Darwin Buried Under Chengjiang Fauna!

[Hollie]

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.

Do "real Christians" question why your gods lied to A&E?

Why did your gods lie while satan told the truth?

 

[hadit]

Based on the inept responses, either the dop

Meyer and Berlinski are charlatans. They front for an organization of charlatans: the Disco'tute.

Neither have the credentials to offer a comprehensive dissertation in the fields of the biological sciences.

They are as much fundamentalist hacks as you are.

1. "Meyer and Berlinski are charlatans. They front for an organization of charlatans"

Point out anything they've said that is incorrect.

Of course...it is possible you don't know what the word 'charlatan' means. You seem to believe (I almost said 'think') that it means they don't agree with you.



2. What specific in the OP caused you to become so irate?
How about you show that you understood the OP.....



3. And this is why I look forward to your posts...the frequency with which you put your foot in your mouth....

...you clearly didn't understand the OP, yet you wrote "Neither have the credentials to offer a comprehensive dissertation in the fields of the biological sciences."

Write soon.

Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
   
   Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it.
   
   The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.

When you cut and paste your response, be sure to cite Harun Yahya as your source.

"....the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement ..."

You can run but you can't hide:
There is nothing .....not a single thing.....in the OP about Intelligent Design.


As I asked earlier....could you indicate that you understood the OP that seems to have gotten under your skin?

I'm writing soon, again.

I seem to have really gotten under your skin... and your hack, charlatan heroes.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons.
   1. Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example:
      • Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).
      • Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).
      • Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used.
      • Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.
      • Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.
   2. The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review:
      • Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists.
      • Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).
      • Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.
   3. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
      
      This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are "true believers" of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too.

Why are you running from the subject?

Since there is nothing in the OP that pertains to Intelligent Design, how about a critique of either the Burgess Shale, or the Chengjiang fauna, both of which destroy any cachet Darwin's theory might have.

I'm sure you agree.

I think most ardent Darwinists do not really understand the underlying assumptions and science that went into creating the theory, they are merely repeating what they were taught in school and are not really curious about how life really came about. Kind of like a voter who pays no attention to politics until a week before an election, then votes for the good looking one.

 

[Hollie]

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".

Christian fundamentalism is not a serious challenge to science. No one has to "come up" with Darwinism (BTW, "Darwinism" is an immediate clue you spend a lot of time on christian fundamentalist websites), as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Science and discovery gets us there.

 

[Hollie]

Based on the inept responses, either the dop

1. "Meyer and Berlinski are charlatans. They front for an organization of charlatans"

Point out anything they've said that is incorrect.

Of course...it is possible you don't know what the word 'charlatan' means. You seem to believe (I almost said 'think') that it means they don't agree with you.



2. What specific in the OP caused you to become so irate?
How about you show that you understood the OP.....



3. And this is why I look forward to your posts...the frequency with which you put your foot in your mouth....

...you clearly didn't understand the OP, yet you wrote "Neither have the credentials to offer a comprehensive dissertation in the fields of the biological sciences."

Write soon.

Ok. I'm writing soon.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
   
   Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it.
   
   The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.

When you cut and paste your response, be sure to cite Harun Yahya as your source.

"....the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement ..."

You can run but you can't hide:
There is nothing .....not a single thing.....in the OP about Intelligent Design.


As I asked earlier....could you indicate that you understood the OP that seems to have gotten under your skin?

I'm writing soon, again.

I seem to have really gotten under your skin... and your hack, charlatan heroes.

CI001.4 Intelligent Design and peer review

1. The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons.
   1. Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example:
      • Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).
      • Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).
      • Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used.
      • Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.
      • Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.
   2. The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review:
      • Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists.
      • Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).
      • Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.
   3. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
      
      This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are "true believers" of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too.

Why are you running from the subject?

Since there is nothing in the OP that pertains to Intelligent Design, how about a critique of either the Burgess Shale, or the Chengjiang fauna, both of which destroy any cachet Darwin's theory might have.

I'm sure you agree.

I think most ardent Darwinists do not really understand the underlying assumptions and science that went into creating the theory, they are merely repeating what they were taught in school and are not really curious about how life really came about. Kind of like a voter who pays no attention to politics until a week before an election, then votes for the good looking one.

I think most of you folks using the "Darwinism" term tend to make a lot of pointless comments about evolutionary science which you see as a threat to your fundamentalist religious views.

 

[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.

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.

You are only a biblical literalist, a pharisee, not a Christian.

You fundamentally have no idea about what you are talking.

 

[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.

You are only a biblical literalist, a pharisee, not a Christian.

You fundamentally have no idea about what you are talking.

Do you believe in God's ultimate power or is He a weakling to you? Could God create a universe with the power of His Word or must He rely and slow, sluggish, "evolutionary" processes to fulfill His goals?

Also, please explain to me what Adam looked like and whether or not he was able to communicate with God the very moment he was formed. If not ... please explain to me how God communicated His will to Adam and whether or not Adam was "evolved" enough to comprehend God's instruction.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, you are a biblical literalist, an apostate, who puts the word above God and his revelation.

You like most fundies and evangelicals and other religious mccarthyite type religious weirdies build a fence around the God and turn the book into a whited sepulcher that shineth on the outside yet stinketh corruption from within.

 

[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....

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.

My posts were totally scientific.

Yours, lies.

 

[DriftingSand]

Yup, you are a biblical literalist, an apostate, who puts the word above God and his revelation.

You like most fundies and evangelicals and other religious mccarthyite type religious weirdies build a fence around the God and turn the book into a whited sepulcher that shineth on the outside yet stinketh corruption from within.

I put God above YOUR word and YOUR personal opinions. Considering the fact that YOU reject God's Word and have gone out of your way to usurp it we can all conclude that you are "apostate" and a "false teacher." Beware ... there's a hot place designed just for false teachers who twist God's Word to their personal whims.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

My posts were totally scientific.

Yours, lies.

One, no they aren't, PC, and two, yes, you do lie. All the time.

 

[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.

My posts were totally scientific.

Yours, lies.

They're not "scientific" when you edit, parse and selectively delete.

Besides, it's actually comical when you religious extremists claim science in your cutting and pasting when your pointless "quotes" are stolen from christian fundamentalist websites. Let's not pretend you science loathing Flat Earth loons have an interest in science.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, you are a biblical literalist, an apostate, who puts the word above God and his revelation.

You like most fundies and evangelicals and other religious mccarthyite type religious weirdies build a fence around the God and turn the book into a whited sepulcher that shineth on the outside yet stinketh corruption from within.

I put God above YOUR word and YOUR personal opinions. Considering the fact that YOU reject God's Word and have gone out of your way to usurp it we can all conclude that you are "apostate" and a "false teacher." Beware ... there's a hot place designed just for false teachers who twist God's Word to their personal whims.

Yup, it's about "you", not God, my point.

 

[DriftingSand]

Yup, you are a biblical literalist, an apostate, who puts the word above God and his revelation.

You like most fundies and evangelicals and other religious mccarthyite type religious weirdies build a fence around the God and turn the book into a whited sepulcher that shineth on the outside yet stinketh corruption from within.

I put God above YOUR word and YOUR personal opinions. Considering the fact that YOU reject God's Word and have gone out of your way to usurp it we can all conclude that you are "apostate" and a "false teacher." Beware ... there's a hot place designed just for false teachers who twist God's Word to their personal whims.

Yup, it's about "you", not God, my point.

Oh ye of little faith. The Almighty God is vastly more powerful than you give Him credit for. Shame on you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

DS, you make the baby Jesus cry because of your pride.

Just love Jesus, lean on Him, follow His lead for your life.

 

[Hollie]

7. How to defend Charles Darwin from the blistering attack employed in the OP?

So far, none has been able to....
The whiners simply attack the messenger....they seem unable to deal with the message.

Can you imagine?? It's left to me to provide a defense....
....but, a good offense is the best defense!


So....let's try the 'Artifact Hypothesis.'


a. OK...so the transitional forms that should be there in the geological record, i.e., showing that life began as simple and became complex, are missing. "Perhaps they were microscopic, similar to modern marine larvae....too small to have been reliably fossilized." This from developmental biologist Eric Davidson, California Institute of Technology.

Davidson has even posited that the intermediate forms only existed in the larval stage.




b. Maybe the ancestors of Cambrian animals were not preserved because they lacked hard parts such as shells and exoskeletons.
"Molecular evidencefor deep Precambrian divergences among metazoan phyla,"
GAWray,JSLevinton, LHShapiro- Science, 1996 - sciencemag.org

Get it: why expect to find remains of soft-bodied ancestors?




OK?
So....perhaps Darwin's missing fossils were either too small to be seen.....or lacked hard parts, so as to be preservable.


Did you notice that neither of these scientists claimed that the fossils proving Darwin's theory were present.

So....how about it....the 'Artifact Hypothesis'.....Is that a plausible defense of Darwin?

So, how does anyone defend fundie zealots from themselves? Well, you can't.

The "quotes" dumped into the above post by the fundie zealot are "quote-mines" that PC stole from Stephen Meyer of the Disco' Tute. Meyer carelessly hacked apart comments from a real scientist.

There's a good read here which just how dishonest and corrupt the fundie Christians have become in further of their lies and falsehoods surrounding the industry of fraudulent fundie Christians.


Stephen Meyer workin in the quote mines - The Panda s Thumb

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. How to defend Charles Darwin from the blistering attack employed in the OP?

So far, none has been able to....
The whiners simply attack the messenger....they seem unable to deal with the message.

Can you imagine?? It's left to me to provide a defense....
....but, a good offense is the best defense!


So....let's try the 'Artifact Hypothesis.'


a. OK...so the transitional forms that should be there in the geological record, i.e., showing that life began as simple and became complex, are missing. "Perhaps they were microscopic, similar to modern marine larvae....too small to have been reliably fossilized." This from developmental biologist Eric Davidson, California Institute of Technology.

Davidson has even posited that the intermediate forms only existed in the larval stage.




b. Maybe the ancestors of Cambrian animals were not preserved because they lacked hard parts such as shells and exoskeletons.
"Molecular evidencefor deep Precambrian divergences among metazoan phyla,"
GAWray,JSLevinton, LHShapiro- Science, 1996 - sciencemag.org

Get it: why expect to find remains of soft-bodied ancestors?




OK?
So....perhaps Darwin's missing fossils were either too small to be seen.....or lacked hard parts, so as to be preservable.


Did you notice that neither of these scientists claimed that the fossils proving Darwin's theory were present.

So....how about it....the 'Artifact Hypothesis'.....Is that a plausible defense of Darwin?

So, how does anyone defend fundie zealots from themselves? Well, you can't.

The "quotes" dumped into the above post by the fundie zealot are "quote-mines" that PC stole from Stephen Meyer of the Disco' Tute. Meyer carelessly hacked apart comments from a real scientist.

There's a good read here which just how dishonest and corrupt the fundie Christians have become in further of their lies and falsehoods surrounding the industry of fraudulent fundie Christians.


Stephen Meyer workin in the quote mines - The Panda s Thumb

You imbecile....you're efforts should be to show the information is incorrect...not who provided them.

Obviously they are totally correct, as are all of my post.

That's why I have been able to reduce you to no more than lying.

 

[Hollie]

7. How to defend Charles Darwin from the blistering attack employed in the OP?

So far, none has been able to....
The whiners simply attack the messenger....they seem unable to deal with the message.

Can you imagine?? It's left to me to provide a defense....
....but, a good offense is the best defense!


So....let's try the 'Artifact Hypothesis.'


a. OK...so the transitional forms that should be there in the geological record, i.e., showing that life began as simple and became complex, are missing. "Perhaps they were microscopic, similar to modern marine larvae....too small to have been reliably fossilized." This from developmental biologist Eric Davidson, California Institute of Technology.

Davidson has even posited that the intermediate forms only existed in the larval stage.




b. Maybe the ancestors of Cambrian animals were not preserved because they lacked hard parts such as shells and exoskeletons.
"Molecular evidencefor deep Precambrian divergences among metazoan phyla,"
GAWray,JSLevinton, LHShapiro- Science, 1996 - sciencemag.org

Get it: why expect to find remains of soft-bodied ancestors?




OK?
So....perhaps Darwin's missing fossils were either too small to be seen.....or lacked hard parts, so as to be preservable.


Did you notice that neither of these scientists claimed that the fossils proving Darwin's theory were present.

So....how about it....the 'Artifact Hypothesis'.....Is that a plausible defense of Darwin?

So, how does anyone defend fundie zealots from themselves? Well, you can't.

The "quotes" dumped into the above post by the fundie zealot are "quote-mines" that PC stole from Stephen Meyer of the Disco' Tute. Meyer carelessly hacked apart comments from a real scientist.

There's a good read here which just how dishonest and corrupt the fundie Christians have become in further of their lies and falsehoods surrounding the industry of fraudulent fundie Christians.


Stephen Meyer workin in the quote mines - The Panda s Thumb

You imbecile....you're efforts should be to show the information is incorrect...not who provided them.

Obviously they are totally correct, as are all of my post.

That's why I have been able to reduce you to no more than lying.

The problem of course is that your dishonest "quote mines" are edited, purged and out of context.

I've shown repeatedly that your fraudulent "quotes" are a laughable joke of creationist nonsense.

Your efforts should show that you're not a dishonest spammer. But alas, you are a dishonest spammer.

 

[Hollie]

Stumper Questions for Creationists

How do creationists describe conventional science?
It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

• evolution
• primitive
• natural selection
• theory

(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.

(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)
Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

• What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
• What is does conventional science say?
• What is the evidence for conventional science?
• What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. How to defend Charles Darwin from the blistering attack employed in the OP?

So far, none has been able to....
The whiners simply attack the messenger....they seem unable to deal with the message.

Can you imagine?? It's left to me to provide a defense....
....but, a good offense is the best defense!


So....let's try the 'Artifact Hypothesis.'


a. OK...so the transitional forms that should be there in the geological record, i.e., showing that life began as simple and became complex, are missing. "Perhaps they were microscopic, similar to modern marine larvae....too small to have been reliably fossilized." This from developmental biologist Eric Davidson, California Institute of Technology.

Davidson has even posited that the intermediate forms only existed in the larval stage.




b. Maybe the ancestors of Cambrian animals were not preserved because they lacked hard parts such as shells and exoskeletons.
"Molecular evidencefor deep Precambrian divergences among metazoan phyla,"
GAWray,JSLevinton, LHShapiro- Science, 1996 - sciencemag.org

Get it: why expect to find remains of soft-bodied ancestors?




OK?
So....perhaps Darwin's missing fossils were either too small to be seen.....or lacked hard parts, so as to be preservable.


Did you notice that neither of these scientists claimed that the fossils proving Darwin's theory were present.

So....how about it....the 'Artifact Hypothesis'.....Is that a plausible defense of Darwin?

So, how does anyone defend fundie zealots from themselves? Well, you can't.

The "quotes" dumped into the above post by the fundie zealot are "quote-mines" that PC stole from Stephen Meyer of the Disco' Tute. Meyer carelessly hacked apart comments from a real scientist.

There's a good read here which just how dishonest and corrupt the fundie Christians have become in further of their lies and falsehoods surrounding the industry of fraudulent fundie Christians.


Stephen Meyer workin in the quote mines - The Panda s Thumb

You imbecile....you're efforts should be to show the information is incorrect...not who provided them.

Obviously they are totally correct, as are all of my post.

That's why I have been able to reduce you to no more than lying.

The problem of course is that your dishonest "quote mines" are edited, purged and out of context.

I've shown repeatedly that your fraudulent "quotes" are a laughable joke of creationist nonsense.

Your efforts should show that you're not a dishonest spammer. But alas, you are a dishonest spammer.

You're lying again.....I'm never dishonest.


Get to the topic:
Burgess Shale and Chengjiang sediments prove Darwin was wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

PoliticalSpice tries really hard to live up to the image that Chinese/Japanese Americans are smarter than average. ....

Why insist on making a fool of yourself this way?