What missing link are the religious evolution haters talking about exactly?

Question

This is from wikipedia on the missing link.
"A popular term to designate transitional forms with is 'the missing link'. The term is especially used in the regular media, but inaccurate and confusing. This is partly because it implies that there was a single link missing to complete the picture, which now has been discovered. In reality, the continuing discovery of more and more transitional fossils is further adding to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions. The term probably arose in the 19th century where the awaited discovery of a 'missing link' between humans and 'lower' animals was considered to be the final proof of evolution."
You can also find a record of the species homo sapien's long evolution record and all the species along the way if you search "human evolution". So if you don't believe in evolution that's fine, but don't spread lies about it. I think intelligent design and creationism is hopefulness and delusion but I don't go around telling people its devil worship.

I know not all religious people do this but for those who do, please get educated. Then stop it.

Mr. McFearly, ha, haha, you're funny. That was a joke right? Or were you seriously attacking me for stating objective fact and calling it an attack while completely avoiding the issue? Good job buddy.

Answer 1

Christian comprehension of science usually lags the average individual by about a century.

Answer 2

Actually, you can not find one single evidence proving that a lower order creature evolved into a higher order one.

You can find some evidence that lower order life existed before higher order life did.

But is that because they were created in sequence, or is it because they evolved? No one has proven either way.

The sciences of mathematics and engineering probability have proven scientifically that the possibility of random inert elements in any circumstances possible actyually coming together to become the complex DNA at random is so unlikely that it can be confidently called impossible. Like the old analogy says, there is WAY WAY WAY more likelyhood of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional 747 jet aircraft with microprocessor driven control systems, than there is for spontaneous emergence of life from elements. Oh but what about spontaneous emergence of millions of species, and all evolving all from other species? Just *can not* happen.

So do you believe science?

Or do you believe evolution, which is a religion based on flawed logic of observation?

Pick your object of worship.

As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.

Answer 3

Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).
"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).
"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).
"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).
"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).
"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).
"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).
"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).
"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).
"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).

Answer 4

It refers to the link missing between their brain and their mouth, or fingers in the case of the internet.

Answer 5

Maybe it is you you stupid dirty tar baby. But then that would mean proud Christians would have evolve from YOU people. You all are agressive morons who want to hurt people, you'll suffer in Hell FOREVER!!!

Answer 6

Thank you for that - I agree with you