Another "missing link"
.
This one is a "missing link" for modern crocodiles.
Darwinist paleontologists have wild imaginations -- it almost seems as if they think that almost every fossil they find is a "missing link." Where a lot of people see the above creature as just another lizard or dinosaur, the Darwinist paleontologist sees it as a "missing link" for modern crocodiles. At least that is not as ridiculous as the suggestion that the "deer-like" animal shown here is an ancestor of whales.
This one is a "missing link" for modern crocodiles.
Darwinist paleontologists have wild imaginations -- it almost seems as if they think that almost every fossil they find is a "missing link." Where a lot of people see the above creature as just another lizard or dinosaur, the Darwinist paleontologist sees it as a "missing link" for modern crocodiles. At least that is not as ridiculous as the suggestion that the "deer-like" animal shown here is an ancestor of whales.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 1/31/2008 10:11:00 PM
13 Comments:
Creationists have brain at all. No matter how many missing links are found, they still want to find new ones and have no understanding of what has been found.
Larry himself fills in a slot as a missing link. He is a bipedal primate but definitely subhuman
The fundies also have "wild imaginations", from flat earth, geocentricism, women being made out of some guy's rib, talking snakes, etc.
In fact, their latest invention, Intelligent Design, tries to attribute the diversity of life to being simultaneously created by an imaginary entity.
Again, pot, kettle, black, you know the rest.
> Intelligent Design, tries to attribute the diversity of life to being simultaneously created by an imaginary entity. <
The Cretin Creationist, Larry, has taken this one step further. He has ID without a designer.
With Darwinists reiterating their speculations and dogmas, let's look at a two-page spread on Fred Hoyle that appeared in Scientific American, March 1995, p.46-7. Science writer John Horgan:
"Purpose pervades Hoyle's universe. He has long felt that natural selection alone could not account for the appearance and rapid evolution of life on the earth. Some supernatural intelligence must be directing the evolution of life and indeed of the entire cosmos--although to what end Hoyle does not know. The universe is an 'obvious fix', he remarks. There are too many things that look accidental that are not." (p.47.)
There you have it: intelligent design! But actually Hoyle didn't believe in anything supernatural: the "cosmic intelligence" which he tentatively proposed "arose naturally in the Universe," as he and Chandra Wickramasinghe wrote in their book Cosmic Life-Force (1990), p.138.
John Horgan may have been confused because he couldn't conceive of a "cosmic intelligence" which isn't supernatural: but Hoyle had no difficulty in doing so. After he began to theorize about intelligent design, Hoyle's long-adamant materialism and atheism seems to have taken a more agnostic turn, in which he speculated about mind-matter relationships. But he was never a theist, or even a deist. In his book The Origin of the Universe and the Origin of Religion (1993), Hoyle even advanced the hypothesis that theistic religions originated when a comet bombarded the earth, scaring the people with a threat from the sky!
The really interesting thing is that in 1995 intelligent design still hadn't been declared a Taboo Thought, so that a scientific magazine could write about it neutrally, without fear of reprisal, or of the editor being EXPELLED.
Hoyle on Darwinist "paranoia:"
"The fear that Christian fundamentalism will raise its head to the detriment of science is perhaps a major reason for rejecting ideas such as are contained in the present book...Any weakening of the carefully erected Darwinian edifice, it is thought, would open the flood gates to fundamentalist dogma. If Darwinism was proven fact and all the fundamentalist dogma was proven falsehood, one might ask whether there would be any good reason for the paranoia that prevails? The truth must be that there is a lot that is basically wrong with Darwinism and a good deal that is in essence, though not in detail, right with the fundamentalist point of view."(Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, in their book Cosmic Life-Force, 1990, p.139-140.)
What was right in fundamentalism, according to Hoyle, is the involvement of intelligence in life's rise. (He wrote somewhere that evolution of life, as descent of all species reaching back to the unicellular level, is as obvious as that water flows downhill.)
Michael Behe also believes in descent of all life from unicellular ancestry: his most important difference with Hoyle is, no doubt, on the question of whether the intelligence had to be natural in its origins. Behe personally prefers God as the intelligence.
Hoyle thought Darwinist emergence of all life by perfectly mindless processes, and generally by random mutations and natural selection, is wrong, and fairly obviously contrary to the evidence. Since he influenced a lot of intelligent design theorists, both directly and indirectly, the Darwinists might perhaps point to Hoyle rather than to "fundies" as a major source of their increasing distress.
"Simultaneously created." Ha! Do the Darwinists really think that Behe believes anything of the sort, for instance? He holds that all life descended from a unicellular common ancestor, over billions of years. He differs from the Darwinists only in what he considers to be the major causes of such descent.
It's certain that Behe's unable
To read! A professor? A fable!
He's a stooge for the side
Of that Bush, and must hide
Old Robertson under his table!
(If Leaver is able to read, I hope he'll read what Behe has written, someday. Meanwhile, he believes everything P.Z. says. But I remain his loyal ghostwriter, Jim Sherwood.)
>>>>>>>
"Simultaneously created." Ha! Do the Darwinists really think that Behe believes anything of the sort, for instance? He holds that all life descended from a unicellular common ancestor, over billions of years. He differs from the Darwinists only in what he considers to be the major causes of such descent.
<<<<<<<
Behe is someone who is desperately trying to "fit" ID into whatever remains of biology that remains unstudied. You are trying to change topics entirely, confusing the issues. How very "Wedge" of you. The "intelligent design" being peddled right now states that
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc
~Of Pandas and People
Sounds pretty much like declaring that the diversity of life appeared simultaneously to me or did you conveniently forget all the fundie dirt that was dug up during Dover v. Kitzmiller, especially those early drafts of the panda book? (the above quote was even lifted verbatim from one of the more recent drafts)
"Of Pandas and People," mentioned above, is an old book with some errors about ID theories in it, including the wrong idea that ID requires forms to appear abruptly. Behe pointed out at the Dover trial that that is not part of his ID theory. Forms could emerge over millions of years, perhaps, as far as ID is concerned.
But this is the first time that I've heard that some Darwinists manage to construe that passage in "Pandas" as saying that all species popped up at the same time! Quite a stretch!
And "Pandas" certainly isn't an "authoritative" ID text.
As for those who think or say that I'm trying to "wedge" something, they'll probably think that I'm an agent of Osama bin Laden, next.
So, they can talk to themselves, and not to me. I don't have time for that stuff.
This creature bears more resemblance to a crocodile than an Afghan, a Griffon, a Coton de Tulear, or a Pekingese bears to a wolf -- although they have had only 15,000 years to diverge.
< Darwinists manage to construe that passage in "Pandas" as saying that all species popped up at the same time! >
Why would it matter? What difference would it make? Can't the Designer do whatever He/She/It pleases?
It could be that your average person thinks of the thing in the picture as just another lizard or dinosaur because they don't know enough to understand what scientists place it in the lineage of the crocodile. Wait, scratch that. That's exactly why.
Post a Comment
<< Home