Destroying Darwin

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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...

The subject is the Ediacaran fossils, and the attempt to use same to support Darwinian evolution.

And...I don't believe I've discussed this previously.

You might learn something.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

The debate isnt over. Still open for discussion. What is your theory if you dont like evolution? How did we get here? God? FAIL! That's the only dead end. Stop it. We've already explained you dont have enough evidence for your hypothesis.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

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...

The subject is the Ediacaran fossils, and the attempt to use same to support Darwinian evolution.

And...I don't believe I've discussed this previously.

You might learn something.

I've had the class already in high school and college, no thanks.. I wasn't impressed with it either...Just like church, after 20 years of class...

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Why dont you answer the question? They're trying to help you see the fatal flaws with your illogic.

 

[Hollie]

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.

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...

The subject is the Ediacaran fossils, and the attempt to use same to support Darwinian evolution.

And...I don't believe I've discussed this previously.

You might learn something.

Cutting and pasting from a chapter at Harun Yahya you haven't "quote- mined" before is hardly worth anyone's time.

You agree you're an accomplice to fraud, correct?

 

[sealybobo]

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

Sis, the enemies of truth...the poster you addressed, fly the white flag from the start by trying to bring religion into the thread.

I haven't, and don't bring up religion at all.
The liars do so because they cannot contend with the truth of my argument....which is totally based on science.


More to come.

What is your science say created all the diversity on earth? How do you explain how 1 million different beatles got here? If you dont like evolution what do you like?

 

[Moonglow]

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.

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...

The subject is the Ediacaran fossils, and the attempt to use same to support Darwinian evolution.

And...I don't believe I've discussed this previously.

You might learn something.

I've had the class already in high school and college, no thanks.. I wasn't impressed with it either...Just like church, after 20 years of class...

I preferred the geology class...

 

[Moonglow]

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

Sis, the enemies of truth...the poster you addressed, fly the white flag from the start by trying to bring religion into the thread.

I haven't, and don't bring up religion at all.
The liars do so because they cannot contend with the truth of my argument....which is totally based on science.


More to come.

What is your science say created all the diversity on earth? How do you explain how 1 million different beatles got here? If you dont like evolution what do you like?

Gawd.....Gangnam style...

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

The debate isnt over. Still open for discussion. What is your theory if you dont like evolution? How did we get here? God? FAIL! That's the only dead end. Stop it. We've already explained you dont have enough evidence for your hypothesis.

Try to focus like a laser.
The discussion is very specific: Darwin's theory.

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, once again, the admission of failure by dolts like you....bringing a straw man argument....as though my thesis had anything to do with religion.



"We've already explained you dont have enough evidence for your hypothesis."
Who's "we"?
You have a tapeworm?

And....what is my 'hypothesis'?
You seem not to know.

 

[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

Sis, the enemies of truth...the poster you addressed, fly the white flag from the start by trying to bring religion into the thread.

I haven't, and don't bring up religion at all.
The liars do so because they cannot contend with the truth of my argument....which is totally based on science.


More to come.

What is your science say created all the diversity on earth? How do you explain how 1 million different beatles got here? If you dont like evolution what do you like?

There were only four "beatles"

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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...

The subject is the Ediacaran fossils, and the attempt to use same to support Darwinian evolution.

And...I don't believe I've discussed this previously.

You might learn something.

I've had the class already in high school and college, no thanks.. I wasn't impressed with it either...Just like church, after 20 years of class...

No, you haven't.
You are clueless about Ediacaran fossils, as about so very many things.

This is one of those lies you claim everyone tells, huh?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So Darwin got some things wrong. As if anyone cares particularly. Criticising him for the things he got wrong with the knowledge he had at the time is pointless. So what. How uninspiring does someone have to be to make a point of doing so?

That's the difference between science and fundie superstition. Scientists are willing to update and change as more information becomes available.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

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...

The subject is the Ediacaran fossils, and the attempt to use same to support Darwinian evolution.

And...I don't believe I've discussed this previously.

You might learn something.

Cutting and pasting from a chapter at Harun Yahya you haven't "quote- mined" before is hardly worth anyone's time.

You agree you're an accomplice to fraud, correct?

They dont like our logic and explanation even though we arrive by only accepting facts. We may not have all the answers but at least we dont fill in those gaps with an imaginary unprovable solution.

On jeopardy every answer I dont know I'll just say what is or who is god.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin's theory of evolution...

But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?

illogical and filled with fallacies....

Let's see how easy it is to show you to be a fool.

I gave Darwin's theory in the OP....in his own words:

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.



This just isn't your day, is it.

 

[sealybobo]

So Darwin got some things wrong. As if anyone cares particularly. Criticising him for the things he got wrong with the knowledge he had at the time is pointless. So what. How uninspiring does someone have to be to make a point of doing so?

That's the difference between science and fundie superstition. Scientists are willing to update and change as more information becomes available.

And we are willing to believe god exists as soon as we are given some evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Sis, the enemies of truth...the poster you addressed, fly the white flag from the start by trying to bring religion into the thread.

I haven't, and don't bring up religion at all.
The liars do so because they cannot contend with the truth of my argument....which is totally based on science.


More to come.

What is your science say created all the diversity on earth? How do you explain how 1 million different beatles got here? If you dont like evolution what do you like?

Are you changing the subject because you are now admitting that there is no proof of Darwin's theory?

Great.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So Darwin got some things wrong. As if anyone cares particularly. Criticising him for the things he got wrong with the knowledge he had at the time is pointless. So what. How uninspiring does someone have to be to make a point of doing so?

That's the difference between science and fundie superstition. Scientists are willing to update and change as more information becomes available.

And we are willing to believe god exists as soon as we are given some evidence.

Just like we would be willing to believe He doesn't exist...as soon as we are given some evidence

 

[Moonglow]

Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another – and of our species’ connection with all other organisms.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.
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...

The subject is the Ediacaran fossils, and the attempt to use same to support Darwinian evolution.

And...I don't believe I've discussed this previously.

You might learn something.

I've had the class already in high school and college, no thanks.. I wasn't impressed with it either...Just like church, after 20 years of class...

I preferred the geology class...

That's gneiss.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So Darwin got some things wrong. As if anyone cares particularly. Criticising him for the things he got wrong with the knowledge he had at the time is pointless. So what. How uninspiring does someone have to be to make a point of doing so?

That's the difference between science and fundie superstition. Scientists are willing to update and change as more information becomes available.

And we are willing to believe god exists as soon as we are given some evidence.

Why do you keep trying to bring religion into a scientific discussion?

At a loss, huh?