Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!

[JoeB131]

Nor do secular humanists/evolutionists (like yourself) have any substantial "evidence" pointing toward the origin of the universe and the very first appearance of life. All guesses on your part. Logic dictates that it makes more sense to believe that an intelligent force (God) designed and created the universe (based on its reflection of design) than to believe that *poof* it all appeared by mistake and happenstance. So it makes more sense that SOMETHING created everything than to believe that NOTHING created everything.

Are you on drugs?

A magic sky man is more logical than proven scientific processes? Really?

 

[Steven_R]

The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.

They can't produce such papers because, as PC shows repeatedly, all they have are opinions not conclusive evidence.

Nor do secular humanists/evolutionists (like yourself) have any substantial "evidence" pointing toward the origin of the universe and the very first appearance of life. All guesses on your part. Logic dictates that it makes more sense to believe that an intelligent force (God) designed and created the universe (based on its reflection of design) than to believe that *poof* it all appeared by mistake and happenstance. So it makes more sense that SOMETHING created everything than to believe that NOTHING created everything.

That doesn't make any sense. Evolutionary biologists aren't asking those because that isn't their area of concern. Cosmologists deal with where matter came from. Molecular biologists deal with abiogenic start of life. And if you ask either for definitive proof you'll be told we aren't entirely sure, but we have a good idea based on some real hard evidence that is way over your head (or mine for that matter) to understand.

But evolutionary biologists and paleontologists have literal libraries full of data and evidence to draw on and two centuries of ever more precise means of finding that data, including entire branches of science that Darwin couldn't have even dreamed of (e.g. genetics and molecular biology and biochemistry).

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right, pubs or not, like DS etc. can bitch and witch all they want. After this election, they no longer will have power in our mainstream GOP. Look at Cruz lose strength every single day.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, Darwin is buried in the Westminister Abbey. And the Theory of Evolution, as it stands today, is considered the most robust of all the Scientific Theories.

That people like yourself have to resort to silly nonsense to try to disprove it is merely proof of your own intellectual stunting due to religious foolishness.

 

[Hollie]

So....we can see that the fossils show evidence contrary to Darwin's theory.

9. Jump back to an earlier question, from the OP....this one:
" An inquiry into the reason that so may in academia pretend to accept Darwin as the starting point toward enlightenment."



a. Here's a hint:

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


In this thread one can see the ire from those who cannot brook any criticism of Darwin.




Why is it so very important to accept Darwin, when there is so much clear evidence that his theory was terminally incorrect???



10. The answer requires more than just an acquaintance with science. Those without commensurate knowledge of history and politics will be stymied, and never see the real reason why acceptance of Darwin is de rigueur.



One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.



You see, Darwin's theory is less scientific, than political.

Fact.

Here's a clue for the clueless:

1. “People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson



2. “To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life


3. “Believers can have both religion and science as long as there is no attempt to make A non-A, to make reality unreal, to turn naturalism into supernaturalism. (125)”
― Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design



4. “And to think of this great country in danger of being dominated by people ignorant enough to take a few ancient Babylonian legends as the canons of modern culture. Our scientific men are paying for their failure to speak out earlier. There is no use now talking evolution to these people. Their ears are stuffed with Genesis.”
― Luther Burbank



5. “Don't creationists ever wonder about the fact that the paleontologists found ape-like skulls with the 'human leg and foot bones,' rather than the other way around, i.e., human skulls with 'ape leg and foot bones?' . . . Come on, creationists, think about it! Did God hide the human skulls, only leaving behind leg and foot bones belonging to human midgets with misshapen feet, and mix such bones only with the skulls of ape-like creatures with larger cranial capacities than living apes? What a 'kidder' the creationists' God must be.”
― Edward Babinski

 

[Hollie]

The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.

They can't produce such papers because, as PC shows repeatedly, all they have are opinions not conclusive evidence.

Nor do secular humanists/evolutionists (like yourself) have any substantial "evidence" pointing toward the origin of the universe and the very first appearance of life. All guesses on your part. Logic dictates that it makes more sense to believe that an intelligent force (God) designed and created the universe (based on its reflection of design) than to believe that *poof* it all appeared by mistake and happenstance. So it makes more sense that SOMETHING created everything than to believe that NOTHING created everything.

I'd be less inclined to accept fundamentalist Christian "logic". When your "logic" requires unthinking allegiance to ancient tales and myths, long ago shown to be flawed and untenable, you've become a cultist.

Faith (your extreme, unthinking version), comes from misperceptions, logical errors, and emotional biases. If they didn’t, then faith would be rational and it would no longer be faith. Reason is both individual and collective -- when it’s collective, it becomes knowledge. As time goes on, that collective knowledge will eventually discard elements that are untrue, and retain those that are. This can only come about by progressing forward in the pursuit of knowledge, and the only way to do that (that we can presently see) is using our reason, not blindly accepting partisan beliefs that derive from nothing more than happenstance of societal, familial circumstances.

 

[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.

Go ahead ... attack the messenger instead of offering a viable argument. Typical Hollie-ism.

"The gawds did it" is not an argument.

Typical comment from a zealot.

Still got nuthin' I see. Where did all the matter that fills the universe come from Hollie? Just give us your best GUESS!

I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, that's just a untenable position that only cultists would take seriously.

THE BIG BANG! Where else could you begin? The Universe is born and the process of evolution begins. For many, many eons, this evolution is a completely inorganic process as matter itself coalesces, in the form of hydrogen from a kind of hot quark soup, through the creation of the heavier elements as a by product of super novas, to the formation of relatively stable planets like the Earth. A few more eons and life emerges. Organic evolution begins. Given another eon or so, Homo sapiens! Now this is a truly peculiar development. Here's a creature who not only generates little models of the Universe in his head, but he can pass these models on from generation to generation. Stranger still, the models themselves can be refined, and evolve in the blink of a cosmic eye. For many generations in many cultures, these models are flagrantly superstitious and anthropocentric, but despite that, humanity survives and flourishes. Now at some point, a few hundred years ago, it becomes apparent to a few of the best model builders that certain kinds of superstitions and subjective habits were obstructing the development of more useful models. The Scientific Method was born as a tool for generating more reliable models of the world around us. Occasionally, a new scientific theory would conflict so strongly with an older model, that the scientist was persecuted and forced to revise the model. Despite this kind of sporadic resistance, the scientific model gradually took a position of dominance in every culture, and today is held as the best, workable model for its practical application. Unfortunately, superstition, bigotry, and subjective distortions of all sort still dominate the everyday lives of many people, especially fundamentalists such as yourself. Our present collective model of the physical world has served us well, but there are still many mysteries to solve. If our current model is simply allowed to evolve through rational, scientific methods, we will be able to perfect the model and secure our place in the Universe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Real Christians have no trouble with evolution whatsoever.

A First Creator can create in whatever fashion that His/Her Laws fashion.

To suggest there is no First Creator is as wishful as insisting creationism does exist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.

No, the point is that you have no point, merely wished to register you eternal love of Charles Darwin.

Duly noted.

Now to skewer you: the thread shows that the fossil evidence of both the Burgess Shale, in England, and the Chengjiang sediments, China, ends the Darwinian view.

In both, we find more complex organisms suddenly appearing....and simpler forms later.



If you need me to prove that 'peer review' is bogus, and designed to keep morons like you in line, just ask.

 

[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.

Go ahead ... attack the messenger instead of offering a viable argument. Typical Hollie-ism.

"The gawds did it" is not an argument.

Typical comment from a zealot.

Still got nuthin' I see. Where did all the matter that fills the universe come from Hollie? Just give us your best GUESS!

I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, that's just a untenable position that only cultists would take seriously.

THE BIG BANG! Where else could you begin? The Universe is born and the process of evolution begins. For many, many eons, this evolution is a completely inorganic process as matter itself coalesces, in the form of hydrogen from a kind of hot quark soup, through the creation of the heavier elements as a by product of super novas, to the formation of relatively stable planets like the Earth. A few more eons and life emerges. Organic evolution begins. Given another eon or so, Homo sapiens! Now this is a truly peculiar development. Here's a creature who not only generates little models of the Universe in his head, but he can pass these models on from generation to generation. Stranger still, the models themselves can be refined, and evolve in the blink of a cosmic eye. For many generations in many cultures, these models are flagrantly superstitious and anthropocentric, but despite that, humanity survives and flourishes. Now at some point, a few hundred years ago, it becomes apparent to a few of the best model builders that certain kinds of superstitions and subjective habits were obstructing the development of more useful models. The Scientific Method was born as a tool for generating more reliable models of the world around us. Occasionally, a new scientific theory would conflict so strongly with an older model, that the scientist was persecuted and forced to revise the model. Despite this kind of sporadic resistance, the scientific model gradually took a position of dominance in every culture, and today is held as the best, workable model for its practical application. Unfortunately, superstition, bigotry, and subjective distortions of all sort still dominate the everyday lives of many people, especially fundamentalists such as yourself. Our present collective model of the physical world has served us well, but there are still many mysteries to solve. If our current model is simply allowed to evolve through rational, scientific methods, we will be able to perfect the model and secure our place in the Universe.

"I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, ...."

Another lie from the lying sack of offal.

I have never said any such thing.

The fact is that everything I have posted is true, and your lies attest to the fact that you cannot answer them honestly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Real Christians have no trouble with evolution whatsoever.

A First Creator can create in whatever fashion that His/Her Laws fashion.

To suggest there is no First Creator is as wishful as insisting creationism does exist.

I'm fine with that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.

They can't produce such papers because, as PC shows repeatedly, all they have are opinions not conclusive evidence.

I can't decide whether you are more the moron, or more the liar.

BTW...there are several such papers produced in the thread as proof of my position.

Time for new specs?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I hope that all readers of the thread notice that none of the attackers were able to confront the facts posted....that diversity did not occur in the manner Darwin propounded.

All they can do is....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point is they aren't experts in biology, paleontology, or evolution. At best, they are enthusiastic amateurs, although their agenda shows through. Even the other so-called big name experts like Dembski aren't biologists. The few that are biologists (or biochemists) aren't producing papers in the peer reviewed journals to show why evolution is a sham, are holding on to outmoded ideas like irreducible complexity, or are crackpots that think astrology is science.

They can't produce such papers because, as PC shows repeatedly, all they have are opinions not conclusive evidence.

I can't decide whether you are more the moron, or more the liar.

BTW...there are several such papers produced in the thread as proof of my position.

Time for new specs?

Peer reviewed scientific papers?

You lose as usual.

 

[Hollie]

I hope that all readers of the thread notice that none of the attackers were able to confront the facts posted....that diversity did not occur in the manner Darwin propounded.

All they can do is....

I think that most readers will recognize your profound ignorance regarding the many sciences that support evolution.

It's unfortunate that you science loathing and science illiterate fundamentalist Christians insist on making fools of yourselves in public forums such as this one.

 

[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.

Go ahead ... attack the messenger instead of offering a viable argument. Typical Hollie-ism.

"The gawds did it" is not an argument.

Typical comment from a zealot.

Still got nuthin' I see. Where did all the matter that fills the universe come from Hollie? Just give us your best GUESS!

I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, that's just a untenable position that only cultists would take seriously.

THE BIG BANG! Where else could you begin? The Universe is born and the process of evolution begins. For many, many eons, this evolution is a completely inorganic process as matter itself coalesces, in the form of hydrogen from a kind of hot quark soup, through the creation of the heavier elements as a by product of super novas, to the formation of relatively stable planets like the Earth. A few more eons and life emerges. Organic evolution begins. Given another eon or so, Homo sapiens! Now this is a truly peculiar development. Here's a creature who not only generates little models of the Universe in his head, but he can pass these models on from generation to generation. Stranger still, the models themselves can be refined, and evolve in the blink of a cosmic eye. For many generations in many cultures, these models are flagrantly superstitious and anthropocentric, but despite that, humanity survives and flourishes. Now at some point, a few hundred years ago, it becomes apparent to a few of the best model builders that certain kinds of superstitions and subjective habits were obstructing the development of more useful models. The Scientific Method was born as a tool for generating more reliable models of the world around us. Occasionally, a new scientific theory would conflict so strongly with an older model, that the scientist was persecuted and forced to revise the model. Despite this kind of sporadic resistance, the scientific model gradually took a position of dominance in every culture, and today is held as the best, workable model for its practical application. Unfortunately, superstition, bigotry, and subjective distortions of all sort still dominate the everyday lives of many people, especially fundamentalists such as yourself. Our present collective model of the physical world has served us well, but there are still many mysteries to solve. If our current model is simply allowed to evolve through rational, scientific methods, we will be able to perfect the model and secure our place in the Universe.

"I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, ...."

Another lie from the lying sack of offal.

I have never said any such thing.

The fact is that everything I have posted is true, and your lies attest to the fact that you cannot answer them honestly.

You seem to think that your Young Earth Creationist views are not recognized for what they are.

Your lies, falsehoods and fraud as I demonstrated earlier with your mindless cutting and pasting of "quotes" from fundie websites represents you as nothing more than a Flat Earth loon.

 

[DriftingSand]

Go ahead ... attack the messenger instead of offering a viable argument. Typical Hollie-ism.

"The gawds did it" is not an argument.

Typical comment from a zealot.

Still got nuthin' I see. Where did all the matter that fills the universe come from Hollie? Just give us your best GUESS!

I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, that's just a untenable position that only cultists would take seriously.

THE BIG BANG! Where else could you begin? The Universe is born and the process of evolution begins. For many, many eons, this evolution is a completely inorganic process as matter itself coalesces, in the form of hydrogen from a kind of hot quark soup, through the creation of the heavier elements as a by product of super novas, to the formation of relatively stable planets like the Earth. A few more eons and life emerges. Organic evolution begins. Given another eon or so, Homo sapiens! Now this is a truly peculiar development. Here's a creature who not only generates little models of the Universe in his head, but he can pass these models on from generation to generation. Stranger still, the models themselves can be refined, and evolve in the blink of a cosmic eye. For many generations in many cultures, these models are flagrantly superstitious and anthropocentric, but despite that, humanity survives and flourishes. Now at some point, a few hundred years ago, it becomes apparent to a few of the best model builders that certain kinds of superstitions and subjective habits were obstructing the development of more useful models. The Scientific Method was born as a tool for generating more reliable models of the world around us. Occasionally, a new scientific theory would conflict so strongly with an older model, that the scientist was persecuted and forced to revise the model. Despite this kind of sporadic resistance, the scientific model gradually took a position of dominance in every culture, and today is held as the best, workable model for its practical application. Unfortunately, superstition, bigotry, and subjective distortions of all sort still dominate the everyday lives of many people, especially fundamentalists such as yourself. Our present collective model of the physical world has served us well, but there are still many mysteries to solve. If our current model is simply allowed to evolve through rational, scientific methods, we will be able to perfect the model and secure our place in the Universe.

"I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, ...."

Another lie from the lying sack of offal.

I have never said any such thing.

The fact is that everything I have posted is true, and your lies attest to the fact that you cannot answer them honestly.

You seem to think that your Young Earth Creationist views are not recognized for what they are.

Your lies, falsehoods and fraud as I demonstrated earlier with your mindless cutting and pasting of "quotes" from fundie websites represents you as nothing more than a Flat Earth loon.

More ad hominem. Hollie strikes again.

 

[DriftingSand]

Real Christians have no trouble with evolution whatsoever.

A First Creator can create in whatever fashion that His/Her Laws fashion.

To suggest there is no First Creator is as wishful as insisting creationism does exist.

Real Christians believe what God says about His Creation. "The evening and the morning were the first day" ... "the evening and the morning were the second day" ... "the evening and the morning were the third day." Etc. A rotation of the earth is an "evening and a morning." An evening and a morning make one, literal day.

Using YOUR model, Adam would have been a single-celled amoebae.

 

[Hollie]

"The gawds did it" is not an argument.

Typical comment from a zealot.

Still got nuthin' I see. Where did all the matter that fills the universe come from Hollie? Just give us your best GUESS!

I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, that's just a untenable position that only cultists would take seriously.

THE BIG BANG! Where else could you begin? The Universe is born and the process of evolution begins. For many, many eons, this evolution is a completely inorganic process as matter itself coalesces, in the form of hydrogen from a kind of hot quark soup, through the creation of the heavier elements as a by product of super novas, to the formation of relatively stable planets like the Earth. A few more eons and life emerges. Organic evolution begins. Given another eon or so, Homo sapiens! Now this is a truly peculiar development. Here's a creature who not only generates little models of the Universe in his head, but he can pass these models on from generation to generation. Stranger still, the models themselves can be refined, and evolve in the blink of a cosmic eye. For many generations in many cultures, these models are flagrantly superstitious and anthropocentric, but despite that, humanity survives and flourishes. Now at some point, a few hundred years ago, it becomes apparent to a few of the best model builders that certain kinds of superstitions and subjective habits were obstructing the development of more useful models. The Scientific Method was born as a tool for generating more reliable models of the world around us. Occasionally, a new scientific theory would conflict so strongly with an older model, that the scientist was persecuted and forced to revise the model. Despite this kind of sporadic resistance, the scientific model gradually took a position of dominance in every culture, and today is held as the best, workable model for its practical application. Unfortunately, superstition, bigotry, and subjective distortions of all sort still dominate the everyday lives of many people, especially fundamentalists such as yourself. Our present collective model of the physical world has served us well, but there are still many mysteries to solve. If our current model is simply allowed to evolve through rational, scientific methods, we will be able to perfect the model and secure our place in the Universe.

"I don't need to guess. In spite of your insistence that all of existence began 6,000 yeras ago by magical *poofing*, ...."

Another lie from the lying sack of offal.

I have never said any such thing.

The fact is that everything I have posted is true, and your lies attest to the fact that you cannot answer them honestly.

You seem to think that your Young Earth Creationist views are not recognized for what they are.

Your lies, falsehoods and fraud as I demonstrated earlier with your mindless cutting and pasting of "quotes" from fundie websites represents you as nothing more than a Flat Earth loon.

More ad hominem. Hollie strikes again.

You had an opportunity to respond with a competing argument and you could not.

I'm not responsible for your lacking ability.

 

[hadit]

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 think therein lies the problem. Darwinists are so heavily invested in their belief that they automatically leap to counter any critique of Darwinism with an attack on "anti-science", "fundamentalist", "ignorant" Creationism and/or ID. The reality is, however, that Darwinism as taught today in schools does face serious challenges and things have come to light that cast significant doubt on its ability to explain life as we see it. Questioning Darwinism and pointing out its weaknesses is not, however, an automatic support for Creationism. That's just a smoke screen. It seems, moreover, that the least learned are the strongest adherents to the faith, and react the strongest when confronted with things that Darwinism cannot explain. A truer statement would be "When we completely reject even the remotest possibility that life is intelligently designed, Darwinism is the best theory that we can come up with, but we have to admit that there are things it cannot account for".