Creationism

The bible is silly in how it does things, but given the general concept of creation it's not entirely unreasonable to say that some higher-order being somehow set everything in motion according to the accepted laws of physics. It comes down to whether or not it's actions were meaningful, let alone whether or not it is a god.

 

I think that being said is a bit harsh some people can gt offended in the wrong way.

I believe there is a god who created us. He created us in his own way he littarly made us from dirt. There is proof in th bible (i suck today and dont remver the scripsure) but from wat I have read and have talked about and from what I have been taught I believe god made us from scratch.

You know ive learned aboout alot of things and ive learned about Eviloution
now please befor I start please dont bash XD There is NO REAL proof about eviloution none what so ever! People just go by science and what they say. And also THERE IS NO PROOF about god creating us the only thing we rely on is faith and the bible. Isnt it weird that christans and scientst dont have proof?

 

Creationism is ridiculous to me. There is so much I have seen and even held in my own hands, dug out of the earth at this time... that is well over 6k years old. There are human civilizations that predate 6k years old. I just have no words really for those who are Creationists other than please actually go live life and put down the Bible. Look at things. Reality should triumph over some words that were written by men who did not even know about the dinosaurs, and mankind did NOT walk around with dinosaurs like the Flintstones. The Creationist Museum in Kentucky is a crock of crap and the catering done for Creationism to help keep people stupid is just really sad.

Intelligent Design is the new 'Creationism' that has come to realize that there is no way that the earth is 6k years old and that obviously mankind has been around longer. It states that God created everything and has had a hand in designing all that can be seen, somewhat coupling with ideas of evolution. Some people who believe in God follow that still things were born as they were and did not evolve. A rabbit was always a rabbit. A dog was always a dog.. though we clearly know they evolved from wolves. And a human was always a human, of course.

Intelligent Designers love to say things to support it such as 'look at the eye. It is so complex' or 'see the top of a banana and how it was meant for you to hold and peel?' (which ironically that is the bottom of the banana). Just about any Intelligent Designer though should actually try studying what is around us and look at it seriously. Look at humans ourselves as we are supposed to be made 'in God's image'. The human eye is flawed. The human body is flawed. If I was an ultimate engineer of life with control over every aspect of it, I think I'd do a better job with it. I wouldn't have parts in the body that seem to be rather useless and then react to things and need pulled out due to infection or the person dies. The eye wouldn't be near sighted or far sighted, the eye lids would be formed better to protect the eye easier, a shield would be on the eye to protect it from sunlight better and to avoid scraping of the retina and we'd have better night vision. People would not get cataract issues or glaucoma. The eye itself would be seated better in the skull and the wiring in back of the eye would connect to a closer proponent of the brain. Heck, the best eyes are certainly not human eyes. It's a fact that there are animals that can see better than we can and have better functioning peepers. Also the argument of nothing has half an eye... study nature. Intelligent Design is not a Theory in Science. It is a hypothesis at best and has NO evidence to support it, no matter how much they try to decorate it up.

Before I go on... there is a difference between a 'theory' and a 'Scientific Theory'. A theory in common practice usage is more of a 'hunch' in science terminology. A Scientific Theory was once a hunch that was tested and found to have merit to become a Hypothesis. That Hypothesis was scrutinized, torn at for years, ripped into and every attempt to disprove it was done before it could be considered to be called a Scientific Theory. Creationists love to tell people that 'It's only a theory'. No, it's not. Neither is the Theory of Gravity or the Theory that the earth revolves around the sun. A scientific theory, as said, is something that has been tested and was attacked to disprove. If it cannot be proven to be false, it is therefore seen as true.

In the end, whether someone is Christian or not, the only thing that makes sense to me is Evolution. Many people say God sparked it off and let go of the wheel with some generalizations in mind that he tweaked here and there. That's how believers in the Abrahamic God deal with it. People who are Buddhist don't really have an issue with it at all. Even the higher ups in the Catholic Church recognize the Theory of Evolution. There is, despite what some Christians (mainly Evangelicals, Born Agains and some Southern Baptist groups) blather on about, a TON of evidence that supports it and there are quite a few Christians that study it as eagerly and as well as any Atheist would because Evolution, when you actually care to get into it, is so darn interesting. There is so much information out there we have found through DNA, through fossils, through artifacts, through caves, through petrified forests, etc. You can find signs of evolution in all sorts of things out there, from the plants to the animals to us. We are not made perfect, nor is any other creature out there because we are evolving. We adapt and change. We even change mentally and have memes that adjust to conditions of environments that stay stable or that alter.

I suppose sadly I should tackle the Adam and Eve story, though I can't stand to but people love to toss it out as 'evidence'.
If this story is true, let's modernize it some. There's a parent that loves his two children but puts some cookies in a jar on the table and tells them, do not eat them. You can mess around in the kitchen and living room but leave the cookies alone. That parent then takes off leaving a babysitter to watch over the 4 year old kids (because that's about the mentality of Adam and Eve in their 'innocence). The sitter heads into the kitchen and the girl follows and looks as the babysitter pats the jar, opens it up, sniffs the cookies and motions the girl over to do the same. Ah, they smell delectable. The sitter motions that the girl should try one but she says 'oh I was told I shouldn't'. The sitter says it's okay and she won't get in trouble. Seeing as the sitter is an elder, the girl figures, why not. She then also takes one cookie to her brother, Adam, and gives him it, -sharing-.

The parent then comes home and sees that obviously two cookies are missing and stares at the kids who just rub their feet on the floor and have hands behind their backs, heads hanging low as he looks at them. The sitter takes off and the parent says that the person won't be babysitting again. Ah well, the sitter can go do other things, fo' sho. However, Adam and Eve's punishment is just beginning. The parent kicks them out of the house and yard and makes them have to fend for themselves. He also smacks them around and tells the girl child that she should always be subservient to the boy child because she's stupid and soulless and will corrupt men.

Now come on. How does this story that is -worse- in the Bible add to modern times and making sense? Why would God, who is supposedly omniscient, tell them to not eat from a specific tree, yet he left it there in the first place to tempt them? Was he being a practical joker? Then of course the 'devil snake' tempts them and Eve is the worst because she shares? So both are made mortal, kicked out of the Garden and Eve gets monthlies and has to have excruciating pain delivering babies and she and all females are to be subservient to men. Of course, I have to wonder if Adam and Eve were the first humans, why did they run into others and how did Cain meet all of these people in -cities-? Some things in the Bible are just not meant to be taken literally. If people do, people die or judge others wrongfully in this day and age.

One last thing.. someone said it says in the Bible 'Thou shalt not kill'. Actually the literal translation is 'Thou shalt not murder', which means something different. You are, according to the Bible, allowed to kill if God clears it. Murder is taking a life against the will of God. Therefore, these hate groups of Evangelicals etc that are threatening homosexuals with death... they did also read the Bible since God does kill homosexuals and it is rather clear that the Bible says that a man shall not lay with another man. People had killed homosexuals for a very long time or imprisoned them and now, thanks to Evangelicals from America, Uganda now has a bill up to carry out the acts. I'm so proud of our idiots and that some idiotic pastor there decided to take up the cause against homosexuals. :( (No, absolutely I'm not. I wish we could take the homosexuals from Uganda and trade them for our Evangelical arsehats.)

Also, there was no -world wide flood-. Carbon dating is used for things that are around 5 to possibly 6 thousand years of age. After that, carbon breaks down which is -natural-. We have other dating methods to use that are very accurate and go well passed that point. There is proof the Nile flooded up, and it has done so a few times. Of course, there are also 3 versions of the 'Noah' story as well, which Noah wasn't the first... In the end, it's best to not believe in a world-wide flood as it never happened and there is absolutely NO foundations for it at all.

 

I don't think you understand the Theory of Evolution at all. Anyone who had a grasp on it would not say there is no proof. There is plenty of proof, but schools aren't allowed to teach you right because zealots won't allow it. There is not one book of proof on Evolution. There are countless, as well as fossils that connect to creatures and plants of today, etc. Really, read up on a subject before you say there's no proof in it. There are quite a few Christians who believe in the Theory of Evolution. It would not be a scientific theory if it had no proof. The point is that it has been attempted to be disproved and yet more evidence constantly comes up to make its case stronger. In the end, whether anyone believes in Evolution or not, it is going to keep happening. If we all die out, it will keep going on.

Creationism is what has no real proof to it other than a book that describes Genesis. Technically Christians don't even have Saturdays off as they should, because that's the day God chilled out and relaxed. You need to take a leap of faith in Creationism. In some cases I think you need to take more of a leap of faith in Creationism than to just believing in God. As we learn more about our world, some of the things in the Bible become more 'story-like', such as the Tower of Babel, how the earth was created, Noah's Arc. They have possible messages to them but many Christians have trouble saying that these are 'real accounts' and not just meant to be fables to teach instead. Others insist it is all real and to discount any of it makes you wrong. In the end, the Bible was written by multiple people and it contradicts itself in areas. It also changes some things here and there. I think as a Christian, you just have to pick out what parts mean the most to you. Read the whole Bible, page to page, and then think on what the theme is that you want to take away from it, so that you are happy.

Why do people fight over Evolution and Creationism? Well, the reason is because Creationists constantly want to take Evolution out of schools altogether. They expect science class to teach Creationism alongside Evolution and Creationism has NO foundations except for in the Bible. It is -not- a science thing. It has been suggested that instead of teaching Creationism in science, why it can't be taught in a world religions class for students, as well as other religions so that people of cultures can understand one another more? This was frowned upon by Creationists who are insistent that there is only one God and it is theirs, so basically they stomped all over every other belief, BUT want their belief put in public school. Creationism, since no religious 'creationist' view can be taught in regular school, belongs in church. However, still, Creationists insist that teaching of evolution is against their beliefs and they even threaten science teachers. Really, the only reason people stand against Creationists so vigorously is because Creationist activists are insane and won't give an inch on anything, but expect to take a mile, and then whine no one respects their beliefs, while they stomp on everyone elses.

 

their is all sorts of evidence for worldwide flooding...they have found fossils from marine life that existed around the time of noah on top of gigantic mountains that are older then the fossils...they have found what looks to be a ship on top of the same mountain...

as far as adam and eve...god was testing our free will...god knows all in a non-linear fashion...he knows everything that could possibly happen and what effects it will have...but we can still choose to do one or the other...god willfully gave up his ability to know what we're going to do next to give us free will in hopes we would do right by him and it would be for the better...but he still knows all the choices we're going to be presented and what the outcomes of each choice would be if we chose them

we are given the choice to eat the fruit...if we eat it...god knows we will have to leave because eden is basically heaven and imperfect beings can't be there

if we don't...god knows we will live there with him forever he would have cast down the snake anyways because they would have "tattled on it" and quite possibly would have ended the test idk he might have kept it going forever...cause without the chance to disobey god...you can't really have free will

so in the end the fruit was there to make free will exist...without it...we wouldn't really have any choices to make that might not be what god wants...

i believe in the whole...clockmaker theory of god...he built the clock started it running then sat it up on the shelf to run till it dies...

 

This doesn't sound like a proper debate. It more sounds like insult what you don't believe in and your desire to insult those who believe in what you believe is incorrect. Wouldn't mind if you mentioned that you don't believe in creationism and here is my reasons why, but insulting those who do believe in creationism is just plain wrong.

People who believe who creationism are not ******s and they do have a proper brain, they just believe in something that you don't. Your really closeminded and think that is more retarted and brainless. Have a open mind.

If Evolution was real, how come sciencest haven't found the missing piece of the Evolution puzzle ? ie- 'the missing link ?' it's 2010 and they still haven't found it yet.

 

Noah's Ark was not found on Mount Ararat and as some people say they are 99.9 percent sure, I'm 99.9 percent sure it was not, as are many other people in the archeological profession. Even Fox News is saying that it was a hoax and they are a Christian news station, for the most part, catering to the far right. Even Christian Archeologists are saying that the wood found is not old enough, that the location pictures are obscure and no one is being honest about where exactly it is, that a closed team of Chinese 'arkeologists' can only see it, and no independent scientists have been able to see it -at all-. If the Ark was really found, don't you think that archeologists would be let to see the find and not just this closed group so that we could all revel in the glory of it and it would finally give some clear evidence? This isn't the first time a hoax has been pulled. In 1993 another hoax was perpetuated by George Jammal and just slid away into hiding. He had taken a piece of wood from a railroad in California, I believe, hardened it up, stained it appropriately and said it was from the Ark and he found it in Turkey on Mount Ararat. A big documentary was done covering it and later when he admitted to it being a hoax after being confronted, he also said he had never even been to Turkey. There was another hoax reported in the 70s too.

The story of Noah's Ark corresponds to the Babylonian tale about Utnapishtim and his boat, which he took and settled a kingdom after the flood, as well as Ziusudra's of Sumeria. Point being that the Babylonians had their tale first, long before the Jews did and this, as well as the Tower of Babel were mutated to fit the needs of the Jews writing the Bible. Last to mention, the Bible OT was put together and finished IN Babylon. If you want to go on believing though that it's more than a story, let's look at it deeper.

Noah allegedly took 2 of each animal, or 7 pairs of animals, depending on how you translate the verses, because again, there's great contradiction. There were also 8 people who would have to manage the animals and survive, while everything else that didn't get on the boat supposedly died because God claimed they were all evil. Through great rains, the flood happened and the earth was drowned so that all other life ceased to exist. Some Creationists that are 'reputable' in their profession have given guestimates for the size of the Ark and anyone with a brain can figure out a 420 foot boat isn't going to do the trick. An oil rig wouldn't be big enough.

Do you know how many animals have been locally residing in areas around the globe that have -never left that region-? How did Noah save the kangaroos? What about the llamas or Komodo Dragons? Where are the panda bears? How about Kodiak bears or Florida Alligators? I could name tons of species of animals that were nowhere near the Mesopotamian region or around the Nile 4000 years ago. How did they survive and why is there no evidence of this great flood in other regions? The only evidence of probable -huge- flooding even in the Mesopotamian region to an extreme amount would have been around 7 to 8k years ago, and that's before God made anything, if we go by what Creationists want us to believe. Also, the reason for the flooding would have been due to the glacier melting away and receding north; not caused by huge rains as it depicts very clearly in the Bible. So ending the story of a 'mass' flood of several places... maybe the Nile flooded up. That's reasonable. Rivers do that. However, what evidence is there that all animals originated in the area of Turkey to branch out to all other areas, because God would have wiped out everything else in the flood? Surely when they were freed they would be mingling and having offspring as they migrated to their other regions, somehow land animals even were capable of getting to -other continents-. Maybe God teleported them? Then why did he need Noah and his other compatriots to ride on a boat with all of these animals and take care of them while God did mass clean-up on aisle 6?

Let's take a look at Noah's living conditions next. Noah was allegedly on this boat with all of these animals of different species. Some who eat very specific foods. I.e. the koala eats eucalyptus and the panda eats bamboo. These are regional foods which have not been found in the Turkey area. We will imagine they were there though for the sake of keeping this story alive. What did the crocodiles, lions, tigers, jackals, hyenas, cheetahs, and other carnivores eat? Dead meat in a locker is not going to suffice for them. Also, it would go bad for how long they were on that boat... let alone the immense amount of meat some of the animals must take in each day would mean that the meat locker room would have had to take up a floor of that boat. (and it still wouldn't be enough). What then did the herbivores eat? What about the animals that eat insects and other bugs? They aren't going to all just eat hay. Their diets vary on what they can and cannot eat. Lastly, what did Noah and these poor others with him do with all the excrement produced from these animals and how did they ever get any sleep since some animals are diurnal while others are nocturnal?

Quite a few Christians ignore this tale because for one, it makes God look cruel and that his creations were failures so he destroyed them all. Most Christians don't want to see God in that way, and knowing that various people contributed to the Bible, it's somewhat easy to say it's a 'fable'. If, by some means the Ark is at all real, I'm pretty sure this find is a hoax and if not, we ALL need some evidence.

Adam and Eve were NAIVE. How is that testing 'freewill'? If he knows that someone is going to come down and persuade two humans who he made to be naive and ignorant of -knowledge-, which is what the fruit gave them later, that's kind of ridiculous. If I say to not put your hand on a stove burner and turn it on and leave and you go and do it and get burned... does it fly that I was testing your free will? He didn't tell them what it did. He didn't give them any warning on it other than just don't eat it. Humans are curious by nature and Eve was duped by Lucifer so why wasn't Lucifer more punished? Why did Adam get some punishment and Eve was labeled a sinner so badly that all women are idiots to be subservient to men, hence forth? If God is indeed omniscient and saw it all before it was going to happen, yet he made Adam and Eve naive and innocent... he set them up for failure. His -test- should not have resulted in them being banned from Eden or being humiliated.

What fruit is it you are talking about? YOU don't eat fruit. Adam and Eve did. Are you saying now that you learning things is bad and God wants you to be stupid to get up to Heaven?

Ok, do you believe God loves you? If so, why would a God who loves you, create you and know the moment after you are conceived, where you are going and let it happen? God apparently knows whether you are going to Heaven or Hell a day after you are born. This means there IS no free will because everything is predetermined. Now, if God loves you and realizes that some of his creations are going to a narty place he helped create, WHY would he create that place of Hell and why would he let any of his creations go there? How can a God be all loving and all knowing of everything... and yet let something of sentience be created that has a 'free will' but he knows it's going to Hell... that just makes no sense at all. If God created us in his image, technically there should -be no Hell-. The concept of Hell largely is a Christian thing and many Jews do not believe in Hell. They had a Purgatory of sorts but that's not the same as a fiery pit of damnation, is it?

If you can answer these things for me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

the "you eat the fruit" thing was just me making a scenario...nitpicking at me saying "you" in a scenario meant to convey my message doesn't help your arguement i wasn't saying learning is bad

hell exists for the same reason the tree exists...without hell or the tree you can't really have free will because there is nothing to choose...

god as i said doesn't know what you'll choose to do...only all the choices you will have to make and the branching storylines of your life that will come of each of those decisions...
as i said his knowledge isn't linear...he doesn't know what your going to choose...because he wills himself not to know...he only knows what will occur as a result of each decision...

such as ok...

i'm short on money...and i have to pay off my debts or else my house will be taken i can
a.) steal the money
b.) get one or two more jobs

if i pick a i will more the likely end up in jail...if i pick b i won't go to jail and have a "chance" at keeping my house...

god doesn't know which your going to pick...but he knows exactly ,even more so then i just explained, will happen because of it...in other words he understands the butterfly effect

god is in gamer terms...chaotic good in my mind...following his own rules...

as i said earlier...hell exists as an option...if all there was was heaven...free will would be pointless...and hell is just the absents of god...the fire and torture is meant to scare people...and i think was mostly written in by man

hell is like i said the absence of god if you don't want him/believe in him then he lets you go somewhere where you can be away from him...but all things must have a final outcome and your decision on this point is a final one...

there is book of the bible that was removed from the bible we have today by the pope...

it says that "if someone in heaven should look down and see the pain of those suffering in hell and asks for their forgiveness then it shall be so"

this was removed because of course someone in heaven is going to want the people in hell to be set free from it...i couldn't stand to see any suffer...

this notion could prove deadly to the uniformity of standardized Christianity (which i don't consider myself a part of) because then everyone would just go about committing sins without remorse because they would only be in hell till someone asked for their forgiveness...

 

You didn't answer my question...
I was asking you what you thought of people who accept a creator as part of their beliefs as well as the theories behind evolution. That is they think that there is a force behind evolution. And yet you start talking about creators? I thought this was a thread about the people who are 100% creationists and did not believe at all in evolution. Not other things...

 

Well, I didn't want to offend, since my views on why they believe what they believe isn't exactly nice, but you're right, I should stick to the topic. I believe deists fall into one of the following categories:

1. People who were raised as whatever religion they currently are and either don't care enough to reevaluate their views or have had the beliefs drilled into their brains too much to drive them out.

2. People who are afraid of death and/or life, or who just need some kind of answer and aren't willing to go with science's explanations on certain things because it hasn't explained enough yet and/or has an unpleasant ending.

3. People who genuinely believe due to some kind of epiphany or experience in their lives.

I don't think most deists can really say that they believe in their religion of choice and in evolution, since most religious texts say that God simply created man on the spot out of nowhere; this goes against a good deal of findings that have started to shed light on a common evolutionary ancestor between humans and apes. I think what these people are trying to do is make people believe that their belief system can be scientifically valid, when in reality it has yet to show any means in which it can be.

 

I agree with your three kinds of "deists", however the last part of your post interests me. By giving God a capital G I assume you are talking about the Christian god. So I shall present a counter-argument from that angle. Now in the book of Genesis there are two stories of creation. Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2.
Here are some examples of the first one:

These two verses state that God simply says something and it is. Comparable to Harry Potter saying "Lumos" and just by saying the word light comes from the tip of his wand. This supports your argument that "God simply created man on the spot out of nowhere" - he just said the words and there was whatever he said he wanted. No process of making is shown they just exist after he says he wants them.

However compare that way of creating to the creating these verses from the second creationist story in the Bible present.

The method God uses in Genesis chapter 2 is one that is not the same as Genesis chapter 1. Instead of just saying "give me some plants" and growing plants out of nothing it states that in order for them to grow they needed rain to grow. Also, God doesn't say "oh let's make a man now and he shall rule over all this stuff" - he actually made by hand the body of man out of something. This negates the statement that God made man out of nowhere.

When Darwin published his thesis on evolution the majority of the Christian church saw nothing wrong with the first story of creation. This made them say "but we just were made and evolution is a lie!" When the theories behind evolution were supported by the majority of the public the followers of the Christian beliefs system said, "how come genesis is contradictory to what most people are thinking?" In the early stages the response was always "they are lying." But as time went on more people were stating that that a good enough reason. So some of the people reread genesis looking for ways that supported evolution. Some anonymous person stated that the second genesis creation story supported humans coming from something instead of nowhere. Some people started paying more attention to the second Genesis story whereas the mainstream church still stuck to the "evolution is a lie"/"genesis chapter 1 ftw" angle. Each denomination picked an angle along with the independent churches. That's the history behind both trains of thought existing today. So the people who put more emphasis on Genesis chapter 2 aren't being contradictory to the Bible in terms of what they believe in - they support the Bible and keep their mind open to the theories behind evolution.

"But", you say, "humans didn't evolve from soil!" There are a lot of metaphors in the Bible. Maybe soil is a metaphor for what is before man (when you walk down a track you are walking on soil, and leaving it behind). Or it might be a metaphor for something else as the original Hebrew might have been translated into the word soil for simplicity because the translator didn't consider a metaphor. Because of this we do not know for sure what the intended metaphor is. So there you have it. That's how it isn't contradictory to the Bible for a Christian to believe in evolution.

 

First of all, I'm going to have to disprove your statement of God being a homophobe just because he destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. It's pretty unclear whether God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah largely because they allowed homosexual intercourse since the verses of the Bible that the story is taken from were originally Hebrew and many things may have been lost in translation. Here is an example:

Now this verse is ambiguous in meaning because the word know can be taken out of context. It can mean that they wanted to question the strangers that had entered their town or it could mean that they wanted to sexually know their strangers. Whichever one is correct is still being debated since both still work in the context with the rest of the chapter. You also can't ignore other parts of the Bible that bring up Sodom and Gomorrah like this:

Here God clearly states why he destroyed the city and nothing about homosexuality was brought up. It's even been said in different scriptures(Jewish scriptures to be exact) that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah treated anybody who entered the two cities in a sadistic fashion. One major crime that was done to strangers was to give money or even gold to beggars, after inscribing their names on them, and then subsequently refusing to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it. In the end, we don't even know if the two cities existed and the story could be a fable that focused on the cultural importance of hospitality, which this story shares with other ancient civilizations, such as Greece and Rome, where hospitality was of great importance and strangers were under the protection of the gods but I don't know.

I could also rebuttal your statement on how God is a hypocrite because he kills and tell us not to kill and he's not all-loving because he kills but I'm afraid that I might not be able to word it properly. Hell! I don't even know if I worded what I said above correctly or not. It all sounds better in my mind I guess.

 

"Missing link"? In what sense are you using that term?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_link

"Missing link" is really just another name for "transitional fossil(s)", which are intermediary fossils between one species and another that shows transition between the two; the term is used frequently by the general media in a number of related ways, but its use is frowned upon and avoided by the scientific community for being misleading and technically inaccurate.

When you're saying "we haven't found the missing link yet", you are, even if unintentionally, making one of two claims:

1. "There are no transitional fossils at all", which is a pretty ignorant statement to make, at least without using the proper terminology and discrediting an immense amount of scientific findings, as the number of transitional fossils found is pretty significant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

2. What I think is much more likely is that you're using the term "missing link" in a sense more related to transitional human fossils and the supposed lack thereof. In which case, several "missing links" (because there is no one singular "missing link", as you seem to be implying) have been found:

http://www.slate.com/id/2218838

http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/missing-links.html

Or you could be attaching a completely different meaning to the term, which you'll have to specify. Either way though, you're either using confusing terminology and/or your understanding of evolution could use some improvement.

 

i don't know about them but when i say missing link i mean the missing links in the entire chain...like as in the parts that are missing and we just assume what comes after

on another point...to me the marker of something having a soul is merely being self aware
things that aren't self aware have no soul...

also...these threads about god/no god always end up devolving into arguments because it always ends up hitting the same wall...

faith or logic...in the end both will "fire wall" either side from seeing through the others eyes...

faith - demands you believe in something no matter what with what little evidence your giving both those with a god and those without need this to a certain degree to believe in what they believe...faith is largely personal and varies from person to person what one holds in their faith another may not and faith unlike widespread belief is not some singular mainstream thought pattern so you can't blame what one faithful does on the whole

logic - demands you believe in those things that make sense to your personal thought patterns...logic is rather misused to mean believing something because its what follows and is the mainstream thought pattern if something doesn't follow with you...then its just not your logic...just like faith logic is largely personal...and what one finds logical may not be so you can't blame one persons logic for the rest of the scientific community or otherwise

 

That's where the more theoretical aspect of evolution comes into play. What you're asking is for a feasible connection between every organism, which isn't something that the current scientific rigor can produce. Maybe with time genetic projections and deviations might reveal sub-categorization. That being said, despite this theoretical perspective there has been enough evidence uncovered that links a fair number of phyla through common structures. Given recurrence in form we can infer that a similar pattern occurred with other organisms.

By that reasoning, any argument for why abortion might be considered wrong would be void.

There can still be faith with logic, as faith usually entails a conclusion of unshakable belief. But I digress. Logic leans more towards the most likely outcome in terms of how the world is, as opposed to personal thought patterns. We genuinely come to accept and reject things that fit into a wider world view that all are able to grasp in some way. It is simply the fact that the understanding of the world comes into conflict with much of what religion puts forth. And given what we know about the world compared to what we used to know, entailments and conclusions using the former for points in a causal chain appear more absurd.

 

first paragraph - i wasn't saying i'm looking to fill in the entire blank right away...i was just giving what i mean when i say missing link =P i know its not possible to answer it all just yet

abortion - i'm not against abortion i'm pro-choice unless its late term what i consider late term is when it no longer resembles an alien and is more or less human in appearence =P...for me the argument against abortion at this point is less about it being self aware and more along the lines of the mere fact its a baby...at the point it becomes self aware i believe is when the reincarnated persons soul is placed in the baby...

second paragraph - faith based people would argue that faith leans more towards how the world actually is...whereas a logic based person would think along the lines of what you said...and it only comes into conflict when people are being close minded...i mean...if your god is all powerful then i mean...couldn't he have just as easily set all this up to give us goals and things to discover...he created the world for our enjoyment so...i like to think he made it a puzzle and a scavenger hunt...

my religious beliefs are a fusion of i guess somewhat Christian based faith and logic...

1.)God set evolution on its course....

2.)man created the bible not god

3.)God doesn't meddle in our affairs

4.)the world isn't that young

5.)rather then heaven we are reincarnated. as energy can not be destroyed only converted...i see the soul as energy

6.) this whole thing could be one big set up just to keep us busy till something happens...idk what that something is...

7.) barney may or may not in fact be god

8.) the moment you die is the moment of the awakening of the mind of the baby you are about to be reborn as

 

Before I say anything, let me just say that I agree with the fact that "venomfangx" has done a very good job of making himself look like a ****** and has brought up some VERY questionable info, and I don't really agree with most of what he says.
That being said, Thunderf00t unfairly wrote off a lot of what venomfangx said, which was mostly true.
It is true that Half-lives have in fact been able to change dramatically in laboratory tests, thought to be fair, VFX took it way out of context, and again, more tests have shown that if the Flood of Genesis had actually happened, all dating methods would be defunct, and would show dates much older than they actually are.
I don't question the accuracy of the dating methods under the assumption that there was no Great Flood, because they've obviously shown themselves to be true. I do, however believe such a flood happened, and through faith am completely justified in not accepting the results.

 

And this is why it is pointless to even debate with an avid Creationist about Creationism. Because even in the face of logic, science, collecting years of data, and that you can do experiments yourself, -faith- blocks it. Faith = the ultimate cockblock of reality for some people.

And to say the truth, I really don't care to convince them otherwise and the only reason I try is because these sorts of people won't leave school science alone and consistently try to push that Creationism -is- a part of science; which it is absolutely not. It is religion and has -no- foundations in a science class at all and why do the Abrahamic religions' creations matter more than the Wiccan's, Hindu's or Buddhist's, etc?

Easiest cure...to combine all these into a class on world religions so that no one has to feel left out and kids get some more knowledge on world cultures too. When asking Christian Creationists this, the resounding answer is .. newp. Because it is a corrupting influence and of course they don't want their kids to learn about other religions. Well.. just as Creationists feel it is corruption to filth their children's minds with knowledge that other religions do exist in this country... I find it a corruption that Christian Creationism be taught anywhere in Science because it has -NO- scientific proof whatsoever, despite all of the wacky attempts to lie to people. Creationist scientists are a mockery to Christians as well as everyone else and the sooner people learn to stop listening to them, the better.

 

Actually I wouldn't mind mind such a World Religions class at all, as long as all religions were taught on an equal ground. It would, of course, be the parents' responsibility to tell the child how to take the class.

 

Here is a small list of transitional fossils(AKA missing links) from http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm .
Try not to hurt yourself.

Code:

Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays: 
Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache). 
Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus) 
Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus) 
Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache) 
Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish: 
Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes. 
Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus. 
Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish: 
Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate 
Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels) 
Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus) 
Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus) 
Protacanthopterygians 
Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians: 
Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) 
Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth. 
Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet. 
Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil. 
Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.) 
Transition from amphibians to reptiles: 
Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle. 
Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian. 
The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds). 
Transition from reptiles to mammals: 
Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next) 
Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward. 
Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint. 
Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint. 
Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil. 
Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear). 
Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint. 
Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars. 
Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end] 
Transition from reptiles to birds: 
Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead. 
Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently. 
Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds). 
"Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused. 
"Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird. 
Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds. 
[note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.] 
Now, on to some of the classes of mammals. 

Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates: 
Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails. 
Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur 
Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene) 
Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters. 
Aegyptopithecus, an early ape. 
Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons. 
Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes. 
Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor. 
Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal. 
Homo habilis. 
Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World. 
Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.) 
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning). 
[I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.] 
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents: 
Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent 
Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers 
[yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.] 
Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins): 
Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land. 
Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale. 
Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils. 
Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth. 
Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth. 
Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale 
[note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.] 
Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores: 
Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth. 
Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. 
Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis. 
Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears. 
Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus. 
Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.) 
Meanwhile back at the ranch,

Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.) 
Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above) 
Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets 
Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas 
Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats 
Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats 
Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats 
Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals: 
Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet. 
Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws. 
Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals). 
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls: 
[Perissodactyls are animals with an odd number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.] 
Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth 
Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth. 
[The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:] 
Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests 
Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser 
Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth 
Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger 
Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers] 
Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot" 
'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus 
'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus 
'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still very like Parahippus. 
Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers) 
Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth. 
Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed 
Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler. 
Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras. 
Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.] 
Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs 
Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs 
Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout. 
Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus. 
Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos 
Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos. 
Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals): 
Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle. 
Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs. 
Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx, Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern camels. 
Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus (with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc. 
Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present. 

Enjoy this quick video.

The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence, an international research consortium reported today.

If god is omniscent then he knew that A&E would eat the fruit, and therefore he knew that a world of murder, rape, disease, and hell would be the offspring of placing such a fruit. Since Adam and Eve could not tell good from evil they were simply naive humans who could not think. So then why would the G.O.A punish the humans mortal lifes, for being able to think for themselves?
Women must now conceive offspring out of their uterus and through the vagina. Without modren medicine today more women would die during child birth thus killing the unborn babies. If that isn't bad enough he says that man shall rule of women. Man was was labored with farming crops in order to get food.
Pretty sexist that man gets the good end of the deal.