Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which 'Darwinists' defend that precise passage? From what I see various forms of life are considered to have existed around or before the common ancestor.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.
Harun Yahya'ism is not science.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?
What's the problem with what Darwin said?illogical and filled with fallacies....But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?Darwin's theory of evolution...
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.
What's the problem with what Darwin said?illogical and filled with fallacies....But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?Darwin's theory of evolution...
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.
Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.
And so even religion has evolved. Lol
So something can come from nothing? Sudden new organisms are just popping up out of nowhere? Cool. I'm open to that. The big bang may not be true either. I'm open to all possibilities.What's the problem with what Darwin said?illogical and filled with fallacies....But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?Darwin's theory of evolution...
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.
Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.
And so even religion has evolved. Lol
"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"
The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...
7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be
a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and
b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...
..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!
If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.
8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution
9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.
More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.
In this game....two strikes and you're out.
In the twisted mind of christian fundies, Harun Yahya is viewed as authoritative.What's the problem with what Darwin said?illogical and filled with fallacies....But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?Darwin's theory of evolution...
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.
Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.
And so even religion has evolved. Lol
"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"
The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...
7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be
a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and
b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...
..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!
If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.
8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution
9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.
More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.
In this game....two strikes and you're out.
The rest think of him as a charlatan...In the twisted mind of christian fundies, Harun Yahya is viewed as authoritative.What's the problem with what Darwin said?illogical and filled with fallacies....But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?
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.
Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.
And so even religion has evolved. Lol
"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"
The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...
7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be
a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and
b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...
..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!
If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.
8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution
9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.
More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.
In this game....two strikes and you're out.
Because that's all those hostile to the facts have.How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.
This is the scientific method.What's the problem with what Darwin said?illogical and filled with fallacies....But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?Darwin's theory of evolution...
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.
Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.
And so even religion has evolved. Lol
"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"
The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...
7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be
a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and
b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...
..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!
If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.
8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution
9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.
More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.
In this game....two strikes and you're out.
Even if Darwin was wrong does that prove a god did it or would we just admit we still dont know and may never know.Because that's all those hostile to the facts have.How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.
Really it means that little flaws or inconsistencies in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions will not make the theory of evolution go away. I mean according to PolitcalChic's assertion Darwin is already destroyed as his 'pillar' statement is held to be false according to current knowledge.Even if Darwin was wrong does that prove a god did it or would we just admit we still dont know and may never know.
Let's face it..We do not know our true origin.................................or the galaxies. That is the truth of the matter.. All ideas about it are just theories....
How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.
So something can come from nothing? Sudden new organisms are just popping up out of nowhere? Cool. I'm open to that. The big bang may not be true either. I'm open to all possibilities.What's the problem with what Darwin said?illogical and filled with fallacies....But what does PoliticalChic consider that to be?
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.
Long ago before telescopes a smart guy like Darwin name Bruno Giordano told christians that the stars were other suns and the universe was bigger than they believed and they burned him alive for blasphemy. Darwin would have been killed to. That's how bad your theory is. It is threatened with truth facts logic and science.
And so even religion has evolved. Lol
"What's the problem with what Darwin said?"
The problem is that sites have been found that clearly show sudden new organisms, with no evidence of 'evolutionary attempts' to produce same, e.g., Burgess Shale, Chengjiang in China....the 'Cambrian Explosion' of new diversity...
7. How to counter this?
If the Ediacaran fauna can be
a. shown to be a structural antecedent to Cambrian fossils found in Burgess, or Chengjiang,...and
b. if their occurrence can be pushed back into the Precambrian period...
..well, then....that goes a long way toward boosting Darwin's stock!
If neither.....Darwin is destroyed.
8. At first, dating suggested that the Ediacaran fossils appeared between 700 and 640 million years ago....but recent, more accurate radiometrics now fix the dates for the first appearance of these fauna at 570-565 million years ago....and their last appearance about 543 million years ago- that means 13 million years prior to the start of the Cambrian explosion.
Grotzinger et al., "Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints in Early Animal Evolution."
Biostratigraphic and Geochronologic Constraints on Early Animal Evolution
9. Alas....none of 'em are of the hard shelled type identified with the Cambrian Explosion.
More to the point....it would be a bald-faced lie to claim that the Ediacaran fossils represent ancestral forms of the Cambrian animals, or, as some Darwin supporters claim, that they provide examples of such forms.
In this game....two strikes and you're out.
Well they aren't going to waste time teaching the theory of creationism from every religion..How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.
"How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn."
Because you're a fool.
Darwinism is taught throughout the nation at just about every level.
It won't be replaced with Jerry Falwell'ism.How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn. Finding little flaws in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions doesn't make the theory of evolution go away.
"How come you don't address my point that Darwin's pillar has already been toppled and no one gives a damn."
Because you're a fool.
Darwinism is taught throughout the nation at just about every level.
I doubt his findings have passed sciences peer review. If it does we will hear about it from someone other than politichick. Lol. Their shit never pans out but we have to remain open.Really it means that little flaws or inconsistencies in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions will not make the theory of evolution go away. I mean according to PolitcalChic's assertion Darwin is already destroyed as his 'pillar' statement is held to be false according to current knowledge.Even if Darwin was wrong does that prove a god did it or would we just admit we still dont know and may never know.
BFD.
She is concerned with empirical evidence to back a theory, yet creationist have no empirical evidence for the existence of God and where he hid Heaven...and Hell...I doubt his findings have passed sciences peer review. If it does we will hear about it from someone other than politichick. Lol. Their shit never pans out but we have to remain open.Really it means that little flaws or inconsistencies in a Victorian's writings, research and predictions will not make the theory of evolution go away. I mean according to PolitcalChic's assertion Darwin is already destroyed as his 'pillar' statement is held to be false according to current knowledge.Even if Darwin was wrong does that prove a god did it or would we just admit we still dont know and may never know.
BFD.
And just like Darwin doesnt disprove god, her finding dont prove god. That's impossible because he really doesnt exist.
