Time Runs Out on Darwin

[PoliticalChic]

1. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is based a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

Such has not proven to be the case: the fossil record has not provided such proof.




2. But what about the time that would be necessary to account for the process?

I contend that if the time for the changes that Darwin proposed is simply not available...far more would be ncessary.

The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

Based on the monumental changes in the life forms, there is just too limited a time frame for said changes to have occurred!
This fact would weigh heavily against the veracity of Darwin's thesis.




3. 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

Science admits to the mystery, the puzzle: less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible.

a. The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.




4. Until the mid 90's, paleontologists assigned the dates of 570 million years ago until about 510 million years ago as the dates of the Cambrian, and the Cambrian explosion taking place within a 20 to 40 million year 'window' early in the period.

Worse news for Darwin fans:

a. Ratiometric analysis changed that:
"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution

b. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.




5. One more time:

Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

a. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!

Darwin has run out of time!




To review:

a. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would prove his theory.
It did not, and does not.


b. New dating techniques have narrowed the time during with vast changes in life forms have occurred....a time now considered far too short to have allowed for said changes....by Darwinian mechanisms.


c. Why is it so important to accept "Darwinian evolution" when evidence for same doesn't exist?

 

[007]

I think a fair share of dawinians buy into evolution simply because it's the anti Christian thing to do. They hate religion for a multitude of reasons, and the notion that all was created by God, and they don't care if evolution is simply a theory or not, it's not creation.

 

[Old Rocks]

PC, would your last name happen to be Quixote?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think a fair share of dawinians buy into evolution simply because it's the anti Christian thing to do. They hate religion for a multitude of reasons, and the notion that all was created by God, and they don't care if evolution is simply a theory or not, it's not creation.

Actually, 007, I believe that that is a large part of the reason....and it fits exactly into why anti-religion is so important to the Left....





1. "There is no God: This concept is an essential element of Marxism.

As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor.
The Schwarz Report | Essays



2. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. This is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalism, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.

a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to 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.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

1. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is based a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

Such has not proven to be the case: the fossil record has not provided such proof.




2. But what about the time that would be necessary to account for the process?

I contend that if the time for the changes that Darwin proposed is simply not available...far more would be ncessary.

The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

Based on the monumental changes in the life forms, there is just too limited a time frame for said changes to have occurred!
This fact would weigh heavily against the veracity of Darwin's thesis.




3. 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

Science admits to the mystery, the puzzle: less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible.

a. The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.




4. Until the mid 90's, paleontologists assigned the dates of 570 million years ago until about 510 million years ago as the dates of the Cambrian, and the Cambrian explosion taking place within a 20 to 40 million year 'window' early in the period.

Worse news for Darwin fans:

a. Ratiometric analysis changed that:
"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution

b. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.




5. One more time:

Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

a. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!

Darwin has run out of time!




To review:

a. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would prove his theory.
It did not, and does not.


b. New dating techniques have narrowed the time during with vast changes in life forms have occurred....a time now considered far too short to have allowed for said changes....by Darwinian mechanisms.


c. Why is it so important to accept "Darwinian evolution" when evidence for same doesn't exist?

Because Darwin is the Spiritual Father of Marx, Political Chick. So long as man believes he evolved from an ape he has no greater rights to water than the sucker fish. He has no greater rights to his own land than the albino woodpecker. He has no more right to live than the rat in the sewer. It serves its purpose on many levels. It denies that God is a creator. Indeed it denies the very existence of God at all!

What greater way to insult the Creator of all mankind, heaven and earth then to convince people that when God created Adam and Eve - they had no greater significance than a bug. What is the truth? We were made in the image of God. We were given dominion to rule over the earth, the animals, everything. We are destined for high places. Unique in every way. A trichotomy - spirit soul and body. Not a dichotomy like all other creation - animals, insects.

Getting back to why communists adore and protect this lie of their spiritual father, Darwin....

Man was created to take dominion - that is what God said. Man is Gods highest creation and Darwins disciples ( communists ) are marching for Hell. They will do all they can to deny every trace of Gods goodness towards mankind. If God were not a serious problem for Marx he would not have sought out Darwin and promoted him so veraciously. Why does Communism target Christianity in their own nations and in every nation they seek to destroy? Because God is their enemy. It is what it is!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The book by Richard Wurmbrand called, Marx & Satan - is superb reading. Wurmbrand did such a magnificent job exposing Karl Marx that many years after his death the Communists were still bitterly complaining about his book!

 

[guno]

1. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is based a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

Such has not proven to be the case: the fossil record has not provided such proof.




2. But what about the time that would be necessary to account for the process?

I contend that if the time for the changes that Darwin proposed is simply not available...far more would be ncessary.

The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

Based on the monumental changes in the life forms, there is just too limited a time frame for said changes to have occurred!
This fact would weigh heavily against the veracity of Darwin's thesis.




3. 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

Science admits to the mystery, the puzzle: less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible.

a. The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.




4. Until the mid 90's, paleontologists assigned the dates of 570 million years ago until about 510 million years ago as the dates of the Cambrian, and the Cambrian explosion taking place within a 20 to 40 million year 'window' early in the period.

Worse news for Darwin fans:

a. Ratiometric analysis changed that:
"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution

b. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.




5. One more time:

Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

a. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!

Darwin has run out of time!




To review:

a. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would prove his theory.
It did not, and does not.


b. New dating techniques have narrowed the time during with vast changes in life forms have occurred....a time now considered far too short to have allowed for said changes....by Darwinian mechanisms.


c. Why is it so important to accept "Darwinian evolution" when evidence for same doesn't exist?

“That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.” So said Neil deGrasse Tyson, joining Bill Nye as players in a strange cultural moment: the resurgence of magical thinking.
Magical thinking, to the misattribution of causality: The black cat meowed, and then I tripped and fell. Two events, no actual connection, but a history of superstition links them together, Or mumbling non sense to someone in the sky in the hope it that will nullify or change events.

Science updates itself when new facts are discovered, it is not set in stone, can we say they same for people who cling and defend a primitive book, even after it has been shown to be the ranting of uneducated and ignorant primitives who had no understanding of science and cause and affect ? Those people can be forgiven as they had no knowledge of science, but to have people today cling and defend that nonsense as fact and attack science, which is a demonstrable fact is sad for this country and the world

 

[dilloduck]

PC, would your last name happen to be Quixote?

Maybe Dawn Quixote ?

 

[dilloduck]

1. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is based a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

Such has not proven to be the case: the fossil record has not provided such proof.




2. But what about the time that would be necessary to account for the process?

I contend that if the time for the changes that Darwin proposed is simply not available...far more would be ncessary.

The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

Based on the monumental changes in the life forms, there is just too limited a time frame for said changes to have occurred!
This fact would weigh heavily against the veracity of Darwin's thesis.




3. 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

Science admits to the mystery, the puzzle: less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible.

a. The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.




4. Until the mid 90's, paleontologists assigned the dates of 570 million years ago until about 510 million years ago as the dates of the Cambrian, and the Cambrian explosion taking place within a 20 to 40 million year 'window' early in the period.

Worse news for Darwin fans:

a. Ratiometric analysis changed that:
"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution

b. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.




5. One more time:

Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

a. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!

Darwin has run out of time!




To review:

a. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would prove his theory.
It did not, and does not.


b. New dating techniques have narrowed the time during with vast changes in life forms have occurred....a time now considered far too short to have allowed for said changes....by Darwinian mechanisms.


c. Why is it so important to accept "Darwinian evolution" when evidence for same doesn't exist?

“That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.” So said Neil deGrasse Tyson, joining Bill Nye as players in a strange cultural moment: the resurgence of magical thinking.
Magical thinking, to the misattribution of causality: The black cat meowed, and then I tripped and fell. Two events, no actual connection, but a history of superstition links them together, Or mumbling non sense to someone in the sky in the hope it that will nullify or change events.

Science updates itself when new act are discovered, it is not set in stone, can we say they same for people who cling and defend a primitive book, even after it has been shown to be the ranting of uneducated and ignorant primitives who had no understanding of science and cause and affect ? Those people can be forgiven as they had no knowledge of science, but to have people today cling and defend that nonsense as fact and attack science, which is a demonstrable fact is sad for this country and the world

Science HAS to update itself regularly because it is consistently wrong---wrong sometimes to the point of causing illness and death.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

1. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is based a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

Such has not proven to be the case: the fossil record has not provided such proof.




2. But what about the time that would be necessary to account for the process?

I contend that if the time for the changes that Darwin proposed is simply not available...far more would be ncessary.

The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

Based on the monumental changes in the life forms, there is just too limited a time frame for said changes to have occurred!
This fact would weigh heavily against the veracity of Darwin's thesis.




3. 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

Science admits to the mystery, the puzzle: less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible.

a. The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.




4. Until the mid 90's, paleontologists assigned the dates of 570 million years ago until about 510 million years ago as the dates of the Cambrian, and the Cambrian explosion taking place within a 20 to 40 million year 'window' early in the period.

Worse news for Darwin fans:

a. Ratiometric analysis changed that:
"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution

b. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.




5. One more time:

Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

a. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!

Darwin has run out of time!




To review:

a. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would prove his theory.
It did not, and does not.


b. New dating techniques have narrowed the time during with vast changes in life forms have occurred....a time now considered far too short to have allowed for said changes....by Darwinian mechanisms.


c. Why is it so important to accept "Darwinian evolution" when evidence for same doesn't exist?

“That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.” So said Neil deGrasse Tyson, joining Bill Nye as players in a strange cultural moment: the resurgence of magical thinking.
Magical thinking, to the misattribution of causality: The black cat meowed, and then I tripped and fell. Two events, no actual connection, but a history of superstition links them together, Or mumbling non sense to someone in the sky in the hope it that will nullify or change events.

Science updates itself when new act are discovered, it is not set in stone, can we say they same for people who cling and defend a primitive book, even after it has been shown to be the ranting of uneducated and ignorant primitives who had no understanding of science and cause and affect ? Those people can be forgiven as they had no knowledge of science, but to have people today cling and defend that nonsense as fact and attack science, which is a demonstrable fact is sad for this country and the world

Wrong. Facts change. Truth does not change. Science is based on research and gathering evidence to base facts upon. It "evolves"... not so with Truth. Truth is based on Gods Word which will stand even after heaven and earth pass away. Truth does not change. Truth is sovereign. Truth eventually is revealed. Because that is the nature of truth! In this case the truth reveals Darwin was wrong. Are we surprised? Of course not. He was a fallible man, an atheist and no match for the wisdom of God and His Creation. - Jeri

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, would your last name happen to be Quixote?

Actually, I have no problem with that allusion....

....as long as you realize that that would make you the old horse, named Rosinante that the Don rode.

After all, I direct our exchanges and you respond with all of the ability one would expect from Rosinante......


True, isn't it.....when where you ever able to rebut any of the facts that I post?




Look at the bright side: you could be Sancho Panza's donkey, Dapples.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is based a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

Such has not proven to be the case: the fossil record has not provided such proof.




2. But what about the time that would be necessary to account for the process?

I contend that if the time for the changes that Darwin proposed is simply not available...far more would be ncessary.

The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

Based on the monumental changes in the life forms, there is just too limited a time frame for said changes to have occurred!
This fact would weigh heavily against the veracity of Darwin's thesis.




3. 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

Science admits to the mystery, the puzzle: less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible.

a. The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.




4. Until the mid 90's, paleontologists assigned the dates of 570 million years ago until about 510 million years ago as the dates of the Cambrian, and the Cambrian explosion taking place within a 20 to 40 million year 'window' early in the period.

Worse news for Darwin fans:

a. Ratiometric analysis changed that:
"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution

b. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.




5. One more time:

Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

a. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!

Darwin has run out of time!




To review:

a. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would prove his theory.
It did not, and does not.


b. New dating techniques have narrowed the time during with vast changes in life forms have occurred....a time now considered far too short to have allowed for said changes....by Darwinian mechanisms.


c. Why is it so important to accept "Darwinian evolution" when evidence for same doesn't exist?

“That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.” So said Neil deGrasse Tyson, joining Bill Nye as players in a strange cultural moment: the resurgence of magical thinking.
Magical thinking, to the misattribution of causality: The black cat meowed, and then I tripped and fell. Two events, no actual connection, but a history of superstition links them together, Or mumbling non sense to someone in the sky in the hope it that will nullify or change events.

Science updates itself when new act are discovered, it is not set in stone, can we say they same for people who cling and defend a primitive book, even after it has been shown to be the ranting of uneducated and ignorant primitives who had no understanding of science and cause and affect ? Those people can be forgiven as they had no knowledge of science, but to have people today cling and defend that nonsense as fact and attack science, which is a demonstrable fact is sad for this country and the world

1. Did you stumble into the wrong thread?

Nothing you've posted relates to the OP.



Or....as I suspect, the scientific basis of the OP is undeniable, and ends any imagined rectitude of Darwin's thesis.
That's it, isn't it.





2. "....can we say they same for people who cling and defend a primitive book, even after it has been shown to be the ranting of uneducated and ignorant primitives who had no understanding.....


Well, you can certainly 'put me in my place'.....if you can quote anything in the OP unrelated to science.

Otherwise,....you are simply a bigoted moron who imagines things that aren't there.
That's it, isn't it.



3. The clear fact is that I am far more versed in the science involved than you are, and you are no more than a government school educated drone who has been 'taught' to hate religion.
That's it, isn't it.






Oh....btw....I appreciate the reference to Neil deGrasse Tyson.

He got his Ph. D at one of the finest universities in the nation.....the one with the best fight song!

 

[orogenicman]

1. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is based a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

Natural selection isn't random. By the way, repeatedly posting the same unsupported talking points is a good measure of one's insanity. Congratulations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To review, the pre-Cambrian was far simpler in terms of living things :
'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





6. What is the problem with the timeframe?

"The biochemical complexity of cascades of enzymes required to perform a single function in the cell is mind-boggling, and for a structure or function to be selected it must be functionally complete. The formation of amino acids from ammonia and methane under extremes of pressure and temperature is quoted, but this synthesis is nothing compared with the complexity of a single protein enzyme, let alone a series of highly specialised enzymes functioning in a cascade sequence.

Such irreducibly complex systems are of no selective value unless they are complete." Alan H. Linton is emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. Scant search for the Maker | Biological sciences | Times Higher Education







Next....what is the time required to accomplish all of the changes that produce The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, ...." of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


7. "Geologically speaking, 5 million years represents a mere 1/10th of 1 percent (0.11 percent to be precise) of earth's history."
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 72

a. J.Y.Chen explains that "compared with the 3-plus-billion-year history of life on earth, the period [of the explosion] can be likened to one minute in 24 hours of one day."
Lili, "Traditional Theory of Evolution Challenged," Beijing Review, March 31-April 6, 1997,p.10






So, in addition to the difficulty of the fossil record, the timeframe itself, from simple life of the pre-Cambrian, to the extensive diversity and existence of new phyla of the Cambrian, is not possible in the 5-6 million years between the two.



Yet.....so many refuse to confront the facts: Darwinian evolution just doesn't work.

 

[Hollie]

To review, yet another thread of phony, altered, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" used by a simpleton to press a pointless agenda.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The book by Richard Wurmbrand called, Marx & Satan - is superb reading. Wurmbrand did such a magnificent job exposing Karl Marx that many years after his death the Communists were still bitterly complaining about his book!

Darwin was a capitalist and evolution is based upon free market capitalist theory.

The origins of communism can be found in the Bible.

Marx published his books on the Communist Manifesto a full 8 years before Darwin published the Origin of the Species.

So there is no connection between Darwin and Marx. There was no influence or collaboration. So while Marx is the father of Communism it has no connection to Darwin and evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To review, yet another thread of phony, altered, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" used by a simpleton to press a pointless agenda.

So.....where are the examples of "altered, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" ...???


None?


So, you're lying again?


I love it when I strike fear in you.

 

[Hollie]

To review, yet another thread of phony, altered, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" used by a simpleton to press a pointless agenda.

So.....where are the examples of "altered, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" ...???


None?


So, you're lying again?


I love it when I strike fear in you.

So..... where are the sources for the "quotes", in their original context that you always fail to provide.

I love it when you're consistently exposed as a fraud and a liar.

 

[guno]

1. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is based a natural occurrence, the random alteration of organisms, the accumulations of which, eventually, lead to a new species. Proof of same was to be based on evidence found in the fossil record.

Such has not proven to be the case: the fossil record has not provided such proof.




2. But what about the time that would be necessary to account for the process?

I contend that if the time for the changes that Darwin proposed is simply not available...far more would be ncessary.

The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

Based on the monumental changes in the life forms, there is just too limited a time frame for said changes to have occurred!
This fact would weigh heavily against the veracity of Darwin's thesis.




3. 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

Science admits to the mystery, the puzzle: less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible.

a. The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.




4. Until the mid 90's, paleontologists assigned the dates of 570 million years ago until about 510 million years ago as the dates of the Cambrian, and the Cambrian explosion taking place within a 20 to 40 million year 'window' early in the period.

Worse news for Darwin fans:

a. Ratiometric analysis changed that:
"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution

b. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.




5. One more time:

Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

a. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!

Darwin has run out of time!




To review:

a. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would prove his theory.
It did not, and does not.


b. New dating techniques have narrowed the time during with vast changes in life forms have occurred....a time now considered far too short to have allowed for said changes....by Darwinian mechanisms.


c. Why is it so important to accept "Darwinian evolution" when evidence for same doesn't exist?

“That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.” So said Neil deGrasse Tyson, joining Bill Nye as players in a strange cultural moment: the resurgence of magical thinking.
Magical thinking, to the misattribution of causality: The black cat meowed, and then I tripped and fell. Two events, no actual connection, but a history of superstition links them together, Or mumbling non sense to someone in the sky in the hope it that will nullify or change events.

Science updates itself when new act are discovered, it is not set in stone, can we say they same for people who cling and defend a primitive book, even after it has been shown to be the ranting of uneducated and ignorant primitives who had no understanding of science and cause and affect ? Those people can be forgiven as they had no knowledge of science, but to have people today cling and defend that nonsense as fact and attack science, which is a demonstrable fact is sad for this country and the world

Science HAS to update itself regularly because it is consistently wrong---wrong sometimes to the point of causing illness and death.

so just rely on your invisible sky fairy and do not go to doctor since medicine is science

 

[Toro]

Wrong. Facts change. Truth does not change. Science is based on research and gathering evidence to base facts upon. It "evolves"... not so with Truth. Truth is based on Gods Word which will stand even after heaven and earth pass away. Truth does not change. Truth is sovereign. Truth eventually is revealed. Because that is the nature of truth! In this case the truth reveals Darwin was wrong. Are we surprised? Of course not. He was a fallible man, an atheist and no match for the wisdom of God and His Creation. - Jeri

And the truth is that we cannot prove God exists.

Until we do, we know of no truth about God. Only unsubstantiated belief.

science > religion