BREAKING NEWS! Missing Link discovered!!

[toef]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Not saying this is the case, but when you keep everything secret like they have, and are planning multiple media releases at the same time, it doesn't really give dissenting opinions any say in the media blitz.

True.

All I'm saying is that if there was just a single missing link, and it was really such a big deal, there's no way nothing would've leaked out about it in the last 2 years.

If the goal was to make money, then of course it helps to sit on the info for a bit, so people can get their books written, and TV shows filmed, and unleash it all as soon as the announcement hits.

But if it was as big of a deal as they're claiming it is, money shouldn't have been driving the decision on when to announce it.

[jkwest]

They wanted to get their documentary done...

Sir David Attenborrough is already attached, I guess..

[brettallica]

Originally Posted by scweb13

Your proof is a couple of religious (creationism) websites? Clearly they're not biased.

It's not proof or intended to make me "right" necessarily; just some things to think about that other people have written on the subject. Those links to appear to be Christian-based, so I will give you that. They were just some things I found really quickly via Google search. You must give me this, though: whether it comes from a "scientific" website or "Christian" website, there will be bias one way or the other. There is no real way to avoid that. I'm trying to avoid that now actually, but I know that people are probably perceiving me as a Bible homer who's blind to science even though I declared that I am a scientist for a living.

If you read any of these snippets from the first link, you'll see they're from atheistic scientists:

...we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true

They're not my words, my friend. I'm just pointing out simple facts.

Also, there's this at the end of the article in the first link:

In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

Evolution is not truth. Religion is not truth. Both are completely based on faith.