins' attitude and words only make Christians suspicious of biased scientists like him.

[Necrosis]

What are you talking about, Joel?  I was going to say to Necrosis that it is well known that Dawkins wants to destroy religion, but you said it first.

When Richard Dawkins says that his aim is to kill religion and to turn all into atheists, he is not joking.  His words and his actions the last few years have made that very clear. 

Richard Dawkins' attitude and words only make Christians suspicious of biased scientists like him.

so? what does that have to do with the research he has done? i know nothing. it is his own personal agenda, it doesnt influence his science, his work has nothing to do with it if you look.

[Government_Controlled]

So what are all these scientists doing then? Wasting their time? Should they just be consulting the Bible?

Sure, there were many times when "they" could have consulted the Bible, and been in the know. Too bad for them! There were allot of ancients, that would have saved a many lives of their own, if only they would have listened to the word.



GC/DEA_AGENT

[Government_Controlled]

it's a simple yes or no question.

Yes. Would He, no. This is one of those questions, Jesus warned about.



GC/DEA_AGENT

[loco]

Why are many Christians so suspicious of science?
Wouldn't it be great for them if Christianity was proven to be a fraud?
That way they could stop believing something that isn't correct.

Just as I, as an Atheist, would welcome any evidence that there is a God. Then I would become a believer in an instant.

Christians are not suspicious of science.  But many Christians are suspicious of biased scientists whose only agenda is to "kill" faith in God, to make money and to get recognition at any cost.

Primate fossil 'not an ancestor'
BBC News
Wednesday, 21 October 2009

The exceptionally well-preserved fossil primate known as "Ida" is not a missing link as some have claimed, according to an analysis in the journal Nature.

The research is the first independent assessment of the claims made in a scientific paper and a television documentary earlier this year.

Dr Erik Seiffert says that Ida belonged to a group more closely linked to lemurs than to monkeys, apes or us.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8318643.stm

Fossil hailed as Man's ancestor is 'not even close relative'
From The Times
October 22, 2009

Darwinius masillae, the primitive primate that was unveiled to the world with huge fanfare and a Sir David Attenborough documentary in May, seems now to have been less of a missing link than an evolutionary dead end.

Far from being an ancestor to humans, the lemur-like creature from 47 million years ago belongs to an entirely different branch of the primate family tree that has left no known descendants, research has indicated.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6884359.ece

[MCWAY]

I think Loco's point is simply this:

Every time we turn around, evolutionists claim that they "finally" found the missing link, only to later retract that statement and claim that the fossil is NOT such a link.

A prime example of this happened about 100 years ago. Has anyone ever heard of the coelacanth fish?

Well, evolutionists once that that the coelacanth (or "Zeke", as I like to call it) was extinct. Based on the fossil findings, they made up all manner of wild claims, asserting that this fish's fins were used to walk on the surface of the water and "evolve" into legs to walk on land.

It turns out that these fish weren't so extinct after all. There were found, in a certain region of the world: Alive, well, and (to the chagrin of evolutionists).......STILL FISH!!

They had virtually none of the characteristics that evolutionists assigned to them. That tends to be the case with "living fossils".

[loco]

I think Loco's point is simply this:

Every time we turn around, evolutionists claim that they "finally" found the missing link, only to later retract that statement and claim that the fossil is NOT such a link.

A prime example of this happened about 100 years ago. Has anyone ever heard of the coelacanth fish?

Well, evolutionists once that that the coelacanth (or "Zeke", as I like to call it) was extinct. Based on the fossil findings, they made up all manner of wild claims, asserting that this fish's fins were used to walk on the surface of the water and "evolve" into legs to walk on land.

It turns out that these fish weren't so extinct after all. There were found, in a certain region of the world: Alive, well, and (to the chagrin of evolutionists).......STILL FISH!!

They had virtually none of the characteristics that evolutionists assigned to them. That tends to be the case with "living fossils".

Exactly! 

Hey MCWAY!  Good to see you on the board again!  Long time no read!  Hope you and your family had a great Thanksgiving Day, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas too!   

The board has been kind of dead since Obama became President of the USA.  People don't come here to blame all of the world's problems on Christianity nearly as much as they did during the Bush years.