# Darwin  Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!


1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be* an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.*



That would lead to two potentially rewarding avenues of investigations.....

a. New attempts to explain the amazing diversity of life on the planet.

and

b. An inquiry into the *reason why so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin* as the starting point toward enlightenment.




2.For purposes of clarity, *this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests*:
a. The *universal common ancestry* of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE]  primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and this-
 b.* natural selection*, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring, retaining favorable adaptations.




* If Darwin was correct*, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these *'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.*


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....
3. "*The Chengjiang fauna *makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....*followed by simpler.*




So...you see,* if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true..*.and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

*This is not the case.*


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.




So.....do we agree? *Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!*


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)

This is what happens when you lock someone at home and make them listen to Hate Radio all day.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!
> 
> 
> 1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be* an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.*
> ...



I'll agree this is just another thread of your edited, parsed and phony "quotes" intended only to promote your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

You science/knowledge loathing zealots are a joke.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!
> ...





Well....let's see how simple it is to prove that the OP is well beyond your comprehension.



1. There are no "edited, parsed and phony "quotes" ...as you show by failing to show any.
All are correct and *there is no way for you to deny the import of the OP.*



2. "...only to promote your fundamentalist religious beliefs."
There is nothing that relates to anything but science....clearly nothing of a religious nature.
So....why would you say that?



3. In fact, you post suggests that you felt insulted by this:
"To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy."

I tried to save you the embarrassment of trying to respond to a subject clearly beyond your ken....but you insisted on making an ass of yourself.

Have a good day.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> This is what happens when you lock someone at home and make them listen to Hate Radio all day.





Oh, my.

One more of those 'I don't like you' posts, revealing a lack of knowledge about the subject under discussion.

BTW...I hate neither Darwin, nor you.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Formula. 

This latest, goofy thread of "quotes" follows the same script for every other thread of "quotes" with your science loathing, fundamentalist leaning nonsense.

You make an ass of yourself with these goofy threads of "quotes", especially when you're required to defend such charlatans such as Meyer and Berlinski.

When can we expect your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





1. I love it when you try to take words or phrases that I've used and use them in your posts...."*Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
*
2. There are no 'goofy thread of "quotes" ....only scientific evidence and descriptions.

And, of course.......you didn't provide any examples of 'goofy quotes.'
I suspect that anything of a scientific nature appears 'goofy' to you.


3. "...charlatans such as Meyer and Berlinski."
Both if whom are experts and about whom you have never done anything but slander because you fear their expertise.



4. What is "Harun Yahya," and how is it related to the OP?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Meyer and Berlinski are charlatans. They front for an organization of charlatans: the Disco'tute. 

Neither have the credentials to offer a comprehensive dissertation in the fields of the biological sciences. 

They are as much fundamentalist hacks as you are.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...






1. "Meyer and Berlinski are charlatans. They front for an organization of charlatans"

Point out anything they've said that is incorrect.

Of course...it is possible you don't know what the word 'charlatan' means. You seem to believe (I almost said 'think') that it means they don't agree with you.



2. What specific in the OP caused you to become so irate?
How about you show that you understood the OP.....



3. And this is why I look forward to your posts...the frequency with which you put your foot in your mouth....

...you clearly didn't understand the OP, yet you wrote "Neither have the credentials to offer a comprehensive dissertation in the fields of the biological sciences."

Write soon.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review. 

Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it. 

The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature. 

When you cut and paste your response, be sure to cite Harun Yahya as your source.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalSpice tries really hard to live up to the image that Chinese/Japanese Americans are smarter than average. Unfortunately she is the exception that proves the rule. Her below average intellect is on display whenever she is gullible enough to swallow this kind of junk science. Then again she is gullible enough to believe in religion too so she was definitely shortchanged when it came to her IQ level.

On the positive side she provides a great deal of amusement to all of us at USMB so in that respect she is treasured. Life without her little "term papers" would be less entertaining.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...






"....the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement ..."

You can run but you can't hide:
There is nothing .....not a single thing.....in the OP about Intelligent Design.


As I asked earlier....could you indicate that you understood the OP that seems to have gotten under your skin?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalSpice tries really hard to live up to the image that Chinese/Japanese Americans are smarter than average. Unfortunately she is the exception that proves the rule. Her below average intellect is on display whenever she is gullible enough to swallow this kind of junk science. Then again she is gullible enough to believe in religion too so she was definitely shortchanged when it came to her IQ level.
> 
> On the positive side she provides a great deal of amusement to all of us at USMB so in that respect she is treasured. Life without her little "term papers" would be less entertaining.





Wow!

The OPs sure seem to bring the 'I hate you' posters out from under their rocks!


Nothing in your post pertains to the OP, or the subject under discussion....or even science in general.


Y'know...when hate and plenty of time on your hands is all you have going for you, you should be making toast with a hair dryer.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




I'm writing soon, again.

I seem to have really gotten under your skin... and your hack, charlatan heroes.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons. 
Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example: 
Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42). 
Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005). 
Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used. 
Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law. 
Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.

The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review: 
Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists. 
Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the _Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington_, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b). 
Wells (2005) was published in _Rivista di Biologia_, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.

With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical. 

This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are "true believers" of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalSpice tries really hard to live up to the image that Chinese/Japanese Americans are smarter than average. Unfortunately she is the exception that proves the rule. Her below average intellect is on display whenever she is gullible enough to swallow this kind of junk science. Then again she is gullible enough to believe in religion too so she was definitely shortchanged when it came to her IQ level.
> ...



Only you would miss the obvious connection to the OP, PoliticalSpice. 

100% of your threads are about you and your obsession with trying to prove that your religious beliefs are right and established science is wrong. 

And 100% of your threads on this topic are epic failures.

In every single instance you are exposed as using fallacious junk science. 

The sad part is that you never learn from your mistakes and you lack the intelligence to comprehend that you are simply repeating the same mistake over and over again.

The term pathetic springs to mind but in your instance I really just feel sorry for you. It can't be easy being an Asian-American and having a lower than average IQ.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > This is what happens when you lock someone at home and make them listen to Hate Radio all day.
> ...



Much like Serious Historians would laugh at your "FDR was a Communist" rants, Serious Biologists would rant at you "Darwin got it Wrong".  

You see, the main reason I stopped being a republican was because I could no longer work their increasingly crazy dogma around facts.  

You should try the same.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Only you would miss the obvious connection to the OP, PoliticalSpice.



Political Spice?  I LOVE IT!


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalSpice tries really hard to live up to the image that Chinese/Japanese Americans are smarter than average. Unfortunately she is the exception that proves the rule. Her below average intellect is on display whenever she is gullible enough to swallow this kind of junk science. Then again she is gullible enough to believe in religion too so she was definitely shortchanged when it came to her IQ level.
> 
> On the positive side she provides a great deal of amusement to all of us at USMB so in that respect she is treasured. Life without her little "term papers" would be less entertaining.



To be absolutely fair, Political Chick is quite intelligent.  In fact, I think she suffers from the mental gymnastics of trying to reconcile Conservative Dogma with reality.  I can totally sympathize, being an ex-Republican. I was totally there trying the old 'Let's defend Bush while there are bloated floating bodies in NOLA!"


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Based on the inept responses, either the dop


Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




Why are you running from the subject?

Since there is nothing in the OP that pertains to Intelligent Design, how about a critique of either the Burgess Shale, or the Chengjiang fauna, both of which destroy any cachet Darwin's theory might have.

I'm sure you agree.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





"In every single instance you are exposed as using fallacious junk science."

Please...don't hesitate: find any "fallacious junk science" in the OP.

'Else you are exposed as a liar.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...





Perhaps you had some other thread in mind...("mind"???)...as your post has nothing to do with this one.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalSpice tries really hard to live up to the image that Chinese/Japanese Americans are smarter than average. Unfortunately she is the exception that proves the rule. Her below average intellect is on display whenever she is gullible enough to swallow this kind of junk science. Then again she is gullible enough to believe in religion too so she was definitely shortchanged when it came to her IQ level.
> ...




"Conservative Dogma"???

The Burgess Shale?

The Chengjiang fauna???

Really?


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> "Conservative Dogma"???
> 
> ...



Nobody is saying "Darwin got it wrong" because we're finding fairly impressive fossils from the Cambrian.  

Yes, the Cambrian explosion is interesting.  It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


And for that matter, why is there a fossil record at all unless possibly, the gods have played a cruel joke on humanity. 

Would they intentionally leave massive clues to an ancient planet, a more ancient universe, light years as measurement of time as opposed to a few thousand years?

Those gods, they're such kidders.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...







Actually, real scientists are saying just that: *Darwin got it totally wrong.*

4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits,  run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.


a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the *Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution. *


b. ... December 4, 1995,* Time Magazine* published a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.


c. *Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "*
The Devil Is In the Details January 2013



As you are a novice, let me point out again the significance of "...*anatomically they were often even more complex. "
*
For Darwin to have been correct....the early fossils had to have been simpler.


In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated *his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones *via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.." 
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But* the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction*. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...





"It doesnt' disprove evolution. It certainly doesn't make the Bible true or prove there's an invisible sky pixie."

Calm down.

Try to be as precise as I am.

1.The import of the OP is very specific: it opposes Darwin, but says nothing about whether the concept of evolution is correct or incorrect.

2. The Bible is not part of the OP, or anything I've posted.
Bring it up is your attempt to side-step the issue proven by the OP.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Still can't deal with the OP?

Shocker.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> And for that matter, why is there a fossil record at all unless possibly, the gods have played a cruel joke on humanity.
> 
> Would they intentionally leave massive clues to an ancient planet, a more ancient universe, light years as measurement of time as opposed to a few thousand years?
> 
> Those gods, they're such kidders.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



FABNAQ

1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?

1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?

1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?

1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?

2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will _not_ be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence _for_ your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)



2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?
3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)



3a. Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)
4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the _same_ answers.)



4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.
5. Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it _could_be falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?



5a. Is there any observation which _has_ changed your theory?
5b. Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?
​


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> 1.The import of the OP is very specific: it opposes Darwin, but says nothing about whether the concept of evolution is correct or incorrect.
> P.



So what is your point, exactly?  That we have more detailed knowledge than a guy writing in 1844 did? 

Sweet Evil Jesus on a Pogo Stick, I hope so.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

Battleship beast colossal dinosaur skeleton found in southern Patagonia Science The Guardian

I have it on good authority that the fossil remains of the dinosaur in the link  above is a fraud. Those Darwinist Evilutionists were out under cover of darkness with their spades and shovels planting the evidence. 

Either that or the Ark tilted over the crest of a wave and the animal fell overboard, couldn't swim and drowned.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...






So.....you really can't figure out the point???

Pretty much verifies everything I've always said about you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> So.....you really can't figure out the point???
> 
> Pretty much verifies everything I've always said about you.



That you are pretty much one step from being a rambling homeless person?  Yeah, we figured that out. 

A tip from someone who is paid for his writing.  Write like you're being paid by the point and penalized by the word.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...





"...we figured that out."
We?
You have a tapeworm?


No....you haven't.... because you would have admitted that my thesis is unassailable.

Everything I've posted is spot on.
And that's why you haven't even tried to claim any errors.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> because you would have admitted that my thesis is unassailable.



Uh, no, I figured they were the ramblings of a crazy person locked in a house all day listening to Hate Radio.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > because you would have admitted that my thesis is unassailable.
> ...





See what I mean about you proving yourself to be a dope?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

5. Now...let me interject here, that what I encourage is spirited debate. Unfortunately, there are only two varieties of debate in these threads, and both involve personal animus.


a. There is one nit-wit who keeps chirping that my viewpoint is dictated by religion. Let me point out that there is nothing about religion in these posts.


b. Another dunce claimed the OP was based on 'hate'....all I can see in the OP is a quote by Charles Darwin, Dr. Stephen Meyer, and a study by paleontologist J.Y.Chen of The Chinese Academy of Sciences.

.....

No hate there...just science.




6. Since neither variety of disputer has the background to defend Darwin....I'll point out one sort of possible defense.

So, on what leg should their disputation stand? How about pointing to* the "Artifact Hypothesis"?*

There is no disputing the fact that* evidence shows highly developed organisms where Darwin said there should be none*. Darwin knew:

"To the question why we do _not _find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these _*assumed *_earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system* I can give no satisfactory answer . *. . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great_."_
Charles Darwin,_The Origin of Species,_chapter Ten:_On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata._pp. 164




Let me give my opponents a chance to bring up the Artifact Hypothesis.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Actually, "real scientists" don't


PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Sorry dear, but real scientists don't work at Answers in Genesis or the Disco ' Tute.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...






Hey....aren't you proud of your mention in 5 a above?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...





More real scientists here:
 " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.



Kinda blows you out of the water, huh?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> 5. Now...let me interject here, that what I encourage is spirited debate. Unfortunately, there are only two varieties of debate in these threads, and both involve personal animus.
> 
> 
> a. There is one nit-wit who keeps chirping that my viewpoint is dictated by religion. Let me point out that there is nothing about religion in these posts.
> ...



Before you bring up the Artifact Hypothesis, why not account first for the edited, parsed and phony "quotes" you're dumping into the thread.

Honestly, I've exposed your lies repeatedly (and identified those lies repeatedly), yet you continue with the lies.

Here again, your phony "quote" (the ones you cut and paste from fundie Christian websites are a fraud. You then become an accomplice to fraud by posting these lies when you know full well they are lies.

Quote Mine Project Darwin Quotes

[paste:font size="4"] The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation and  The Creation Explanation: The Primeval World -- Fossils, Geology & Earth History: What Do the Fossils Say?

The more complete context is:

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy. Not very long ago M. Barrande added another and lower stage, abounding with new and peculiar species, beneath the then known Silurian system; and now, still lower down in the Lower Cambrian formation, Mr. Hicks has found in South Wales beds rich in trilobites, and containing various molluscs and annelids. The presence of phosphatic nodules and bituminous matter, even in some of the lowest azoic rocks, probably indicates life at these periods; and the existence of the Eozoon in the Laurentian formation of Canada is generally admitted. There are three great series of strata beneath the Silurian system in Canada, in the lowest of which the Eozoon is found. Sir W. Logan states that their "united thickness may possibly far surpass that of all the succeeding rocks, from the base of the palæozoic series to the present time. We are thus carried back to a period so remote that the appearance of the so-called primordial fauna (of Barrande) may by some be considered as a comparatively modern event." The Eozoon belongs to the most lowly organised of all classes of animals, but is highly organised for its class; it existed in count less numbers, and, as Dr. Dawson has remarked, certainly preyed on other minute organic beings, which must have lived in great numbers. Thus the words, which I wrote in 1859, about the existence of living beings long before the Cambrian period, and which are almost the same with those since used by Sir W. Logan, have proved true. Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more invariably it has suffered extreme denudation and metamorphism.
_
The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained._To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea. - Origin of Species, 6th Ed. John Murray, 1872,  Chapter 10, pp. 286-288.
Darwin is concerned about the lack of fossils before the Cambrian, and seeks to explain it in terms of the wearing away of the earlier strata. He notes here (sixth edition, 1872) that he had said in 1859 (first edition) that fossils would be found in earlier strata, and they eventually were. However, Darwin was probably mislead about the Eozoon formations, as they are not currently considered a real fossil but a metamorphic feature formed from the segregation of minerals in marble through the influence of great heat and pressure.
Tectonic subduction, something that Darwin could not known of, has destroyed some of the relevant material but mostly he was right. The older the sediment, the greater the chance that it has either eroded away or been metamorphosed to an extent that fossils are destroyed. Even so, we have multicellular fossils now back to the Ediacaran (circa 580 million years before the present) and single cell fossils arguably back to 3.75 billion years. The valid argument no longer has any purchase, and Darwin has been vindicated.
Citing it out of the specific context suggests Darwin thought there were a lot of things he could not explain using evolution, and that he knew it was false. This is extraordinarily bad quote mining.
- John Wilkins and John Harshman


Kinda makes you just another dishonest, fundie hack, doesn't it.​


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Hey....aren't you proud of your exposure (for the 8th time now in these threads of phony "quotes"), as a liar and a fraud?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Now...let me interject here, that what I encourage is spirited debate. Unfortunately, there are only two varieties of debate in these threads, and both involve personal animus.
> ...





Wow!


You actually verified my post by providing this in yours:

"_The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."


So....Darwin couldn't explain the missing fossils he predicted.....

...and stated that this fact is pretty good evidence against his thesis.



Good work!_


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!
> 
> 
> 1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be* an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.*
> ...




3. "*The Chengjiang fauna *makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

You're "quoting" Meyer?

Funny stuff but then again, he shills for the Disco 'tute, a haven for fundie cranks who can't find employment elsewhere.

Amazon.com Donald Prothero s review of Darwin s Doubt The Explosive Origin of An...



> Another common tactic of creationists is credential mongering. They love to flaunt their Ph.D.'s on their book covers, giving the uninitiated the impression that they are all-purpose experts in every topic. As anyone who has earned a Ph.D. knows, the opposite is true: the doctoral degree forces you to focus on one narrow research problem for a long time, so you tend to lose your breadth of training in other sciences. Nevertheless, they flaunt their doctorates in hydrology or biochemistry, then talk about paleontology or geochronology, subjects they have zero qualification to discuss. Their Ph.D. is only relevant in the field where they have specialized training. It's comparable to asking a Ph.D. to fix your car or write a symphony--they may be smart, but they don't have the appropriate specialized training to do a competent job based on their Ph.D. alone.
> 
> *Stephen Meyer's first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer's Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution).* Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he's just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards. But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their "expert" in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



It was good work to identify your fraud and lies.

However, you make it easy because you fundie hacks just mindlessly cut and paste from fundie Christian websites knowing full well the "quotes" are lies.

But you don't care.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



In connection with your item 1., I just posted an example of your phony "quote-mining".

What a shame you didn't contact me prior to posting your phony "quotes" so I could have advised you of your impending embarrassment at being exposed, again, as a liar and a fraud.


----------



## guno (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Now...let me interject here, that what I encourage is spirited debate. Unfortunately, there are only two varieties of debate in these threads, and both involve personal animus.
> ...




Little miss Saigon is one mentally ill  religious nutter


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Here again, with reference to the Darwin "quote" we see that PC (parses a single sentence out of an entire paragraph in a dishonest and failed attempt to present her fundamentalist Christian agenda of lies and deceit.

The complete paragraph is shown as:

The Origin of Species Chapter 4



> After ten thousand generations, species (A) is supposed to have produced three forms, _a_10, _f_10, and _m10_, which, from having diverged in character during the successive generations, will have come to differ largely, but perhaps unequally, from each other and from their common parent. If we suppose the amount of change between each horizontal line in our diagram to be excessively small, these three forms may still be only well-marked varieties; or they may have arrived at the doubtful category of sub-species; but we have only to suppose the steps in the process of modification to be more numerous or greater in amount, to convert these three forms into well-defined species: thus the diagram illustrates the steps by which the small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into the larger differences distinguishing species. By continuing the same process for a greater number of generations (as shown in the diagram in a condensed and simplified manner), we get eight species, marked by the letters between _a_14 and _m_14, all descended from (A). Thus, as I believe, species are multiplied and genera are formed.




Just more of the lies that have come to define the religious extremist agenda.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Actually, it presents insurmountable obstacles to your YEC proclivities.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!
> ...





He's correct, isn't he.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

7. How to defend Charles Darwin from the blistering attack employed in the OP?

*So far, none has been able to....
The whiners simply attack the messenger....they seem unable to deal with the message.*

Can you imagine?? It's left to me to provide a defense....
....but, a good offense is the best defense!


So....let's try the *'Artifact Hypothesis.'*


a. OK...*so the transitional forms that should be there in the geological record, i.e., showing that life began as simple and became complex, are missing.* "Perhaps they were microscopic, similar to modern marine larvae....too small to have been reliably fossilized." This from developmental biologist Eric Davidson, California Institute of Technology.

Davidson has even posited that the intermediate forms only existed in the larval stage.




*b. Maybe the ancestors of Cambrian animals were not preserved because they lacked hard parts such as shells and exoskeletons.*
*"Molecular evidencefor deep Precambrian divergences among metazoan phyla,"*
GAWray,JSLevinton, LHShapiro- Science, 1996 - sciencemag.org

Get it: why expect to find remains of soft-bodied ancestors?




OK?
So....perhaps Darwin's missing fossils were either too small to be seen.....or lacked hard parts, so as to be preservable.


Did you notice that neither of these scientists claimed that the fossils proving Darwin's theory were present.

So....how about it....the 'Artifact Hypothesis'.....Is that a plausible defense of Darwin?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> 7. How to defend Charles Darwin from the blistering attack employed in the OP?
> 
> *So far, none has been able to....
> The whiners simply attack the messenger....they seem unable to deal with the message.*
> ...



Do you think "quote-mining" lies and falsehoods is a plausible defense for christian fundamentalists?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Stumper Questions for Creationists

Stumper Questions for Creationists

*Introduction*

This is a collection of questions which many people who support conventional science wonder about when confronted with those who oppose conventional science in the name of creationism. The questions are grouped in these categories: what is creationism; what is conventional science; how does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science; theological questions. Within each category there are numbered specific questions, surrounded by introductory or other explanatory material. These questions are repeated at the end of each category (sometimes paraphrased) for emphasis.

We begin with the more important questions, and answers to them are greatly desired in order to promote communication. Later questions may be considered to be about details.



*A few comments about some terminology*

The expression "conventional science" is used here as it is a neutral expression, and many people object to misunderstandings surrounding such expressions as "evolutionism" or "theory of evolution".

The other side is referred to as "creationist" as that appears to be the self-description of those opposed to conventional science in the ways of interest here. It is not intended to include all people who believe in creation.



*What is creationism?*

Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





Why did you insert this, as it has nothing to do with the thread?

Gave up trying to defend Darwin's flawed thesis, huh?

Good.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 7. How to defend Charles Darwin from the blistering attack employed in the OP?
> ...





Could you find any examples of "lies and falsehoods" in my posts?

So far, the only "lies and falsehoods" are yours.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Except for lies and falsehoods in your"quote-mining".

I suppose christian fundies such as yourself can't make a distinction between lies and falsehoods. You should convert to Islam. They have a built-in allowance for lies and falsehoods.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

8.So, we find actual scientists making efforts to support Darwin, as in the 'Artifact Hypothesis' above.
I may not have done the best job in presenting it. but as the Darwin-groupies couldn't come up with anything....well, anything is better than nothing.
So...what is my answer to the Artifact Hypothesis?


Sorry....there is just too much evidence that opposed it.


a. Here's a study that shows that *even the tiniest organisms have been found*:

 "It should be noted that cells of filamentous microorganisms (interpreted as cyanobacteria) have been discovered and documented in the Warrawoona Group strata of Western Australia. These microfossils, found in bedded carbonaceous cherts, are estimated to be between 3.3 billion to 3.5 billion-years-old. "
William J. Schopf and Bonnie M. Packer, “Early Archean (3.3-Billion to 3.5-Billion-Year-Old) Microfossils from Warrawoona Group, Australia,” Science 237 (July 3, 1987): 70. 62 Jochen J. Brocks, Graham A. Logan, Roger Buick, and Roger E. Summons, “Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes,” Science 285 (1999): 1033-36


b.* I mean tiny!*

"Species of single-celled algae and the appearance of cells with a nucleus about 2.7 billion-years-ago have been well documented in the fossil record."
 Jochen J. Brocks, Graham A. Logan, Roger Buick, and Roger E. Summons, “Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes,” Science 285 (1999): 1033-36



c. And, from the OP we learned that* even soft parts are preserved:*

. " The Lower Cambrian *sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues *and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestiveglands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.


d. Maybe the Earth's gyrations destroyed them?

 And, of course, paleontologists can find minuscule single cells in formations which are *far older (and therefore far rarer due to the greater likelihood of tectonic destruction)*, it would seem that the allegedly tiny fossil precursors of the Cambrian animals should have been found somewhere in the over 500 million years of sedimentary strata below the Cambrian. Moreover, as already noted, the Precambrian rocks in China beneath the Chengjiang biota clearly reveal the presence of tiny sponge embryos.
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/Cambrian.pdf



*There is simply no scientific support for Darwin's theory in the geological record.*


Sorry, kids.....back to the drawing board.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!
> 
> 
> 1. The most straightforward course of action for Darwinists would be* an admission that there is far more evidence that discourages acceptance of Darwin's thesis, than supports same.*
> ...



I dunno.  Theories on evolution have changed a bit in 100 plus years.

When I look at what we have done to dogs and corn with selective breeding over 10,000 years the idea of what, 400,000,000 years of random and selective evolution can do does not amaze me.

God might have set it all in motion.  Perhaps.  I think he/she/it used biological processes not magic.  Goes along with all that faith stuff they preached to me.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> 8.So, we find actual scientists making efforts to support Darwin, as in the 'Artifact Hypothesis' above.
> I may not have done the best job in presenting it. but as the Darwin-groupies couldn't come up with anything....well, anything is better than nothing.
> So...what is my answer to the Artifact Hypothesis?
> 
> ...


The mantra of the Christian extremist.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 19, 2014)

Darwin collapses under the math. The odds of inorganic, mindless proteins and molecules forming even a single cell are beyond astronomical.

Once more the odds of 2,000 items aligning themselves to form a functioning cell are 10 E 5745 - 1. that's a number with 5,735 0's after it


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!
> ...




Perhaps you  should re-read the OP....more carefully.

It simply provides evidence that proves that Darwin was wrong.

That's it.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You've uncovered a global conspiracy among those atheist evilutionists.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)




----------



## Toronado3800 (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I am sure he was wrong about something if that is the gist of things here.

What do you think he was wrong about?  All life forms having a common ancestor?  Perhaps.  Where do viruses come from?  The same ancestor of whales?  Maybe not.  Maybe.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...




"What do you think he was wrong about?"

Are you serious???


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

So....we can see that the fossils show evidence contrary to Darwin's theory.

9. Jump back to an earlier question, from the OP....this one:
" An inquiry into the reason that so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment."



a. Here's a hint:

 When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government;* in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”*
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities


In this thread one can see the ire from those who cannot brook any criticism of Darwin.




Why is it so very important to accept Darwin, when there is so much clear evidence that his theory was terminally incorrect???



10. The answer requires more than just an acquaintance with science. Those without commensurate knowledge of* history and politics* will be stymied, and never see the real reason why acceptance of Darwin is de rigueur.



One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote*to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,*and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



You see, *Darwin's theory is less scientific, than political.*

Fact.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> So....we can see that the fossils show evidence contrary to Darwin's theory.
> 
> 9. Jump back to an earlier question, from the OP....this one:
> " An inquiry into the reason that so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment."
> ...


That's so silly.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > More evidence that Charles Darwn cannot possibly have been correct in explaining the diversity of life on the planet!
> ...



Go ahead ... attack the messenger instead of offering a viable argument.  Typical Hollie-ism.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Stumper Questions for Creationists
*What is creationism?*

Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?




Exposition of creationism.
Definitions of terms.
Evidence for creationism.
Rules of evidence.
Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


"The gawds did it" is not an argument.

Typical comment from a zealot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2014)

here's one

Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > 3. "...charlatans such as Meyer and Berlinski."
> ...



Not in biology they aren't. Their backgrounds are in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. The closest either of them comes to being an expert in biology is Berlinski claiming to have spent time working as a molecular biology lab assistant at Columbia without explaining exactly what his duties were.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





Were you able to find any error which you could attach to either one?

No?

Well...then you really have no point, do you.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 19, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> here's one
> 
> Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum





Another post from a moron who hasn't the ability to comprehend the subject...but strives mightily to keep up.

Failed once again.


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 19, 2014)

The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Still got nuthin' I see.  Where did all the matter that fills the universe come from Hollie?  Just give us your best GUESS!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > here's one
> ...



PC your far right weird failed mcarthyism is here only for the grins and chuckles it provides.  Your nonsense is the laughing stock of the Board.  Even shootspeeders and Edward Baiamonte are held in greater esteem, by maybe five board members, but that is more than you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.



They can't produce such papers because, as PC shows repeatedly, all they have are opinions not conclusive evidence.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 19, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



LOL. NOBODY has failed as much as your Messiah In Chief.  You Dems just never learn.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 19, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.
> ...



Nor do secular humanists/evolutionists (like yourself) have any substantial "evidence" pointing toward the origin of the universe and the very first appearance of life.  All guesses on your part.  Logic dictates that it makes more sense to believe that an intelligent force (God) designed and created the universe (based on its reflection of design) than to believe that *poof* it all appeared by mistake and happenstance.  So it makes more sense that SOMETHING created everything than to believe that NOTHING created everything.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 19, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Nor do secular humanists/evolutionists (like yourself) have any substantial "evidence" pointing toward the origin of the universe and the very first appearance of life. All guesses on your part. Logic dictates that it makes more sense to believe that an intelligent force (God) designed and created the universe (based on its reflection of design) than to believe that *poof* it all appeared by mistake and happenstance. So it makes more sense that SOMETHING created everything than to believe that NOTHING created everything.



Are you on drugs?  

A magic sky man is more logical than proven scientific processes?  Really?


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 19, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



That doesn't make any sense. Evolutionary biologists aren't asking those because that isn't their area of concern. Cosmologists deal with where matter came from. Molecular biologists deal with abiogenic start of life. And if you ask either for definitive proof you'll be told we aren't entirely sure, but we have a good idea based on some real hard evidence that is way over your head (or mine for that matter) to understand.

But evolutionary biologists and paleontologists have literal libraries full of data and evidence to draw on and two centuries of ever more precise means of finding that data, including entire branches of science that Darwin couldn't have even dreamed of (e.g. genetics and molecular biology and biochemistry).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2014)

The far right, pubs or not, like DS etc. can bitch and witch all they want.  After this election, they no longer will have power in our mainstream GOP.  Look at Cruz lose strength every single day.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2014)

Actually, Darwin is buried in the Westminister Abbey. And the Theory of Evolution, as it stands today, is considered the most robust of all the Scientific Theories.

That people like yourself have to resort to silly nonsense to try to disprove it is merely proof of your own intellectual stunting due to religious foolishness.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> So....we can see that the fossils show evidence contrary to Darwin's theory.
> 
> 9. Jump back to an earlier question, from the OP....this one:
> " An inquiry into the reason that so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment."
> ...



Here's a clue for the clueless:

1. “People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.” 
― Neil deGrasse Tyson



2. “To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.” 
― Daniel C. Dennett, _Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life 


3. “Believers can have both religion and science as long as there is no attempt to make A non-A, to make reality unreal, to turn naturalism into supernaturalism. (125)” 
― Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design 



4. “And to think of this great country in danger of being dominated by people ignorant enough to take a few ancient Babylonian legends as the canons of modern culture. Our scientific men are paying for their failure to speak out earlier. There is no use now talking evolution to these people. Their ears are stuffed with Genesis.” 
― Luther Burbank



5. “Don't creationists ever wonder about the fact that the paleontologists found ape-like skulls with the 'human leg and foot bones,' rather than the other way around, i.e., human skulls with 'ape leg and foot bones?' . . . Come on, creationists, think about it! Did God hide the human skulls, only leaving behind leg and foot bones belonging to human midgets with misshapen feet, and mix such bones only with the skulls of ape-like creatures with larger cranial capacities than living apes? What a 'kidder' the creationists' God must be.” 
― Edward Babinski_


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...


I'd be less inclined to accept fundamentalist Christian "logic". When your "logic" requires unthinking allegiance to ancient tales and myths, long ago shown to be flawed and untenable, you've become a cultist.

Faith (your extreme, unthinking version), comes from misperceptions, logical errors, and emotional biases. If they didn’t, then faith would be rational and it would no longer be faith. _Reason_ is both individual and collective -- when it’s collective, it becomes knowledge. As time goes on, that collective knowledge will eventually discard elements that are untrue, and retain those that are. This can only come about by progressing forward in the pursuit of knowledge, and the only way to do that (that we can presently see) is using our _reason_, not blindly accepting partisan beliefs that derive from nothing more than happenstance of societal, familial circumstances.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, that's just a untenable position that only cultists would take seriously.

THE BIG BANG! Where else could you begin? The Universe is born and the process of evolution begins. For many, many eons, this evolution is a completely inorganic process as matter itself coalesces, in the form of hydrogen from a kind of hot quark soup, through the creation of the heavier elements as a by product of super novas, to the formation of relatively stable planets like the Earth. A few more eons and life emerges. Organic evolution begins. Given another eon or so, Homo sapiens! Now this is a truly peculiar development. Here's a creature who not only generates little models of the Universe in his head, but he can pass these models on from generation to generation. Stranger still, the models themselves can be refined, and evolve in the blink of a cosmic eye. For many generations in many cultures, these models are flagrantly superstitious and anthropocentric, but despite that, humanity survives and flourishes. Now at some point, a few hundred years ago, it becomes apparent to a few of the best model builders that certain kinds of superstitions and subjective habits were obstructing the development of more useful models. The Scientific Method was born as a tool for generating more reliable models of the world around us. Occasionally, a new scientific theory would conflict so strongly with an older model, that the scientist was persecuted and forced to revise the model. Despite this kind of sporadic resistance, the scientific model gradually took a position of dominance in every culture, and today is held as the best, workable model for its practical application. Unfortunately, superstition, bigotry, and subjective distortions of all sort still dominate the everyday lives of many people, especially fundamentalists such as yourself. Our present collective model of the physical world has served us well, but there are still many mysteries to solve. If our current model is simply allowed to evolve through rational, scientific methods, we will be able to perfect the model and secure our place in the Universe.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2014)

Real Christians have no trouble with evolution whatsoever.

A First Creator can create in whatever fashion that His/Her Laws fashion.

To suggest there is no First Creator is as wishful as insisting creationism does exist.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.





No, the point is that you have no point, merely wished to register you eternal love of Charles Darwin.

Duly noted.

Now to skewer you: the thread shows that the fossil evidence of both the Burgess Shale, in England, and the Chengjiang sediments, China, ends the Darwinian view.

In both, we find more complex organisms suddenly appearing....and simpler forms later.



If you need me to prove that 'peer review' is bogus, and designed to keep morons like you in line, just ask.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





"I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, ...."

Another lie from the lying sack of offal.

I have never said any such thing.

The fact is that everything I have posted is true, and your lies attest to the fact that you cannot answer them honestly.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Real Christians have no trouble with evolution whatsoever.
> 
> A First Creator can create in whatever fashion that His/Her Laws fashion.
> 
> To suggest there is no First Creator is as wishful as insisting creationism does exist.





I'm fine with that.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.
> ...





I can't decide whether you are more the moron, or more the liar.

BTW...there are several such papers produced in the thread as proof of my position.

Time for new specs?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

I hope that all readers of the thread notice that none of the attackers were able to confront the facts posted....that diversity did not occur in the manner Darwin propounded.

All they can do is....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Peer reviewed scientific papers?

You lose as usual.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> I hope that all readers of the thread notice that none of the attackers were able to confront the facts posted....that diversity did not occur in the manner Darwin propounded.
> 
> All they can do is....


I think that most readers will recognize your profound ignorance regarding the many sciences that support evolution.

It's unfortunate that you science loathing and science illiterate  fundamentalist Christians insist on making fools of yourselves in public forums such as this one.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


You seem to think that your Young Earth Creationist views are not recognized for what they are. 

Your lies, falsehoods and fraud as I demonstrated earlier with your mindless cutting and pasting of "quotes" from fundie websites represents you as nothing more than a Flat Earth loon.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


More ad hominem.  Hollie strikes again.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Real Christians have no trouble with evolution whatsoever.
> 
> A First Creator can create in whatever fashion that His/Her Laws fashion.
> 
> To suggest there is no First Creator is as wishful as insisting creationism does exist.



Real Christians believe what God says about His Creation.  "The evening and the morning were the first day" ... "the evening and the morning were the second day" ... "the evening and the morning were the third day."  Etc.  A rotation of the earth is an "evening and a morning."  An evening and a morning make one, literal day.

Using YOUR model, Adam would have been a single-celled amoebae.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You had an opportunity to respond with a competing argument and you could not.

I'm not responsible for your lacking ability.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I think therein lies the problem.  Darwinists are so heavily invested in their belief that they automatically leap to counter any critique of Darwinism with an attack on "anti-science", "fundamentalist", "ignorant" Creationism and/or ID.  The reality is, however, that Darwinism as taught today in schools does face serious challenges and things have come to light that cast significant doubt on its ability to explain life as we see it.  Questioning Darwinism and pointing out its weaknesses is not, however, an automatic support for Creationism.  That's just a smoke screen.  It seems, moreover, that the least learned are the strongest adherents to the faith, and react the strongest when confronted with things that Darwinism cannot explain.  A truer statement would be "When we completely reject even the remotest possibility that life is intelligently designed, Darwinism is the best theory that we can come up with, but we have to admit that there are things it cannot account for".


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Real Christians have no trouble with evolution whatsoever.
> ...


Do "real Christians" question why your gods lied to A&E?

Why did your gods lie while satan told the truth?


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Based on the inept responses, either the dop
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> ...



I think most ardent Darwinists do not really understand the underlying assumptions and science that went into creating the theory, they are merely repeating what they were taught in school and are not really curious about how life really came about.  Kind of like a voter who pays no attention to politics until a week before an election, then votes for the good looking one.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Christian fundamentalism is not a serious challenge to science. No one has to "come up" with Darwinism (BTW, "Darwinism" is an immediate clue you spend a lot of time on christian fundamentalist websites), as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Science and discovery gets us there.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Based on the inept responses, either the dop
> ...


I think most of you folks using the "Darwinism" term tend to make a lot of pointless comments about evolutionary science which you see as a threat to your fundamentalist religious views.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Real Christians have no trouble with evolution whatsoever.
> ...



You are only a biblical literalist, a pharisee, not a Christian.

You fundamentally have no idea about what you are talking.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Do you believe in God's ultimate power or is He a weakling to you?  Could God create a universe with the power of His Word or must He rely and slow, sluggish, "evolutionary" processes to fulfill His goals?  

Also, please explain to me what Adam looked like and whether or not he was able to communicate with God the very moment he was formed.  If not ... please explain to me how God communicated His will to Adam and whether or not Adam was "evolved" enough to comprehend God's instruction.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2014)

Yup, you are a biblical literalist, an apostate, who puts the word above God and his revelation.

You like most fundies and evangelicals and other religious mccarthyite type religious weirdies build a fence around the God and turn the book into a whited sepulcher that shineth on the outside yet stinketh corruption from within.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I hope that all readers of the thread notice that none of the attackers were able to confront the facts posted....that diversity did not occur in the manner Darwin propounded.
> ...




My posts were totally scientific.

Yours, lies.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, you are a biblical literalist, an apostate, who puts the word above God and his revelation.
> 
> You like most fundies and evangelicals and other religious mccarthyite type religious weirdies build a fence around the God and turn the book into a whited sepulcher that shineth on the outside yet stinketh corruption from within.



I put God above YOUR word and YOUR personal opinions.  Considering the fact that YOU reject God's Word and have gone out of your way to usurp it we can all conclude that you are "apostate" and a "false teacher."  Beware ... there's a hot place designed just for false teachers who twist God's Word to their personal whims.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



One, no they aren't, PC, and two, yes, you do lie.  All the time.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


They're not "scientific" when you edit, parse and selectively delete. 

Besides, it's actually comical when you religious extremists claim science in your cutting and pasting when your pointless "quotes" are stolen from christian fundamentalist websites. Let's not pretend you science loathing Flat Earth loons have an interest in science.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, you are a biblical literalist, an apostate, who puts the word above God and his revelation.
> ...


 Yup, it's about "you", not God, my point.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Oh ye of little faith.  The Almighty God is vastly more powerful than you give Him credit for.  Shame on you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2014)

DS, you make the baby Jesus cry because of your pride.

Just love Jesus, lean on Him, follow His lead for your life.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> 7. How to defend Charles Darwin from the blistering attack employed in the OP?
> 
> *So far, none has been able to....
> The whiners simply attack the messenger....they seem unable to deal with the message.*
> ...



So, how does anyone defend fundie zealots from themselves? Well, you can't.

The "quotes" dumped into the above post by the fundie zealot are "quote-mines" that PC stole from Stephen Meyer of the Disco' Tute. Meyer carelessly hacked apart comments from a real scientist. 

There's a good read here which just how dishonest and corrupt the fundie Christians have become in further of their lies and falsehoods surrounding the industry of fraudulent fundie Christians. 


Stephen Meyer workin in the quote mines - The Panda s Thumb


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 7. How to defend Charles Darwin from the blistering attack employed in the OP?
> ...






You imbecile....you're efforts should be to show the information is incorrect...not who provided them.

Obviously they are totally correct, as are all of my post.

That's why I have been able to reduce you to no more than lying.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


The problem of course is that your dishonest "quote mines" are edited, purged and out of context.

I've shown repeatedly that your fraudulent "quotes" are a laughable joke of creationist nonsense.  

Your efforts should show that you're not a dishonest spammer. But alas, you are a dishonest spammer.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

*Stumper Questions for Creationists

How do creationists describe conventional science? *
It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

evolution
primitive
natural selection
theory
(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.

(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)
Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
What is does conventional science say?
What is the evidence for conventional science?
What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





You're lying again.....I'm never dishonest.


Get to the topic: 
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 20, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalSpice tries really hard to live up to the image that Chinese/Japanese Americans are smarter than average. ....




Why insist on making a fool of yourself this way?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



False.

You're a pointless "quote-miner"


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

*Stumper Questions for Creationists

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?
*
In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.
Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the _same_ answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why _only_ there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 20, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> DS, you make the baby Jesus cry because of your pride.
> 
> Just love Jesus, lean on Him, follow His lead for your life.



And believe His Word.  Can't follow Him if you don't know what He's saying.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> *Stumper Questions for Creationists
> 
> How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?
> *
> ...






You're lying again.....


Get to the topic: 
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.


Why are you so afraid to address the topic?


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Thank you for making my point for me.  There is nothing heretical in being skeptical about Darwinism.  Note that is not the same as claiming that animals never adapt to survive.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Classical Darwinism as taught in schools today (you probably learned it) is a particular form of belief in the evolutionary model, one that cannot account for many things.  Skepticism is healthy.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > *Stumper Questions for Creationists
> ...



Address your fraudulent "quote-mining".


Why are you so afraid to address your frauds?


You do know that Stephen Meyer is a hack, has no formal training in biology, right? Yet you "quote-mine" his nonsensical works.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Typical religious fundamentalists will use terms such as "Darwinism" and "belief in the evolutionary model".

There's no belief required for the various science disciplines that support evolution.

Belief is only required for religious dogma.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Thank you for proving my point: you have no point.

You do know this planet is more than 6,000 years old, right? While it may be heretical to accept that, you can have "faith" that the Christian Taliban wont be allowed to burn you at the stake.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Again, a non-scientific response that bolsters my point, that many, if not most, adherents to the Darwinian model don't really understand it and its flaws.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You're still doing it.  What did I ever say about the age of the earth?  Your responses are exactly what I predicted.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie caught PC quote mining #115 that demonstrated PC has no idea about she is mewling.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Bolstering your religious view by attacking science is a staple of fundamentalist Christians. It's more a case of fundamentalist Christians attacking the science they don't understand.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Well actually, you didn't say much of anything except to use a number of slogan and cliches' that are staples of fundamentalist Christian madrassahs.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Note that I have not mentioned religious belief.  That is your construct.  Nor have I attacked science.  Again, your construct.  What I have done is stated that classic Darwinism has some flaws and that there are some things that cast serious doubt upon it.  Your responses indicate to me that your stance is more religious in nature than you might care to admit.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You do note, don't you, that your language "fundamentalist Christian madrassahs", does not indicate a scholarly approach to the question of how life originated?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


I noted that the terms you use are typical of fundamentalist Christian ministries. As with your use of slogans such as "Darwinism" that indicates to me that it is your stance that is religious in nature.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



From Wikipedia:



> *Darwinism* is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.



What's wrong with that term?  It's accurate.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Your comments are typical coming from religious extremists.

Evolution does not address how life originated. That's a truly basic precept but a mistake typically made by religious extremists.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


You get your science from wiki?

Can you also cut and paste a definition of "religious extremist"?


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Darwin's theory doesn't about how species come into being doesn't account for everything we see.  There are legitimate reasons to be skeptical.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...






Get to the topic: 
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.

It's the only thing I've posted about in the thread....and you've run from it as though it was radioactive.

Why is that?


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I got the definition of a word from there.  Do you dispute the meaning of the word?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Wiki is not a reliable source for science matters. How is it possible that you didn't understand such a very basic precept of the theory of evolution - that the beginning of life is not addressed by the theory?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You're a dishonest "quote-miner". After you have repeatedly been shown to be a dishonest "quote-miner" why do you continue with your lies?

*Theological questions *

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.
For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What part of word definition is hard to understand?  Do you agree with the definition or not?  If I turned to Wiki for a dissertation on out of order fossils, you might have a point.  Tell you what, find and post a different meaning for the word for discussion.  Otherwise, it stands.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





Get to the topic: 
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.

It's the only thing I've posted about in the thread....and you've run from it as though it was radioactive.

Why is that?


You can run, but you can't hide.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


What's remarkable is that you rattled on with claims that "Darwinism" has inherent flaws. You then identified that you had no knowledge that your claimed "flaw" was actually in connection with your not understanding even the basic precepts of the theory you claim is flawed.

"Otherwise it stands".

How cute. Your chest-heaving, heavy-breathing argumentation is based upon the ".... because I say so", premise.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. It is appropriate to point and laugh.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You can lie and you can "quote-mine" but I'll have no problem pointing out you're a fraud and a liar.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'll take that to mean you accept the definition of the term "Darwinism" and its application to the discussion, since you posted no different definition.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


I'll take that to mean you accept your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution as an excuse for your error.

Don't you think you should have at least a middling understanding of the subject you're arguing against?


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Did you not note where I stated that Darwin's theory does not address many issues related to how species originate?  IOW, you're beating on a straw man.  First, you try desperately to make this about me being a religious fanatic, now you're trying to steer things onto a non-issue with Darwinism.  The OP doesn't address the origin of life, I'm not addressing it.  Why are you?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Did you forget that it was you who attempted to make the connection between the origin of life and "Darwinism"? Did you forget that it was you who introduced the term "Darwinism"?

You should consider trying out for the U.S. Olympic Swim Team - the Backstroke.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Classical Darwinism, as taught in schools today, is flawed.  That is the premise.  Thus far, you have done nothing to address it.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


There's nothing to address. Your bellicose "... because I say so" claim is not an argument and not a premise. You might prefer christian creationism be taught in place of science but there is something called the Constitution which prevents that.

Further, I'm not aware that "Darwinism" is a part of any public school syllabus.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'm beginning to think you're not very serious.  I didn't say anything about teaching Creationism.  That's your construct, not mine.



> Further, I'm not aware that "Darwinism" is a part of any public school syllabus.



So, what do you think is being taught in schools today if it is not Darwinism, as defined in this thread?  Note that said definition was posted and not countered, thus holds.  Do the textbooks reference Darwin in their teachings on biology?  Do they identify him as the founder of the evolutionary model?  Do they teach his ideas?  These are all indications that Darwinism is indeed taught in school today.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


Ah. I see. You're a conspiracy theorist who believes that ID'iosy should be taught. 

Do you think anyone is fooled by the ID'iot label for christian fundamentalism?


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Where did I say ID should be taught in schools?  You're all over the map on this one, accusing me of all sorts of things I didn't do.  Now, since I'm NOT the topic, when are you going to admit skepticism about Darwinism is healthy?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


When are you going to admit your agenda?


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I already have.  I posted that there are problems with the Darwinism that is taught in schools.  It's as clear as that.  It's not my problem you don't want to deal with that and instead choose to fight a battle against no one.  Why is criticism of Darwinism equated in your mind with a desire to teach ID in schools?  I never said that, only you did in your quest to avoid dealing with the premise of my argument.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


I've not seen any premise for an argument. Your silly Darwinism rants don't imply an argument.


----------



## hadit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Then I'll accept that you have nothing with which to counter them.  You've proven my other point, which is that many, if not most, who accept Darwin wholeheartedly do so from ignorance and resist any skepticism whatsoever, but do not really understand why they do.


----------



## HenryBHough (Oct 20, 2014)

In Washington, D.C. we have overwhelming evidence that Evolution reversed itself in 2008.


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



Or they simply paid attention in 9th grade biology.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


That's all very melodramatic. 

Are you going to make an actual argument at some point?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 20, 2014)

hadit said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...



I have a child in public schools.

My child has never studied 'Darwinism'- what is taught is the modern theory of Evolution.

And I have yet to see you make any arguments which demonstrate the the theory of Evolution is 'flawed'.

While we will almost certainly learn more and more about how Evolution works- and I am sure that there will be surprises- there is no serious doubt that organisms do evolve.


----------



## JoeB131 (Oct 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> My posts were totally scientific.
> 
> Yours, lies.



She done got a mail order degree from Talking Snake University!


----------



## hadit (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I did.  Your opinion of said argument is irrelevant.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Belief is only required for religious dogma.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> So.....do we agree? *Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!*



Absolutely do not agree.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 20, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...






1. "And I have yet to see you make any arguments which demonstrate the the theory of Evolution is 'flawed'"
Which indicates that you have not paid attention.

Bet it said that on your report cards, too.


2. "While we will almost certainly learn more and more about how Evolution works- and I am sure that there will be surprises..."
How many years since Darwin posited his theory?
There are more 'scientists' at work today than the total before the contemporary era.
And, since then, how many new species has science 'created'?

Get it?

No?

Capable of getting it?

Also 'no.'


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 20, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > So.....do we agree? *Darwin is buried by Chengjiang!*
> ...




In simplest terms, the Chengjiang and other sites provide the exact opposite results that Darwin's theory demands.

Take it as a hint.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 20, 2014)

Atheism is an anti-dogma to religionism.

Yeah, it requires faith.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 20, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> how many new species has science 'created'?



Seriously?

PoliticalSpice believes that science is in the business of "creating species"?


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 20, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > how many new species has science 'created'?
> ...



Resurrection does exist.

This thread proves it.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 20, 2014)

Syriusly said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



But is it possible to resurrect the brain dead?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 20, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




No....sadly, there is no hope for you.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Nonsense. What does Darwinian evolution demand?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...





Too bad you are unequipped to discuss the topic to which you have subscribed.


Darwin's theory specifies that all live began as one, simple organism, followed by increasing complexity.
Pictured as an upside down pyramid.

The Burgess Shale, and Chengjiang, among other sites, show exactly the opposite .

. "*The Chengjiang fauna *makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74


I would hope that you circle of acquaintances is large enough to include an adult that will help you obtain a library card.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> *If Darwin was correct*, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these *'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.*



There are thousands upon thousands of examples of such organisms that exist as living species today. We don't even need the fossil record. 

Just work your way up through increasing levels of complexity. A very limited set of examples:

Choanoflagellate
Sponge
Cnidarian
Simple worms
Hagfish
Sharks
Bony Fish
Lobe finned fish
Amphibians
Reptiles
Mammals

All exist today. And many predecessor organisms exist in the fossil record. Just consider Tiktaalik - a transitional fossil between fish and amphibian from about 360 mya.

I'll get to your Chengjiang/Burgess shale silliness later.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> I would hope that you circle of acquaintances is large enough to include an adult that will help you obtain a library card.



Hey, go with the snarky insults. I'm web savvy and can use a search engine. I don't need a library card.

Here, start with these

Meyer s Hopeless Monster - The Panda s Thumb
Meyer s Hopeless Monster Part II - The Panda s Thumb

It blows your Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" BS to pieces

I can get a lot more of you like. You may need to find an educated adult to help you understand them.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *If Darwin was correct*, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these *'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.*
> ...







"We don't even need the fossil record."

Glad to see I've convinced you that Darwin was incorrect.


1. The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.

Understand this: the discovery turns Darwin's 'tree of life' upside down!

a. "Charles Darwin (1809–1882) used the concept of a tree of life in the context of his theory of evolution. In _On the Origin of Species_(1859) Chapter IV he presented an abstract diagram of a theoretical tree of life for species of an unnamed large genus " Tree of life biology - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
He begins with one simple organism at the bottom, and more and more as they become more complex.

b. The sudden appearance of new body forms, new species is the very antithesis.
"THE ABRUPTmanner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once,* the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."*
 Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

2. Even from Time magazine:

 "Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. *Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world." *Extrait de 

a. Darwinians can not explain where all the DNA information came along in such a short period of time
Jun-Yuan Chen and Cambrian explosion - Forum

3. BTW.....Darwin recognized that the only proof of his theory would be the fossil record.
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.*To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”

“*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine


It would be best if you obtained an education before you accept wholesale indoctrination.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I would hope that you circle of acquaintances is large enough to include an adult that will help you obtain a library card.
> ...





No...."let's start here" only the most inept of fools attacks the one making the statement rather than the statement itself.
That is because the statement, the quote, is entirely correct.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> It would be best if you obtained an education before you accept wholesale indoctrination.



It would appear it is you that have been indoctrinated by the Intelligent Designers.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I would hope that you circle of acquaintances is large enough to include an adult that will help you obtain a library card.
> ...



Gotta love this conclusion from the first paper;

There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom â continuing challenge is a core feature of science. *But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. *Unless and until the "intelligent design" movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They are not even playing the same sport.​
That is a perfect summation of the fallacies in every single PolicalSpice thread.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> That is a perfect summation of the fallacies in every single PolicalSpice thread.



Exactly so


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

_b. The sudden appearance of new body forms, new species is the very antithesis.
"THE ABRUPTmanner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once,* the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."*
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302



Scientific readers will likely find that “Darwin’s Doubt” has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of years—far more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. *Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.*_


Doubting 8220 Darwin 8217 s Doubt 8221 - The New Yorker


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

Hey, I can cut and paste too

_Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity._

Doubting 8220 Darwin 8217 s Doubt 8221 - The New Yorker


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > It would be best if you obtained an education before you accept wholesale indoctrination.
> ...




The second thing that a dolt like you do is claim that there is some aspect of my post that refers to religion, or ID, or creationism.

There isn't.

I have presented linked and sourced data, and facts....and you have no response.
I understand science and you don't.
You accept the Darwin theory on faith alone. Ironic.

You are a moron who can't accept that you've been scammed.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Hey, I can cut and paste too
> 
> _Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity._
> 
> Doubting 8220 Darwin 8217 s Doubt 8221 - The New Yorker




Still no reference to the specifics that I provided....including Darwin's own words.

Consider yourself schooled.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> _b. The sudden appearance of new body forms, new species is the very antithesis.
> "THE ABRUPTmanner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once,* the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."*
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302
> 
> ...





"_*Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see."*_

*An attempt to claim that fossil evidence is unnecessary.
It is.

Clearly you cannot find same.*


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, I can cut and paste too
> ...



Yeah, Darwin's own words. The absurdity of your argument is that much of it is based on Darwin's own statements

_3. BTW.....Darwin recognized that the only proof of his theory would be the fossil record.
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.*To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”_

_“*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine_

The fact that Darwin didn't get everything right when he wrote Origins in no way makes his theory wrong. The fact that you put so much stock in those comments displays the weakness of your argument.

Darwin has been vindicated over and over. The theory has been revised and updated as new fossils were found, the works of Mendel came to be known, the nature of the DNA molecule came to be known, and the ability to rapidly sequence DNA became a fact.

Darwin had the right idea.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Consider yourself schooled.



Here is some science for you

The reality is that, even on the most conservative interpretation of the fossil record which relegates all of the classic Ediacaran fossils to the stem below the bilaterian common ancestor, or to cnidarians, or to even more remote positions, we still have this sequence observed in the fossil record:



*1. Before 700 mya, maybe well before:* Single-celled eukaryotes (acritarchs)

*2. Earlier Ediacaran:* Multicellular animal eukaryotes, but simple, sponge-grade organisms

*3. Later Ediacaran:* Multicellular animal eukaryotes with more complexity, i.e. cnidarian-grade organisms

*4. Very late Ediacaran:* Simple slug-grade/worm-grade organisms (at least their tracks and burrows) – the first ones only making surface tracks and lacking burrowing ability. Making tracks suggests that the organisms have at least a front end and a back end, a mouth, anus, and gut connecting them. These are almost certainly bilaterians.

*5. Very late Ediacaran:* The very first biomineralized “skeletons”, e.g. _Cloudina_, basically a worm secreting a tube, as well as the first evidence of predatory boring. _Cloudina_ gets no mention at all in Meyer’s book.

*6. At the beginning of the Cambrian*, we start to see more complex burrowing – e.g., vertical burrowing through sediment, clearly indicating worm-grade organization and an internal fluid skeleton, i.e. a coelom. The burrows gradually increase in complexity over 10 my.

*7. Small shelly fauna: *The shells, which started very small and very simple, gradually diversify and get more complex, radiating especially in the Tommotian. By the end of the Tommotion, some of the “small shellies” can be identified as parts of larger, “classic” Cambrian animals. The Tommotian is an utterly key period for any serious discussion of the Cambrian Explosion. Unfortunately, the word “Tommotian”, or any equivalent terminology (the detailed stratigraphy of the Cambrian is still being worked out, see Erwin & Valentine 2013 for a review), does not even appear in the book! The Small Shelly Fauna (SSF) gets just one (one!) mention in the book, buried in endnote 27 of Chapter 4, a whole chapter devoted to debunking the idea that the Ediacaran fauna is “ancestral” to bilaterians. (See discussion of the concept of “ancestral” below, which Meyer makes a complete hash of; however, I would tend to agree that the evidence is not good that the classic Ediacarans are within the bilaterian crown, as much because of the late date of #4-6, above, as anything.)

*8.* The earliest identifiable representatives of Cambrian “phyla” don’t occur until millions of years after the small shelly fauna have been diversifying, and they tend to be taxa on the stem below the crown of living phyla, rather than placeable within the crown. Trilobites are an exception, but what is often missed is that deposits like the Chenjiang have dozens and dozens of trilobite-like and arthropod-like organisms that fall cladistically outside of these respective clades. These are transitional forms! How can this fact not be highlighted!?!

*9.* In general, the earliest Cambrian relatives of the living phyla tend to be a lot more wormlike or sluglike than most modern representatives of the living phyla. Of course, many of the living phyla are basically still worms, and the more complex living phyla (e.g. molluscs, chordates) have early-diverging representatives or relatives that are rather more wormlike than the better-known representatives with more complex bodyplans. Even the earliest “fish” – actually either stem-group craniates, stem-group cephalochordates, or stem-group chordates – are basically filter-feeding worms that happen to swim. They don’t have jaws, scales, limbs, a bone skeleton, or anything else that most readers would associate with the word “fish”.
All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian “Explosion” is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms, and that this took something like 30 million years just to get to the most primitive forms that are clearly related to one or another living crown “phyla”, and occurred in many stages, instead of all at once. But, the reader gets very little of the actual big picture from Meyer.

Meyer s Hopeless Monster Part II - The Panda s Thumb


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

I'll be back


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...





Liar.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin had the right idea.
> ...



Please, quote the lie.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...





Everything I've said about both Darwin's theory and about you are both absolutely correct.
And certainly the part about you being a liar.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You know nothing about me or my background.

That said, lets get back to first principles.

Your basic premise seems to be that the  Chengjiang Fauna disprove Darwin's theory.

I contend that Darwin's general theory, that natural selection drives an evolutionary process that has led to the diversity we have today, is correct, and that you and your sources are wrong.

Now, rather than offering ideas that you think show Darwin to be wrong, why don't you enlighten us with your theories about what has brought us the great diversity of species we see today?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...





Of course I do.

You've revealed yourself to be both ignorant, and a liar.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> The second thing that a dolt like you do is claim that there is some aspect of my post that refers to religion, or ID, or creationism.



PoliticalSpice is once again denying her fundamentalist religion is her inspiration for all of her mindless "cut & paste" threads?

Too bad that we already went down that path and outted PoliticalSpice's religious motivation. 

You can't unring that bell.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The second thing that a dolt like you do is claim that there is some aspect of my post that refers to religion, or ID, or creationism.
> ...








Do you not understand that your post is both untrue and has nothing to do with the thread?

Why embarrass yourself time after time?

Some kind of self hatred?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Of course I do.
> 
> You've revealed yourself to be both ignorant, and a liar.



It's clear you've got nothing to offer.

I'm done with you


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I do.
> ...





Run off, sonny boy.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Run off, sonny boy.



*DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right*

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science Darwin Was Right DiscoverMagazine.com

Read and enjoy


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Run off, sonny boy.
> ...





Back for more beatings?

Are you ready to admit that you lied when you claimed that my posts were based on Intelligent Design?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



It was an incorrect assumption, logically based on your primary sources.

If you don't believe in intelligent design, what do you believe?

Are you a creationist?

If you don't believe in either, what do you believe in?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...






Every one of my posts, in every forum, is based on only one thing: truth.

I thoroughly research every subject in which I have an interest.

My premise here is very specific: Darwin was incorrect.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Every one of my posts, in every forum, is based on only one thing: truth.
> 
> I thoroughly research every subject in which I have an interest.
> 
> My premise here is very specific: Darwin was incorrect.



Sure, Darwin got some things wrong. There were a lot of things he had no knowledge of. Like DNA and the Burgess Shales and Chengjiang.

But the general concept of evolution by the means of natural selection is every bit as valid today as it was when Darwin wrote _Origin_.

And you cannot prove otherwise nor offer a better theory.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 21, 2014)

ChesBayJJ said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Every one of my posts, in every forum, is based on only one thing: truth.
> ...





1. I can prove otherwise

2. Providing a 'better' theory is not my obligation.

3. Are you ready to admit that Darwin freely stated that* fossil proof was necessary to prove his theory?
*
And that for his theory to be true, *the record must show increasing complexity...


*
It seems you are clueless as to the significance of the Burgess deposits, of Chengjiang, etc.


4. And, in order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be* quite similar* to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would *only emerge much later *as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.? 

Here....let's bury you in education: :* 'disparity' r*efers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.

a.  The term 'diversity' is a way to refer to minor differences, but may be seen in genera or species.

The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that *the many new body plans show disparity*....and careful study of earlier fossils *did not reveal any evolutionary trail!*

Poor you, huh?

Bought the scam like it was on sale.

5. BTW....the Discovery article was way over the top.

In other threads I have shown the mathematical improbability of the 'molecular evidence.'


----------



## Derideo_Te (Dec 21, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------

