Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!

[PoliticalChic]

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]

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

 

[Hollie]

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!

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]

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!

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.

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]

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]

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!

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.

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.

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]

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!

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.

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.

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?

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]

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!

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.

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.

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?

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?

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]

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!

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. 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]

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]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. 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.

"....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]

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]

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?

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?

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.

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.

Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. 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.

"....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?

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

1. 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.
   1. 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.
   2. 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.
   3. 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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

Political Spice? I LOVE IT!

 

[JoeB131]

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]

Based on the inept responses, either the dop

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?

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.

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.

Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. 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.

"....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?

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

1. 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.
   1. 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.
   2. 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.
   3. 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.

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]

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.

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.

"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.