The Cambrian Explosion, and Religion

[Procrustes Stretched]

Darwin deniers. CSC - Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics

"Mr. Berlinski states that "before the Cambrian era . . . very little is inscribed in the fossil record." Yet the oldest known fossils are of bacteria and stromatolites (containing blue-green algae), both of which are with us today, and are still among the simplest forms of life known. The Cambrian explosion occurred much later, after simple life (and even simple multicellular life) had already appeared. This is one of the many points in the fossil record that support evolution." - quote

[MENTION=37754]Hollie[/MENTION]. Its a pretty good read

C'mon....you're smarter than Hollie.....not a very high bar to surmount....


...but can you find anything in the OP that isn't correct?


Or are you gonna be another witness to its veracity?

Not nibbling the bait.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not surprisingly, every one of the "quotes" dumped into this thread by the princess appears on virtually every creationist website, exactly as cut and pasted by the princess. And, not surprisingly, these same "quotes" share the expected editing and parsing. Additionally, most are 1980's vintage material.

Regarding the Dean Kenyon "quote" we see that only an edited, parsed portion has been "quoted". Here is a fuller description:


Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit


The phony "quote" dumped in this thread by the princess has been dumped in four other threads. Yet, she continues her fraud.

So....the best you can do is say you've heard something before?


Could you point out any that are in error?

'Cause if you can't, then two facts are established:

1. The OP is correct

2. You are incapable of learning.



Go for it, Halloween....

Or...you could start lying.

1. Oh, you poor dear. You're once again exposed as a fraud.

2. Your OP is a fraud.

3. Stop lying.

OK....this is third request that you prove any of your lies.....'phony' quotes....or
'fraud'.....or 'lying.'


But you haven't.


Why is that?


All you do is bloviate......I've provided a fertile pasture for you to farm for errors.....a nice, long OP.

Heck....it must all be true if you can't show anything in it that isn't....



C'mon....all of your flying monkeys are laughing at you.
List all the lies, frauds, errors.....whatever.....


Darwin is counting on you!

 

[PoliticalChic]

[MENTION=37754]Hollie[/MENTION]. Its a pretty good read

C'mon....you're smarter than Hollie.....not a very high bar to surmount....


...but can you find anything in the OP that isn't correct?


Or are you gonna be another witness to its veracity?

Not nibbling the bait.

So disappointed in you, Dante.....


1. First I knock off Stevie....

2. Konny fainted....

3. Now you do a Dikembe Mutombo....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mnpQesDLWQ][SOUND FILES] - NBA GEICO COMMERCIAL - NOT IN MY HOUSE - DIKEMBE MUTOMBO - ONLY - YouTube[/ame]



Well....at least Halloween won't run and hide!

She'll just huff and puff and make stuff up.....



Gee....I hate to win so quickly.....



I'll add more to the OP later....you might want to try again.

 

[Hollie]

So....the best you can do is say you've heard something before?


Could you point out any that are in error?

'Cause if you can't, then two facts are established:

1. The OP is correct

2. You are incapable of learning.



Go for it, Halloween....

Or...you could start lying.

1. Oh, you poor dear. You're once again exposed as a fraud.

2. Your OP is a fraud.

3. Stop lying.

OK....this is third request that you prove any of your lies.....'phony' quotes....or
'fraud'.....or 'lying.'


But you haven't.


Why is that?


All you do is bloviate......I've provided a fertile pasture for you to farm for errors.....a nice, long OP.

Heck....it must all be true if you can't show anything in it that isn't....



C'mon....all of your flying monkeys are laughing at you.
List all the lies, frauds, errors.....whatever.....


Darwin is counting on you!

WWJD?

1. Your gawds are not going to be happy with your lies and fraudulent "quotes"



2. Admit your fraud. I may choose to exit the thread temporarily... until your next series of lies.



3. C'mon. Post your "quotes" in context so you can be taken seriously, and your silly claims can be dismissed as bogus.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Oh, you poor dear. You're once again exposed as a fraud.

2. Your OP is a fraud.

3. Stop lying.

OK....this is third request that you prove any of your lies.....'phony' quotes....or
'fraud'.....or 'lying.'


But you haven't.


Why is that?


All you do is bloviate......I've provided a fertile pasture for you to farm for errors.....a nice, long OP.

Heck....it must all be true if you can't show anything in it that isn't....



C'mon....all of your flying monkeys are laughing at you.
List all the lies, frauds, errors.....whatever.....


Darwin is counting on you!

WWJD?

1. Your gawds are not going to be happy with your lies and fraudulent "quotes"



2. Admit your fraud. I may choose to exit the thread temporarily... until your next series of lies.



3. C'mon. Post your "quotes" in context so you can be taken seriously, and your silly claims can be dismissed as bogus.

Whew!

I thought you were running off too!


Y'know, there is something redeeming about a lying dope like you.....I mean that in the kindest way....

....when everyone else knows that they've lost......

....you don't!



OK....I know this is really cruel of me....

..but I have to smack you again:

Here, from "On The Origin" is Darwin's own admission......just as I said in the OP:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics



Ain't that a kick in the head???

Darwin says that he has no answer as to why there is no proof of his theory....and he says that the OP is "a valid argument against" his theory!!!


Admit it: this was a shut-out for me!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Random mutations is like saying an asteroid hit my ranch style house and transformed it into a Tudor

 

[Mac1958]

.

I have yet to stumble across an explanation for our existence - whether the theory depends upon chemistry or divinity - that is intellectually satisfying.

So I'll continue to wait.

I'm patient.

.

 

[Hollie]

OK....this is third request that you prove any of your lies.....'phony' quotes....or
'fraud'.....or 'lying.'


But you haven't.


Why is that?


All you do is bloviate......I've provided a fertile pasture for you to farm for errors.....a nice, long OP.

Heck....it must all be true if you can't show anything in it that isn't....



C'mon....all of your flying monkeys are laughing at you.
List all the lies, frauds, errors.....whatever.....


Darwin is counting on you!

WWJD?

1. Your gawds are not going to be happy with your lies and fraudulent "quotes"



2. Admit your fraud. I may choose to exit the thread temporarily... until your next series of lies.



3. C'mon. Post your "quotes" in context so you can be taken seriously, and your silly claims can be dismissed as bogus.

Whew!

I thought you were running off too!


Y'know, there is something redeeming about a lying dope like you.....I mean that in the kindest way....

....when everyone else knows that they've lost......

....you don't!



OK....I know this is really cruel of me....

..but I have to smack you again:

Here, from "On The Origin" is Darwin's own admission......just as I said in the OP:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics



Ain't that a kick in the head???

Darwin says that he has no answer as to why there is no proof of his theory....and he says that the OP is "a valid argument against" his theory!!!


Admit it: this was a shut-out for me!

1. I'll have to admit, your pontificating is laughable.


2. So thrill us, post a few of the same phony "quotes" you've posted before which I exposed as frauds.


3. You lie. You have expised as a liar.


4. Consider yourself a loser.

 

[PoliticalChic]

WWJD?

1. Your gawds are not going to be happy with your lies and fraudulent "quotes"



2. Admit your fraud. I may choose to exit the thread temporarily... until your next series of lies.



3. C'mon. Post your "quotes" in context so you can be taken seriously, and your silly claims can be dismissed as bogus.

Whew!

I thought you were running off too!


Y'know, there is something redeeming about a lying dope like you.....I mean that in the kindest way....

....when everyone else knows that they've lost......

....you don't!



OK....I know this is really cruel of me....

..but I have to smack you again:

Here, from "On The Origin" is Darwin's own admission......just as I said in the OP:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics



Ain't that a kick in the head???

Darwin says that he has no answer as to why there is no proof of his theory....and he says that the OP is "a valid argument against" his theory!!!


Admit it: this was a shut-out for me!

1. I'll have to admit, your pontificating is laughable.


2. So thrill us, post a few of the same phony "quotes" you've posted before which I exposed as frauds.


3. You lie. You have expised as a liar.


4. Consider yourself a loser.

Now, you know that the quote is accurate and correct....
" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "



1. Was it from Darwin himself?....Yup!

2. Was it made with reference to the lack of evidence for his theory? ...Yup!

3. Did Darwin admit that the lack of evidence pretty much sunk his theory?...Yup!

4. Did the link take you right to the source so you can read the whole passage?....Yup!



So...what have you proven?
4. That the only phony here is you.

and....


5. You both lie and don't know how to spell 'exposed'!
"You lie. You have expised (sic) as a liar."



Tell you what: don't leave now, and I promise to add even more to the thread!

Up for that?



Here....let me charge you up a bit:
if there is no fossil indication of the creation of the Brachiopoda, Eldontia, Annelida, Ctenophora, Hyolitha, Echinodermata, Arthropoda, etc....

....how does a phony like you explain their origin???



Where did they come from?

 

[PoliticalChic]

.

I have yet to stumble across an explanation for our existence - whether the theory depends upon chemistry or divinity - that is intellectually satisfying.

So I'll continue to wait.

I'm patient.

.

May we all live long enough to find the answer....or maybe the opposite.

 

[Hollie]

Whew!

I thought you were running off too!


Y'know, there is something redeeming about a lying dope like you.....I mean that in the kindest way....

....when everyone else knows that they've lost......

....you don't!



OK....I know this is really cruel of me....

..but I have to smack you again:

Here, from "On The Origin" is Darwin's own admission......just as I said in the OP:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics



Ain't that a kick in the head???

Darwin says that he has no answer as to why there is no proof of his theory....and he says that the OP is "a valid argument against" his theory!!!


Admit it: this was a shut-out for me!

1. I'll have to admit, your pontificating is laughable.


2. So thrill us, post a few of the same phony "quotes" you've posted before which I exposed as frauds.


3. You lie. You have expised as a liar.


4. Consider yourself a loser.

Now, you know that the quote is accurate and correct....
" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "



1. Was it from Darwin himself?....Yup!

2. Was it made with reference to the lack of evidence for his theory? ...Yup!

3. Did Darwin admit that the lack of evidence pretty much sunk his theory?...Yup!

4. Did the link take you right to the source so you can read the whole passage?....Yup!



So...what have you proven?
4. That the only phony here is you.

and....


5. You both lie and don't know how to spell 'exposed'!
"You lie. You have expised (sic) as a liar."



Tell you what: don't leave now, and I promise to add even more to the thread!

Up for that?



Here....let me charge you up a bit:
if there is no fossil indication of the creation of the Brachiopoda, Eldontia, Annelida, Ctenophora, Hyolitha, Echinodermata, Arthropoda, etc....

....how does a phony like you explain their origin???



Where did they come from?

1. What a shame. You insist on flaccid attempts to defend failed and fraudulent claims.


2. Your edited, out of context "quotes" and phony claims are absurd.


3. Do you somehow think that the same fraudulent "quote" posted half a dozen tomes somehow makes it plausible?


4. Your religious extremism is a disease.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I'll have to admit, your pontificating is laughable.


2. So thrill us, post a few of the same phony "quotes" you've posted before which I exposed as frauds.


3. You lie. You have expised as a liar.


4. Consider yourself a loser.

Now, you know that the quote is accurate and correct....
" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "



1. Was it from Darwin himself?....Yup!

2. Was it made with reference to the lack of evidence for his theory? ...Yup!

3. Did Darwin admit that the lack of evidence pretty much sunk his theory?...Yup!

4. Did the link take you right to the source so you can read the whole passage?....Yup!



So...what have you proven?
4. That the only phony here is you.

and....


5. You both lie and don't know how to spell 'exposed'!
"You lie. You have expised (sic) as a liar."



Tell you what: don't leave now, and I promise to add even more to the thread!

Up for that?



Here....let me charge you up a bit:
if there is no fossil indication of the creation of the Brachiopoda, Eldontia, Annelida, Ctenophora, Hyolitha, Echinodermata, Arthropoda, etc....

....how does a phony like you explain their origin???



Where did they come from?

1. What a shame. You insist on flaccid attempts to defend failed and fraudulent claims.


2. Your edited, out of context "quotes" and phony claims are absurd.


3. Do you somehow think that the same fraudulent "quote" posted half a dozen tomes somehow makes it plausible?


4. Your religious extremism is a disease.

I note you have been unable to show that there are any of 'out of context "quotes" and phony claims' or ' fraudulent "quotes" '.....


My premise is proven: you Darwinists are the \ religious extremists.

 

[Hollie]

Now, you know that the quote is accurate and correct....
" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "



1. Was it from Darwin himself?....Yup!

2. Was it made with reference to the lack of evidence for his theory? ...Yup!

3. Did Darwin admit that the lack of evidence pretty much sunk his theory?...Yup!

4. Did the link take you right to the source so you can read the whole passage?....Yup!



So...what have you proven?
4. That the only phony here is you.

and....


5. You both lie and don't know how to spell 'exposed'!
"You lie. You have expised (sic) as a liar."



Tell you what: don't leave now, and I promise to add even more to the thread!

Up for that?



Here....let me charge you up a bit:
if there is no fossil indication of the creation of the Brachiopoda, Eldontia, Annelida, Ctenophora, Hyolitha, Echinodermata, Arthropoda, etc....

....how does a phony like you explain their origin???



Where did they come from?

1. What a shame. You insist on flaccid attempts to defend failed and fraudulent claims.


2. Your edited, out of context "quotes" and phony claims are absurd.


3. Do you somehow think that the same fraudulent "quote" posted half a dozen tomes somehow makes it plausible?


4. Your religious extremism is a disease.

I note you have been unable to show that there are any of 'out of context "quotes" and phony claims' or ' fraudulent "quotes" '.....


My premise is proven: you Darwinists are the \ religious extremists.

1. I note that the same phony "quotes" you spammed this thread with are the same phony 'quotes" exposed in your last three threads.


2. You have no premise. You're a fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What a shame. You insist on flaccid attempts to defend failed and fraudulent claims.


2. Your edited, out of context "quotes" and phony claims are absurd.


3. Do you somehow think that the same fraudulent "quote" posted half a dozen tomes somehow makes it plausible?


4. Your religious extremism is a disease.

I note you have been unable to show that there are any of 'out of context "quotes" and phony claims' or ' fraudulent "quotes" '.....


My premise is proven: you Darwinists are the \ religious extremists.

1. I note that the same phony "quotes" you spammed this thread with are the same phony 'quotes" exposed in your last three threads.


2. You have no premise. You're a fraud.

Hey.....it's my pal, the religious fanatic!

Good to see you again!

Actually...it's good because it's so easy to prove what a nut job you are, with nothing but lies.

Here, watch:
"...the same phony 'quotes" exposed in your last three threads."

OK....provide the 'phony 'quotes"'....


See what I mean?
Can't?


Carry on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What a shame. You insist on flaccid attempts to defend failed and fraudulent claims.


2. Your edited, out of context "quotes" and phony claims are absurd.


3. Do you somehow think that the same fraudulent "quote" posted half a dozen tomes somehow makes it plausible?


4. Your religious extremism is a disease.

I note you have been unable to show that there are any of 'out of context "quotes" and phony claims' or ' fraudulent "quotes" '.....


My premise is proven: you Darwinists are the \ religious extremists.

1. I note that the same phony "quotes" you spammed this thread with are the same phony 'quotes" exposed in your last three threads.


2. You have no premise. You're a fraud.

"You have no premise. You're a fraud."





1. How about I use your quote as jump-off to support my premise?

Now....let's see if you can help me with my premise.

OK, remember this:
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

"...most major animal phyla..."
Where did they come from???
Maybe someone just plopped 'em onto the earth! Hmmm......


a. You see, if Darwinism is correct, then, there should be lots of attempts by 'natural selection,' indicating that nature tried to advance 'evolution.' We'd find fossils showing the development from simple life, to those phyla.

But there aren't.
PreCambrian....lots of single cells, and some colonies of cells.


Cambrian....suddenly fully formed phyla of an advanced nature.





2. Let's go a little further...and, this may be over your head because it involves biology, but the accepted progression would be single cell, then invertebrates, and, much further on, chordates and vertebrates....organism with a dorsal nerve cord.

Stay with me, here:
The vertebrates, the most advanced life on the planet, comprised, from simplest, of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

What would it prove if higher forms of life suddenly appear in the Cambrian?

Not Darwinism, that's for sure!






3. Check this out:

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Evidence for a single median fin-fold and tail in the Lower Cambrian vertebrate, Haikouichthys ercaicunensis - Zhang - 2004 - Journal of Evolutionary Biology - Wiley Online Library

Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?
And who the heck keeps placing brand-spankin' new, fully formed species on the earth????


Impaled you again, didn't I.

Write soon....I love having your support.


Maybe I'll even add some more facts....

 

[Hollie]

I note you have been unable to show that there are any of 'out of context "quotes" and phony claims' or ' fraudulent "quotes" '.....


My premise is proven: you Darwinists are the \ religious extremists.

1. I note that the same phony "quotes" you spammed this thread with are the same phony 'quotes" exposed in your last three threads.


2. You have no premise. You're a fraud.

"You have no premise. You're a fraud."





1. How about I use your quote as jump-off to support my premise?

Now....let's see if you can help me with my premise.

OK, remember this:
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

"...most major animal phyla..."
Where did they come from???
Maybe someone just plopped 'em onto the earth! Hmmm......


a. You see, if Darwinism is correct, then, there should be lots of attempts by 'natural selection,' indicating that nature tried to advance 'evolution.' We'd find fossils showing the development from simple life, to those phyla.

But there aren't.
PreCambrian....lots of single cells, and some colonies of cells.


Cambrian....suddenly fully formed phyla of an advanced nature.





2. Let's go a little further...and, this may be over your head because it involves biology, but the accepted progression would be single cell, then invertebrates, and, much further on, chordates and vertebrates....organism with a dorsal nerve cord.

Stay with me, here:
The vertebrates, the most advanced life on the planet, comprised, from simplest, of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

What would it prove if higher forms of life suddenly appear in the Cambrian?

Not Darwinism, that's for sure!






3. Check this out:

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Evidence for a single median fin-fold and tail in the Lower Cambrian vertebrate, Haikouichthys ercaicunensis - Zhang - 2004 - Journal of Evolutionary Biology - Wiley Online Library

Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?
And who the heck keeps placing brand-spankin' new, fully formed species on the earth????


Impaled you again, didn't I.

Write soon....I love having your support.


Maybe I'll even add some more facts....

1. Wow. That was even sillier than what preceded it.


2. Your scouring of Harun Yahya is getting quite desperate.


3. Maybe drink the Kool-Aid and get back to us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I note that the same phony "quotes" you spammed this thread with are the same phony 'quotes" exposed in your last three threads.


2. You have no premise. You're a fraud.

"You have no premise. You're a fraud."





1. How about I use your quote as jump-off to support my premise?

Now....let's see if you can help me with my premise.

OK, remember this:
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

"...most major animal phyla..."
Where did they come from???
Maybe someone just plopped 'em onto the earth! Hmmm......


a. You see, if Darwinism is correct, then, there should be lots of attempts by 'natural selection,' indicating that nature tried to advance 'evolution.' We'd find fossils showing the development from simple life, to those phyla.

But there aren't.
PreCambrian....lots of single cells, and some colonies of cells.


Cambrian....suddenly fully formed phyla of an advanced nature.





2. Let's go a little further...and, this may be over your head because it involves biology, but the accepted progression would be single cell, then invertebrates, and, much further on, chordates and vertebrates....organism with a dorsal nerve cord.

Stay with me, here:
The vertebrates, the most advanced life on the planet, comprised, from simplest, of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

What would it prove if higher forms of life suddenly appear in the Cambrian?

Not Darwinism, that's for sure!






3. Check this out:

In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Evidence for a single median fin-fold and tail in the Lower Cambrian vertebrate, Haikouichthys ercaicunensis - Zhang - 2004 - Journal of Evolutionary Biology - Wiley Online Library

Whose theory does this sudden appearance seem to substantiate?
And who the heck keeps placing brand-spankin' new, fully formed species on the earth????


Impaled you again, didn't I.

Write soon....I love having your support.


Maybe I'll even add some more facts....

1. Wow. That was even sillier than what preceded it.


2. Your scouring of Harun Yahya is getting quite desperate.


3. Maybe drink the Kool-Aid and get back to us.

So...you still can't find even a single error?

That's right.


The religion of Darwinism is a fraud.

You've been hoodwinked....



Really....my providing the evidence of a vertebrate fossil in the Cambrian....killed you, didn't it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Darwin deniers. CSC - Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics

"Mr. Berlinski states that "before the Cambrian era . . . very little is inscribed in the fossil record." Yet the oldest known fossils are of bacteria and stromatolites (containing blue-green algae), both of which are with us today, and are still among the simplest forms of life known. The Cambrian explosion occurred much later, after simple life (and even simple multicellular life) had already appeared. This is one of the many points in the fossil record that support evolution." - quote

[Mr. Berlinski further asserts that evolution is random. It is not quite that simple. Evolution is accomplished by random mutations of DNA. However, the process of natural selection is not random at all. Any physician treating a relapsed cancer patient knows full well that the cancer . . . will be resistant to the original drugs used as therapy (and this resistance may be due to the overexpression of a single protein). This is not random in any sense. Similarly, any physician treating a patient infected with the new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria can tell you that there is nothing random about the selection of these bacteria: they grow where their predecessors could not.

Would you like to try to address the OP?

Any probs you can find?


Or....is it entirely correct?

Why would anyone sane wish to address that mess of shit?

Look, PC, there is not a single scientific discipline that questions the modern theory of evolution. While there are many debates over exactly the course taken by evolution, there is no arguement within scientific circles as to whether it happened.

We have had religion for millenia. It gave us wars and inquositions. We have had the scientific method for only a couple of hundred years. It has given us the method of communication that we are using. It has doubled our lifespan. It has also maddened people like yourself that wish to wave magic wands and declare yourself wise.

Very few here buying into your delusions. Not liberals, not conservatives. Your peer group is people like Crusader Frank. Welcome to them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin deniers. CSC - Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics

"Mr. Berlinski states that "before the Cambrian era . . . very little is inscribed in the fossil record." Yet the oldest known fossils are of bacteria and stromatolites (containing blue-green algae), both of which are with us today, and are still among the simplest forms of life known. The Cambrian explosion occurred much later, after simple life (and even simple multicellular life) had already appeared. This is one of the many points in the fossil record that support evolution." - quote

Would you like to try to address the OP?

Any probs you can find?


Or....is it entirely correct?

Why would anyone sane wish to address that mess of shit?

Look, PC, there is not a single scientific discipline that questions the modern theory of evolution. While there are many debates over exactly the course taken by evolution, there is no arguement within scientific circles as to whether it happened.

We have had religion for millenia. It gave us wars and inquositions. We have had the scientific method for only a couple of hundred years. It has given us the method of communication that we are using. It has doubled our lifespan. It has also maddened people like yourself that wish to wave magic wands and declare yourself wise.

Very few here buying into your delusions. Not liberals, not conservatives. Your peer group is people like Crusader Frank. Welcome to them.

Rocks, I found that my response was kind of long...

...but thorough.

So, I OP'd it here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...science-history-and-theology.html#post7880443


I used your response, but, without your permission, I didn't use your name. You may certainly take credit if you wish.

Hope you have time to read it.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, you prove the OP.

You see, as Darwin admitted....his theory not only couldn't be proven, but fossil evidence was exactly in the opposite direction.


So....the the admission became "It must be the exact opposite of his theory: Punctuated Equilibrium."


Yea... that's the ticket! - YouTube




Unfortunately, you're faced with the same problem,...

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
]Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



....and you are left with nothing but excuses as to why there is no proof:

"Evolutionary changes are only seen in a relatively small number of individuals, making finding all the examples nearly impossible,..."




Stevie is a dunce.....but you might like to consider this: Darwinism and Marxism are based on a totally material view of the world, i.e., there is nothing more.
The two ideas developed at about the same time and for the same reason.


Neither idea works. Seems to be lots of evidence that both are incorrect.

Not surprisingly, every one of the "quotes" dumped into this thread by the princess appears on virtually every creationist website, exactly as cut and pasted by the princess. And, not surprisingly, these same "quotes" share the expected editing and parsing. Additionally, most are 1980's vintage material.

Regarding the Dean Kenyon "quote" we see that only an edited, parsed portion has been "quoted". Here is a fuller description:


Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit


The phony "quote" dumped in this thread by the princess has been dumped in four other threads. Yet, she continues her fraud.

So....the best you can do is say you've heard something before?


Could you point out any that are in error?

'Cause if you can't, then two facts are established:

1. The OP is correct

2. You are incapable of learning.



Go for it, Halloween....


Or...you could start lying.

1. So, the best you can do is cut and the same phony "quote" into four threads after you were shown to be a "quote" fraud?

2. Understood. You can't stop lying.


3. WWJD?