Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!

[Hollie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When are you going to admit your agenda?

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

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

 

[hadit]

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

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

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

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

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

When are you going to admit your agenda?

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

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

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

 

[HenryBHough]

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

 

[Steven_R]

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

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

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

When are you going to admit your agenda?

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

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

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

Or they simply paid attention in 9th grade biology.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

When are you going to admit your agenda?

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

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

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

That's all very melodramatic.

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

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When are you going to admit your agenda?

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

I have a child in public schools.

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

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

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

 

[JoeB131]

My posts were totally scientific.

Yours, lies.

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

 

[hadit]

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

When are you going to admit your agenda?

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

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

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

That's all very melodramatic.

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

I did. Your opinion of said argument is irrelevant.

 

[Unkotare]

Belief is only required for religious dogma.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

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

Absolutely do not agree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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

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

When are you going to admit your agenda?

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

I have a child in public schools.

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

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

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

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

Bet it said that on your report cards, too.


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

Get it?

No?

Capable of getting it?

Also 'no.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Absolutely do not agree.

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

Take it as a hint.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheism is an anti-dogma to religionism.

Yeah, it requires faith.

 

[Derideo_Te]

how many new species has science 'created'?

Seriously?

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

 

[Syriusly]

how many new species has science 'created'?

Seriously?

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

Resurrection does exist.

This thread proves it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

how many new species has science 'created'?

Seriously?

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

Resurrection does exist.

This thread proves it.

But is it possible to resurrect the brain dead?

 

[PoliticalChic]

how many new species has science 'created'?

Seriously?

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

Resurrection does exist.

This thread proves it.

But is it possible to resurrect the brain dead?

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

 

[ChesBayJJ]

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

Absolutely do not agree.

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

Take it as a hint.

Nonsense. What does Darwinian evolution demand?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Absolutely do not agree.

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

Take it as a hint.

Nonsense. What does Darwinian evolution demand?

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


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

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

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


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

 

[ChesBayJJ]

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

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

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

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

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

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