(October 19, 2017 at 4:23 am)notimportant1234 Wrote:

(October 18, 2017 at 7:08 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: And yet you seem to think that your shallow understanding is both significant and the result of "easily understanding".

Your words mean things.  I guess that's something else you have a shallow understand of.

Never sayed it was significant.

*said

Again, words mean things. You may have not used the exact word "significant", but as you've had the apparent expectation that people take your understanding seriously, you clearly ascribe some significance to your own understanding.

You talk out your ass a lot.

Not really , that is your perception . I never stated that my statement were absolute truth , I just like to debate thing with people , see their view on the subject.
But of course sometimes you get tired of seeing " you theists always think/say that ".

(October 20, 2017 at 3:10 am)notimportant1234 Wrote: Not really , that is your perception . I never stated that my statement were  absolute truth , I just like to debate thing with people , see their view on the subject.
But of course sometimes you get tired of seeing " you theists always think/say that ".

And the obverse is true as well. Especially when it's done by a clumsy troll.

notimportant1234 Wrote:Of course I think is a fact . But it has that missing link that I keep hearing about , is that true ? .

Here's an example of another missing link. You're looking at a river from behind a fence, so you can't take a closer look at it. The river has a bridge over it. You can see the river flowing to one side of the bridge, and flowing away from the other side of the bridge. But you can't see that part obscured by the bridge. Due to that missing information, are you justified in concluding that the hypothesis that the water that flows towards the bridge is the same water that comes out from under it on the other side is one that is unsupported because there is a bridge over part of the river so you can't see the whole thing? Or does any other hypothesis require much more unjustified speculation than the obvious one that the river is actually flowing under the bridge, even though you can't see that little bit of it?

Not my analogy, btw, though I have tried to improve it.

(October 20, 2017 at 10:42 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

notimportant1234 Wrote:Of course I think is a fact . But it has that missing link that I keep hearing about , is that true ? .

Here's an example of another missing link. You're looking at a river from behind a fence, so you can't take a closer look at it. The river has a bridge over it. You can see the river flowing to one side of the bridge, and flowing away from the other side of the bridge. But you can't see that part obscured by the bridge. Due to that missing information, are you justified in concluding that the hypothesis that the water that flows towards the bridge is the same water that comes out from under it on the other side is one that is unsupported because there is a bridge over part of the river so you can't see the whole thing? Or does any other hypothesis require much more unjustified speculation than the obvious one that the river is actually flowing under the bridge, even though you can't see that little bit of it?

Not my analogy, btw, though I have tried to improve it.

The God of the Gaps gambit is ludicrous. Just because we don't have every single skeleton of every single being that ever lived doesn't no mean evolution is disproven or that someone's imaginary friend is hiding between the samples.

(October 20, 2017 at 10:54 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(October 20, 2017 at 10:42 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Here's an example of another missing link. You're looking at a river from behind a fence, so you can't take a closer look at it. The river has a bridge over it. You can see the river flowing to one side of the bridge, and flowing away from the other side of the bridge. But you can't see that part obscured by the bridge. Due to that missing information, are you justified in concluding that the hypothesis that the water that flows towards the bridge is the same water that comes out from under it on the other side is one that is unsupported because there is a bridge over part of the river so you can't see the whole thing? Or does any other hypothesis require much more unjustified speculation than the obvious one that the river is actually flowing under the bridge, even though you can't see that little bit of it?

Not my analogy, btw, though I have tried to improve it.

The God of the Gaps gambit is ludicrous. Just because we don't have every single skeleton of every single being that ever lived doesn't no mean evolution is disproven or that someone's imaginary friend is hiding between the samples.

It's admittedly a genius strategy to keep the duped duped. I mean, if there's a missing link, and I discover a transitional fossil--well now there's two missing links where there was only one!

----->fossil----->missing link----->fossil

----->fossil----->new missing link!-----> newly discovered fossil----->new missing link!----->fossil

So if I understand the 43 pages correctly, The op is a fucking moron.

(October 20, 2017 at 11:13 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(October 20, 2017 at 10:54 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The God of the Gaps gambit is ludicrous. Just because we don't have every single skeleton of every single being that ever lived doesn't no mean evolution is disproven or that someone's imaginary friend is hiding between the samples.

It's admittedly a genius strategy to keep the duped duped. I mean, if there's a missing link, and I discover a transitional fossil--well now there's two missing links where there was only one!

----->fossil----->missing link----->fossil

----->fossil----->new missing link!-----> newly discovered fossil----->new missing link!----->fossil

Essentially till we find every link they can just keep denying and moving the goal post.

(October 20, 2017 at 12:47 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(October 20, 2017 at 11:13 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: It's admittedly a genius strategy to keep the duped duped. I mean, if there's a missing link, and I discover a transitional fossil--well now there's two missing links where there was only one!

----->fossil----->missing link----->fossil

----->fossil----->new missing link!-----> newly discovered fossil----->new missing link!----->fossil

Essentially till we find every link they can just keep denying and moving the goal post.

They'd just claim that we missed a few.

"Evolution is a hoax!"

Here's the deal. If evolution is a hoax, prove it. Not to me, or to anyone on this board. Prove it to the world at large, and then claim your Nobel Priza. Then come back here, and we'll believe you.