I just love how with all of the missing links that are produced, you never hear about who determined what it was, or how it was determined, and under what conditions, just what it was. In this case, all we get is "a team of international scientists".
Evolution has a track record of hoaxes which are gloriously touted as proof of evolution... and then when the fraud is uncovered (if the evidence is ever allowed to be examined by anyone who might not agree with those who discovered it) we almost never hear anything about the hoaxes after. As though it isn't important that "men of science" are willing to perpetrate hoaxes to prop up their theory, when in the next breath, we rely on the same men to tell us what's what about everything.
I just love how we're all supposed to take each and every new discovery with as much faith as the most out-there religion might demand of it's believers, without knowing whom has examined the evidence, what their credentials are, whether they have any personal interest or bias in the case, and whether anyone of equal suitability of the opposing viewpoint was allowed to examine the evidence at all. How many of those international scientists who were on the case this time had a problem with the theory of evolution, I wonder? I'm betting zero. As if there is no such thing as a man of an opposing viewpoint who could look at hard evidence, knowing (unlike us) whether or not it IS real evidence, who could believe his own eyes if it were true.
It's kind of like having a trial where one side simply decides arbitrarily what is and isn't evidence, without letting anyone else even examine it, and then deciding that their "evidence" (questionable or not) wins the case, and everyone on the other side is declared arbitrarily to be insane and incapable of coherent thought, let alone examining the evidence. That's fair and unbiased.
Who in their right minds would even attempt to deny that throughout human history, a certain number of men have ALWAYS tried to further their arguments by hoaxes? Some of them quite elaborate, popular and highly favored, too. How does the average person know that any of these findings represent anything but new species wholly unrelated to ourselves? There are things besides monkeys we're more genetically similar to, after all.
I find these scientific show trials disgusting. If these "missing links" are really, factually what they are supposed to be, let's get a lot of critics with more credentials than they have teeth, and let them, under supervision, or on camera even, examine the evidence and see whether everyone can agree. Let's make a big deal in the media about it. Let's say "we're finally going to duke it out... evolutionists versus the ID crowd, based on hard, solid evidence. Let's document everything, and let everyone look at what is being touted as a missing link, and then when the verdict comes in, let's watch the loosing side slink away in shame. (Or else resort to name calling, whatever works for them). But I think that it's highly insulting and suspicious that we're spoon fed these missing links as such, when no other side is given any say. What if an equally qualified scientist can tell us otherwise? What if a scientist MORE qualified would say this is a hoax? We don't care, because he may not agree with our personal worldview? In the end, whether or not something is a hoax should be made clear about whether or not reasons for thinking so hold water, not just because the powers that be demand we accept and bow to this new idol.
Why is it they're unwilling to prove their point by having their opponents examine and then have to admit to the evidence and it's conclusions, if it's so true and so obvious that all of us should believe in it? Instead these things just pop up in the news, and all of us are supposed to bow down with more pious faith in the infallibility of those showing them, than Christians place in the word of God.
Quote:
|
""This is not an ordinary fossil. It's not a chimp. It's not a human. It shows us what we used to be"
|
So... it can't POSSIBLY be a new species of monkey, or a new monkey-like animal. Since it's not a chimp and not a human, it MUUUUUST be a new missing link. Golly. How incredibly scientific...ish. Why do we restrict this line of thinking to monkeys or monkey-like animals? Why don't we be more broad minded and open and creative and just say this every time we find a new species in the fossil record? Oh wait... that would be silly wouldn't it?
If a "creationist" ever made a claim that preposterous or thin, evolutionists would probably burn him at the stake. But any evolutionist can say the most preposterous things, and all of us are just supposed to swallow it and bow down.
Personally, I'll pass.
What we know by raw scientific evidence, is that in the fossil record, animals appear in the Cambrian age, almost all together, and fully evolved. Which is why evolutionists are so embarrassed by it. Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to know why there is so little pre-Cambrian fossil evidence but he suspects
Quote:
|
"it might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize"
|
Oh wait... they've found soft sponge embryos in the layers beneath the Cambrian... oops. Also they found even MORE complex life forms in that age. Even more embarrassing.
What science and history show is that all of these animals were present, fully evolved, in that age, and that rather than the number and kinds of animals increasing from there, they actually DECREASE... that is, species go extinct all over the place over time. So we've got Darwin's tree of life standing on it's head. Tons of perfectly developed, complex life forms all present in the Cambrain, followed by the extinction of species and kinds over time. This is what is written in the earth, not in the mushy brain of some hysterical fringe scientist. Evidence speaks louder than words, and the Cambrian "explosion" alone punches so many holes in the evolutionary theory that evolutionists prefer not to give it more than two sentences in their text books.
Darwin himself said he had no explanation for this problem, that so obviously contradicted his theory. Neither does Dawkins, the shining knight of evolution and atheism. Nevertheless, we're to strew flowers before the alter of science, and hail this new idol of evolution.
Personally, I need more evidence than "it wasn't a chimp and it wasn't a human, so... it must have been a missing link!! YAY!"
