Destroying Darwin

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,287
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is coin of the realm in academia today. Heaven help the academician/scientist who denies....even questions it!

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government;in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities



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

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

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



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

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



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

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

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



And....even more difficulties for Darwinists:

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


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


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

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government;in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities



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

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

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



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

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



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

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

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



And....even more difficulties for Darwinists:

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


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


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

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

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

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government;in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy The evolution question in American politics Washington Times Communities



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

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

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



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

3..For purposes of clarity,this is Darwin's perspective, the pillars on which his thesis rests:
The universal common ancestry of all living things: all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one [ONE SINGLE] primordial form"
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.
Then, via the accumulation of finite, beneficial changes....finally, the diversity of life present today.



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

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

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



And....even more difficulties for Darwinists:

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


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


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

Stay tuned. The thread is about to be littered by the fundie zealot with "quote-mining" from Harun Yahya.
She even cut-n-pastes the insults...
 
The thread title will be revised to

"Destroying the Credibility of Christian Fundamentalists"

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



You misunderstand.

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

...and that contemporary research actually shows that events were the very opposite of his proposal.


What I'd like you do do is consider why it is so very important, politically, to advance a view which runs counter to scientific evidence.
 
Dogs Not as Close Kin to Wolves as Thought

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

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

"Destroying the Credibility of Christian Fundamentalists"

There are plenty of NON Christian fundamentalists that don't buy into Darwin's THEORY, because that is exactly what it is, a theory, never observed
Just like I don't believe in the theory of religion, yet have spirituality...
 
Last edited:
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?



You misunderstand.

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

...and that contemporary research actually shows that events were the very opposite of his proposal.


What I'd like you do do is consider why it is so very important, politically, to advance a view which runs counter to scientific evidence.
Sure he knew yet was pressured to publish anyway...
 
The thread title will be revised to

"Destroying the Credibility of Christian Fundamentalists"

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



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

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


More to come.
 
Dogs Not as Close Kin to Wolves as Thought

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

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



What will you say when I prove that scientists who defend Darwinian evolution lie?
 
The truth of this argument topic is old and redundant..Don't you have any reserve ideas, or is it limited to what others have produced for you to cut-n-paste...??
 
Dogs Not as Close Kin to Wolves as Thought

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

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



What will you say when I prove that scientists who defend Darwinian evolution lie?
That is their free will....And you dislike their ideas...
 
The truth of this argument topic is old and redundant..Don't you have any reserve ideas, or is it limited to what others have produced for you to cut-n-paste...??


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

Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?
 
The truth of this argument topic is old and redundant..Don't you have any reserve ideas, or is it limited to what others have produced for you to cut-n-paste...??


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

Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?
Why, because someone with an advanced degree such as you claim should be able to produce volumes if not reams of your own creation...
 
The truth of this argument topic is old and redundant..Don't you have any reserve ideas, or is it limited to what others have produced for you to cut-n-paste...??


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

Why do you find it a substitute for arguing the point it raises/supports?
We have argued the point so many times I am beginning to think we are married.........
 
What I'd like you do do is consider why it is so very important, politically, to advance a view which runs counter to scientific evidence.
Who is advancing what view? How about stating that up front. Name names, state views.
 
The thread title will be revised to

"Destroying the Credibility of Christian Fundamentalists"

There are plenty of NON Christian fundamentalists that don't buy into Darwin's THEORY, because that is exactly what it is, a theory, never observed
Evolution has been observed. Perhaps if you understood the subject matter you could write intelligently on the issues.
 

Forum List

Back
Top