Destroying Darwin

[cnm]

I'm going to prove that even Darwin knew that the proof of his theory wasn't there....

What proof of what theory? Be specific. This general waffling wastes everyone's time.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The thread title will be revised to

"Destroying the Credibility of Christian Fundamentalists"

There are plenty of NON Christian fundamentalists that don't buy into Darwin's THEORY, because that is exactly what it is, a theory, never observed

Evolution has been observed. Perhaps if you understood the subject matter you could write intelligently on the issues.

Yeah? Link where it was observed, when it happened and include video.

See ya in oh about.....never?

 

[Moonglow]

Dogs Not as Close Kin to Wolves as Thought

I look at my Bijon and look at a wolf and say, no way.

It is understandable that theories change. That as science learns more their ideas change. The problem is that there are those who, for whatever their reason, don't change or don't learn.

What will you say when I prove that scientists who defend Darwinian evolution lie?

Everybody lies...The person they lie to the most is themselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The truth of this argument topic is old and redundant..Don't you have any reserve ideas, or is it limited to what others have produced for you to cut-n-paste...??

Would you explain why you imagine 'cut and paste' to be a pejorative?

Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?

Why, because someone with an advanced degree such as you claim should be able to produce volumes if not reams of your own creation...

Every thread I construct is my creation.
Every one.

I carefully choose quotes, links and sources.

So...again...what is your compliant about cut and paste....outside of the fact that you don't have the education that would allow you do the same?



And,....you've avoided the second question:"Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?"

Kinda proves my point, huh?


BTW....I've never discussed my degrees.
So...you lied when you said "someone with an advanced degree such as you claim..."

Isn't that so?

 

[Moonglow]

I'm going to prove that even Darwin knew that the proof of his theory wasn't there....

What proof of what theory? Be specific. This general waffling wastes everyone's time.

Darwin's theory of evolution...

 

[Moonglow]

The truth of this argument topic is old and redundant..Don't you have any reserve ideas, or is it limited to what others have produced for you to cut-n-paste...??

Would you explain why you imagine 'cut and paste' to be a pejorative?

Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?

Why, because someone with an advanced degree such as you claim should be able to produce volumes if not reams of your own creation...

Every thread I construct is my creation.
Every one.

I carefully choose quotes, links and sources.

So...again...what is your compliant about cut and paste....outside of the fact that you don't have the education that would allow you do the same?



And,....you've avoided the second question:"Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?"

Kinda proves my point, huh?

I refuse to get into lengthy debates with people that can't handle criticism...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

To some evolution has to be fact...well because some egg head taught them it was fact. LOL

 

[cnm]

Darwin's theory of evolution...

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

 

[Moonglow]

Darwin was wrong and so is religion about the past of mankind, they are all just theories...
Some people in science use and believe it, just like religion......When will you post a thread about the fallacies of those religions?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What I'd like you do do is consider why it is so very important, politically, to advance a view which runs counter to scientific evidence.

Who is advancing what view? How about stating that up front. Name names, state views.

A thesis requires a prologue....

5. So....the fossil evidence of the Burgess Shale, or those found in Chengjang, show sudden formation of new and novel organisms, with no trace of the kinds of advances that Darwin predicted would precede them.



6. For some reason, it is so important for Darwinists to protect their view, that they answer in the following way:

a. Deny that new and novel forms emerged suddenly during the Cambrian period, the period during which Burgess and Chengjiang fossils were formed....but, are found in rudimentary conditions much earlier, in the late Precambrian.

b. Point to organisms discovered in the Ediacaran Hills in Australia...these dating from about 565 million years ago. This is a Precambrian period sometimes called the Ediacaran or Vendian period.



Those time periods:

Precambrian time, period of time that extends from about 4.6 billion years ago (the point at which Earth began to form) to the beginning of the Cambrian Period,

Cambrian Period, 540 to 490 million years ago.

The Ediacaran or Vendian a time period lasting from about 635 to 542 million years ago



So....the claim being made is that Ediacaran fossils were predecessors of the Cambrian fossils, and represent the 'fuse' that produced the Cambrian Explosion.


I hope you're taking notes.

 

[Moonglow]

Darwin's theory of evolution...

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

illogical and filled with fallacies....

 

[Hollie]

1. Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is coin of the realm in academia today. Heaven help the academician/scientist who denies....even questions it!

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



2. How to explain this anomaly of logic?
After all, if 'the debate is over,' why punish those whose outlier views orthodox science can most surely decimate???

Answer: the Darwinists can't decimate 'em.
Their response to doubters is
a. punish 'em, and/or
b.tell lies about the evidence.

And once you catch someone in one lie.....
"The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."



Today....an examination of one such lie, the Ediacaran Fauna.

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
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.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



If Darwin were 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.
It is fossil evidence that is considered as prima facie proof.

4. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. Here is the source of the problem:
'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



And....even more difficulties for Darwinists:

b "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


Now....what is the answer to this problem, as advanced by Darwin's supporters?
Well....some advance the idea that Ediacaran fossils obviate the appearance of inconsistency....


Coming right up.

Not this nonsense again. I'm expecting you to use all the same phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes" you cut and pasted in your last disastrous.

Stay tuned. The thread is about to be littered by the fundie zealot with "quote-mining" from Harun Yahya.

She even cut-n-pastes the insults...

They're all the same cut and paste insults she's used when her other threads were shown to be just as fraudulent as this one.

The truth of this argument topic is old and redundant..Don't you have any reserve ideas, or is it limited to what others have produced for you to cut-n-paste...??

Would you explain why you imagine 'cut and paste' to be a pejorative?

Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?

Why, because someone with an advanced degree such as you claim should be able to produce volumes if not reams of your own creation...

Every thread I construct is my creation.
Every one.

I carefully choose quotes, links and sources.

So...again...what is your compliant about cut and paste....outside of the fact that you don't have the education that would allow you do the same?



And,....you've avoided the second question:"Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?"

Kinda proves my point, huh?


BTW....I've never discussed my degrees.
So...you lied when you said "someone with an advanced degree such as you claim..."

Isn't that so?

Actually, you're not careful at all about your "quote-mining" So many of your "quotes" have been shown to be fraudulent, edited and parsed of relevant data. That makes you a fraud.

Isn't that so?

 

[Moonglow]

Where is the proof that Adam and Eve actually existed?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dogs Not as Close Kin to Wolves as Thought

I look at my Bijon and look at a wolf and say, no way.

It is understandable that theories change. That as science learns more their ideas change. The problem is that there are those who, for whatever their reason, don't change or don't learn.

What will you say when I prove that scientists who defend Darwinian evolution lie?

Everybody lies...The person they lie to the most is themselves.

I don't.

As the saying goes, 'we can only judge others by ourselves.'
As you just did.

But I always appreciate your autobiographical details.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

1. Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is coin of the realm in academia today. Heaven help the academician/scientist who denies....even questions it!

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



2. How to explain this anomaly of logic?
After all, if 'the debate is over,' why punish those whose outlier views orthodox science can most surely decimate???

Answer: the Darwinists can't decimate 'em.
Their response to doubters is
a. punish 'em, and/or
b.tell lies about the evidence.

And once you catch someone in one lie.....
"The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."



Today....an examination of one such lie, the Ediacaran Fauna.

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
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.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



If Darwin were 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.
It is fossil evidence that is considered as prima facie proof.

4. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. Here is the source of the problem:
'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



And....even more difficulties for Darwinists:

b "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


Now....what is the answer to this problem, as advanced by Darwin's supporters?
Well....some advance the idea that Ediacaran fossils obviate the appearance of inconsistency....


Coming right up.

Not this nonsense again. I'm expecting you to use all the same phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes" you cut and pasted in your last disastrous.

Stay tuned. The thread is about to be littered by the fundie zealot with "quote-mining" from Harun Yahya.

She even cut-n-pastes the insults...

They're all the same cut and paste insults she's used when her other threads were shown to be just as fraudulent as this one.

The truth of this argument topic is old and redundant..Don't you have any reserve ideas, or is it limited to what others have produced for you to cut-n-paste...??

Would you explain why you imagine 'cut and paste' to be a pejorative?

Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?

Why, because someone with an advanced degree such as you claim should be able to produce volumes if not reams of your own creation...

Every thread I construct is my creation.
Every one.

I carefully choose quotes, links and sources.

So...again...what is your compliant about cut and paste....outside of the fact that you don't have the education that would allow you do the same?



And,....you've avoided the second question:"Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?"

Kinda proves my point, huh?


BTW....I've never discussed my degrees.
So...you lied when you said "someone with an advanced degree such as you claim..."

Isn't that so?

Actually, you're not careful at all about your "quote-mining" So many of your "quotes" have been shown to be fraudulent, edited and parsed of relevant data. That makes you a fraud.

Isn't that so?

Don't just call her a fraud, PROVE she is a fraud. So far you're up there swinging and not making contact

 

[Moonglow]

1. Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is coin of the realm in academia today. Heaven help the academician/scientist who denies....even questions it!

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



2. How to explain this anomaly of logic?
After all, if 'the debate is over,' why punish those whose outlier views orthodox science can most surely decimate???

Answer: the Darwinists can't decimate 'em.
Their response to doubters is
a. punish 'em, and/or
b.tell lies about the evidence.

And once you catch someone in one lie.....
"The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."



Today....an examination of one such lie, the Ediacaran Fauna.

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
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.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



If Darwin were 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.
It is fossil evidence that is considered as prima facie proof.

4. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. Here is the source of the problem:
'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



And....even more difficulties for Darwinists:

b "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


Now....what is the answer to this problem, as advanced by Darwin's supporters?
Well....some advance the idea that Ediacaran fossils obviate the appearance of inconsistency....


Coming right up.

Not this nonsense again. I'm expecting you to use all the same phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes" you cut and pasted in your last disastrous.

Stay tuned. The thread is about to be littered by the fundie zealot with "quote-mining" from Harun Yahya.

She even cut-n-pastes the insults...

They're all the same cut and paste insults she's used when her other threads were shown to be just as fraudulent as this one.

The truth of this argument topic is old and redundant..Don't you have any reserve ideas, or is it limited to what others have produced for you to cut-n-paste...??

Would you explain why you imagine 'cut and paste' to be a pejorative?

Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?

Why, because someone with an advanced degree such as you claim should be able to produce volumes if not reams of your own creation...

Every thread I construct is my creation.
Every one.

I carefully choose quotes, links and sources.

So...again...what is your compliant about cut and paste....outside of the fact that you don't have the education that would allow you do the same?



And,....you've avoided the second question:"Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?"

Kinda proves my point, huh?


BTW....I've never discussed my degrees.
So...you lied when you said "someone with an advanced degree such as you claim..."

Isn't that so?

Actually, you're not careful at all about your "quote-mining" So many of your "quotes" have been shown to be fraudulent, edited and parsed of relevant data. That makes you a fraud.

Isn't that so?

I like new ideas and innovation, probably why I've been married so many times...

 

[Moonglow]

Dogs Not as Close Kin to Wolves as Thought

I look at my Bijon and look at a wolf and say, no way.

It is understandable that theories change. That as science learns more their ideas change. The problem is that there are those who, for whatever their reason, don't change or don't learn.

What will you say when I prove that scientists who defend Darwinian evolution lie?

Everybody lies...The person they lie to the most is themselves.

I don't.

As the saying goes, 'we can only judge others by ourselves.'
As you just did.

But I always appreciate your autobiographical details.

You just told a whopper...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin's theory of evolution...

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

See....this is why you should take notes.

From the OP:

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestorway 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.

Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.




And your lack of education in this matter is why I provide prologues.

 

[Moonglow]

1. Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is coin of the realm in academia today. Heaven help the academician/scientist who denies....even questions it!

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



2. How to explain this anomaly of logic?
After all, if 'the debate is over,' why punish those whose outlier views orthodox science can most surely decimate???

Answer: the Darwinists can't decimate 'em.
Their response to doubters is
a. punish 'em, and/or
b.tell lies about the evidence.

And once you catch someone in one lie.....
"The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."



Today....an examination of one such lie, the Ediacaran Fauna.

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
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.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



If Darwin were 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.
It is fossil evidence that is considered as prima facie proof.

4. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

a. Here is the source of the problem:
'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



And....even more difficulties for Darwinists:

b "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


Now....what is the answer to this problem, as advanced by Darwin's supporters?
Well....some advance the idea that Ediacaran fossils obviate the appearance of inconsistency....


Coming right up.

Not this nonsense again. I'm expecting you to use all the same phony, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes" you cut and pasted in your last disastrous.

Stay tuned. The thread is about to be littered by the fundie zealot with "quote-mining" from Harun Yahya.

She even cut-n-pastes the insults...

They're all the same cut and paste insults she's used when her other threads were shown to be just as fraudulent as this one.

The truth of this argument topic is old and redundant..Don't you have any reserve ideas, or is it limited to what others have produced for you to cut-n-paste...??

Would you explain why you imagine 'cut and paste' to be a pejorative?

Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?

Why, because someone with an advanced degree such as you claim should be able to produce volumes if not reams of your own creation...

Every thread I construct is my creation.
Every one.

I carefully choose quotes, links and sources.

So...again...what is your compliant about cut and paste....outside of the fact that you don't have the education that would allow you do the same?



And,....you've avoided the second question:"Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?"

Kinda proves my point, huh?


BTW....I've never discussed my degrees.
So...you lied when you said "someone with an advanced degree such as you claim..."

Isn't that so?

Actually, you're not careful at all about your "quote-mining" So many of your "quotes" have been shown to be fraudulent, edited and parsed of relevant data. That makes you a fraud.

Isn't that so?

Don't just call her a fraud, PROVE she is a fraud. So far you're up there swinging and not making contact

Yes, let us dig up the arguments made from the last time this subject was posted...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where is the proof that Adam and Eve actually existed?

So...first you object to the format....

...and when that doesn't work....you attempt to change the subject\.


What is this fear you have of actually addressing the issue?